Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/02/2020 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB217 | |
| HJR25 | |
| SB217 | |
| SB159 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 217 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 217-STATE LAND VOUCHER; PFDS
3:30:43 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 217, "An Act establishing state land
vouchers; relating to restricted land sales for veterans;
relating to the veterans' land purchase discount; relating to
the permanent fund dividend; relating to the duties of the
Department of Revenue; authorizing the Department of Natural
Resources to accept state land vouchers; relating to eligibility
for public assistance; and providing for an effective date."
3:31:20 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Revenue, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 217 provides the
ability for a permanent fund dividend (PFD) applicant to forgo
the cash dividend and elect a land voucher.
He detailed that the land voucher is calculated as two times the
statutory amount of the PFD. An applicant can take the land
voucher and present it at a land sale of the Alaska Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and purchase state land. The
overarching purpose of the bill is to get more land into the
hands of Alaskans.
He explained that land vouchers are deeply seated in the
history of this country. The federal government first used land
vouchers to compensate American Revolutionary War veterans. Many
states and the federal government have issued land vouchers, but
vouchers have not been issued for over 100 years.
He summarized that the intent of the bill is to provide a
subsidy so that people can get better access to land.
CHAIR MICCICHE pointed out that in the late 1950s, Alaska had a
homestead program for returning veterans, similar to the
American Revolutionary War.
3:34:13 PM
ANNE WESKE, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division, Alaska
Department of Revenue, Juneau, Alaska, delivered a presentation,
SB 217 State Land Voucher. She paraphrased the text on slide 2,
Duties of the Department in accordance with SB 217:
• Provide a method for Alaskans to utilize their
electronic Permanent Fund Dividend application to
purchase State land through a voucher program option.
• Calculate the Statutory Net Income calculation per AS
43.23.025 to determine the value of each voucher.
• Determine PFD eligibility on all Alaskans per AS
43.23.005.
MS. WESKE discussed the following from slide 3, Considerations
of the Department in accordance with SB 217:
• The ongoing Statutory Net Income calculation per AS
43.23.025 will be maintained by the Department to be used
for purposes of calculating the value of each land voucher.
Twice the value of the SNI calculation will be the value of
each land voucher.
• The Land Voucher option will be available only to Adults
filing an electronic application on behalf of themselves.
• In order to maintain consistency with all other voluntary
PFD options, if an applicant who chooses the land voucher
option has not been deemed Eligible by the end of the
calendar year in which they applied, the state land voucher
is voided, and the applicant will receive a monetary
dividend.
She clarified that the land voucher does not expire, but
eligibility to participate in the voucher must be determined.
3:37:29 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE asked what happens if the statutory net income
(SNI) calculation is changed.
MR. BARNHILL answered that if a new formula is enacted and the
citation remains the same, the new valuation will flow through.
SENATOR BISHOP asked which amount will be applied to the
calculation if the legislature only appropriates half of the
statutory PFD calculation.
MR. BARNHILL answered that the statutory formula would be used.
The legislation is intentionally phrased to have the statutory
formula control the face value of the voucher.
SENATOR BISHOP remarked that it could be a good deal for
somebody.
MR. BARNHILL replied the hope is that the land voucher will be a
good deal for many people.
MS WESKE continued to discuss the Considerations of the
Department in accordance with SB 217 on slide 4:
• The Department will develop and print a State Land Voucher
in accordance with industry standards.
• Garnishments will take priority over State Land Vouchers.
The remaining value of the individual's PFD will determine
the individual's State Land Voucher value.
She explained that DOR would need to develop a calculation for
individuals who opt for a land voucher and their dividend is
garnished. She suspected that if 50 percent of someone's PFD was
garnished, they would receive 50 percent of the land value.
3:39:58 PM
CHAIR MICCICHI calculated that 50 percent of the remaining half
would be 100 percent of the statutory dividend.
MS WESKE said correct.
CHAIR MICCICHE referred to the third point on slide 3 and asked
how someone who is ineligible for a land voucher can be eligible
for a monetary dividend.
