Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/08/1994 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice Chair
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative Ed Willis
Representative John Davies
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 515: "An Act relating to the management of state land
and resources; relating to certain remote parcel
and homestead entry land purchase contracts and
patents; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
NEIL JOHANNSEN, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107001
Anchorage, AK 99501-7001
Phone: 762-2535
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 515
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, AK 99501-7005
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 515
TOMAS BOUTIN, Director
Division of Forestry
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, AK 99501-7005
Phone: 762-2501
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 515
JERRY GALLAGHER, Director
Division of Mining
P.O. Box 107016
Anchorage, AK 99510-7016
Phone: 762-2165/465-2400
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 515
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 515
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/28/94 2551 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/28/94 2551 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/28/94 2552 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 2/28/94
02/28/94 2552 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-11, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:18
p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Toohey, Bunde,
Williams, Sanders and Willis were present and noted that a
quorum was present.
HB 515 - MANAGEMENT OF STATE LAND AND RESOURCES
NEIL JOHANNSEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), said, "I
would like to first point out that Title 38, the Alaska
Lands Act, has an early history. Obviously, as the Governor
says, we're an owner state. We own, if you consider the
submerged lands, probably somewhere around 160 million acres
of land: One and a half California's. Our economy by and
large rests upon those resources and Title 38 is a statute
that goes back 35 years. In fact, Title 38 had it's
beginning with statehood in 1959. It has been added to,
patched on to, improved, perhaps not improved in many areas
through the years. We think that we need to start designing
a new model. Title 38 has grown to about 200 pages.
There's a lot of redundancy in Title 38. There's a lot of
things in it that makes the bureaucracy less than totally
efficient. The first point that I'd like to make here is:
It's the department's position that Title 38 needs many
changes. It probably needs close to a total rewrite.
However, what we are taking on with your help, is basically
a two phase process. We want to do some fairly quick, we
would hope relatively easy adjustments to make Alaska's land
law work better. For it to be a more efficient body of law
to manage our natural resources. At the same time, we're
going through a process of trying to examine the nearly 200
pages of statutes and there's a lot of regulations that
apply to those statutes, to try to come up with something
that will streamline and clarify and hopefully, craft a more
efficient body of law for the future. Particularly given
the fact that most of the dollars go down and a lot of the
bureaucracy, etc., may be difficult for us to afford at the
same time that we need to increase the flow of revenues to
state. The bill (HB 515) is a complicated bill, even though
it's only about 17 pages long. It touches many different
flavors of resources. Everything from land disposals, to
Native allotments in parks, to setnet in aquatic farm sites,
timber sales, oil and gas leasing, and there's an important
section on mining. So we are essentially providing
something for everybody. There's nothing in this bill that
does not touch every Alaskan... So we think that there will
be a lot of interest, before it's over with. Basically,
we're after something that will create what we will view, a
more efficient government. If you look at it in a
collective sense, that will put us in a better and more
efficient situation to sell and to lease natural resources.
There's other things there but, by and large, what we're
looking for here is something that will allow us to not
eliminate public process, public process is important...but
after talking to many different people, both inside and
outside government interest groups, the Resource Development
Council to a lot of people, it was our stance to embark upon
the journey with some relatively small changes. ...some of
you are probably wondering why the State Park Director is
sitting here talking about timber and oil and gas and
mining. Last week when they gave me this bill to basically
kind of coordinate, I'm not the commander but the
coordinator here, I asked the same question. I've never
even read Title 38, but in spite of the fact that I direct
our park system, I've got a Master's degree in Forestry and
I have a fairly wide interest in the efficient management of
our resources. I am here basically to coordinate, to bring
people to the table. If you have interest in specific
resources, to make sure that you've got the state's top
expert there to talk with you about that. With that said, I
would like to just simply offer a couple of requests from
the Administration. This is obviously the Governor's bill.
