Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/01/1996 09:10 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 1, 1996
9:10 a.m.
TAPES
SFC-96, #17, Side 1 and 2
SFC-96, #18, Side 1 (000-466)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Rick Halford, Co-chairman, convened the meeting at
approximately 9:10 a.m.
PRESENT
All committee members (Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and
Senators Donley, Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, and Zharoff) were
present.
ALSO ATTENDING: Senator Lyda Green; Jim Baldwin, Assistant
Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Dept. of
Law; Pamela LaBolle, President, Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce; Jim Collard, President, Juneau Chamber of
Commerce; Jane Angvik, Director, Division of Land, Dept. of
Natural Resources; Nico Bus, Acting Director, Division of
Support Services, Dept. of Natural Resources; Mike Greany,
Director, Legislative Finance Division; Ted Popely, aide to
House Speaker Gail Phillips; Brett Huber, aide to Senator
Lyda Green; and aides to committee members and other members
of the legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HJR 1 - REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
Testimony was presented by Ted Popely, Jim
Collard, Pam LaBolle, and Jim Baldwin. An
amendment by Senator Rieger was proposed and
adopted. SCS HJR 1 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of
committee with a $2.2 fiscal note from the Office
of the Governor/Elections.
SJR 14 - CONFIRMATION OF BD MANAGING PERM FUND
Discussion was had with Jim Baldwin. The
resolution was subsequently placed in a
subcommittee consisting of Co-chairman Halford and
Senators Donley and Rieger.
SB 89 - PERMANENT FUND BOARD MEMBERS & STAFF
Discussion was had with Jim Baldwin. The bill was
then held in committee for further discussion.
SB 162 - AGRICULTURAL LAND
Testimony was presented by Senator Lyda Green,
Jane Angvik, and Brett Huber. Amendments 1 and 2,
by the sponsor, were noted. The bill was
subsequently held in committee for further
discussion.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations
by the legislature.
Co-chairman Halford directed that HJR 1 be brought on for
consideration. TED POPELY, aide to House Speaker Gail
Phillips, came before committee. He referenced the sponsor
statement (copy on file in the original Senate Finance
Committee file for HJR 1) and noted that, if placed on the
ballot, the resolution would provide voters an opportunity
to amend the state constitution to allow for legislative
repeal of administrative regulations, by joint resolution.
Repeal would apply to regulations that ignore or extend
beyond the scope of enabling legislation. Mr. Popely
acknowledged that the measure had been before the voters on
three previous occasions and had failed. However, a
significantly growing number of regulations which do not
fulfill the purpose and intent of legislation make it timely
once more.
JIM COLLARD, President, Juneau Chamber of Commerce, next
came before committee and voiced support for the resolution.
He said that regulatory compliance is often one of the
biggest costs of doing business. While many regulations
accurately implement both the letter and intent of law, many
go far beyond or appear to ignore intent. Regulations have
the force of law for businesses, and they are often
promulgated without public input. When agencies craft
regulations that depart from legislative instructions, the
agency becomes the lawmaker without having to answer to
voters. HJR 1 provides an effective tool by which to ensure
adherence to legislative intent and return the making of law
to the legislature.
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
next spoke on behalf of the chamber's 700 member-businesses
which provide jobs to 70,000 employees. She said that
mission of the chamber is to create a climate conducive to a
strong private-sector economy. Mrs. LaBolle voiced support
for HJR 1, advising that reform of the present regulatory
system is second in priority to need to close the fiscal
gap. Referencing a chamber resolution in support of the
effort, she noted that the resolution asks the legislature
and administration to "provide for an effective oversight
mechanism to assure that regulations are producing effective
results that follow legislative intent." She cited
complaints regarding regulations that ignore or miss the
point of legislation. Presently, the only recourse is
passage of "corrective legislation." Since the governor can
veto that legislation, the current system allows the
executive branch to usurp the power of the legislature.
Throughout the legislative process, the public has
opportunity to provide input. The regulatory process is not
so open or receptive, and regulations are sometimes adopted
in spite of public sentiment.
