Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/09/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB361 | |
| HB295 | |
| HB336 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 361 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 336 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 295-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT
[Due to technical difficulties, there is no audio recording at
this point.]
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 295, "An Act relating to the grant of certain
state land to the University of Alaska; relating to the duties
of the Board of Regents; relating to deposits made to the Alaska
permanent fund received from certain lands conveyed to the
University of Alaska; ratifying and reauthorizing certain prior
conveyances of land to the University of Alaska; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee is CSHB 295(EDC).]
CO-CHAIR HERRON moved to adopt CSHB 295, Version 26-GH2829\P,
Bullock, 3/8/10, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version P was before the committee.
[The audio recording begins at this point.]
8:22:46 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ informed the committee that in the first
committee of referral for HB 295, there was an amendment offered
to remove the Mite Cove parcel and to insert another parcel in
Pelican. She pointed out that the deletion of the Mite Cove
parcel can be found in Version P on page 8, line 22, and on page
9, lines 29-31, a portion of a Pelican parcel is added in place
of Mite Cove. She then reminded the committee that at its last
hearing there was considerable testimony on the Sumdum parcel, a
five-acre parcel south of Juneau. Version P maintains the
inclusion of the Sumdum parcel in those given to the university,
but a covenant that would protect the historical and cultural
character of the Sumdum parcel has been added.
8:24:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that the Sumdum parcel can't
be used for timber harvest or mineral development.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ replied yes.
8:24:56 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that Version P, on page 8, lines 23-
25, also includes language deleting parcels at Excursion Inlet,
Lynn Canal, and William Henry Bay in the Haines area. The
aforementioned was included per the request of Representative
Thomas.
8:25:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed her belief that Representative
Thomas' amendment should be considered by the committee prior to
incorporating into the committee substitute.
8:26:28 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that on page 8, lines 26-27, the 40-
acre parcel around the Tenakee Springs Harbor uplands is added
to the list of parcels deleted from the university's selection.
She reminded the committee of the testimony requesting the
aforementioned at the last hearing.
8:27:32 AM
ROBERT VENABLES, Member, Planning Commission, Haines Borough,
requested support for Version P. He explained that the Haines
Borough has been in an ongoing process for its final land
selections over the past few years. The aforementioned parcels
in Haines were recently identified as possible vacant
unappropriated unreserved (VUU) lands that could be conveyed to
the borough. Because Haines was one of the first areas of the
state to be surveyed, most of the VUU lands that are available
are quite restricted in number. Mr. Venables said that the
University of Alaska has been a fantastic and outstanding
developer and custodian of lands that have been conveyed to
them. In fact, the university already holds a number of parcels
within the Haines Borough. The Haines Borough, he related,
requests that the municipality be given the first chance at
selection of the aforementioned parcels.
8:29:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Mr. Venables supports the
amendments related to Haines that are included in Version P.
MR. VENABLES replied yes.
8:30:01 AM
JOHN MARTIN, Chairman, Tenakee Traditional Council, noted that
he has a written document in relation to Executive Order 7179.
In the way of background, Mr. Martin related that [Tenakee
Springs] has long been part of the Angoon territory. He then
related his belief that [Tenakee Springs] is one the few
villages in Alaska that has an EO. Recently, it was discovered
that [the Tenakee Tribe] has an existing deed for the parcel of
land [the 40 acres around the Tenakee Springs harbor]. Mr.
Martin emphasized that the parcel is a sovereign trust land. He
said he didn't want [the Tenakee Tribe's] trust land to be
placed on the chopping block. For the last 40 years, [the
Tenakee Tribe] has given support to the Tlingit & Haida Central
Council and the Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp in the form
of resolutions. Mr. Martin concluded by encouraging the
legislature to given the Tenakee Tribe a chance to develop its
land. He further concluded by requesting that the [Tenakee
Tribe] not be wiped out.
8:33:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding that Mr. Martin
is referring to a presidential EO. He then questioned whether
the state even has any rights to the land [in Tenakee Springs].
