Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/10/2000 09:02 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 10, 2000
9:02 AM
TAPES
SFC-00 # 23, Side A and Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair John Torgerson convened the meeting at
approximately 9:02 AM.
PRESENT Co-Chair John Torgerson, Co-Chair Sean Parnell,
Senator Al Adams, Senator Pete Kelly, Senator Loren Leman,
Senator Randy Phillips, Senator Gary Wilken, Senator Donley
and Senator Green.
Also Attending:
SENATOR TAYLOR
Attending via Teleconference: From Cooper Landing: ED
MARTIN; From Anchorage: BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of
Mining, Department of Natural Resources; LES GARA.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SJR 29-DURATION OF REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor. Amendments
were considered and four were adopted. The resolution was
reported out of Committee.
SB 6-DISPOSALS OF STATE LAND
The Committee heard testimony from the sponsor, the Division
of Mining, and members of the public. The bill was held in
Committee.
SB 123-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGANT: FEES
This bill was scheduled but not heard.
SB 229-REGULATORY COMM. OF ALASKA/ AOGCC
This bill was scheduled but not heard.
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.
29(JUD)
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to terms of legislators and to the
time of convening and length of regular sessions of the
legislature.
This was the first hearing for this resolution in the Senate
Finance Committee.
Co-Chair Parnell testified to this resolution that he
sponsored explaining it would place before the voters in the
2000 general election, a question as to whether or not to
shorten the legislative session from the current 120 days to
75 days. He spoke to the history of the sessions noting
that there was originally no limit on the length of sessions
and that deliberations would sometimes continue into the
summer. In 1984, he said, Alaskan voters amended the
constitution to impose the 120-day limit and the legislators
found that they could conclude the peoples' business in the
time allowed. Co-Chair Parnell predicted the legislature
could do better by accomplishing their business in an even
shorter period of time.
Co-Chair Parnell stated that a shorter session would help
the state lower the cost of government by saving
approximately $1.21 million. He also thought that a shorter
session would foster a citizen legislature, noting that
Alaskans have not asked for full-time legislators. Because
many members have jobs outside of the legislature, he
speculated that more individuals would be able to serve as
legislators. Finally, he thought a shorter session would
focus attention on those matters that are the most
important: budget matters, a small number of bills and
oversight of the executive branch.
Co-Chair Parnell noted a pending amendment that changes the
session length from seventy-five days to ninety days, saying
he would support the amendment.
Senator Phillips noted that he was serving in the House of
Representatives the year that session continued until June
28. He thought that the 120-day limit is a service to the
people of Alaska and to the legislature itself.
Senator Wilken supported the legislation but qualified that
he felt it needed some changes. He stated that this is a
"better government" bill that will save the state money and
encourage more people to serve on the legislature.
Senator Wilken spoke of the advantages of delaying the start
of session until February. He talked about how busy the
month of December is preparing for session along with the
usual holiday activities, plus arranging to be away from his
business for several months. As a result, he said, each area
of his life gets shorted because there isn't enough time.
This bill allows legislators the month of January to prepare
for the upcoming session, he stressed.
Senator Adams supported the legislation as long as the
ninety days of session are spent in Juneau. He expressed the
concerns of the Minority Caucus as to the start date. While
he would like session to begin in February, many of his
caucus members would like sessions to start as soon as
possible after the start of a new year. He thought the
shorter sessions would save the state money, but wanted to
know how to prevent those members of the legislature who
claimed excessive interim per diem.
Senator P. Kelly did not support the bill. Although he did
not want the session to go beyond 120 days, he thought
placing a time limit is a mistake. He spoke about the
intentions of the founding fathers of the country. "The
political power is invested in the people. Whether you are a
fan of the legislature or not, the power of the people lies
in the legislature. By limiting the length of the sessions,
you 'put a fence' around the power of the people and turn
more power over to the executive branch."
Senator P. Kelly used tort reform and juvenile crime as
examples of issues that required a length of time to
construct. He thought that a 90-day limit on the legislature
would have allowed the governor to "run out the clock" and
prevent these plans from being enacted into law.
Senator P. Kelly thought a 90-day interruption from
individual's lives was just as significant as a 120-day
session. He added that families with children would have
difficulty making arrangements for school that did not last
an entire semester. He also thought this would cause
difficulty for staff, many of whom work only during the
session. He predicted that it would be difficult to attract
competent people to work for the legislature.