Co-chairman Frank asked if the chamber would fund and
undertake a campaign to inform the public of the benefits of
HJR 1. He noted that because of lack of explanation and
understanding, prior votes on the issue were viewed as "a
power grab by the legislature." Mrs. LaBolle said that the
chamber is committed to utilization of its resources and
network of local chambers to educate and inform the public.
Both Co-chairman Frank and Senator Randy Phillips stressed
need for the educational effort to extend beyond chambers
and business groups to the public at large. Further
discussion of need for adequate funding of a public
awareness effort followed. Co-chairman Frank suggested that
a financial commitment from the business community similar
to the effort to close the fiscal gap should be devoted to
changing the regulatory process.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental
Affairs Section, Dept. of Law, advised that HJR 1 would
dramatically changed the legislative process. He queried
members concerning specific regulations giving rise to
public complaint. He suggested that, as an institution, the
legislature should be concerned about "this sort of power."
As an example, he cited fish and game regulations and noted
that the board of fish and game was created in territorial
days and continued in statehood to place regulatory power in
the hands of experts. He questioned whether fishing
interests should come directly to the legislature to undo
regulations adopted by the board.
Mr. Baldwin further cited an earlier attempt by the
legislature to annul regulations by statute (AS 44.62.320)
and noted that the effort was ruled unconstitutional (State
v. A.L.I.V.E Voluntary). He stressed that regulations
involve more than just businesses. Senator Randy Phillips
noted that the supreme court ruling was three to two. The
question of unconstitutionality was thus not unanimous.
Senator Phillips directed attention to page 1, lines 6 and
7, and referenced language calling for repeal via joint
resolution. He then noted language at AS 44.62.320
requiring repeal by concurrent resolution and questioned
which form of resolution should be utilized. Co-chairman
Halford said that provisions in HJR 1 would supercede the
statute. He informed members that the effective difference
is "to elevate the kind of resolution to one requiring three
readings so that it does . . . get treated exactly as a bill
would."
As examples of overreaching regulations, Senator Sharp cited
the Forestry Practices Act which provides statutory review
to the Dept. of Fish and Game. Regulations, however, call
for both review and approval. Proposed air quality
regulations set standards that are technically impossible
for coal-fired power plants to achieve when, after routine
maintenance, they are refired from a cold start. Federal
law says that states are not to impose more stringent
requirements. Proposed state regulations do so. The
Senator further noted that past governors have overridden
board of fish and board of game decisions, and he cited the
False Pass fishery as an example, suggesting that politics
is more involved at the administrative than at the
legislative level. Mr. Baldwin stressed that the
legislature presently has the power to correct problem
regulations via statute. Senator Sharp noted that
corrective legislation is also subject to veto.
Co-chairman Frank voiced his belief that legislative repeal
would provide greater opportunity for public input into the
regulatory process. He suggested that such repeal would
result in only a slight rather than substantial shift in the
balance of power.
Senator Sharp noted that the legislature, rather than the
administration, is often mistakenly blamed for passage of
onerous regulations.
Senator Rieger referenced language at page 1, line 9, and
asked if it would permit retroactive or merely prospective
repeal. Mr. Baldwin informed members that the broad wording
could be construed to apply retroactively. He advised that
he would have to review the Administrative Procedures Act.
He then voiced his belief that "We're limited in regulations
with retroactive effect." Senator Rieger stressed that the
record should indicate that retroactive repeal is not
contemplated. Mr. Baldwin concurred that repeal power would
not apply to existing regulations.
Co-chairman Halford referenced a $2.2 fiscal note
accompanying the resolution and queried members concerning
disposition of HJR 1.
Senator Rieger indicated that conversation with staff of the
sponsor evidenced no objection to clarification of language
giving rise to concern regarding retroactive repeal. He
then formally MOVED to insert the word "prospective"
following the word "different" at page 1, line 9. That
would prevent ability to backtrack ten years and repeal a
regulation upon which businesses and individuals have relied
for a substantial period of time.
Discussion followed among members relating to the House
majority needed to approve Senate changes to HJR 1.
Senator Sharp voiced reluctance to place the resolution in
jeopardy by effecting a change. Co-chairmen Halford and
Frank concurred. Co-chairman Frank also noted need to keep
resolution language as simple as possible. Senator Sharp
suggested that a letter of intent might accomplish the same
end as the proposed amendment. Senator Rieger told members
that careful reading of the supreme court ruling on the
budget reserve fund evidences that regardless of intent
language or the wording of ballot propositions, the court
takes "the wording of the constitution on its face." That
overrides all else. The wording must thus be clear.