He then inquired as to any federal provisions that encumber this
land.
MR. MARTIN informed the committee that per studies of
archaeologists and anthropologists, Tenakee was named after a
copper shield placed in the water. He characterized the
aforementioned as a peaceful gesture illustrating that [Tenakee
Springs and Angoon] were one territory. The EO land is a pivot
point of the [Tenakee Tribe]. He related that just above the
boat harbor in Tenakee Springs was a house in which he was born
and his grandfather sold the land [to its existing owners]. He
then related the story of the first white settlers in Tenakee
Springs.
8:37:43 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if Mr. Martin and the Tenakee Tribe
support the removal of the upland harbor parcel as specified in
Version P.
MR. MARTIN said that he has always believed that the EO land was
all the remnants of what the Tenakee Tribe had. He informed the
committee that the harbor uplands area in Tenakee Springs was
once a canoe run, and thus it's actually where they hunted and
fished. Mr. Martin opined that right now the Tenakee Tribe is
fighting for its existence.
8:39:10 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON acknowledged that there is a dispute regarding
whether [the upland harbor land in Tenakee Springs] is tribal
land. At this point, the state is proposing that the land be
given to the university. Therefore, setting aside the EO, Co-
Chair Herron asked if Mr. Martin supports removing the Tenakee
Springs harbor parcel from the parcels given to the university.
MR. MARTIN replied yes.
8:40:13 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the Tenakee Tribe had an opinion on the
upland parcel by Indian River.
MR. MARTIN informed the committee that the land issues aren't an
individual's decision, and thus he indicated that the Indian
River parcel would need to be brought before the Tenakee Tribe.
He noted that he hasn't had a chance to meet with Representative
Thomas and Senator Kookesh in whose district the parcel is
situated.
8:41:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Representative Thomas requested
the removal of the aforementioned parcels in Tenakee Springs at
the request of Mr. Martin and the [Tenakee Tribe].
8:42:11 AM
KACI SCHROEDER-HOTCH, Staff, Representative Bill Thomas, Alaska
State Legislature, clarified that the changes on page 8 are
directly related to Haines and thus weren't requested by Mr.
Martin. The change regarding the Tenakee harbor parcel was
[requested] in response to public outcry.
8:42:47 AM
MARY IRVINE thanked the committee for putting so much time into
this legislation. Ms. Irvine stressed that she is a strong
supporter of the University of Alaska. In fact, she has taken
various courses at the University of Alaska Southeast as well as
served as an instructor for the university. She opined that
it's regrettable that the university's professors, particularly
the adjunct professors, are woefully under paid. She then
directed the committee's attention to page 10 of Version P where
the Sumdum parcel is addressed in subsection (r). Ms. Irvine
suggested that if the intent is to protect the Sumdum parcel,
paragraph (1) on page 10, lines 6-7, must be written more
broadly. Therefore, she urged the committee to rewrite
paragraph (1), such that it would read as follows: "may not be
open to development, including but not limited to, commercial
timber harvest or mineral development". This broader language
would include docks and shops. Ms. Irvine further suggested
that the committee add another paragraph, a paragraph (4), which
would read as follows: "it is intended that these covenants on
the parcel run with the land". The aforementioned would
strengthen the protective language already included in Version
P. Furthermore, the covenants would apply to anyone who ever
purchases the land.
8:48:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to the controversy surrounding
the Sumdum parcel. He then inquired as to why the Sumdum parcel
isn't being taken out and replaced with another parcel.
MS. IRVINE reiterated her testimony from the prior hearing on HB
295. She reviewed the cultural and historical significance of
the Sumdum parcel, which is rich in Tlingit history. She
highlighted the fact that Sumdum is a layered archaeological
site, such that it includes the first American Alaska brewery
and canoe runs. Furthermore, the Sumdum parcel is used by many
for recreation and recreational history. Ms. Irvine confirmed
that at first she wanted the parcel excised from the
legislation, but she understands the administration's desire to
keep the land list intact and pointed out that transferring the
Sumdum parcel to DNR may result in continuing battles over the
parcel. Moreover, Ms. Irvine said that she doesn't know of
other parcels that DNR could offer in place of the Sumdum
parcel. Therefore, she stated that having the covenants on the
Sumdum parcel, including the additional language she suggested
earlier, would be a "good way to go for this parcel." She
characterized the Sumdum parcel as an odd parcel to be included
in the legislation because its historical significance will
likely prevent it from being developed, although that's why it
would be given to the university.
