Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/25/2015 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB33 | |
| SB49 | |
| SB32 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2015
9:04 a.m.
9:04:49 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Anna Kim, Tax Division, Department of Revenue; Genevieve
Wojtusik, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire; Nicole Nelson,
Director, Alaska Legal Services; Marie Darlin, Coordinator,
American Association of Retired Persons, Juneau; Chris
Maisch, Director, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources; Ron Arvin, Member, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Assembly.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brandon S. Spanos, Deputy Director, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue; Linda Towarak, Native Village of
Unalakleet, Unalakleet; Monina Willis, Alaska Legal
Services, Anchorage; Melba Biggs, Self, Anchorage; Erin
McLarnon, Executive Director, Working Forest Group,
Anchorage; James Mackovjak, Self, Gustavus; Steve Gibson,
Self, Homer.
SUMMARY
SB 33 FEES FOR TIRES
SB 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 49 CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES FUND
SB 49 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SB 32 TIMBER SALES
SB 32 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the agenda.
SENATE BILL NO. 33
"An Act relating to remittance of tire fees; and
providing for an effective date."
9:05:36 AM
ANNA KIM, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, discussed SB
33. She explained that the bill changed the due date of the
tire fee return and payment from 30 days (following the
calendar quarter) to the last day of the calendar quarter
in which the tires were sold or studs were installed. The
rationale for the bill was to mitigate taxpayer confusion
that was a result of quarterly tax due-dates that fell
prior to the last day of the month, and had resulted in
late fees and penalties.
Ms. Kim went over the legislation, explaining that Section
1 changed the due date of the tire fees. Currently for the
months of July, October and January the fees were due on
the 30th of the month; the bill would set the due date on
the last day of each month. She explained that Section 2
aligned the payment dates used to determine the timely pay
credit (compensation to taxpayers for timely collection and
remittance) with the new dates in Section 1. She specified
that the timely pay credit was equal to 5 percent of
collected taxes, not to exceed $900 per quarter. Section 3
applied to the due date, which would be changed to the
first calendar quarter after the effective date of the act.
Section 4 indicated that the act would take effect
immediately.
9:08:10 AM
Ms. Kim stated that the attached fiscal note was zero, and
furthered that there were no new positions proposed. She
clarified that there would be an approximate $5,000
reduction from a change in revenue due to an estimated
$2,500 increase in the timely pay credit and an estimated
$2,500 less in penalties collected.
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that he had a constituent that
commented on the bill, and asked Ms. Kim to verify if there
was an increase in the per-tire fee associated with the
legislation. Ms. Kim responded in the negative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the bill addressed a quarterly
fee. Ms. Kim answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that the state was collecting
about $1.3 million in tire fees, and that the penalties and
interest had gone down over time. Ms. Kim agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the administration still
believed there was a reason some taxpayers were not aware
of the current fee timetable. Ms. Kim discussed education
and outreach with taxpayers that resulted in a reduction in
penalties and interest over time. She thought the
legislation was a simple administrative change to bring
more efficiency to the system.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that in 2012 the penalties in
interest for the tire fee was $20,026, in 2013 it was
$18,435, in 2014 it was $3,477; and reflected a significant
drop in penalties to taxpayers. She commended the
administration for its work.
9:10:42 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for clarification as to what would
happen if the last day of the month fell on a Saturday or
Sunday.
BRANDON S. SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via teleconference), cited Title
43.05, which allowed for the payment due date to be
extended to the next business day if it fell on a weekend
or holiday. He added that the significantly lower penalty
and interest fees from 2014 had been due to the department
tax auditors being completely engaged in developing a new
revenue management system and having no time to complete
audits.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the bill was necessary. Mr.
Spanos explained that there was still an occasional
taxpayer that expressed confusion with the current due
dates. He expressed the need for alignment with other
quarterly tax filings.
9:12:48 AM
Senator Hoffman asked about the justification for the tire
fee, and wondered if other states employed the same fees.
Mr. Spanos was not aware of the fees other states employed.