The Administration has gone through a lot of internal opera
to get here, believe me, and without going into the details,
having watched the crafting of Title 38 in the last eighteen
months in the department (DNR) its been a big deal to get
here. But the Administration has basically a couple of
requests of this committee... with all due respect to the
committee. Our first request is that it's a short bill and
this would be a very tempting bill to become...a christmas
tree. We feel as if, if the bill becomes fly paper and a
lot of things get stuck on it, it's going to potentially
affect its progress through the legislature...so, with all
due respect, through each of the committees we're going to
ask that the bill not go through a lot of amendment. It's
been through a lot of examination by a lot of people to get
here. We are working on phase two for you. That will cover
the bigger picture. The last point I would like to make is
to just simply...there's not a lot of time left and most of
you are in the majority... We would really like to see this
bill make it through, and somebody had mentioned to me that
you guys are halfway through your session this week, so
there's not a lot of time and so I apologize for that, but
we would like to see the bill try and make it to the
Governor..." He referred to other DNR directors to describe
their sections of the bill.
Representative John Davies joined the committee at 1:20 p.m.
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, "Is this also being
introduced on the Senate side?"
MR. JOHANNSEN said, "The bill has been introduced as Senate
Bill 339."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Who's carrying that? Is there
somebody specifically?"
MR. JOHANNSEN replied, "It's the Governor's bill. It has
not been heard in the Senate, we believe there are a number
of people who have a lot of interest in the bill, but I
could not name a specific legislator."
Number 243
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LANDS, DNR, said, "The
vast majority of the bill is land related. Sections 1
through 7 of the bill would amend AS 38.04.020 to delete the
land disposal bank for potential state land sales, recast
the land bank as a land disposal program, revise planning
and classification requirements, and make appropriation
requests for land disposals discretionary by the
commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Currently, existing AS 38.04.020 requires the land bank to
have at least 500,000 acres classified and available for
disposal into private ownership. That statute also requires
an annual report on the status of the land bank and mandates
that the commissioner annually submit an appropriation
request to the legislature to administer surveys and
disposals of land. The land bank system is outdated because
regional land use plans have now classified over 2,000,000
acres of state land for disposal. Section 35 of the bill
repeals existing AS 38.04.020(c), (f), (j), and (k), the
requirements of which have become unnecessary due to the
amount of land now classified for disposal. Section 8 of
the bill makes a conforming amendment to AS 38.04.021(b)(1).
MR. SWANSON continued, "Sections 9 and 10 of the bill amend
existing AS 38.04.030 and AS 38.04.035 to simplify the
methods that DNR can use to design state land disposals.
Section 9 amends existing AS 38.04.030 by authorizing DNR to
develop additional disposal programs by regulation. A
program established by regulation would have to provide for
competitive disposal at no less than fair market value, but
would not necessarily have to conform to existing programs
in AS 38. Section 10 amends AS 38.04.035 by making a fair
market value return to the state mandatory, rather than
discretionary, when state land is conveyed to private
parties, unless a conveyance for less than fair market value
is specifically authorized by statute or regulation.
MR. SWANSON further stated, "Section 11 of the bill amends
existing AS 38.05.035(b)(9) to allow DNR to reconvey
substitute land for state land that is subject to a pending
Native allotment application. This amendment is designed to
give DNR the ability to relocate Native allotment claims
from state parks and recreation areas to less sensitive
areas. Existing AS 38.05.035(b)(9) only allows the
reconveyance of land wrongfully conveyed by the federal
government to the state, such as land subject to Native use
and occupancy predating state selection. The amendment is
intended to allow DNR to take advantage of a 1992 amendment
to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 43
U.S.C. 1617(c), which authorizes the relocation of pending
Native allotment claims to substitute state land with the
commissioner of DNR's concurrence.