MS WESKE explained that the scenario would occur if an
individual was determined not eligible in a calendar year for a
land voucher, but eventually became eligible for a monetary
dividend.
SENATOR GIESSEL referred to the first point on slide 4 and asked
why the division is printing a paper voucher. She said an
individual can easily lose paper documents, but electronic
documents are easier to keep track of.
MR. BARNHILL replied the decision to use paper vouchers was a
cost-effective judgment call. Paper vouchers are like a bearer
bond where an individual in possession of a paper voucher owns
it and can sell it. The department decided not to set up an
electronic voucher tracking system.
He said the committee can reconsider the printed voucher, but
the department believes that adding anticounterfeiting to the
paper voucher will maintain program integrity.
3:42:10 PM
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the bill says a creditor cannot
garnish the voucher, only the cash value of the dividend of
individuals who choose that option. He asked if there was a
reason for that.
MR. BARNHILL replied it was a judgement call to maintain the
current PFD procedures for garnishments. For example, if there
was a $1,000 cash PFD and a $2,000 voucher, everyone is subject
to garnishment up to $1,000. There are no changes to the PFD
system, it is cost effective, and everyone is treated the same.
He added that under Alaska law, someone could garnish the
voucher itself.
SENATOR KIEHL said the fiscal note analysis envisions the notion
of a secondary market. He remarked that in the case of
garnishments, whether it's an individual of money or the state
getting child support for kids who need it, it seems it would be
best to get the maximum value available.
MR. BARNHILL replied it was a judgement call to use the existing
PFD system so the program would be cost effective. He reiterated
that Child Support could garnish the physical voucher, but to
turn that into cash would require a secondary market.
3:44:40 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked what the hierarchy is for garnishments.
MS WESKE answered that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) comes
first and Child Support comes second. The department lists the
order of the garnishments on its website. She pointed out that
if an individual has a garnishment on their record, the land
voucher would not be usable until after the garnishment is
satisfied.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that it is an open question as to how
the IRS will view doubling the value of the voucher.
MR. BARNHILL explained that the land voucher would be subject to
personal income tax up to the amount of the cash dividend. The
remaining value of the land voucher would be subject to capital
gains taxes when the individual sells their land.
3:47:21 PM
MS WESKE reviewed the following costs for the department to
implement the program on slide 6:
• Administrative work: $1,500
• Advertising, Printing, Postage: $15,000
• Programming: $35,400
• Total: $51,900
She reviewed the $12,900 in estimated costs in subsequent years:
• Administrative work: $500
• Advertising, Printing, Postage: $10,000
• Programming: $2,400
• Total: $12,900
CHAIR MICCICHE asked how the State plans to track the vouchers
after they are issued initially.
3:49:43 PM
MR. BARNHILL replied DOR has no plans to track the vouchers.
They plan to print the vouchers in a way that makes them
distinguishable with anti-counterfeiting features so DNR will
accept them when they are presented at land disposal sales.
CHAIR MICCICHE asked how it will work when someone presents four
vouchers at a land sale and another individual claims they were
stolen.
MR. BARNHILL reiterated that DOR has no plans to track the
vouchers; DNR would accept land vouchers presented at land
disposal sales.
CHAIR MICCICHE commented that the legislation is an innovative
idea; what is essentially a deed will be treated like cash.
MR. BARNHILL concurred.
3:51:58 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage, Alaska,
commenced his presentation, SB 217 State Land Voucher: PFD's. He
displayed slide 2, Land, Alaska Has an Abundance:
• Statehood Land Entitlement
o Total Land entitlement: 105.8 million acres
o Entitlement received: 100 million acres
o Remaining entitlement: 5.8 million acres
o Land Bank: 2.5 million acres
He detailed that the land bank identifies land that is available
for settlement or disposal. He noted that not all land in the
land bank is developable.