He explained that the tire fee (for studded tires
specifically) was created to assist in revenue for the
deterioration of roads. He added that the fee for studded
tires was twice that of regular tires.
Senator Hoffman asked if there was a differentiation
between the fees of studded and regular tires. Mr. Spanos
explained that the $2.50 new tire fee applied to all new
tires sold, with an additional $5 fee for studded tires.
Senator Hoffman commented that the most significant damage
to roads in Alaska was due to studded tires, and the
expense ran into the tens and possibly hundreds of millions
of dollars. He wondered how tire fees in Alaska compared to
other states. Mr. Spanos agreed to get back to the
committee with the information.
Ms. Kim interjected that the classification of studded
tires in the current statute was defined by "heavy studs"
that weighed 1.1 grams or more. She concurred that the
department would provide information about how Alaska
compared to other states.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked what year Alaska started
collecting tire fees. Ms. Kim thought that the original
bill to collect the fees was passed in 2003.
9:16:07 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
SB 33 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act allowing appropriations to the civil legal
services fund from court filing fees."
9:17:21 AM
GENEVIEVE WOJTUSIK, STAFF, SENATOR LESIL MCGUIRE, discussed
the intent of the legislation. She explained that the bill
was designed to help fund civil legal services for low-
income Alaskans, and provide a mechanism for funding the
Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC) by allowing the
legislature to appropriate up to 25 percent of filing fees
paid to the Alaska Court System during the previous fiscal
year. She recounted that the corporation was a non-profit
charitable 501(c)(3) established in 1966 to address civil
legal aid need of low-income Alaskans; and was funded from
a variety of state, federal, and private sources. She
specified that the bill had a zero fiscal note from the
court system.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to an analysis on the fiscal
note, and remarked that currently the court system
collected a little over $2 million, with an annual
appropriation to the legal services fund of up to $550,000.
Ms. Wojtusik reported that the court system had collected
$2.252 million the previous year, with up to a quarter of
that amount ($563,225) allowed to be appropriated to the
fund.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the legislature already had the
ability to appropriate the funds. Ms. Wojtusik responded
that legislature currently gave money through the operating
budget, but did not actually designate funds every year,
which the bill would allow for.
9:19:36 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche clarified that SB 49 did not require an
appropriation, but rather allowed the legislature to
appropriate up to 25 percent of the filing fees. Ms.
Wojtusik concurred.
Vice-Chair Micciche suggested that when the state was not
in a compromised budget environment that it currently was,
it could appropriate funds to the legal services fund.
Vice-Chair Micciche expressed concern that the funds were
used to fund abortions.
NICOLE NELSON, DIRECTOR, ALASKA LEGAL SERVICES, stated that
federal law prohibited any funds coming through the
organization to be used to fund abortion-related litigation
or other controversial areas such as clients who were
undocumented or incarcerated.
9:21:49 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked for a description of the services
provided by ALSC. Ms. Nelson related that ALSC was a non-
profit law firm that provided free legal aid to low-income
Alaskans statewide. She added that the firm had been
operating for 45 years through 11 offices located in urban
and rural communities; striving to serve clients with
critical unmet civil legal needs. Ms. Nelson described
typical scenarios under which individuals might access ALSC
services: domestic abuse/child custody issues; child
guardianship rights for grandparents; and veteran's
benefits disputes. She furthered that in criminal cases
individuals were guaranteed a court-appointed attorney;
whereas in the civil realm there was no such guarantee. She
specified that ALSC served about 2,500 people each year,
which ended up directly impacted about 6,000 families.
Senator Dunleavy asked how the bill would benefit ALSC. Ms.
Nelson explained that currently the organization was forced
to turn away half of the individuals seeking legal help.
The legislation would help with the unmet legal needs of
those who were turned away due to lack of resources. She
discussed the cost efficiency of the organization and
commented that 80 percent of cases were resolved without
having to go to court, with the average case costing $600.
She pointed out that the attorneys were paid well below
market rate, and first year attorney was paid about $42,000
a year. She mentioned leveraging funds through donated
office space and volunteers.