8:53:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS reminded the committee that the university
uses land for various things, and thus could use it for
archeological research.
MS. IRVINE interjected that she has spoken with professors who
are dismayed that a cultural and historical parcel such as
Sumdum would be taken out of the public domain, but they don't
have the graduate student labor or interest to [research this
parcel]. She related that only she has been doing research on
the Sumdum parcel. Ms. Irvine pointed out that the Sumdum
parcel isn't being given to the university for safe keeping,
rather it's being given to the University Lands Office for
fundraising.
8:55:25 AM
BRIAN ROGERS, Chancellor, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
related that he has walked the Sumdum parcel and is well aware
of the significance of it. He pointed out that the land grant
in HB 295 covers both educational and investment properties. If
it's the will of the legislature that the land be preserved for
educational purposes, it will be available for archaeological
research in the future. If the amendment [placing covenants on
the Sumdum parcel remains incorporated in Version P], there
could be funding available for archeological research.
8:56:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if it's common that universities
share [research] sites with other universities to perform
archaeological work.
MR. ROGERS responded yes, and added that the University of
Alaska does cooperate with other universities. Furthermore,
having title to land makes it easier to do the aforementioned
without having to go through a new permitting process.
8:57:34 AM
ART BLOOM, Member, City Council, City of Tenakee Springs,
related his assumption that the committee supports Version P,
and thus he wouldn't speak to the two parcels by the harbor
unless there are questions. He noted that the committee packet
should include a letter from Don Pegues, Mayor, City of Tenakee
Springs. He then referred to a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) from 1977 and the court ordered [Stipulation for
Settlement]. From paragraph (8) of the Memorandum of
Understanding, he read the following: "The state will convey to
the city title to any selected lands conveyed to the state by
the Bureau of Land Management, except that the state my retain
title to those sites necessary for present or anticipated
essential public purposes." From the Stipulation for
Settlement, he pointed out that the state specifically excludes
certain parcels of land from the conveyance. Those parcels are
listed under paragraph 1.1-1.6. Paragraph 1.1 of the
stipulation refers to C-33 on the Northern Southeast Area Plan
from DNR in 2002. Paragraph 1.2 of the stipulation refers to
track C-34, which is located by the Indian River road. Mr.
Bloom said that he would like the committee to consider that
this is a court-ordered document with stipulations referring to
the parcels of land. While there's nothing [in HB 295] that
prevents C-34 from being turned over to the university, he
opined that the university would still be bound by the
restrictions in the stipulations. Therefore, he questioned the
value [of this parcel] to the university. He informed the
committee that the stipulation for C-34 ["describes a tract of
land to be retained by the state for"], "commercial, industrial,
row right-of-way, and borrow pits". The tract of land contains
about 261 acres. The stipulation further says, "It is
understood that the state will allow the removal of reasonable
amounts of material under reasonable conditions from all borrow
pits for the purposes of personal use in residential improvement
or construction, driveway construction, and landscaping. The
land to be retained by the state for commercial, industrial,
road right-of-way, and borrow pit purposes is described as
follows." Mr. Bloom opined that the C-34 parcel would be
encumbered by this court-ordered stipulation.
9:01:32 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that the stipulation
came about in reaction to the commercial activity by the Alaska
Pulp Corporation.