3:53:16 PM
MR. PARSONS reviewed the chart on slide 3, Who Owns Alaska:
• Federal
o 219,900,000 acres
o 60 percent
• State
o 100,644,263 acres
o 27.5 percent
• Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corp
o 43,782,419 acres
o 12.0 percent
• Private
o 1,961,022
o 0.5 percent
He said the governor intends to increase private land ownership
and SB 217 provides a program to get more Alaska land in
Alaskans' hands.
MR. PARSONS addressed slide 4, How Does Alaska Dispose of Land,
as follows:
• Four Primary Programs
o Auction: participants bid on pre-subdivided parcel of
land; high bid is awarded the parcel. Open to Alaskans
only.
o Over the Counter: Open to anyone who wants to purchase
a parcel. Lands not sold at auction are put onto the
website for purchase. Participants select a parcel and
purchase either outright or by contract.
o Remote Recreational Cabin Staking: State identifies an
area where participants can stake up to 20 acres,
enter into a lease, pay for survey and appraisal then
purchase.
o Ag Sales: State sells land for agricultural purposes.
3:56:04 PM
He addressed slide 5, Eligibility/Value/When Applied, as
follows:
• An individual who files a PFD application electronically,
may elect to receive a State land voucher instead of a
monetary dividend.
o Value of the voucher is twice the statutory value of
the PFD.
o May be applied to the purchase of land sold under land
sale contracts entered into or after January 1, 2021.
He noted that the effective date of January 1, 2021 is important
for protecting $19 million worth of contracts that provide a
revenue stream for the Lands Disposal Income Fund (LDIF).
Allowing vouchers to go back into history and payoff contracts
would significantly reduce money for the fund.
He addressed slide 6, Conditions, as follows:
• May be used once
• May be transferred
• May be combined with other vouchers
• May be combined with a Veteran Land Discount or Veteran
Preference purchase
• Vouchers do not expire
He addressed slide 7, Goal, as follows:
• Help fulfill the Alaska Constitution's mandate to develop
state resources to benefit the public.
• Make Alaska land more accessible to all by making it easier
for Alaskan's to purchase land.
o No other state has less land in private hands than
Alaska.
3:58:44 PM
MR. PARSONS addressed slide 8, Land in the Hands of Alaskans, as
follows:
• The PFD Land Voucher Bill is a response to the demand, by
helping individual Alaskans realize land ownership.
• The PFD Land Voucher Bill would be a win-win for both the
individual Alaskan and the state treasury.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that the State does have land sales from
time to time, but the locations are remote. Individuals with
land vouchers are going to have to have sophisticated
transportation methods to get to some of the land sites. She
asked what type of response does DNR get from some of their land
sales.
MR. PARSONS answered that remote locations is a consideration.
The State has conveyed most of the lands along the road system
to municipalities as part of their municipal entitlement. Land
vouchers could free up other cash to allow individuals to invest
in remote transportation.
4:00:42 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that there is land ownership that requires
access across lands owned by Native corporations, village
corporations, and municipalities. She reiterated that there is a
huge challenge in accessing some of the remote locations.
MR. PARSONS explained that one of the things that DNR must do is
sell land with access. Access includes easements, lakes, and
rivers.
SENATOR KIEHL asked him to review the four categories of DNR
land sales in addition to providing data on the number of acres
that DNR sells in a year.
MR. PARSONS answered that the department sells approximately 200
parcels that average 5 acres. The land data strictly includes
subdivision and over-the-counter sales.
SENATOR KIEHL asked how many acres of agricultural sales occurs
annually.
MR. PARSONS replied that agricultural sales "depends." Over the
last several years the department has sold three agricultural
parcels. He said he will follow up with additional agricultural
sales data.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that DNR uses estimated market value for
over-the-counter sales. He asked what the relationship is
between market value and the State's realized value at auctions.
4:03:45 PM
MR. PARSONS answered that the over-the-counter sales depends on
the location. For example, land in the Tok area may be 10 or 15
percent above the department's fair market appraisal, but
Southeast Alaska may have parcels that are two to three times
above the appraised value due to scarcity. Lands near a
population center will be 20 to 25 percent above appraisal. He
summarized that the department sells over-the-counter lands for
the fair market appraisal.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the State could carry the notes on the
auction and over-the-counter land sales.