9:25:32 AM
Senator Bishop asked how many attorneys were on staff. Ms.
Nelson stated that there were approximately 25 attorneys
statewide, as well as a large network of pro bono attorneys
who volunteered their time.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was a reason not to
change the requirement to require volunteer service as part
of licensing renewal for attorneys. Ms. Nelson was
uncertain if she knew how to answer the question, and
advised that the Alaska Bar Association was in charge of
licensing requirement. She added that attorneys were asked
by the association to volunteer 50 hours per year, and
there were many attorneys who were very generous with their
time.
9:26:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Senator Olson asked if ALSC only dealt with civil
litigation rather than criminal cases. Ms. Nelson answered
in the affirmative.
Senator Olson asked if ALSC dealt with mediation and
arbitration. Ms. Nelson reported that ALSC would help with
mediation and arbitration if it was appropriate.
9:27:06 AM
MARIE DARLIN, COORDINATOR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED
PERSONS (AARP), JUNEAU, spoke in support of the
legislation. She thought the legislation provided a more
stable funding mechanism for ALSC, which was an important
part of the services needed by seniors who would not
otherwise have access to legal support. She stated that
without such access, low-income seniors were vulnerable to
many things that could affect their lives, and were subject
to all kinds of unfair or exploitative practices. She
referred to an increasing senior population, and stated
that AARP fully supported the bill.
9:29:26 AM
LINDA TOWARAK, NATIVE VILLAGE OF UNALAKLEET, UNALAKLEET
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She
discussed use of ALSC services by Unalakleet seniors;
recounting that 11 community elders had received assistance
with wills. She specified that 6 of the 11 individuals who
received assistance were military veterans, and 4 were
widows of veterans. She expressed appreciation for the work
of ALSC.
9:31:34 AM
MONINA WILLIS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the legislation. She related past experience
utilizing the services of ALSC including assistance with a
domestic violence protective order and a child custody
case. She emphasized the impact that having access to free
legal services had made upon her life and that of her
daughter.
9:33:32 AM
MELBA BIGGS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She related that she had accessed
legal services from ALSC during a child custody case. She
shared her personal financial details and emphasized the
importance of the free legal assistance.
9:35:06 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
SB 49 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:35:14 AM
AT EASE
9:35:43 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 32
"An Act relating to the sale of timber on state land;
and providing for an effective date."
9:36:10 AM
CHRIS MAISCH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), discussed the legislation, which
proposed to make changes to timber sale authorities in the
Division of Forestry.
Mr. Maisch spoke to a document entitled "Briefing Paper: SB
32 CS(RES), Negotiated Timber Sales" (copy on file.) He
reviewed the state timber sale types on page 2:
Competitive sales (AS 38.05.120)
· No volume limit within allowable cut
· No duration limit
· Requires best interest finding, advertisement,
and public notice
· Price determined by auction, but not less than
base price
· This is the standard sale type. Use of
negotiated sales is limited to the specific
conditions listed below.
Small negotiated sales (AS 38.05.115)
· Less than or 500thousand board feet (This is
roughly equivalent to 20 acres in SE, 125 acres
in SC and 80 acres in the Interior)
· Less than or
· 1 year in duration.
· No more than one per purchaser each year.
· No best interest finding, advertisement, or
public notice required.
· Price determined by fair market value appraisal
and base price (11 AAC 71.092).
Negotiated sales for value added product (AS
38.05.123)
· Up to10 million board feet per year (100 million
board feet total over 10 years).
· Up to 10 years.
· Requires best interest finding and public notice.
· Restricted to use for local manufacture that
includes "high value-added" wood products. By
statute, wood chips are defined as a "value-
added" product rather than a "high value-added"
product. Therefore, sales to supply a chip
operation would not qualify for this type of
sale.
· Operators must submit a business plan/operating
plan for their processing facilities prior to
negotiating a .123 sale. Processing facilities
must be operational prior to harvesting timber
sold under this authority.