Senator Leman agreed with many of the comments made by his
fellow Committee members. He told the Committee that he had
introduced similar legislation in an earlier legislature but
that resolution had received no hearings. He supported the
75-day session but understood that other members felt 90
days is more appropriate.
Senator Leman said he believed that the drafters of the
state constitution simply made a mistake when they did not
set a time limit for session.
Senator Leman stated that he would also like to change the
provision requiring a three-quarter vote before withdrawing
money from the Constitution Budget Reserve. He surmised that
the challenge of meeting this requirement is the main reason
sessions currently take as long as they do.
Senator Leman agreed with Senator P. Kelly's argument that
some tough issues take time, but felt that 90 days was
adequate.
Senator Leman approved of the delayed starting date but also
expressed a desire to have session completed by Mother's
Day.
Amendment #1: This amendment makes the following changes to
the bill.
Page 1, line 2, following "legislators":
Insert ", to the location of legislative
sessions,"
Page 1, line 12, following "convene":
Insert "in Anchorage"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new resolution section to read:
Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, is amended to read:
"Section 9. Special Sessions. Special
sessions may be called by the governor or by vote
of two-thirds of the legislators. The vote may be
conducted by the legislative council or as
prescribed by law. At special sessions called by
the governor, legislation shall be limited to
subjects designated in his proclamation calling
the session, to subjects presented by him, and the
reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after
adjournment of the last regular session. Special
sessions are held in Anchorage and are limited to
thirty days."
[Changed text underlined]
Senator Phillips moved for adoption and Co-Chair Parnell
objected. Senator Phillips stated that holding legislative
sessions in Anchorage would greater accomplish the same
goals expressed in this resolution: to save money and
increase the number of people who would want to run for
office. In addition, because a majority of the population
lives along the Railbelt, he surmised that the people would
have more say in their government, which was a concern
voiced by Senator P. Kelly. He noted that moving the
legislature would allow Senator Leman to be home for
Mother's Day. He also believed there would be a greater
number of people to choose from to fill staff positions.
Senator Donley supported the amendment but pointed out that
this section of the constitution also contains a provision
that allows the governor to set the agenda for special
sessions. He referred to instances where the legislature was
gathered for a special session called by the governor, but
was unable to address important matters other than what was
dictated by the governor in the proclamation calling for the
special session. He told the Committee that there has been
an on-going debate between the attorney general and the
legislature's legal representation as to whether the
legislature has the power to call itself into parallel
special sessions to address important issues. He thought
this is a serious weakness in the constitution. He agreed
with Senator P. Kelly's statement that there is a problem
with the current separation of powers in the state.
Senator Donley moved to amend Amendment #1 to delete the
sentence beginning on line 10 of the amendment.
At special sessions called by the governor, legislation
shall be limited to subjects designated in his
proclamation calling the session, to subjects presented
by him, and the reconsideration of bills vetoed by him
after adjournment of the last regular session.
Without objection, Amendment #1 was AMENDED.
Co-Chair Parnell strongly objected to the amended amendment
saying he felt that moving the location of legislative
sessions is a completely separate issue. He stated that it
should be addressed in a separate resolution with a separate
fiscal note and detailed analysis.
Senator Phillips again spoke to the advantages of moving the
legislature to Anchorage noting that 28 or 29 legislators
live within a 50-mile radius of Anchorage. He stressed that
there would be a different per diem situation and less
travel. He also stated that there would be better
accessibility and used the make-up of the audience as an
example of what he deemed was poor representation of "real
people." He believed that bureaucrats and lobbyists have too
much access to the legislature and citizens are too removed.
He felt this amendment is in alignment with the bill's
intent to save money.
Senator Donley noted another advantage of the amended
amendment is that it will help mitigate the problem with the
"pocket veto" after the sine die adjournment of the second
sessions. He compared allowing the governor the power of
this veto to that of a monarchy. This amendment would make
it easier to call special sessions to consider these veto
overrides, he stated.
Senator P. Kelly admonished that the 90-day session itself
makes the pocket veto more powerful. He explained that this
is because there would be less time to deal with vetoes
during the regular sessions. He stressed that the pocket
veto is another instance where the governor has more power
to unilaterally thwart the will of the legislature.
Co-Chair Parnell countered that the amendment does not
increase executive power with respect to the pocket veto
because the legislature still will have to call itself into
special session. He stressed that the problem exists now and
will not be exacerbated. The issue, he said, is not the
length of the session but rather if the legislature has the
courage or power to call itself back into session.