MR. PARSONS answered yes. He explained that DNR can enter into a
contract with the individual to finance the land sale.
4:05:48 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE said he is interested in knowing how DNR selects
lands. He asked why DNR does not have a process like the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority where interested parties can make
offers on a piece of property. He asked if DNR would ever
consider surveying, platting, and offering at fair market value
even if the property must go to competitive bid where closer-in
properties may become available.
MR. PARSONS answered yes. He explained that the department
allows nominated parcels of land to go up to a competitive bid.
The department has proposed legislation that allows land
nomination for economic development opportunities. The bill will
allow the department to define subdivision development areas to
take advantage of economies of scale associated with development
costs.
He said there are opportunities where people look for specific
parcels. The department tries to balance between individual
parcel availability and the potential of blocking access for
resource development. He noted that in the 1970s, the State
allowed individuals to stake up to five acres wherever they
wanted that resulted in a gauntlet between a major road and
resources.
4:08:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL addressed slide 8 where the final sentence states,
"The PFD Land Voucher Bill would be a win-win for both the
individual Alaskan and the state treasury." He said he does not
see a win for the state treasury where the department incurs
surveying and platting costs, but 25 percent of the land sale
price goes to the general fund. He asked if the State would be
better off if the department received more funds to plat
neighborhoods and subdivisions and then sell the land under
current terms for fair market or something just over fair
market.
MR. PARSONS emphasized that the State is trading a chunk of land
for dollars to remain in the general fund versus distribution to
individuals.
MR. BARNHILL explained that section 5 provides that the foregone
cash amount for the PFD lapses into the general fund and it sort
of functions as a down payment because 50 percent of the value
of the land voucher goes directly to the Alaska Permanent Fund.
He referenced his previous example that $1,000 would go from the
fund for the PFD into the general fund and function as a down
payment.
4:10:54 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE asked Senator Kiehl if he understood the previous
explanations.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that he did not.
CHAIR MICCICHE said he would like to see Mr. Barnhill's math on
how the net to the State is the same or better for the land
voucher program.
MR. BARNHILL agreed to provide the information. He reiterated
that the person who does not elect the $1,000 cash dividend
receives a $2,000 voucher and the $1,000 goes back to the
general fund.
SENATOR GIESSEL pointed out that the money would actually go
back to the general fund because money appropriated to the PFD
fund first goes to the general fund.
She noted that land was subdivided years ago in Willow to build
a new capitol. She asked if the State owns the land in Willow
and if the State has offered the land for sale.
4:13:04 PM
MR. PARSONS answered that the State does own land in the
borough. However, the department has issues with costs for
development. There is land to offer in the areas of Willow,
Wasilla, Kenai Peninsula Borough, and the Fairbanks North Star
Borough, but high development costs are the issue.
SENATOR BISHOP asked Mr. Barnhill to provide a cash flow
schematic at the next bill hearing.
MR. BARNHILL replied he will comply.
SENATOR COGHILL said people will receive a voucher that creates
a trading stock for either trading with DNR or selling to
individuals that want to combine multiple vouchers to buy a
piece of property. He pointed out that a situation could occur
where people bidding strictly with cash on properties will feel
disadvantaged versus individuals bidding with vouchers.
MR. BARNHILL noted that there have been discussions on the point
that Senator Coghill addressed. He suggested that the Alaska
Department of Law should answer Senator Coghill's question
because the concern he raised is one that will certainly occur.
CHAIR MICCICHE asked for the sectional analysis.
4:16:40 PM
MR. BARNHILL presented the following sectional analysis for SB
217:
Section 1
Amends AS 38.05.940(c) to allow a veteran to apply one
or more dividend land vouchers issued under AS
43.23.018 to the one-time purchase of discounted state
land under AS 38.05.940(c) ("Land purchase price
discount for veterans.")
Section 2
Amends AS 38.05.940(d) to limit a person using a
dividend land voucher to purchase land under AS
43.23.018 to purchasing surface rights only, and to
prohibit a person from applying a dividend land
voucher to costs ineligible for a discount under the
section.