MR. SWANSON continued, "Sections 13 and 14 of the bill
delete from existing AS 38.05.055 and AS 38.05.057(a) the
requirement that a purchaser appear in person at a lottery
or auction for state land. In Chambers v. State, No. 3AN-
88-4634 CI (1989), that requirement was held to violate the
equal protection clause of the Constitution of Alaska
because it discriminates between local and non-local
residents. Section 12 of the bill amends existing AS
38.05.050 to remove the requirement that the lottery or
auction be held in a community near the land to be disposed.
Such a decision would, instead, be discretionary. Section
35 of the bill repeals existing AS 38.05.057(g) and AS
38.05.057(j), which are premised on the existing
requirements in AS 38.05.050, AS 38.05.055, and AS
38.05.057(a) that are being deleted. Section 32 of the bill
amends AS 38.09.010(g) to remove language related to
personal appearance at a lottery and local site for a
lottery.
MR. SWANSON said, "In addition, sec. 14 of the bill deletes
a provision of AS 38.05.057(a) that requires the
commissioner of DNR to consult with the municipal assessor
before determining the purchase price for state land located
in that municipality. Because the appraisal required by
existing AS 38.05.840 gives the commissioner an accurate
valuation, the consultation requirement is unnecessary.
MR. SWANSON read, "Section 15 of the bill repeals and
reenacts AS 38.05.069(e)(2). Existing AS 38.04.069(e)(2)
defines "approximate vicinity," a term that is not used
elsewhere in existing AS 38.05.069, the agricultural
preference right statute. The bill would replace
"approximate vicinity" with a definition of "adjacent," a
term that is used elsewhere in that statute.
MR. SWANSON said, "Changes made by secs. 16 through 18 and
sec 35 of the bill eliminate special procedures for leasing
setnet and aquatic farming sites contained in existing AS
38.05.082, 38.05.083, and 38.05.856. Sections 29 and 35
revise the public notice requirements of existing AS
38.05.945 accordingly, by repealing AS 38.05.945(a)(5) and
(6) and amending AS 38.05.945(d). Section 16 amends
existing AS 38.05.082(b), which requires DNR to award setnet
leases between two or more competing applicants on the basis
of a complex analysis of the "most qualified applicant."
This procedure is highly dependent on DNR's ability to make
factual determinations as to each applicant's tenure in the
fishery, present ability to utilize the location to its
maximum potential, and "other factors relevant to the
equitable assignment of the disputed area." The amendment
would replace this procedure with the options of either a
public auction under AS 38.05.075(a) or, if only one
application is received and the value of the lease is $5,000
a year or less, a negotiated lease under AS 38.05.070(b).
In secs. 3 and 5, ch. 27, SLA 1991, the legislature amended
AS 38.05.082(b), effective January 1, 1997, regarding
language that refers to DNR land use plans. Section 34 of
the attached bill clarifies that the changes in the bill
regarding new procedures for determining the qualifications
of setnet lease applicants, contained in sec. 16 of the
bill, do not affect the changes made to AS 38.05.082(b) by
secs. 3 and 5, ch. 27, SLA 1991.
MR. SWANSON further stated, "In sec. 18 of the bill, AS
38.05.083 is repealed and reenacted to set out aquatic farm
and hatchery site leasing procedures. In the repeal and
reenactment, many of the existing permit provisions in AS
38.05.856 are moved to AS 38.05.083 as leasing provisions.
AS 38.05.856 is repealed by sec. 35 of the bill. Section 35
of the bill also repeals existing AS 38.05.855, which
requires DNR to identify and propose sites for aquatic farms
and hatcheries, and AS 38.05.946(b), which requires DNR to
hold public hearings on those proposed sites. The purpose
of these changes is to bring the leasing of setnet and
aquatic farming sites into conformity with the procedures
governing other state land uses. Section 36 of the bill
makes clear that the changes made to existing AS 38.05.083
and 38.05.856 by secs. 18 and 34 of the bill do not impair
the legal rights of a person who holds a permit under those
statutes. Section 19 of the bill repeals and reenacts AS
38.05.090 to make a lessee of state land responsible for
returning a former leasehold to a marketable condition. The
amendment would also provide for the automatic vesting of
title in the state of any personal property, buildings, or
fixtures that are not removed by the lessee within a
specified time. Under the existing statute, a lessee who
leaves buildings or personal property on state land when a
lease expires is not subject to any penalty and is not
responsible for the costs of restoring the property to a
condition suitable for subsequent leasing. The changes made
by sec. 19 would address this statutory deficiency."