Co-chairman Halford voiced opposition to the proposed
amendment and called for a show of hands. The amendment was
ADOPTED on a vote of 4 to 3 (Senators Rieger, Phillips,
Donley, and Zharoff supported the amendment, and Co-chairmen
Halford and Frank and Senator Sharp were opposed).
End: SFC-96, #17, Side 1
Begin: SFC-96, #17, Side 2
Co-chairman Halford directed that the amendment be
incorporated within a Senate Finance Committee Substitute
for HJR 1. Senator Sharp MOVED that SCS HJR 1 (Finance)
pass from committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. No objection having been raised,
SCS HJR 1 (Finance) was REPORTED OUT of committee with a
$2.2 fiscal note from the Office of the Governor/Elections.
Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and Senators Rieger, Phillips,
and Sharp signed the committee report with a "do pass"
recommendation. Senators Donley and Zharoff signed "no
recommendation."
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska relating to confirmation of
appointments of public members who serve on a
board or commission involved with managing the
assets of the Alaska permanent fund.
[Tape malfunction. The following portion of the meeting was
not recorded. Minutes reflect transcription of shorthand
notes.]
Co-chairman Halford directed that SSSJR 14 be brought on for
discussion and explained that while the original resolution
applied to a number of public corporations, the sponsor
substitute deals only with the permanent fund board. He
noted the inherent irony in the fact that the legislature
confirms appointments to the board of barbers and
hairdressers but does not confirm appointment of those who
oversee management of the state's $15 billion savings
account.
Senator Donley voiced his belief that the broader reach of
the original resolution was worth consideration. He
expressed need for a legal opinion covering all corporations
that manage state assets. He also noted need for a
definition of "state asset" and recommended first defining
the term and then passing the resolution. He suggested that
a state assets consists of tangible property or a block of
money under a particular agency's control.
Senator Rieger advised he was comfortable with the original
version of the resolution but concurred in need for
statutory definition of "state asset."
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental
Relations Section, Dept. of Law, again came before
committee. He confirmed that the sponsor substitute narrows
the scope of the original resolution and stressed that some
public corporations have corporate rather than state assets.
The power of appointment is an executive branch function.
The resolution goes beyond the constitutional division of
powers between the branches.
Referencing legislation relating to a similar issue (SB 89
PERMANENT FUND BOARD MEMBERS & STAFF) Mr. Baldwin expressed
concern over "removal for cause" provisions.
[The tape recording problem was corrected at this point.
Minutes reflect transcription of the tape.]
Mr. Baldwin explained that under present SB 89 language, it
is unclear whether "removal for cause" would involve due
process and require a hearing and trial-like procedures. He
further questioned language indicating that:
The governor shall base the decision to appoint or
remove a board member solely on the financial best
interest of the fund.
He then asked what would occur if a board member committed
an offense involving moral turpitude but unrelated to
finances of the fund. Under present language it appears the
individual could not be removed, even though he or she might
be undesirable as well as charged with and convicted of a
criminal act. There are real problems associated with both
the "cause" requirement and implementation of the
requirement. The process is not simple.
Senator Rieger told members that the purpose of staggered
terms was to prevent the "wholesale sacking of the board of
trustees which has occurred in the last two
administrations." Co-chairman Halford added that staggered
terms are meaningless if members are removed without cause
during a change in administration. Mr. Baldwin reiterated
concern that present language might involve a lengthy due
process procedure. The bill is vague and ambiguous and
requires work in that area.
Co-chairman Halford explained that he simplified SSSJR 14
because of difficulties and questions raised by the
original. A super majority is needed to achieve consensus
for a constitutional amendment. He then queried members
regarding whether the resolution should address only the
permanent fund board or other major corporations that handle
"billions of dollars in state assets" and operate totally
outside the appointment and confirmation process. Co-
chairman Frank voiced support for the original. Senator
Donley reiterated need for a legal opinion defining what
constitutes a state asset versus a corporate asset. Co-
chairman Frank suggested that it would be difficult to infer
that a state-owned corporation does not consist of state-
owned assets. Senator Donley concurred but noted that there
may be instances where provisions within the articles of
incorporation insulate the state from lawsuits or liability
for actions of the public corporation.