· Requires best interest finding and public notice.
· State typically uses RFP process to select
winning proposal, especially where there is
competitive interest in state resources.
Negotiated sales for areas with high unemployment (AS
38.05.118)
· No volume limit.
· Up to 25 years with reappraisal every five years.
· Limited to areas with unemployment > 135% of
statewide average.
· This sale type does not apply in the Mat-Su
Borough or Fairbanks North Star Borough because
their unemployment rates are close to the
statewide average).
· Area must have underutilized manufacturing
capacity.
· Must have underutilized allowable cut or salvage
timber.
· Requires best interest finding and public notice.
· Price determined by fair market value appraisal
and base price (11 AAC 71.092).
Personal use sales (AS 38.05.850)
· Not for commercial use.
· No best interest finding, advertisement, or
public notice required.
· Up to10 thousand board feet per purchaser per
year.
· Price determined by fair market value appraisal
and base price (11 AAC 71.092).
Mr. Maisch qualified that competitive authority was used
most frequently and comprised about 90 percent of timber
sales. The sales required competitive bidding with outcry
or sealed bids, and when there was competitive interest it
gained the best price. He continued that all of the other
methods were forms of negotiated sales.
Mr. Maisch discussed negotiated sales for value-added
products, designed to encourage high value-added
manufacturing. He pointed out the example of the wood-
pellet mill in Fairbanks, with which DNR was in the process
of doing two 5-year sales. He added that the definition of
"high value wood products" was covered both in statute and
in regulation, and could be updated with the advent of new
technology and products.
9:39:10 AM
Mr. Maisch discussed the authority in AS 38.05.118, which
allowed for negotiation of sales for up to 25 years in
length. He noted that three criteria that the bill proposed
to strike from the current law were found in subsection C,
and had to do with specific items that had to be in place
to use the authority: a high level of unemployment in the
area of the sale; an excess allowable cut in the state
forest or geographic area of the timber sale; and excess
manufacturing capacity at the mill that would negotiate the
sale. He explained that it was currently difficult to use
the authority statewide. In Fairbanks, Kenai, and Mat-Su,
the high level of unemployment criteria was not met.
Mr. Maisch discussed the log export and manufacturing
components of the industry, explaining the state's policy
of leveraging timber sales to support jobs in communities.
He related that the state was currently almost at the limit
for the allowable timber cutting in southern Southeast
Alaska, which was the original target area of the bill.
When the limit was reached (in approximately two years)
only the competitive authority would allow for timber
sales. He furthered that the round log segment of the
timber industry could outbid the domestic part of the
industry, which would put the state at a disadvantage in
supporting communities and manufacturing in the area.
Mr. Maisch discussed Section 1 and Section 2 of the bill,
reading from the sectional analysis:
Section 1 - New Subsection
Amends AS 38.05.110 to clarify that the commissioner
determines which of the applicable sale methods is the
most appropriate authority to use for each timber
sale.
Section 2 - Amendment to (a).
Amends AS 38.05.118 to clarify that negotiated timber
sales under this section do not have to comply with
the restrictions on negotiated sales in AS 38.05.115
and the timber sale procedures for competitive sales
in AS 38.05.120, but they do have to comply with the
requirements for Forest Land Use Plans (AS 38.05.112)
and Five-year Schedules of Timber Sales (AS
38.05.113). This exempts sales under .118 from limits
on size and duration up to 25 years, but ensures that
large negotiated sales are developed with adequate
notice to the industry and general public, and
necessary site-specific design. This section also
clarifies that DNR may negotiate sales to wood fiber
users, including biomass energy producers, in addition
to wood product manufacturers.
Mr. Maisch clarified that under state law, there must be a
best interest finding to allow public process for timber
sales, including a civil process following any appeals.
Section 2 of the bill also added wood fiber users to
allowable sales, specifically to address the needs of the
biomass industry in the state, particularly in the Interior
where several schools used wood chips for heating.
Additionally, there was a pellet mill in Fairbanks and
compressed fuel logs being made in several locations in the
state.