Section 3
Amends AS 38.95 by adding two new sections. New
section AS 38.95.350 directs the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), except as provided under AS 38.05.067
as (modified by Section 1), to accept one or more
dividend land vouchers (issued under provisions
enacted in Section 6) at their face value for purchase
of state land under land contracts. It prohibits DNR
from accepting vouchers for payment of rents or fees
or land purchases other than as provided in this
section, or for state land sales contracts entered
into before January 1, 2021. A voucher will be
exhausted after one use whether it covered the full
land sale price or not, and applicants are entitled to
no refund or other credit for any portion of the
voucher's value remaining after such a sale.
The second new section, AS 38.95.360, requires DNR to
report to the governor before September 1 of each year
the number and total value of dividend land vouchers
it accepted for payment in the previous fiscal year.
Such reports may include recommendations for changes
in the requested appropriation for the Land Disposal
Income Fund (LDIF). This provision is required because
acceptance of state land vouchers will proportionately
reduce revenues generated from state land sales that
are deposited into the LDIF. Loss of these funds, if
not replaced by another revenue source, will result in
significant challenges to maintaining DNR's land sale
programs.
Section 4
Adds a new section, AS 43.23.018. Subsection (a)
directs DOR to allow a person using the electronic
application for a Permanent Fund dividend and not a
person or public agency applying on behalf of another
individual, or an assignee of the right to receive a
dividend to make an irrevocable election to receive a
single dividend land voucher instead of a monetary
dividend. It makes an assignee of the right to receive
a dividend ineligible to elect to receive a dividend
land voucher. It directs DOR, if unable during a
dividend year to determine whether an applicant is
eligible to receive a dividend, to void that
applicant's election to receive a dividend land
voucher; if later determined to be eligible, the
applicant will be eligible to receive a monetary
dividend, but not to elect to receive a dividend land
voucher.
Subsection (b) sets the value of a dividend land
voucher at twice the value of a monetary dividend as
calculated under AS 43.23.025 if 50 percent of income
available distribution was deposited into the Fund's
dividend fund under AS 37.13.145(b). Subsection (c)
limits the use of vouchers only to purchase of land
under AS 38.95.350 (as enacted by Section 4).
Subsection (d) provides that vouchers issued under
this section do not expire. Subsection (e) makes
vouchers transferable to any person, bars the
department from preventing or keeping records of
transfers; and prohibits bringing action against the
state related to transfer of a state land voucher.
Subsection (f) provides that issuing a land dividend
voucher creates no obligation on DNR to make any state
land available for sale or to enter any land sale
contract, nor does it represent DNR's statement as to
the person's eligibility to purchase state land.
Subsection (g) provides that the value of a voucher
subject to attachment for debt collection is set under
AS 43.23.140(e), and DNR shall issue land vouchers for
the value remaining after such collection.
4:18:13 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE referred to AS 43.23.025(b), noting that he is
worried if the legislature changes the dividend program and the
statute no longer exists. He said the bill does not seem to have
language that says, "or current statutory calculation under
another citation."
MR. BARNHILL replied the suggestion is fair and the department
is happy to accept that as a friendly amendment. The purpose is
that the land voucher calculation be based on the statutory
value of the cash PFD wherever enacted into law. The legislative
drafter may have expected that a formula change would happen in
AS 43.23.025. However, if the change does occur in the noted
statute, the words offered as a friendly amendment are
completely fine.
4:19:45 PM
MR. BARNHILL continued the sectional analysis for SB 217 as
follows:
Section 5
Amends AS 43.23.045 by adding a new subsection (f),
directing that any value of Permanent Fund dividends
remaining in the Alaska Permanent Fund's dividend
account after individual elections to receive state
land vouchers instead of monetary dividends will,
after application of collection or garnishment action
under AS 43.23.140, lapse back to the General Fund.