Senator Zharoff inquired concerning the current definition
of "cause." Mr. Baldwin informed members that removal for
cause generally involves the offense of moral turpitude
unless removal for incompetence or inattention to duty is
expressly stated. Application differs from board to board.
The permanent fund statute states that the governor may
remove a trustee by merely stating his reasons in writing.
That is, in essence, an at-pleasure appointment.
In the course of further discussion of for-cause removal,
Mr. Baldwin referenced a past conflict between 39.05.080 (a
general right to remove at pleasure) and appointments to the
board of fisheries. The legislature subsequently removed
the ambiguity. Mr. Baldwin concurred that if the statute
for a particular board is silent, everyone serves at the
pleasure of the governor.
When again queried by the Co-chairman regarding whether the
resolution should be restricted to the permanent fund or
cover a number of public corporations, Senator Randy
Phillips voiced support for broad application. Both Senator
Zharoff and Senator Donley reiterated need for definition of
"state asset." Co-chairman Halford acknowledged that the
definition is inherent in expanded coverage of the
resolution. He then directed that SSSJR 14 be further
reviewed by himself, Senator Donley, and Senator Rieger.
SSSJR 14 was thus held in subcommittee.
SENATE BILL NO. 89
An Act relating to the members of the board and
staff of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.
In directing that a brief introduction to SB 89 be
presented, Co-chairman Halford noted need for consistency
between the bill and SSSJR 14. Senator Rieger advised of a
100% turn over in top management of the Alaska Permanent
Fund Corporation over the last two years. That includes the
executive director, chief investment officer, and all six
trustees. The purpose of SB 89 is to provide greater
continuity in management of the fund. Provisions make clear
that removal of a trustee must be for cause. Further
provisions reduce the number of cabinet-member appointees
from two to one and increase the number of public members
from four to six. Public members also have staggered terms.
The aggregate board would thus be seven rather than six
members.
SB 89 also clarifies that investment policies and staffing
decisions must be made solely in the best interest of the
fund. The over $18 billion fund is more than seven times
the amount of general funds used in annual operating and
capital budgets.
CSSB 89 (STA) clarifies that at least two of the public
members must have recognized competence and wide experience
in investment portfolio management. The committee
substitute further defines "cause" and clarifies what
removal for cause would entail.
Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that the
limitation on contracts applies to permanent fund employees
rather than management contracts. Senator Rieger concurred.
JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental
Relations Section, Dept. of Law, remained before committee.
He initially spoke to possible conflicts between contractual
hire terms and an executive director who might serve at the
pleasure of the board. He later advised that he had not yet
reviewed CSSB 89 (STA) and would reserve further comment
until he had done so. In his closing remarks, he reiterated
concern that imposition of removal for cause provisions
would be bad for the permanent fund board.
Senator Donley acknowledged a possible conflict between
employment contract provisions and service at the pleasure
of the board and suggested that the bill contain language
specifying that the contractual employee serve at the
pleasure of the board. Senator Rieger acknowledged that the
suggestion was reasonable and requested time to explore
proper language to ensure consistency with existing
statutes.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 89 be held in committee
for further discussion.
SENATE BILL NO. 162
An Act relating to land used for agricultural purposes
and to state land classified for agricultural purposes
or subject to the restriction of use for agricultural
purposes only; and annulling certain program
regulations of the Department of Natural Resources that
are inconsistent with the amendments made by this Act.
Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 162 be brought on for
hearing and directed attention to CSSB 162 (Res) and
Amendments 1 and 2, proposed by the sponsor. SENATOR LYDA
GREEN came before committee. She explained that the bill
responds to numerous requests for improvements from owners
of agricultural land to make ownership of farm land more
attractive. The legislation expands state ability to convey
interest in lands classified for agriculture purposes. The
state presently conveys agriculture interest only, and the
state retains all other interest. Passage of SB 162 would
authorize state conveyance of fee simple title, subject to
certain restrictive covenants that maintain use of the land
for agriculture. This change would allow owners of
agricultural parcels to obtain financing from institutions
other than the state.
