HB 175 - EMINENT DOMAIN; RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES 2:38:17 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act relating to the prohibition of the exercise of the power of eminent domain against a recreational structure for the purposes of developing a recreational facility or project." 2:39:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed that legislation last year set limitations on the exercise of eminent domain and elevated someone's personal residence such that eminent domain could not be exercised for the purpose of developing a recreational facility or project unless the homeowner consented to the taking of his/her residence. House Bill 175 would extend that limitation to a person's recreational structure, and establishes a limit regarding the amount of land that would be protected to a radius 250 linear feet around the recreational structure itself - the same amount of land that would apply in situations involving a residence; HB 175 would not interfere with a government entity's exercise of eminent domain for other legitimate purposes. He relayed that although last year's legislation struck a fine balance between all interested parties, recreational structures were not included, and so he is now bringing this issue forward because he believes that private ownership constitutes the greatest use of Alaska's land. He mentioned that HB 175 would not apply to recreational structures owned by partnerships or businesses. 2:43:12 PM DAVE FEEKIN, Alaska Association of Realtors (AAR), spoke about last year's legislation, relayed that the property rights of "second home" owners is of key importance, and opined that HB 175 protects the values of those properties. Realtors have heard from many Alaskans about the importance of recognizing and protecting a key element for many families and their Alaskan lifestyles - the ownership and enjoyment of recreational properties and cabins. He concluded by asking the committee to support HB 175 and move the bill from committee. CHAIR RAMRAS, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 175. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to a question, said, "It is standard practice to have access to your land ...; I believe that that right-of-way does exist, and [the government] ... couldn't condemn the area to prohibit you from having access to your property ...." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned whether the term, "recreational structure" could be construed to mean a structure that was constructed for just one season, and asked whether the bill ought to require some form of permanency with regard to recreational structures. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it is not the intention of HB 175 to allow someone with recreational property to merely put up a tent and move it from place to place in order to protect all of the property; HB 175 is intended to protect the owner of a permanent recreational structure. He indicated that he doesn't have an objection to clarifying that point. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a willingness to offer a conceptual amendment that would alter Section 3 such that the concept of permanence would be incorporated into the definition of "recreational structure". 2:52:21 PM DICK MYLIUS, Acting Director, Central Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in response to a question, said that the department doesn't have any objection to [the bill or the aforementioned proposed change], and that the department has never exercised eminent domain in order to acquire recreational properties or access to recreational opportunities without the consent of the property owner. He opined that it would be good to better define the term, "recreational structure", particularly given that both tent camps and million-dollar structures are all considered to be recreational structures. In response to a further question, Mr. Mylius provided comments regarding a particular university land transfer. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to a question, reiterated that the bill is intended to only protect the land that is within 250 linear feet of the structure, whether that structure is someone's personal residence or recreational structure. In response to a comment and question, he indicated that he would be amenable to an amendment that would clarify that point. In response to a further question, he said he intends for the protections afforded by the bill to apply only to a landowner who holds legal title to the recreational structure. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised that several members believe that the issue of how much land is going to be protected still needs to be clarified in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the issues raised by the committee be addressed via a committee substitute. [HB 175 was held over.]