MR. BLOOM explained that in the late 1970s the Alaska Pulp
Corporation wanted to log in Indian River. Since the area was
in the boundary of the City of Tenakee, there were discussions
between the Alaska Pulp Corporation, the City of Tenakee, and
the state. From the City of Tenakee's point of view, the matter
was about the conveyance of the municipal entitlements to the
city. The city wanted the state to give it its municipal
entitlements while the Alaska Pulp Corporation wanted to log in
Indian River and the state wanted it all to occur. There was an
MOU that the state would turnover land to the city. However, by
1981 no land had been turned over and the city sued the state
for its municipal entitlements. The court ruled in the city's
favor and the stipulations were ordered by the court. The
stipulations specified that the state had to turn over the
municipal entitlements and the state was allowed to withdraw
certain parcels of land, two of which are the parcels under
discussion today. He noted that the stipulation was amended
twice because the Alaska Pulp Corporation had to extend its
period of logging.
9:03:36 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the City of Tenakee completed its
municipal entitlement.
MR. BLOOM opined that the city doesn't believe it has been
completed because the city believes the two parcels by the
harbor should've been conveyed to the city. At the time the
land was conveyed to the state, these two parcels were in
contention due to prior Native allotment claims. Those claims
were adjudicated and in 1986, the parcel directly above the
harbor, C-31, was conveyed to the state. According to the MOU
and the stipulations, the city believes the state should've
conveyed that parcel of land to Tenakee as part of its
entitlement. He characterized it as an oversight. In 2003 the
second parcel, C-32, was conveyed from the federal government to
the state rather than to the city. He characterized the
aforementioned as an oversight as well, which he said is
supported by the lack of either parcel being specifically
withdrawn or having a paragraph reference. The lack of a
paragraph reference, he explained, is because neither parcel was
specifically identified in the stipulations.
9:05:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the parcels to which Mr. Bloom is
referring are included in Version P.
MR. BLOOM answered that C-31 and C-32 are the two parcels by the
harbor and C-34 is the parcel by Indian River road.
9:06:37 AM
WENDY REDMAN, Executive Vice President, began by relating that
she has a great deal of frustration; this is the sixth
university land bill since her tenure in the university.
Although she said she understands that those who oppose specific
parcels actually support the university, she pointed out that
the legislature has recognized that the University of Alaska, a
land grant university, is owed land. Through the process of
statehood, the university's rights to the land that had been
assigned to it were extinguished. The state, she related,
essentially promised to take care of the situation over time.
In 2005, through legislation, the state recognized moral
responsibility and the university thought there was an
agreement. Although the university disagrees with the Alaska
Supreme Court ruling on this, the university is back before the
legislature to make accommodation with the ruling. Ms. Redman
emphasized that it was very important for the university not to
start new and select lands. Therefore, the legislation was
introduced with the same land selections that the legislature
had already approved and argued in detail during a prior
session-and-a-half. Ms. Redman acknowledged that people are
concerned, but opined some of the worries aren't legitimate.
For instance, it wouldn't be in the university's interest to
construct a commercial property on the Sumdum parcel. She then
pointed out that the university has been responsible for some
incredible development throughout the state, but the legislature
doesn't hear from those who have had great experiences with
university land development. The university tries to make it
easy to deal with it and to that end has a community involvement
process, including with the University of Alaska Board of
Regents. With regard to the properties in the City of Tenakee
Springs, Ms. Redman recalled that there was some discussion of
swapping properties at the last meeting. Prior to this session,
the university had a lot of discussion with Tenakee and the
university was close to making a deal with Tenakee because it
would be easier for the city to obtain the harbor property from
the university than from DNR. Had the Alaska Supreme Court not
intervened, the aforementioned arrangement would've culminated.
With regard to the other properties under discussion today, Ms.
Redman deferred to Mari Montgomery, University of Alaska.
9:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the university, when it chooses
to develop land, takes into account the concerns and interests
of fellow Alaskans.
MS. REDMAN clarified that the university didn't select these
lands, rather DNR selected the lands to be given to the
university. She explained that the lands DNR has available for
transfer are lands that have already been designated as
available for transfer, development, sale, and construction.
Thus the land doesn't have restrictions.
