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