Senator P. Kelly responded that currently, the legislature
can deal with vetoes during the regular session. If the
regular session is shortened, he predicted that there would
be less ability to address governor vetoes because of the
fewer days to deal with a veto under the normal
circumstances.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Phillips, Senator
Donley, and Co-Chair Torgerson
OPPOSED: Senator Wilken, Senator Green, Senator Leman,
Senator Adams, and Co-Chair Parnell
The MOTION FAILED (4-5)
Amendment #2: This amendment changes the beginning date of
legislator's terms of office and the starting date of the
legislative session from the fourth Monday of February to
the first Monday of February.
Co-Chair Parnell MOVED for adoption.
Senator Adams did not object to the amendment, but again
noted the concerns of members of the Minority Caucus with
the start date and the resulting finish date of legislative
sessions.
Co-Chair Parnell spoke to the concerns saying that the
intent is to make it easier for individuals to serve in the
legislature. He talked about family moves and the need for
many to return home for seasonal jobs. He balanced the
proposed session dates with the timing of the Spring revenue
forecast. He elaborated upon Senator Wilken's comments about
the busy month of December.
Senator P. Kelly said he was unsure how to vote on this
amendment qualifying that he is unaffected by the starting
and finishing dates of the sessions. He stressed that the
purpose of the amendment is for the convenience of the
members only, rather than the needs of the people. He talked
about the makeup of the legislature when he first joined the
legislature in the 1980's. He had noticed a predominance of
young single men and retired people and has since been
pleased to see the gaps filled with the addition of people
with families.
Senator Green asked when the swearing-in of newly elected
legislators would occur. She talked about the increased
length of time between the election date and the date the
term begins.
Co-Chair Parnell responded that this legislation does not
change the term of office, which is currently set in
statutes at AS.24.05.080. He read the statutes, "the terms
of each member of the legislature begins on the second
Monday of January following a presidential election year."
However, he continued, "following a gubernatorial election
year, the term of each member begins on the third Tuesday in
January."
Senator Green asked about the tradition of swearing-in new
members on the first day of session and if there would be a
ceremony four weeks prior to the start of session.
Senator Donley asked what the purpose of Section 1 of the
resolution was since it has no impact and is controlled by
law. The section amends Article II, Section 3 of the
constitution.
Co-Chair Parnell read a portion of Article II, ".unless
otherwise provided by law." Unless the statute is changed,
he explained the terms would not be changed.
Senator Donley wanted to know why was the section of the
bill necessary. It was determined that the bill drafters
deemed the section necessary. Senator Donley still
questioned the need.
Co-Chair Parnell pointed out that the "guts" of the bill
begins with Section 2. While he did not object to removing
Section 1, he did not know how to treat this matter within
the amendment on the table.
There was no objection to the motion before the Committee
and the amendment was ADOPTED.
Amendment #3: This amendment changes the length of session
in the resolution from 75 days to 90 days.
Co-Chair Parnell moved for adoption and explained.
Senator Leman objected to make the comment that he thought a
75-day session was the best option. However, he felt 90 days
was still an improvement over the current 120 days.
Senator P. Kelly stated he thought the number of days is
meaningless and that the resolution still places a fence
around the people.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Phillips, Senator
Donley, Senator Adams, Senator Green, Senator Wilken, Co-
Chair Torgerson and Co-Chair Parnell
OPPOSED: Senator Leman
The MOTION PASSED (8-1)
Amendment #1 [revisited]: Senator Donley commented that he
felt the amendment contains two different issues. One is the
proposal to move the legislative session to Anchorage and
the other concerns holding special sessions in Anchorage. He
wanted to divide the question to consider each matter
separately.
Senator Donley made a motion to rescind action taken on
Amendment #1. Senator Adams objected to ask if the intent
was to address the special session provision and not the
location. Senator Donley assured him that this was correct.
Senator Adams removed his objection.
AT EASE 9:46 AM / 9:51 AM
Senator Donley WITHDREW his motion to rescind action taken
on Amendment #1
Amendment #4: This amendment deletes the following sentence
from Article II, Section 9 of the state constitution.
"At special sessions called by the governor,
legislation shall be limited to subjects designated in
his proclamation calling the session, to subjects
presented by him, and the reconsideration of bills
vetoed by him after adjournment of the last regular
session."