Number 368
TOMAS BOUTIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DNR, proceeded
reading verbatim where Mr. Swanson stopped, midway on page 6
of the DNR document submitted to the committee, "Section 20
would allow the commissioner after a best interest
determination to offer for sale timber that would lose
substantial economic value or would perpetuate insect or
disease, if not salvaged within two years and thereby the
requirements in 38.05.113, among them the requirement that a
sale has been in the five year plan for at least the two
prior years, would not exist. And also the requirement in
38.05.115 which says that a negotiated sale can't be larger
than 500,000 board feet and has to be a year or less in
duration, would not be a requirement. Section 21 would
amend 118(c) to allow the commissioner to do a negotiated
sale, if the conditions which are now in 118(c) were to
exist perspectively within the next two years."
Number 387
JERRY GALLAGHER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, DNR testified
for Oil and Gas saying, "Section 22...this change, I believe
is in a Senate bill that's now somewhere, SB 322. This
specific provision has been on and off the explorational
licensing package that has been moving through, but hasn't
passed yet. It's not on any of the exploration licensing
bills now. This is a section that requires an oil and gas
lease sale to be on the sales schedule for at least two
years. The way the language is written now, that lease sale
must be held within 90 days of the quarter it was scheduled
and if it isn't held within that time period, it has to go
back on the schedule for two years. We're proposing to
eliminate that language which requires that 90 day time
frame. We propose that for two reasons: First of all in
those cases, such as lease sale 78, where we've been
enjoined and it seems unlikely that we will be able to hold
it within 90 days, we have to go through the process all
over. Even if after four or five years, it turns out that
we might win that case, we still have to go through the
process. The second reason is, some of the folks, again
lease sale 78, folks on the Kenai said we want more time to
comment. The way the law is written now we couldn't give
them that time, because that would automatically put us over
the limit. So, this is the sword that cuts both ways but we
think it will give the department a lot more flexibility.
Section 23, we get into the mining sections. AS 38.05.185
(a) is the section that talks about the commissioner's
authority to close land and the commissioner, since
statehood has always been very careful to mineral entry and
that's the bureaucratic term for staking mining claims. The
law allows the commissioner to close it to mineral entry and
mining, and we've been advised by the Department of Law
that, as written, the commissioner could actually close to
mining, valid existing mining claims."
Number 420
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "The federal law, I believe,
says that you cannot close to mineral entry land that is
valid mining land, that has actual potential validity to
it."
MR. GALLAGHER replied, "Right. The way the state law is
written, although it's never been used this way, is that the
commissioner can close it to mineral entry or mining. Our
concern is that if the close to mining provisions were ever
used against valid existing rights that would one, perhaps
be unconstitutional and certainly constitute taking. Now,
the legislature can take with compensation, the commissioner
doesn't have the authority. The commissioner doesn't have
that kind of a bank account. So what we want to do is clean
this up so there's no question that the commissioner's
authority cannot trample valid existing rights... The
commissioner can only close it to future claim staking. It
can't have any effect on the valid existing rights. Section
24...this is language that dates back to statehood, 1959.