9:13:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that although the university
likely keeps the interest of the university foremost when it
develops land, the university would still take into account the
interest of those in the area.
MS. REDMAN said that Representative Keller is correct as it's
not in the university's interest to make all the residents of a
community angry. She further said that she wasn't aware that
the university had done the aforementioned.
9:14:15 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the University of Alaska supports
Version P, as drafted.
MS. REDMAN responded that she couldn't answer that question
since she hasn't had an opportunity to review Version P in
detail.
9:14:36 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the university would be amenable to
crafting language specifying that if the university received the
Tenakee land, it would eventually be in the city's hands.
MS. REDMAN indicated agreement, but said she would need to check
that to be sure.
9:15:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that he didn't believe the
legislation should include language such that the university is
bound to only talk to the City of Tenakee Springs about
purchasing specific parcels.
CO-CHAIR HERRON acknowledged that [the language] wouldn't be a
guarantee that the City of Tenakee Springs would receive the
land.
9:16:55 AM
MICHAEL FAY described Moser Bay, which is very close to
Ketchikan, as one of the most pristine valleys in the area. The
area draws thousands of visitors every summer and thus thousands
of boats are in the area every year. He said that although he
would support slow selective logging of the parcel over a long
time, clear cutting this parcel would be an enormous blunder.
The area is steep and the timber value is low. Mr. Fay
suggested that the highest and best use of this property is to
maintain its pristine landscape and establish permanent
protection of the parcel.
9:20:37 AM
STEVE PRYSUNKA, Director, Alaska Crossings, Alaska Island
Community Services, informed the committee that Alaska Crossings
is Alaska's largest therapeutic wilderness program. Alaska
Crossings also provides an experiential science program for
Alaska Native youth from the communities of Wrangell, Hydaburg,
Craig, Klawock, Metlakatla, and the Southeast Island School
District. Mr. Prysunka assured the committee that the program
has had youth from all of the communities the members represent.
Each year over 250 youth attend the program located at the Deer
Island facility. He explained that about 60 percent of the
program utilizes the Sunny Bay area. He noted that Alaska
Crossings has never testified regarding a timber sale proposed
by the U.S. Forest Service or the state. However, a timber sale
[in the Sunny Bay area] will have a dramatic visual impact as
well as cause disruption from the general activities associated
with the timber industry. Mr. Prysunka emphasized that the most
important resource is the land and if the [Sunny Bay] area is
removed, the capacity of the program will dramatically decrease.
Although there are options, it will mean higher costs because of
transporting groups to other areas of the forest. Furthermore,
the program may have to move its entire marine research station
from the area, which would cost [Alaska Island Community
Services] in excess of $40,000 and would disrupt the program's
services for an extended period of time. The program, he
related, now employees 85 full- and part-time people. He
emphasized that [Alaska Island Community Services] is the
largest employer in Wrangell and utilizes a sustainable model
based on controlled growth, funding diversification, and program
development. Mr. Prysunka concluded by requesting the removal
of the area in and around Sunny Bay from the [list of lands
selected for the university]. He encouraged the committee to
help ensure that services can be provided to Alaska's youth
today and into the future.
9:23:20 AM
TIM LYDON began by informing the committee that he is
representing 17 commercial tour operators that operate in
Southeast Alaska, including American Safari Cruises, Alaska Sea
Adventures, Pacific Catalyst, Alaskan Song, Alaska on the
Homeshore, and many others. These tour operators represent an
important part of Southeast Alaska's tourism industry. Because
these are small and mid-size tour operators many of their
clients spend more time in Southeast communities than do the
larger number of cruise ship passengers. Furthermore, these
small operators purchase provisions locally. He then turned to
the Sumdum parcel and the earlier question regarding why it's so
controversial. Ms. Irvine eloquently spoke about the cultural
value of the Sumdum parcel, a fact alone that should be cause
for the parcel not to be considered for transfer to the
university or development. Additionally, there is controversy
regarding the selection of the Sumdum parcel because of the
current uses of Sumdum, including for recreational users and
commercial tour operators. The Sumdum parcel is in the middle
of the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror and Chuck River Wilderness areas
in the Tongass National Forest. The parcel is in the middle of
about 730,000 acres of federally designated wilderness. The
controversy is the threat of development on this 5-acre parcel
that sits in the middle of this large and popular wilderness
area. Mr. Lydon emphasized that the reason the thousands of
clients of these 17 operators come to Alaska is to experience
undeveloped locales. Sanford Cove and Endicott Arm are one of
the highlights of the trip for visitors. The area has an
incredible variety of wildlife and birds. Furthermore, Tracy
Arm, Endicott Arm, and Fords Terror are very steep places where
there aren't many opportunities to hike or go ashore.