The language was not part of the original legislation, but
was contained in Amendment #1. Senator Donley moved for
adoption of this conceptual amendment.
Tape: SFC - 00 #23, Side B 9:54 AM
Senator Donley explained that this amendment would have no
affect on where special sessions are held or the location of
regular legislative sessions. He explained that it instead
removes the current prohibition on the legislature to work
on other subjects during a special session called by the
governor.
Co-Chair Parnell objected, stressing that the legislature
already has the ability to call itself into special session
and designate the subjects to be addressed. He did not want
to give the legislators or the governor the ability to
"rehash" matters already addressed in a regular session. He
stated that this amendment goes beyond the scope of the
resolution.
Co-Chair Torgerson wanted to know if this would allow any
bills pending between a first and second session to be
brought up during a special session by a member. He also
asked if a member could introduce any legislation on any
topic during a special session.
Senator Donley responded the allowable subject matters would
be subject to the Uniform Rules of the legislature. He noted
that these rules are adopted by two-thirds of both
legislative bodies.
Senator Donley spoke of the difficulty for the legislature
to call itself into a special session saying it only takes a
couple members to block the will of the body. For this
reason, he stated there have been only a few such sessions.
Senator Donley then commented that the governor could
"blackmail" the legislature into working on only what the
governor chooses. Senator Donley noted there is no provision
in the constitution stating whether or not the legislature
can call itself into a parallel special session to one that
is called by the governor. He said this opens legal
questions, which would go away with the deletion of the
sentence restricting topics in a special session called by
the governor.
Co-Chair Parnell stressed this would appear to render mute,
any session limit because any topic could be brought up. He
did not want to see this, he stated.
Co-Chair Torgerson concurred.
Senator P. Kelly warned that legislators should get ready
for multiple special sessions. He said that other states
with abbreviated sessions have many special sessions despite
having standing committees.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked if Senator Donley's question was
whether or not the legislature can call itself into special
session to address certain topics during a special session
called by the governor.
Senator Donley affirmed and made the following statement.
"The unelected governor's attorney general has opined that
we can't do it. Clearly, the executive branch has exerted
its authority to try to claim that we can't do that."
Senator Wilken appreciated what the sponsor was trying to
do, but was uncomfortable taking on this issue in this
manner. He felt it was worthy of discussion but should be
addressed separately.
Senator Donley likened this amendment to concerns raised by
Senator P. Kelly. Senator Donley felt there were a lot of
problems with the separation of powers situation. He also
supported shorter sessions and claimed that this amendment
would be the first link. He thought this amendment would
soften the impact of the 90-day sessions. He did not think
the resolution could pass unless considered as a package.
Co-Chair Torgerson suggested adding "legislature" to the
language to allow the legislature to specify topics for
consideration during special sessions called by the
governor.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Senator Phillips,
Senator Donley and Senator Leman
OPPOSED: Senator Adams, Senator Wilken, Co-Chair Parnell and
Co-Chair Torgerson
The MOTION PASSED (5-4)
Amendment #5: This amendment makes the following changes to
the resolution, and subsequently moves legislative sessions
to Anchorage.
Page 1, line 2, following "legislators":
Insert ", to the location of legislative
sessions,"
Page 1, line 12, following "convene":
Insert "in Anchorage"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new resolution section to read:
Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, is amended to read:
"Section 9. Special Sessions. Special
sessions may be called by the governor or by vote
of two-thirds of the legislators. The vote may be
conducted by the legislative council or as
prescribed by law. At special sessions called by
the governor, legislation shall be limited to
subjects designated in his proclamation calling
the session, to subjects presented by him, and the
reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after
adjournment of the last regular session. Special
sessions are held in Anchorage and are limited to
thirty days."
This amendment consists of portions of the language
contained in Amendment #1, some of which does not appear in
the original resolution.
Senator Donley moved for adoption. Co-Chair Parnell
objected. He quoted AS 24.05.100 (b), "a special session may
be held at any location in the state." He stressed that
limiting a special session to one location is outside the
scope of the original resolution, which is to limit the
number of days the legislature is in session. He also noted
that the legislature has statutory flexibility to allow for
the potential need to call a session in another area of the
state in the case of an emergency. He did not want to place
a location limitation in the constitution.
Senator P. Kelly suggested a provision stating that the
governor can not dictate where a special session is held. He
noted that the governor does not pay the costs of a special
session and therefore has no stake in where the session is
held.