Senator Sharp inquired concerning the size of parcels that
may be subdivided and sold. Senator Green described the
process by which a parcel may be divided "by fours" every
four years. Resulting parcels may not be less than 40
acres.
Senator Zharoff voiced concern that agricultural land might
be used for non-agricultural purposes and asked if the
proposed bill would allow for other use. Senator Green
stressed that the bill maintains covenants for use for
agricultural purposes only. Instead of agricultural
designation being a departmental decision, it would become a
judicial decision. The reversionary clause that allows the
commissioner to decide if land is being used according to
plan would no longer remain in place. The landholder would
pay the cost of survey, subdivision, and title. Senator
Green referenced Amendment No. 2 and noted that the change
from agricultural rights to fee simple title would be an
applicant-driven process. The department will not go
through its files and issue a new deed for every
agricultural parcel.
Discussion followed regarding whether a 40-acre subdivision
would be of productive size and whether subdivision might
eventually result in agricultural land being devoted to
other use. Senator Green noted that ability to subdivide
down to 40 acres is presently in statute. It is not a new
provision within CSSB 162 (Res). Co-chairman Halford
informed members that under existing law a landholder may
separate off a 40-acre parcel, but no improvements may be
made to the parcel. The proposed bill would allow for
improvements. Senator Green concurred and reiterated that
the change from agricultural rights to fee simple title
would allow for financing of improvements on the subdivided
property through entities other than the existing state
agricultural loan program. She explained that some
agricultural endeavors do not require large parcels of land.
In response to a question from Senator Donley, BRETT HUBER,
aide to Senator Green, advised that local property taxes are
presently set by boroughs and municipalities. The breakout
for agricultural purposes is based on utilization of the
land rather than the size of the parcel or improvements.
Under the proposed bill, utilization would not change. Co-
chairman Halford added that landholders pay property taxes
on "the portion of the value that is contained in the
agricultural rights." That is much less than the value of
the whole land eligible for unlimited subdivision or use.
Since the state initially sold only agricultural rights,
local governments could only tax those rights. If the
ability to subdivide increases the value, it will also
increase potential taxation of the property.
Discussion followed regarding impact of the legislation on
Delta and Point MacKenzie agricultural projects. Senator
Green advised that there would be no difference in
application in any region of the state aside from parcels
involved in mental health trust lands. She stressed that
the major impact of the bill would allow those with high
interest loans to refinance at a lower rate. There are no
private loans on agricultural rights at the present time.
Conversion to fee simple title would provide the collateral
needed to obtain financing from entities other than the
state.
Further discussion ensued concerning the Delta project and
the size of the parcels as well as the current status of
Point MacKenzie farms.
JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, Dept. of Natural
Resources, next came before committee. She voiced her
understanding that the bill would:
1. Allow individuals with agricultural rights to
exchange those rights for fee simple title to enhance
ability to secure financing in the private
sector.
End: SFC-96, #17, Side 2
Begin: SFC-96, #18, Side 1
2. Allow for subdivision down to 40-acre parcels and
improvements on subdivided parcels.
3. Allow landholders to secure a lower interest rate
on state repayment schedules if they apply for
refinancing.
Ms. Angvik voiced support for proposed amendments to make
the process applicant-driven. Individual landholders would
be responsible for appraisal, title search, and other
conversion costs.
Referencing the second portion of the legislation, Ms.
Angvik raised policy questions regarding ability to
subdivide. The question is:
If by the act of subdividing we have . . . created
a substantial increase in the value of the
property, should the state be compensated for that
increased value?
Provisions allow for subdivision into only four parcels,
once every four years.
Further comments by Ms. Angvik followed regarding testimony
before the Senate Resources Committee to the effect that
subdivision provisions were designed to allow individuals to
convey land to heirs. She said it was not the intention to
allow individuals to speculate and increase the value of
land obtained at a low price because purchase involved
agricultural rights only.
Ms. Angvik suggested that policy concerns could be mitigated
by either:
1. Appraising the land at subdivision and making the
difference in value due to the state.
2. Allowing subdivision every generation (30 years)
to
convey lands to heirs.