It's language that the federal government had in the 50s, it
is no longer applicable. It is arcane language and it
requires in sections 4 and 5 that an alien, someone from
another country or another corporation, that that country
have like mining rights to the State of Alaska, which means
mining claims and stuff. There's not a country that has
this kind of right, okay? So what this statute does is it
employs a number of fairly clever attorneys in Anchorage to
create hoops so that you can comply with this. It has no
purpose. What we're proposing to do is eliminate that
language to put miners and mining companies on the same foot
as every other business as Alaska...qualified corporation in
the state. Section 25... (In) 1989 the legislature adopted
rents and royalties for state miners and the discussion at
that point was, `Gosh if we stick a firm number in statute
for the rent, it could become out of date, due to inflation
at some point,' so what the legislature did is they put an
escalator in there based on the consumer price index of
Anchorage. We still believe that's a good idea. The way it
was written then was that every five years we will adjust
it, based on the Anchorage CPI, right now it's $20, next
year we have to adjust it. Well, it could be $23.11.
Frankly, I've got just a couple of state employees who
collect that $20 from 44 mining claims and it's a whole lot
easier, if they collect it in round numbers. So what we're
saying is, let's keep the idea of the escalator in there but
let's do it in $5 increments, not in five year increments.
It's a whole lot easier for both the miners and my staff to
deal with. Section 26...AS 38.05.255 is the section of
state law that gives miners the right to use the surface for
mining purposes...for mills, for tailings disposals, for
those long-term surface improvements they need for a mine.
Unfortunately, the statute refers to this authorization as a
permit and a permit by law is a one year revocable
authorization. If you're going to invest tens of millions
of dollars in a mill, in a mine, and you take this revocable
one year authorization to the bank, they're not very happy.
So this clearly needs to be a lease and we have changed the
words out to make it work as a lease. Section 27 is a
relatively minor change. This has to do with abandonment of
mining claims. There's language in there now that says, `If
you ask for a lease application from me to convert your
mining claims to a lease, and I send it to you, and you
don't return it to me within 60 days, you lose your mining
claims.' Well, you might change your mind. It's an
unnecessary and particularly harsh piece of law that serves
no purpose at this point and we're suggesting to get rid of
that language. In the repealer section, which is section
35, page 16 (of HB 155), most of these repealers are
conforming to make the other sections work, but buried in
the middle there's 38.05.207, part of the statute that
requires a production license for miners. This was adopted
in 1983. The legislature thought that this would provide
adequate public notice to avoid and handle `Six Eye'
litigation, the Supreme Court said, `No, it doesn't.' It's
still on the books, miners don't apply for them. We don't
issue them. They serve no purpose. Clean up the statutes
and get them out of there."
Number 504
MR. SWANSON read from a document submitted to committee
members dated March 1, 1994. "Section 28 of the bill amends
AS 38.05.850(a) to clarify that the use of revokable permits
is allowable to authorize certain uses of limited value.
MR. SWANSON continued, "Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the bill
amend existing AS 38.08.030, 38.08.040, and AS 38.09.030,
respectively, to increase fees for the use of homesites and
homesteads before patent, to defray DNR's administrative
costs. Existing AS 38.08.030(b) sets a maximum $10
application fee for the use of a homesite. Existing AS
38.09.030(a) limits the application fee for homesteads to $5
per acre. These minimal fees presently paid by permittees
for the use of state land do not even cover DNR's
administrative costs. This proposal would amend AS
38.08.030(b) by increasing the fee for new homesite
applications to the maximum of $25 set out in AS
38.05.057(d), and would amend AS 38.08.040(a) to establish a
$100 annual fee to receive and hold a homesite permit before
patent. AS 38.09.030(a) would be amended to increase the
application fee for homesteads to $20 per acre if the land
is not classified as agricultural. The fee increases would
apply only to new applications filed after the effective
date of this bill. Section 36 of the bill makes clear that
the new requirement in AS 38.08.040 for payment of an annual
rental fee for a homesite entry permit does not apply to a
person who was issued a permit under that statute's existing
guarantee that the $10 "application fee is the sole rent
chargeable on the permit for its duration.
MR. SWANSON continued, "In addition, secs. 30 and 31 make
amendments to clarify that homesite entry permits are issued
under lottery procedures in AS 38.05.057(e), (f), and (h).
Under DNR regulations, lottery procedures apply to issuance
of the permits, but AS 38.05.057 and AS 38.08 are not clear
regarding the applicable procedures.