9:43:03 AM
Mr. Maisch stated that there was significant support for
the legislation, and referred to letters from Southeast
Conference, the Alaska Forest Association, the Resource
Development Council, and the Board of Forestry.
Senator Dunleavy related that he had discussed timber sale
contract duration with individuals who were logging in the
Interior. He wondered if the short contract duration had
prevented loggers from lending and capitalizing (borrowing
capital for needed equipment) for the project, or if there
were other such issues related to contract length. Mr.
Maisch expressed that the situation would depend upon the
sale authority being used; all DNR timber sale authorities
(especially competitive sales under AS 38.05.120) could be
any length of time, and were typically three and five years
in length. He explained that when an entity was making a
fairly large investment in manufacturing, 15 to 20 years
was needed to fully amortize the investment. He furthered
that such considerations were the rationale for the
differing sale authorities; and through the best interest
finding process the department would select the most
appropriate method. He added that typically DNR would
default toward the competitive process, so as to not be in
the position of selecting the proposer to negotiate with.
He thought that in cases like Southeast Alaska, where DNR
was trying to encourage manufacturing, the competitive
process was the appropriate authority to use.
9:45:05 AM
Senator Bishop asked what the typical timeline was for
negotiating a timber sale. Mr. Maisch estimated 12 to 16
months was a typical time frame for a timber sale on longer
term project. He conveyed that there was a specific set of
steps required; including preliminary and final best
interest findings, as well as a forest land use plan to be
completed after the decision was made to make the sale. The
land use plan would contain site-specific details and could
be appealed by commenters. He mentioned the recently
concluded sale process with the pellet mill in Fairbanks,
and estimated that it had taken approximately one year. He
furthered that the project had been fairly ambitious, had
two 5-year back to back timber sales under the value added
timber authority, and there had been competitive interest
in the area to work through.
Senator Hoffman asked if there were any timber sales on the
Kuskokwim River on state land. Mr. Maisch related that
there had been biomass interest from rural communities -
both chipping and round-wood operations which fueled
boilers in rural areas. He continued that there had been
timber sales on state land on the Kuskokwim River in the
past, and the department continued to respond to requests
for timber in that part of the state.
Senator Hoffman asked if the legislation would affect any
of the sales in the area. Mr. Maisch stated that the
legislation would not negatively affect the ability of DNR
to offer sales in the area. He thought it was likely that
the department would use the competitive sales authority,
but it would examine the circumstances to make the best
decision within the preliminary best interest process. He
added that such decisions were made by the commissioner and
delegated to the state forester.
9:48:10 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the "meat" of the bill
was on page 2, line 1 - repealing AS 38.05.118c:
(c) A sale of timber may not be negotiated by the
commissioner under this section except on a finding
that, within an area proximate to the business site
that the manufacturer may economically serve, there
exists, or will exist within two years,
Mr. Maisch concurred that the section Co-Chair MacKinnon
referred to was where most of the change occurred, and the
rest of the bill was clarification language.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the appeal section of the
bill was where the committee should be focused. She
referred to current statutes (specifically AS 38.05.115) on
timber sales and suggested there was an antiquated
reference to "board feet". She wondered if the language
needed to be updated. Mr. Maisch concurred that the
language referenced an older measurement term "MBM", which
stood for thousand-board measure. He explained that the
term was interchangeable with the current wood volume
measurement terminology of MBF, which stood for thousand
board feet. He was not sure that the change was necessary,
and thought it would be important to examine whether the
term appeared in other areas in statute or regulation.
9:50:40 AM
RON ARVIN, MEMBER, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ASSEMBLY,
spoke in favor of the bill. He related that the assembly
had taken up the subject in the form of a unanimous
resolution of support after robust discussion on the
matter. He shared that he was a former logger from
Southeast Alaska, and discussed the importance of
supporting the timber industry. He spoke of the many
logging companies that were no longer in business.