Section 6
Amends AS 43.23.055 by expanding the DOR
commissioner's duties to include issuing state land
vouchers under AS 43.23.180; directs DOR to develop
regulations to establish procedures and time limits
for voucher issuance and use; and directs DOR to
report annually to DNR both the number of individuals
electing to receive land vouchers instead of monetary
dividends, and the number and value of such vouchers
issued.
Section 7
Amends AS 43.23.140(a) to refer to the additional
exception (enacted in Section 9) to the rule that 20
percent of an individual's Permanent Fund dividend is
exempt from levy, execution, garnishment, attachment,
or any other remedy for the collection of debt.
Section 8
Amends AS 43.23.140 by adding a new subsection (e) to
specify that the value of a land voucher may only be
attached up to the amount available for garnishment
from a monetary dividend, before the land voucher is
issued, notwithstanding exceptions enumerated in AS
43.23.140(a) (established under Section 10) and AS
43.23.140(b).
Section 9
Adds a new subsection AS 43.23.240(d), directing the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to
consider a land voucher issued under AS 43.23.018 as
income or resources of an applicant, in calculating
that applicant's eligibility for public assistance
programs it administers, and to notify all public
assistance recipients of the effects of receiving a
dividend land voucher.
MR. BARNHILL detailed that Section 9 makes it clear that the
value of the land voucher is not subject to the Hold Harmless
Program for Medicaid eligibility. He pointed out that the land
voucher becomes an asset and counted as income towards Medicaid
eligibility.
4:21:32 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the Medicaid eligibility considers the
land voucher as income at cash value or face value. He inquired
if Medicaid eligibility will consider the land voucher as an
asset for asset exclusions.
MR. BARNHILL replied that income and asset testing would
consider the land voucher at face value. He suggested that DHSS
provide further explanation on Medicaid eligibility.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if a needs-based program will consider an
individual's sale of a land voucher as income for assessing
program eligibility.
MR. BARNHILL suggested DHSS follow up and answer his question on
Medicaid eligibility.
CHAIR MICCICHE commented that Senator Kiehl asked good
questions, primarily due to the lack of accountability when
there is no voucher record. People can say that they purchased
or sold land vouchers for any price because the department does
not care.
He noted that the land voucher has a combination of face value
and cash value. The voucher has a face value when not used and a
cash value when used to purchase land. He said he did not know
how the voucher's combination value would work with tax law or
with DHSS. He agreed that the committee should have DHSS address
the voucher's impact on eligibility. He said a family of six
could save land vouchers for three years and have an asset worth
something, particularly to purchase state land.
MR. BARNHILL pointed out that children are not eligible to
participate in the land voucher program.
CHAIR MICCICHE summarized that outside of combining with adult
children, strictly a family with a single adult or a couple
could apply for a voucher.
MR. BARNHILL answered correct.
4:24:58 PM
MR. BARNHILL continued the sectional analysis for SB 217:
Section 10
Adds a new subsection AS 43.23.250(b), to require
financial needs-based programs administered by the
state or by a state instrumentality or a municipality
to consider the value of a dividend land voucher held
by an applicant as income or resources in determining
whether the person was eligible for the program.
Section 11
Adds a new subsection to AS 43.23.270. New subsection
(f) applies the same penalties for violations of state
law relating to Permanent Fund dividend eligibility
and application, to dividend land vouchers eligibility
and application.
Section 12
Establishes as the bill's effective date as January 1,
2021.
CHAIR MICCICHE said he can cover the fiscal note at the next
meeting when discussing cash flow. He added that the department
will remove verbiage in the legislation as referenced in the
last sentence on slide 8.
MR. BARNHILL said the DOR fiscal note was covered during the
presentation. He said he did not know if DNR had a fiscal note
to present.
4:26:16 PM
MR. PARSONS explained that DNR's fiscal note is indeterminate
because the number of voucher participants is unknown. He said
there are so many possibilities that the department could not
present a solid number. There will be an affect on cash flow and
the LDIF going forward. However, the voucher program does not
take effect until 2021 and will not immediately affect the
department.
CHAIR MICCICHE replied that is fair.
