COM 0640.001 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

\ As of the date of this report, the matter has become further campI icated, as the Legislature has adopted HB 2150 which purports to place a one-year moratorium on the potential transfer without express statutory authority It is not known whether the Governor will sign or veto the bill, or if vetoed, whether the Legislature would override the veto. While it appears that no response has been made to either of the above-mentioned letters, we are advised that each of the two legal offices has requested additional information from the County Council staff. In addition, on May 1,2006, Councilperson Isbell received an e-mail message (Attachment No.3) from a representative of the Corporation Counsel advising that its office is awaiting a response from the Attorney General cmd from the DLNR as to the nature and extent of the interest in the harbors and boating facilities that is intended to be transferred. It is hoped that comprehensive responses may be obtained prior to the date on which the report of the Ad Hoc Committee is to be submitted to the County Council. If such responses should be obtained, your sub-committee will be pleased to file a supplcmental report. By memorandum dated April 8,2006, (Attachmcnt No.4) this sub-committee submitted a number of potential questions to be put to Peter Young, Chairman, Board of the Department of Land and Natural Resources at the time of his vidcoconference appearance before the Sub- Committee. By letter dated Aprilll, 2006, the Vice Chairman of this Ad Hoc Committee submitted a series of questions to Chairman Young (see Attachment No.5). This letter incorporated a number of issues and questions that had been formulated by this sub-commi ttee as set out in Attachment NO.4. In his videoconfcrencc appearance before the Ad Hoc Committee on April 17, 2006, Chairman Young responded to some of the above-[-eferenced questions promulgated by this sub- committee, as follows (only the responses to thc sub-committee's inquiries are set out below): 1) He has not decided how and in wh,lt manner the transfer might take place. It may well be by and through an Executive Order. The DLNR would not "make the decision on its own". 2) He has not obtained an opinion on any Clspecls of transfer from the Attorney General's Office. However, he has met with and discllssed the potential transfer with the Attorney General's Office (See Chairman Young's letter dated January 5, 2006, to Mayor Kim) 3) The nature and extcnt of the interest transferred would probably be analogous to the form in which state park land is transferrcd to the counties. In such cases the real property interest generally continues to resi de WI rh the State. 4) Notwithstanding the fact that the IT,ll propcrty interest may remain with the State, the counties would generally be free to construct or reconstruct facilities as the counties may see fit and to establish and retain nil hilrbor mooring fecs, ramp fees and othcr fees and adopt operating rules as the counties may desirc. 2