The suggestion was acceptable to Senator Donley, who stated
that this is a cost-saving measure. He thought that allowing
the legislative body the ability to choose where it meets
reflects appropriate separation of powers. He supported
maintaining the flexibility of allowing the location to
change when necessary.
Senator Donley suggested asking the Division of Legal
Services to assist in drafting an amendment and WITHDREW his
motion to adopt Amendment #5.
Senator Phillips continued arguing in favor of moving the
legislative sessions to Anchorage. While he would vote to
move SJR 29 from Committee, he warned he would again offer
an amendment to relocate the legislature when the resolution
is before the whole Senate.
Co-Chair Torgerson noted a draft fiscal note from the
Legislative Affairs Agency that was tailored to the 90-day
session. If the resolution moves from Committee, this draft
will become the fiscal note.
Senator P. Kelly stated that although he strongly opposes
the resolution, he would vote to move it from Committee.
Senator Donley wanted the resolution to stay in Committee
long enough for him to draft an amendment to reflect Senator
P. Kelly's suggestion and present it to the members.
Co-Chair Parnell commented on the resolution, avowing that
the "fence" argument is a fa ade. He talked about the work
done during the interim and the ability of legislators to
serve their constituents and give oversight to state
agencies. One suggestion would be to have a year-round
session with full-time legislators. However, he noted that
voters in 1982 stated they wanted a part-time legislature
and he agreed.
Co-Chair Parnell pointed out that if an issue came up during
the interim affecting a member's constituent, the co-chairs
could call a meeting of the Committee to address that issue.
Therefore, he did not agree that an unlimited session would
allow for better monitoring of the Administration.
Co-Chair Parnell stressed that the "fence" is to not allow
voters to vote on the length of session. He stated, "If our
government is indeed founded as our constitution says, 'all
government originates with the people and is founded upon
their will only' what better way to express their will than
to be able to vote and tell us whether we should meet and
get our job done in 90 days."
Co-Chair Parnell stated that he does not quit being a
senator when he returns home, although he has a business to
attend to. He noted that all legislators have year-round
staff.
Co-Chair Parnell commented on the budget process and the
efforts made during the last month of session. He told the
Committee about the State of Louisiana's attempt to limit
their legislative sessions to 30 days. The legislature in
that state learned that the 30-day session turned over too
much power to the governor, according to Co-Chair Parnell.
He stated that SJR 29 is a balance. He noted that 32 state
legislatures meet for a shorter length of time than Alaska
and if this measure passes, 25 states will still have
shorter sessions.
Co-Chair Parnell felt this resolution was a reasonable
measure based on the members' experience that they could get
the required job done sooner.
AT EASE 10:13 AM / 10:16 AM
Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the resolution HELD in Committee
to give Senator Donley an opportunity to draft an amendment.
SENATE BILL NO. 6
"An Act relating to the disposal of state land."
This was the third hearing for this bill before the Senate
Finance Committee and the first held during the second
session. A committee substitute, 1-LS007\H, was adopted as a
Workdraft at the last meeting. Co-Chair Torgerson explained
that this is an act creating a state land commission;
reasonable land disposal advisory boards and provides for
the disposal of 250,000 acres of state land annually.
SENATOR TAYLOR, the bill's sponsor, testified this is a
major decision and "a true policy call" to address the issue
of land availability and to allow the people of Alaska to
purchase and acquire a small portion of the 103 million
acres received at statehood.
Senator Taylor addressed what he called "housekeeping
measures" contained in the bill. He noted there is
approximately 50,000 acres of land that has been surveyed,
platted, subdivided, appraised and even advertised for sale
by the Department of Natural Resources, but not distributed.
Some of the lots had been sold but were turned back to the
state and some of the lots were never purchased, according
to Senator Taylor. He stated that this legislation is to
encourage the department to expedite the sale of that land.
Senator Taylor spoke of his and others' efforts to find and
convey lands to Alaskans. He noted that the state
constitution requires that land can only be sold near the
market value. He said this legislation attempts to meet that
provision since many of the appraisals are outdated.
Senator Taylor offered his comments in generalized terms
saying there are general concepts that need to be discussed
and then implemented. He qualified that the committee
substitute is simply a working document. He spoke about the
policy calls the legislature still must make, such as who
would select the lands for distribution and how lands will
be distributed. Currently, he told the Committee, interested
purchasers stake the sites themselves. He said the question
is whether to keep this system or require that the state
complete surveying and appraisals before land can be
advertised for sale.