If the foregoing issues can be addressed, the administration
feels it is in the best interest of the public to provide
greater access to financing for farmers.
Discussion followed regarding criteria used to obtain
refinancing through the state. Ms. Angvik explained that
the division has no ability to screen individuals for
ability to pay. The division would merely apply statutory
interest rate provisions (not to exceed "nine point
something") to applications for refinancing. Further
discussion of the process ensued. Co-chairman Frank noted
that it is unusual for legislation to be worded to imply
discretion when discretion is not expected to be utilized.
Ms. Angvik voiced her understanding that the legislation
would provide impetus to utilize federal moneys for
agricultural endeavors. Federal rates are lower than those
of the state. The average rate of existing agricultural
loans is 11.8 percent.
Co-chairman Halford asked if landholders would have to be
current in their loan payments to refinance through the
state. Ms. Angvik responded affirmatively.
Discussion followed regarding an adjustable rather than
fixed interest rate for state agricultural loans. Ms.
Angvik voiced concern over additional paperwork associated
with application of adjustable rates. She further advised
of Commissioner Shively's goal that:
We basically get out of the banking business.
That we do everything that we can possibly do to
no longer be the financing source for the purchase
of state lands.
Ms. Angvik advised that in other legislation containing a
rewrite of Title 38, the department is suggesting that the
interest rate for sale of all lands be the current
prevailing rate plus a percentage. That would then become
the statutory methodology rather than a specific number.
Interest would then become fixed at the time of contract
negotiation rather than revised on an annual basis. It was
suggested that CSSB 162 (Res) mirror that approach, but the
sponsor chose another route.
In response to a question from Senator Sharp concerning the
traditional size of an agricultural parcel, Ms. Angvik noted
that of the existing 475 parcels, the majority are between
40 and 320 acres with the bulk at 160. Senator Randy
Phillips questioned the number of acres that are actually
farmed. One of the remaining dairy farmers has indicated
that "You can't farm and make it economically feasible on 40
acres." The Senator then suggested that the minimum
subdivision be 160 acres. Senator Green stressed that
several hundred existing parcels are already smaller. Ms.
Angvik advised of over 600,000 acres of agricultural land in
private hands. The department assumes that those holding
the lands operate within the covenants and use the land only
for agricultural purposes.
Co-chairman Frank suggested that rather than the legislature
dictating what size a farm should be, the market should make
that decision. He indicated that farmers may wish to use
different 40-acre parcels for different types of farming and
improvements and obtain separate financing for each parcel.
There may be valid reasons for subdivision, other than
conveyance. Ms. Angvik reiterated the policy question
associated with whether the state, as the owner of the
agricultural land, should be compensated for increased value
created by ability to subdivide. Co-chairman Frank
suggested that there might be valid public purpose in
encouraging development of farm land by providing greater
financing opportunities via subdivision.
In response to a question from Co-chairman Frank, Senator
Green explained that the purpose behind CSSB 162 (Res)
"never addressed that right to pass the land on to heirs in
subdivision." That was one of the issues raised as the bill
was discussed, but it was not a primary goal. The basic
purpose is to allow an agricultural landholder fee simple
title so the farmer may develop the land and make a living.
One cannot necessarily do that with a large parcel in
Alaska. There is great demand for smaller parcels. When
land is returned to the state, the state has the ability to
subdivide and sell 40-acre parcels. The proposed bill would
allow landholders to do the same.
Senator Donley voiced his understanding that, per
constitutional provisions, the state must be compensated for
conveyance of a state asset or resource. He then directed
attention to enforcement provisions at page 7, line 17, and
asked if civil action would be consistent with existing law.
Co-chairman Halford voiced his understanding that the
language relates to "the old reversionary clause."
Speaking to concern that agricultural land might be
subdivided by speculators and used for other purposes, Co-
chairman Frank suggested that no financial institution would
provide financing for such development under existing
agricultural covenants. He then voiced his believe that
provisions for subdivision contained in CSSB 162 (Res) would
not greatly change the market value of the land because of
lack of demand for farm land in Alaska. He further noted a
valid public purpose associated with making farming more
economically viable.
Co-chairman Halford directed that the bill be held on the
calendar for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|