9:52:04 AM
ERIN MCLARNON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORKING FOREST GROUP,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. She relayed that she was a member of the Board of
Forestry, and thought the legislation would enable DNR to
better respond to the economic and geographic realities of
the forest product industry. She discussed biomass energy,
and demand for state timber. She thought the 25-year
negotiated timber sale provision was crucial for medium and
large biomass energy projects to get off the ground. She
mentioned the timber sale methods available to DNR, and
highlighted the importance to the state and wood fiber
users.
9:53:18 AM
JAMES MACKOVJAK, SELF, GUSTAVUS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. He expressed preference for the
value-added timber sale authority and related that he lived
in a house built almost completely of wood cut in the
Tongass National Forest. To build the house, he had
purchased wood from eight small sawmills in the region. He
wondered who would benefit from the legislation, and
questioned that there was no discussion of building wood
processing facilities. He thought that long-term sales of
up to 25 years conveyed special rights to a public resource
to the exclusion of others. He was concerned that a
negotiated 25-year sale would ignore the market, and price
redetermination by bureaucrats rather than the open market
was objectionable. He thought that limiting timber sales to
5 years and selling through a bidding process was the only
way to ensure transparency and ensure the public received
fair value for the resource.
9:54:57 AM
AT EASE
9:57:28 AM
RECONVENED
STEVE GIBSON, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to the bill. He related that he had been in the
wood milling business for the previous 35 years using
primarily state timber. He clarified that he was not a
direct purchaser of the timber, but his supplier was a
customer of the state. He was alarmed about the long
duration of a 25-year negotiated timber sale, and expressed
concern that there could be deals with DNR that were overly
advantageous for some manufacturers or loggers. He
recognized that there was a great deal of infrastructure
required to solidify the supply line of timber, but did not
consider that a 25-year contract would allow for enough
private enterprise to bid on regularly. He thought the
extended contract length would set up a lumber utilization
structure that had not been productive in the past.
10:00:09 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Maisch to address the concerns
of the previous testifiers who spoke regarding the proposed
25-year contract length and fears of lack of transparency
in the process. Mr. Maisch clarified that the bill
specified the contract would be up to 25 years, and they
would select length of time necessary to achieve the
objectives during the best interest findings process. He
reviewed the process; which would start with a preliminary
best interest finding to include the proposed method of
sale, length of contract, and rationale. The preliminary
finding would also inform the reasoning for the length of
the proposed sale, and would be open for inter-agency and
public comment. The department would consider the comments
and incorporate any changes into the final best interest
finding, which would be the decision document to affirm or
deny a sale. Following the final decision, individuals had
administrative appeal rights and finally the ability to
pursue a civil case when appeal rights were exhausted. He
referred back to the forest land use plan, also open inter-
agency and public review and comment. He added that the
most often discussed item in such plans was road access.
Mr. Maisch addressed the testifier's concern regarding a
large negotiated sale and subsequent export of logs. He
related that the statute specified a manufacturer (on-shore
domestic processor) and the authority could not be used for
a sale for round-log export. He furthered that the only way
to do a sale for export was through the competitive bid
process which would be an open market competition.
10:03:03 AM
Senator Bishop thought that the bill was consistent with
the governor's recent comments regarding getting value-
added for the state's resources. Mr. Maisch concurred, and
remarked that the governor and the administration wanted to
generate the maximum amount of jobs out of each timber sale
in the state, and the bill was consistent with encouraging
domestic manufacturing.
Senator Bishop spoke about preventative forestry practices
and thought the legislation might aid DNR in meeting its
mission and increase fire safety around rural communities.
Mr. Maisch reflected that there were increased biomass
activities statewide, and used the example of the community
of Tok, which has been investing in the biomass industry
for several years. He recounted that DNR had made
significant progress in reducing dangerous fuels that were
close to communities, which in turn helped with mitigation
of wildland fires.
10:05:07 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if DNR already had the authority
to issue timber sale contracts up to 25 years. Mr. Maisch
answered in the affirmative, and specified that there was
no time limit on the competitive sale statute.
SB 32 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:05:32 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon relayed the afternoon agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
10:06:40 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 a.m.