Therefore, most of the tour operators have permits from the U.S.
Forest Service to take people ashore in the Sanford Cove area.
He opined that the undeveloped nature of Sumdum is unique along
Stephens Passage. Furthermore, the undeveloped nature is
becoming rarer. In conclusion, Mr. Lydon noted his agreement
with Ms. Irvine regarding placing an appropriate covenant on the
land. He related his belief that the most likely scenario of
concern would be development of say a dock at the Sumdum parcel.
With regard to the earlier suggestion to merely remove the
parcel from the list, Mr. Lydon opined that the best tact is to
place a covenant on the parcel in order to avoid this concern
again. He then requested that the covenant apply to development
so that no one can construct a lodge, dock, or private home on
the property.
9:29:23 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the committee will work on an
amendment for the Sumdum parcel and will consider the language
suggested by Ms. Irvine.
9:29:41 AM
MARK GALLA, Owner/Operator, Alaska Peak & Seas, informed the
committee that he has been operating a hunting, sightseeing,
cruising, wildlife viewing, and fishing business in the Sunny
Bay area for over 20 years. However, his mainstay is brown bear
hunting. If the Sunny Bay parcels were logged, it would
severely impact his operations in the short term and long term
and forever change the area and displace bears. Mr. Galla
explained the fragility of the area and the adverse impacts
logging would have in the area as well as his business. Mr.
Galla said that although he isn't opposed to logging and
supports it in most cases, he knows that logging and developing
the Sunny Bay area will impact his business as well as the brown
and black bear populations. He opined that the conveyance of
this parcel to the university will certainly result in a
negative impact on his business as well as Wrangell.
9:35:03 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
9:35:16 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land & Water,
Department of Natural Resources, turned to the legislative
history of the university lands grant legislation. He reminded
the committee that the legislature has considered seven pieces
of legislation, but since 1993 has passed only four pieces of
legislation to give the university land. In all those, the
legislature specified a target of 250,000-500,000 acres.
Therefore, each time parcels are removed from the list, the list
falls farther from the legislature's goal. Mr. Mylius confirmed
that all the parcels included in [HB 295] are the same parcels
the legislature approved in 2005. The parcels were thoroughly
researched prior [to being included in the list] to address
title issues. Therefore, many of the issues raised now were
raised previously. Since 2005 the division has performed title
research work to issue. He offered to provide the committee
with information on issues in which it's interested.
9:37:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if, when DNR transfers land, it's
normal to have covenants on the land.
MR. MYLIUS answered that it would depend upon the statute under
which the division is operating as well as the type of disposal.
For example, the City of Tenakee Springs parcels in which the
city is interested in obtaining from the state there would have
covenants because the parcels would be transferred under the
public and charitable uses [statute]. On all parcels
transferred to individuals, the state retains the mineral
rights, which is a provision of the Statehood Act. However, in
this case the university's mineral rights could be transferred
because the university is an entity of the state.
9:38:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if DNR has considered the historical
aspects of the Sumdum parcel.
MR. MYLIUS confirmed that DNR is aware of those resources. He
pointed out that under state law, the archeological resources
are protected under the State Historic Preservation Act. He
related that the proposed covenant on the Sumdum parcel is
similar to that placed on Sealaska lands adjacent to the Sumdum
parcel.