MR. SWANSON said, "Section 35 of the bill would repeal
existing AS 38.09.050(d) and (e), which prohibit the sale of
homesteads for five years after the issuance of patent and
the subdivision of homesteads for either five or 10 years
after patent, depending on whether the land was purchased
under AS 38.09.090. Section 38 of the bill would prohibit
DNR from including the conditions of former AS 38.05.078(d)
(prohibiting sale or subdivision of the parcel for 10 years
after purchase) in a remote parcel purchase contract issued
after the effective date of this bill. This section also
would require DNR to amend a remote parcel or homestead
purchase contract or patent issued before the effective date
of the bill if the holder of the contract or patent pays (1)
the administrative costs of the amendment, and (2) the
difference between the land's fair market value before and
after the conditions on the land are removed. The latter
requirement is proposed because the fair market value of
remote parcel land and homestead entry land sold by the
state under existing law has been reduced by 50 percent to
account for the conditions in AS 38.05.078 and AS 38.09.050.
Removal of the conditions under secs. 34 and 37 of the bill
is designed to increase revenue from state land sales and to
allow private landowners greater use of the land. That's
kind of a thumbnail sketch of the section analysis of the
bill. From there, I'd answer your questions."
Number 544
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I get a little nervous when you
say, `we've got to do this right away' because... I'm a
little paranoid in this job. My question is: Are we going
to subject fishing, timber, mining, oil and gas industry or
have you worked with the industries to alleviate their fears
or are we going to start getting phone calls saying that
this is a terrible (bill)?"
MR. GALLAGHER replied, "We have alerted the industries, the
environmental groups, various groups, what we we're up to.
We gave them shopping lists early on and we took their
comment. But we did not seek, nor did we receive their
concurrence. So, we already know there are some parts of
this that some groups like, some dislike, but we have not
worked these problems through."
Number 557
MR. JOHANNSEN said, "There are sections of the bill that are
going to be controversial and I believe the vast majority of
sections will not be controversial. I'm not going to tell
you which ones we think are controversial. Most of it, I
believe is relatively benign from the standpoint of people
getting lathered up, but there's a couple things here."
Number 569
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked, "When you go out and get ready
to make a timber sale, what do you do to protect the
streams, the fisheries, so to speak?"
MR. BOUTIN said, "We're talking about state land here in
this particular bill. On stream protection on state land,
there's a 100 foot buffer strip on either side of important
fish habitat which is virtually a `no-cut zone,' even though
41.17.087 does allow variations, the state doesn't use
variations in that 100 foot `no-cut zone' on its own
land...and then from 100 feet out to 300 feet, there's a
special wildlife management zone and secondly, a second
answer to your question is that the state, in every timber
sale, goes through two concurrent processes. One, 38.05.113
is a five year planning document and the sale must have been
in the five year sale plan for the two prior years and we
receive comment from agencies, municipalities and the public
about important considerations, including fish habitat.
Then 38.05.112 is a forest land use plan which is a decision
document process and there too, we have comment from
agencies, municipalities and the public. But for protection
of fish habitat and water quality, the state Forest Resource
and Practices Act, updated in 1990, is directed specifically
at fish habitat and water quality."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked, "Who follows through to see
that that's complied with?"
MR. BOUTIN said, "Here we're talking about contract
administration of the state's own timber sales and so
there's a process for inspection and oversight of timber
sales and then the reforestation that follows afterwards."
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES said, "Will we have an
opportunity to meet with DNR folks after we hear public
testimony?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I suppose we could hear public
testimony and then have our DNR people come back to address
the concerns expressed during public testimony."