Another policy call Senator Taylor pointed out, is whether
to institute a mechanism for the classification of the
available lands. Will there be public input of a regional or
local level and will the people of that area have an
opportunity to address their concerns regarding what lands
should or should not be sold, he posed.
Senator Taylor stated that as a result of many of these
questions, the current committee substitute establishes a
State Land Commission to address land disposal decisions at
the local levels. He said that part of the commission is to
set up a local body to provide public input.
Senator Taylor continued by saying that the land commission
would designate those areas where land disposal would occur,
how much land would be disposed and in what size lots. He
said this is called the "land disposal bank" that appears on
page three of the committee substitute.
Senator Taylor noted that the "minimum of 250,000 acres each
year" language in the same sentence is just a "ballpark"
figure and would be subject to the different circumstances
of each area. He agreed, 250,000 acres seemed like a lot of
land, but countered that this was not very much considering
the state has 103 million acres.
Senator Taylor interjected saying that he believed the
state's economy would be enhanced by this additional land
disposal.
Senator Taylor continued explaining the committee substitute
referring to a provision that requires the Commissioner of
the Department of Natural Resources to notify the
legislature and the governor at the beginning of each
session of what land is suitable for disposal. He noted this
requirement is in existing statute and will not be changed
by this version of the bill.
Senator Taylor then addressed Section 9 on page six of the
committee substitute that stipulates that the request of the
commission must include an analysis and an assessment of the
market demand for the land proposed for disposal. Existing
statutes provide that the commissioner "shall" include the
analysis and assessment. Senator Taylor hoped this would
prevent problems between competing buyers.
Senator Taylor raised the issue of funding, noting a one-
time appropriation would probably be required, but that each
subsequent year, the program would pay for itself off of
land sales. He projected that land sales would far exceed
any expenses of running the program. He suggested it could
be a significant revenue "enhancer" for the state.
Senator Taylor shared the existing land disposal finance
system where a buyer makes a down payment of ten-percent of
the purchase price and makes additional payments of ten
percent each year for ten years. He added that the buyer
also pays interest on the outstanding balance. He compared
this revenue-generating program to having the land remain
vacant, thus earning no revenue for the state.
Senator Taylor estimated approximately ten-percent of the
sales volume would be needed to keep the program running at
a consistent level. He said the actual amount of funding
needed would depend on the amount of work required of the
state. If some of the surveying, appraisal and other presale
steps were done at the expense of the private sector and/or
the buyer, the cost to the state would be lower, according
to Senator Taylor.
Senator Taylor noted that either the legislature or the
Department of Natural Resources have already designated much
of the prime land in the state. He assured that it is not
the intent of this legislation to take on additional
controversy over the classifications already given by the
state. He stated that the lands this program applies to is
unclassified, undesignated lands estimating there is between
three and five million acres of unclassified, undesignated
lands in the State of Alaska.
Senator Taylor next told the Committee the committee
substitute includes procedures for a bidding process in the
case of two parties interested in the same land. Options
were provided for sealed bids and auctions, he stated.
Co-Chair Torgerson stressed that the committee substitute
will not be the final version that reports from Committee,
noting that more work still needs to be done on the bill. He
shared that his intent was to change the bill to an
appropriation bill to cover the up front costs of the first
sales. After that, he said, revenues from future sales would
be deposited into a land disposal fund to be appropriated by
the legislature for the continued sale of land.
Co-Chair Torgerson did not anticipate that two and one-half
million acres would actually be disbursed in ten years but
wanted to set a reasonable number of acres for annual
disbursement and keep to that number each year until all
suitable land is disbursed.
Co-Chair Torgerson told the Committee of three barriers to
implementing the program: 1) the Best Interest Finding, 2)
plotting requirements of local governments, and 3)
appraisals. He explained the local plotting procedure, which
required the registered owner of the land to appear before
the local planning commission to get authority to subdivide
and/or offer the land for sale.
Co-Chair Torgerson directed the members' attention to an e-
mail he received from a constituent suggesting that Alaskans
be given the option of applying future permanent fund
dividends toward the purchase of state land. He thought the
matter should be considered, although he was unsure if it
could be incorporated into this bill.
Senator P. Kelly noted land disposal bank language on page
three, "a minimum of 250,000 acres each year shall be
disposed of by the state." He asked if the bill has a
provision in case there is no interest in all 250,000 acres.