9:39:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS referred to Section 6(c), which provides
the right of first refusal to the municipality nearest to the
parcel of land for sale. He then related his assumption that
the university, prior to selling the Sumdum parcel, would have
to offer it to the City & Borough of Juneau.
MR. MYLIUS replied that would be the case if the Sumdum parcel
is located in the City & Borough of Juneau.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ interjected that the Sumdum parcel isn't located
inside the City & Borough of Juneau boundaries.
9:40:49 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if DNR supports the Mite Cove, Pelican
amendment.
MR. MYLIUS responded that the amendment does clarify the intent
and thus DNR is okay with the amendment. In further response to
Co-Chair Herron, Mr. Mylius noted that DNR worked with the
sponsor on the language of the Sumdum amendment. He reminded
the committee that the governor wanted to minimize the number of
parcels being withdrawn. Therefore, it's the legislature's
prerogative to determine which parcels to remove, he said.
9:41:46 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON then inquired as to DNR's position with regard
to the request by Representative Thomas regarding the Haines
Borough.
MR. MYLIUS explained that in response to legislation that would
change the municipal entitlement for the City & Borough of
Wrangell, Representative Thomas requested DNR discuss with the
Haines Borough whether there are additional lands that are
appropriate to transfer to the Haines Borough. Since the Haines
Borough doesn't have a municipal entitlement, it would require
legislation. Discussions found that the only parcels the Haines
Borough could acquire through an additional municipal
entitlement were the same parcels going to the university. The
discussions only went to the point of determining the
aforementioned and the department didn't endorse giving the
parcels to the borough as opposed to the university.
9:43:14 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON returned to the City of Tenakee Springs parcels,
noting that Version P only removes the harbor parcel. He asked
if the language on page 10, lines 27-29, is the most appropriate
vehicle to achieve the potential conveyance [of the parcels] to
Tenakee proper.
MR. MYLIUS acknowledged that the aforementioned language would
be an option. However, he remarked that it would be left to the
Board of Regents and the university to follow up on the [City of
Tenakee Springs' desire to obtain the parcels].
9:45:06 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to DNR's position on Version P,
which includes removal of the Tenakee Springs harbor parcel.
MR. MYLIUS reiterated that he didn't want to say whether DNR
supports or opposes specific parcels, it's the prerogative of
the committees to decide that.
9:46:01 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved Amendment 1, which would change the
language on page 10, lines 6-7, such that it would read as
follows:
"may not be open to development, including but not
limited to commercial timber harvest or mineral
development;".
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
9:46:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER opined that the language in Amendment 1
would be too broad. He noted that the record specifies the
expectation that the university will work with those in the area
in which the university is interested in developing a parcel.
He expressed concern that a parcel can be preserved to the point
at which it can't be used or accessed at all.
9:47:43 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON expressed concern that if the covenants on the
Sumdum parcel are amended too restrictively, later committees of
referral may remove the entire covenant provision. Therefore,
he related his preference to not make the covenant provision for
the Sumdum parcel more restrictive.
9:48:17 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ withdrew Amendment 1.
9:48:27 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 10, line 13, following "history";
Insert "(4) it is intended that these covenants
run with the land"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:48:59 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON moved to report CSHB 295, Version 26-GH2829\P,
Bullock, 3/8/10, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 295(CRA) was reported from the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
9:49:31 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:49 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.
9:52:34 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 336 letters of support.pdf |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 336 |
| HB 336 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 336 |
| HB336-Fiscal Note-CED-RCA-3-3-10.pdf |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM HSTA 3/11/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 336 |
| HB 361 Sponsor Statement - Electronic.doc |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 361 |
| HB 295 - CityofTenakeeSpringsOppositionLTRs.PDF |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 CS (CRA) version P.PDF |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB361-Fiscal Note-DPS-AST-03-08-10.pdf |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 361 |
| HB 361 - Kenai Pen. Borough LTR.pdf |
HCRA 3/9/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 361 |