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Since this is a fairly
complicated...a lot of different issues in it. I expect
that we may hear, I know on certain issues, we're going to
hear a lot of comment and I would certainly welcome the
opportunity after we've heard that comment to reflect some
of those questions back to the administration."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think what we'd like to do is
accommodate the Governor's wishes in giving the bill a
chance to pass this session but at the same time, give it a
measured look while we're at it. It does have two other
referrals."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "With respect to Title 38 and
rewriting it, I certainly concur that there's a lot of
language and some of it's inconsistent, selfcontradictory
and we need to look at that. I guess I would be more
comfortable, however, if we didn't mix what are the sort of
benign, what most people would concede are housekeeping
details, with other more controversial issues. It just, as
a matter of procedure, would seem like it would be a good
idea to try to identify those things that were really and
truly housekeeping, just the matters of making the language
conforming, and I believe there are quite a long list of
those kinds of things, and separate this out... Whenever we
do this, Title 38 of course, as you indicated touches every
single in the State of Alaska, it's important therefore, as
a general precept, that we preserve the public ability to
make input at every step of the way. And in that
preservation I can't resist the comment that it's impossible
to be totally efficient. Democracy is not necessarily a
very efficient process and when we want to hear from
everyone. It's a little frustrating sometimes that we
can't move along as quick as we'd like to. I also have a
question about what is Phase Two and is there a timetable
associated with that?"
Number 638
MR. JOHANNSEN replied, "Phase Two basically, at this point
in time, is starting to evolve from what had earlier been
perceived as taking pieces of Title 38 and advancing them as
legislation. It's now appearing that it's going to be
difficult to chop up Title 38 and submit it in pieces. It
creates a real complication between the policy statement and
what follows, and also the body of regulations that have
been promulgated based upon Title 38. That's the long
answer. The short answer is: We are hoping to have
legislation for the next session. What it's going to look
like, how comprehensive it's going to be, I don't know. But
at this point in time, we are hoping to having a fairly
controversial, freudian slip, correction, a fairly
comprehensive bill next session."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "You gentlemen, of course, will
be available for questions, is that correct? Detailed,
honest questions with detailed, honest answers? I would
like to see us have testimony, on say, mining and fishing at
one meeting so we could go through it that way, and the next
meeting we go through timber and oil and gas. So at least
we're fairly well versed before we make a judgment call."
MR. GALLAGHER said, "The department's staff and directors
are available in any way you want that to happen. Formal
committee hearings and work sessions and one-on-ones, we
will have the right people when you need them."
Number 674
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I think it might be
helpful...there was some reference made to a different
Senate bill. I know that there are at least two other bills
that have language that's either similar to or related to
items that are in (HB 155). SB 310 comes to mind and HB, I
don't know what it was that we dealt with in Resources a
couple of days ago, which relates to this issue of ANCSA. I
think it would be helpful if we had some cross references to
what those others bill do or don't do with respect to, if
the other bill were to pass this language would be necessary
and visa versa. So I think some cross referencing..."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "(There) was one that triggered
something in my memory about a bill having to do with Native
land selections within parks and being able to trade. I
think as this process comes together that will probably
happen perhaps naturally. I suppose what I'm envisioning
next is a public hearing on teleconference for everybody to
let us know what they think. I don't know whether we want
everybody from the department here to respond to those as
they come in, or whether we want to hear it all, digest and
then have another hearing, public teleconference type
hearing with the department representatives here."
Number 696
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY suggested a four hour meeting on a
weekend.
REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG said, "We will have another hearing on
it probably next Tuesday and perhaps let's all be thinking
about how best to structure that hearing..."
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "Certainly, I think these
gentlemen should hear the questions rather than have us
translate them, because something would get lost in
translation..."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked about the status of the Mental
Health Lands litigation as it relates to HB 515.
TAPE 94-11, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. JOHANNSEN replied, "The Mental Health bill...that bill's
going to be introduced likely within about two weeks."
MR. SWANSON said, "That is correct, and we've been very
careful on these Title 38 amendments, not to cross over so
we have a conflict. The two can be dealt with totally
separately."
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN OLBERG set the next hearing on HB 515 on Tuesday,
May 15, 1994, at 1:15 p.m. and then adjourned the meeting at
2:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|