Senator Taylor reminded the Committee that this number was
selected as a starting point for discussion. He had no idea
what the demand would be and would not know until the
program began. He spoke about an option of requiring the
land to be at least put into the land bank if not sold. He
stated that this provision ensures that the specified amount
of land is offered for sale.
Senator P. Kelly then asked about the residency requirement
for bidders and whether it is constitutional. Senator Taylor
did not think it would be an issue based on the permanent
fund dividend program and other programs' residency
requirements. He said these requirements are legal provided
they are objective, fair and reasonable.
Senator P. Kelly spoke of a situation with a landowner near
Fairbanks who operates a tourism business on her property.
According to Senator P. Kelly, this landowner garners
support from people outside the state to oppose any
development on nearby land. While he supported the bill, he
was concerned about nonresidents buying large chunks of land
for conservation purposes and gave an example of Ted Turner
and Jane Fonda. Senator Taylor shared this concern and noted
a restriction already in statute and said that restrictions
must be included in this bill as well.
Senator Leman suggested removing "250,000 acres of" from the
title, as he didn't think it is necessary.
Senator Leman was uncertain about the language limiting the
commission to meeting once a year. He suggested meetings
could be held via teleconference if the need arose. Senator
Taylor agreed that the number of meetings should be flexible
as long as the commission meets at least annually.
Senator Leman also questioned the interest rate provisions.
He thought 10.5 percent was too high and might restrict
people from being able to purchase land. He wanted to make
the process fair to both buyers and to the state. Senator
Taylor agreed the rate should "float with the market" but
noted existing statutes, which he didn't clarify. He said he
would leave these details up to the Committee to resolve.
Senator Green spoke of an earlier suggestion to replace
"disposal" with "offered" in the language pertaining to the
amount of acres to be disposed of. However, she didn't know
if this would accomplish the sponsor's and her goals for the
program. She spoke of a commissioner who has publicly stated
that the role of the Department of Natural Resources is not
to dispose of land to private individuals. Senator Green did
not know how strongly the language needed to be to ensure
compliance.
ED MARTIN, testified via teleconference from Cooper Landing
about his e-mail message to the chair that suggested
allowing permanent fund dividend recipients apply future
dividends to the purchase of state land. He agreed with
Senator Green's suggestion of replacing "offer" with
"dispose", saying it would ensure competition.
Tape: SFC - 00 #24, Side A 10:44 AM
Mr. Martin spoke at length of his support for the bill. He
concluded by saying he hoped it would be signed into law.
LES GARA testified via teleconference from Anchorage about
his involvement in fishing. He had concerns about the
inability to freely travel up and down the banks of streams
and lakeshores on private property. He requested a setback
of 100 feet from streambeds. He predicted that if there is
not a demand for 250,000 acres, the land would be sold for
too low of a price. He also had concerns about damage done
by development along the rivers.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources testified via teleconference
from Anchorage that the state is not selling land in a
manner he believed most Alaskans wish. He did not think the
current version before the Committee addresses that problem,
noting that money is needed in order to sell land. Given the
state's budget gap, he recognized that the process needs to
be done cheaper, but stressed that money is still needed. He
looked forward to working with the Committee to develop a
land disposal program.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked for an estimate of the amount of
land available for sale. Mr. Loeffer replied the state has
approximately three million acres classified for settlement
or agriculture and approximately 2.2 million acres within
area plans, some of which is high value land along roads or
in coastal areas of Southeast, but that about three-quarters
or 1.6 acres is suitable for remote disposal. Of the 1.6
million acres, he noted that about one-quarter cannot be
offered for new remote disposals because it has either
already been subdivided or already offered.
Mr. Loeffler stressed that in a remote disposal, or "stake-
it-yourself", the gross acres offered is between four and
ten times the amount of land actually sold.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked how many acres are involved in the
upcoming disposal. Mr. Loeffer qualified that the amount of
land the department is able to offer is directly tied to the
amount of funding granted by the legislature. He stated that
in FY 01, the department plans to use funding from the last
two years to offer 130 parcels of previously offered land,
100 parcels in a remote, "stake-it-yourself" program and 105
parcels of new subdivisions.
Co-Chair Torgerson asked how many acres. Mr. Loeffer
answered approximately 2000 acres. Co-Chair Torgerson
thought that this was not enough and promised to assist in
making more land sales possible.
Co-Chair Torgerson ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.