He questioned the department's ability to initiate the program
for $51,000 in the first year, an amount that would probably be
higher for a legislator putting similar legislation forward
versus the administration. He said more power to the department
if they can mechanically pull off the program in the first year
for $51,000.
CHAIR MICCICHE said the bill is fascinating and he likes it
because Alaskans are hungry for land. He noted that the
administration has talked about back PFDs quite a bit in the
last couple of years. However, the voucher program moves forward
from the January 1, 2021 effective date and does not include
back PFDs in value.
MR. BARNHILL answered correct. He said the primary purpose of
the bill is to get land into the hands of Alaskans faster. He
admitted that one could make an argument that a biproduct of the
bill is that it does provide some compensation for PFDs not paid
according to the formula. However, the intent of the bill is to
accelerate the disposal of land.
4:28:41 PM
SENATOR REVAK asked that the next time the committee hears the
bill that the department addresses voucher numbering and
trackability to the individual. He said he did not really
understand the anonymity of the voucher program.
MR. BARNHILL replied he will submit a voucher mockup at the next
meeting that shows some anticounterfeiting features. He
explained that the official-looking voucher will have a serial
number, a name, and look like a bearer bond.
CHAIR MICCICHE stated that the committee should consider whether
to support the bill moving forward, especially due to its out-
of-the-box approach for the disposing of state land to Alaskans,
a topic he hears weekly about from constituents. He admitted
that he is worried about the lack of trackability as well as the
department not including transfer recording in its fiscal note.
He pointed out that tracking does not need a dollar amount.
However, not having trackability leaves the program wide open
for theft, elder abuse, and all kinds of things that come along
with untraceable assets. He said he will focus on voucher
tracking and asked that the department provide its thoughts on
trackability moving forward.
4:30:52 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked Mr. Parsons if the department has enough
land to meet the interest.
MR. PARSONS answered that land availability will be a challenge.
The department will need to aggressively move forward with the
decision-making process to get the lands prepared. The
department will also have to go back and look at developed area
plans to identify and reclassify adjacent lands. He said the
program will be a lift for the department but is confident that
the staff will keep up.
MR. BARNHILL said the department is happy to engage in further
discussion on trackability. He admitted that the department made
a judgement call to not include trackability in an effort to
make the program as efficient as possible.
CHAIR MICCICHE said what should be clear is that over the years
a young family could forgo receiving a PFD and build up quite a
portfolio of land vouchers. However, not everyone keeps records
equally and something could go horribly wrong without a tracking
system when individuals decide to purchase their dream piece of
property.
4:33:18 PM
[CHAIR MICCICHE held SB 217 in committee.]
SB 217-STATE LAND VOUCHER; PFDS
4:41:35 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE returned attention to SB 217 and opened public
testimony.
4:41:50 PM
VIKKI JO KENNEDY, representing self, Kodiak, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 217. She said she likes the idea of being able
to buy land with vouchers. She noted that there is very little
public sector land available on Kodiak Island's 80-mile road
system. She asked if the January 2021 effective date for the
bill applies to the 2020 or 2021 PFD.
4:46:32 PM
CHRIS EICHENLAUB, representing self, Eagle River, testified
in support of SB 217. He said the land voucher is the gift
that keeps on giving.
4:47:30 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE held SB 217 in committee with public testimony
open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 217 v. A.PDF |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |
| SB 217 Transmittal Letter 2.20.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |
| SB 217 Sectional Analysis 2.25.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |
| SB 217 Fiscal Note DNR-MLW 02.20.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |
| SB 217 Fiscal Note DOR-PFD 02.20.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |
| HJR 25 ver. M.PDF |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 25 |
| HJR 25 Sponsor Statement 02.12.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 25 |
| HJR 25 Fiscal Note-LEG-SESS-02.11.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 25 |
| HJR 25 News Article AP News 02.24.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 25 |
| SB 217 PFD Presentation 03.2.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |
| SB 217 DNR-MLW Presentation 03.02.2020.pdf |
SRES 3/2/2020 3:30:00 PM |
SB 217 |