29(JUD)
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to terms of legislators and to the
time of convening and length of regular sessions of the
legislature.
This resolution was heard earlier in the meeting and was
brought back before the Committee for consideration of
amendments submitted by Senator Donley.
Amendment #6: This amendment inserts a new section on page
2, following line 6 of the resolution to read as follows.
"Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the State
of Alaska, is amended to read:
Section 9. Special Sessions. Special sessions may
be called by the governor or by vote of two-thirds of
the legislators. The voted may be conducted by the
legislative council or as prescribed by law. Special
sessions are limited to thirty days. The location of
special sessions is determined by the legislature as
prescribed by law."
Senator Donley noted that he had drafted this amendment at
the same time the Division of Legal Services was drafting an
amendment that accomplished the same objective. He deferred
to Amendment #7 and therefore Amendment #6 was NOT OFFERED.
AT EASE 10:56 AM / 10:57 AM
Amendment #7: This amendment makes the following changes to
the resolution.
Page 1, line 2, following "legislators,":
Insert ", to the location of special legislative
sessions,"
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new section to read:
"*Sec. 3. Article II, sec. 9, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, is amended to read:
Section 9. Special Sessions. Special sessions
may be called by the governor or by vote of two-
thirds of the legislators. The vote may be
conducted by the legislative council or as
prescribed by law. At special sessions called by
the governor, legislation shall be limited to
subjects designated in his proclamation calling
the session, to subjects presented by him, and the
reconsideration of bills vetoed by him after
adjournment of the last regular session. Special
sessions are held at a location determined by the
legislature and are limited to thirty days."
Senator Donley moved for adoption and Senator Wilken
objected.
Senator Donley spoke to his motion saying the amendment
gives the legislature the power to determine where special
sessions are held.
Co-Chair Parnell noted that the legislature currently has
the ability under law to choose the location for special
sessions called by the legislature and the governor has the
ability to choose the location for special sessions the
governor calls. He asked why the amendment was necessary.
Senator Donley replied that the governor can use the
location of the special session to "blackmail the
legislators" by forcing the legislature to spend a lot of
the public's money unnecessarily. He thought this amendment
is a cost saving measure and that the legislative body
should be able to determine where it meets.
Senator Wilken spoke against the amendment because he wanted
special sessions to be "inconvenient, cumbersome, infrequent
and yes, even expensive." He wanted business to be handled
during the 90 days or 120 days allotted for regular
sessions.
Senator Wilken suggested if the matter is to be discussed,
it should be taken up as a separate resolution. He stated
his opposition to holding legislative sessions in Anchorage
questioning the amount of work that would be accomplished.
Senator Phillips exclaimed, "We're not getting anything done
now!"
Senator P. Kelly stressed the legislature is not in Juneau
doing nothing. He exclaimed, "I'm sorry for the rest of you
if you feel you are not doing anything but I am." He
challenged that the only way to pass resolutions like this
one is to say to the public, "We don't do anything when we
come down here. We're bad. And because we're bad we should
only be bad for 90 days or 75 days or 20 days, whatever it
is."
Senator P. Kelly suggested that some legislators get off the
track because they forget why they're here. He stressed, "We
are here to do the people's business. We are the people."
Senator P. Kelly stated that when the governor calls special
session it is often politically motivated. Senator P. Kelly
said that the governor sets the location in Juneau so that
when the legislature refuses to accomplish the governor's
objectives, he can say, "the legislature came down here,
spent all this money and they didn't accomplish anything."
Senator P. Kelly surmised that this is one of the ways in
which the governor is so powerful in this state.
Senator P. Kelly warned that if this amendment is not
adopted, the legislature is going to limit its power in
special sessions. He predicted that there would be more
special sessions and stressed that the Committee should at
least try to make them less expensive. He agreed with
Senator Wilken that it should be difficult for the
legislature to call itself into special session but noted
that the legislature should have control over the location
of special sessions called by the governor.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator P. Kelly, Senator Green, Senator Phillips,
Senator Donley, Senator Leman and Co-Chair Torgerson
OPPOSED: Senator Adams, Senator Wilken and Co-Chair Parnell
The MOTION PASSED (6-3)
Co-Chair Parnell offered a motion to move SJR 29, 1-
LS1162/D, as amended from Committee with a new fiscal note
from the Legislative Affairs Agency. There was no objection
and the resolution was REPORTED OUT of Committee.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 11:05 AM.
SFC-00 (21) 2/10/00
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|