Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/17/2010 06:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB295 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 295-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT
6:22:32 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the only order of business is
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 was CSHB 295(CRA).]
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to adopt CSHB 295(CRA) as a work draft.
There being no objection, CSHB 295(CRA) was before the
committee.
6:24:31 PM
WENDY REDMAN, Executive Vice President, University Relations,
University of Alaska, stated that in 1915 and 1929, the federal
government granted approximately 360,000 acres of land to the
University of Alaska. This acreage was intended to generate
revenue to support the university's educational mission. Only
about 112,000 acres had actually been conveyed to the university
by the time of statehood because much of the land had not yet
been surveyed. The 1959 Alaska Statehood Act extinguished all
land grants to the state, including the university's land grant,
so the 112,000 acres went under state management. Commitments
were made that the state would make good on the land because of
receiving such a large land settlement from the federal
government. At the time it was believed the state would be
better served to receive its land in toto rather than with
reservations for the university, schools, or mental health.
Under state management, the university's original land grants
were subsequently eroded by municipal selections, land grant
offerings, and legislative designations. The university went to
court and received the right to manage its own land in the late
1980s. Today, the university has approximately 160,000 acres.
Since 1959 there have been six different land bills. The
precursor to HB 295 began in 2000 with Senate Bill 7, which
appropriated up to 260,000 acres of land. The bill was passed
by the legislature, but vetoed by the governor. The veto was
overridden by the legislature and the override was taken to the
Alaska Supreme Court where the override was ruled valid and the
bill went into effect.
6:28:05 PM
MS. REDMAN said that in 2005 the legislature decided it was not
happy with 260,000 acres of undesignated land and passed House
Bill [130] which provided the specific lands that the university
would receive. Until about one year ago, the university and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proceeded with the process
of conveying those lands. In that meantime, a lawsuit was
brought against the university and the state by the Southeast
Alaska Conservation Council and the Tongass Conservation Society
claiming the bill was an abridgement of the dedication of funds
section of the Alaska State Constitution. The Alaska Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that the proceeds
from the land could not go into an endowment as provided by the
bill, but instead had to go back through the legislature for
appropriation to the university.
MS. REDMAN explained that HB 295 is essentially the same as
House Bill 130, with the addition of language that gives the
legislature the authority to appropriate the proceeds from the
land back to the university. Of course, the legislature does
not have to appropriate the proceeds back to the university, but
that is the idea. In response to Co-Chair Neuman, said that if
the committee wishes to hear about this appropriations issue
from Legislative Legal and Research Services, she would ask that
the committee also hear from the attorney general because there
is a difference of opinion.
MS. REDMAN related that the University of Alaska's preference is
for HB 295 to remain intact. The university had wanted to come
back and deal with the same bill that the legislature had
already passed and not re-address every acre of land. However,
land has already been taken out of the bill by two subcommittees
and she is aware that there will be amendments presented to this
committee for even more land to be taken out of the bill. If
the will of the legislature in 2010 is that the university
should simply not have any lands, then that is a valid issue
that should be discussed. Taking land out of HB 295 that has
already discussed under House Bill 130 does not seem the best
use of everyone's time at this point.
6:32:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related that legislators have been hearing from
the public and many people have said they were unaware of the
university recently coming to their communities to talk about
this land conveyance. He asked whether the university has made
an effort to visit or notify communities that these lands were
going to be conveyed.
MS. REDMAN responded that this has been the law for the last
five years, given that these lands were conveyed in 2005. The
university does not actually have access to most of these lands
at this point because it was in the process of conveyance. When
the university conducts land activities it is always in the
communities talking about the process and looking at the
communities' land management plans. She pointed out that every
parcel of land in House Bill 130 and HB 295 is land from DNR
that was already available for conveyance. She said she is
therefore confused about how anyone in a community could have an
opinion that the lands were somehow off limits for conveyance to
the university or anybody else.
6:35:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed that there has been discussion
about adding covenant language for the land in some of the
communities.
MS. REDMAN replied the last committee put covenants on some of
the acreage and this is not usually a good thing, although it
depends on what the covenants are. By the law itself, the
university is required to provide the right of first refusal to
any borough for purchase of the property if the university is
prepared to sell that property. The purpose of a land grant
university is to get land into development and the purpose of
House Bill 130 was to put Alaska lands into the hands of
Alaskans. The university has done this very well by developing
residential and commercial properties. She noted that DNR is
understaffed and cannot manage the lands as efficiently as would
the university. People have been able to use these lands for
personal uses and the university would not allow this, so she
understands why people oppose the transfer.
6:37:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether the university would
prefer that covenants not be applied and those lands instead be
stripped from the bill so the university could pick other lands.
MS. REDMAN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI understood it is difficult to purchase
state lands in over-the-counter sales and asked whether Ms.
Redman believes the university could do a better job of this if
it is given the lands.
MS. REDMAN deferred to DNR for that answer, but said DNR has
many hundreds of thousands more acres than does the university.
The university has been very efficient at managing its lands and
getting lands out to development. She said she does not think
DNR has the staff that is needed to manage the kinds of lands
that Alaska has. The university does not take general fund
money to manage its lands; all management costs for lands are
paid by the proceeds from the lands. The university's land
grant trust fund stands at $135 million and pays for the entire
University of Alaska Scholars Program. The university has
generated about $10 million per year in income off its lands
since taking over their management in 1988 or 1989.
6:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how the lives of people in
these communities would be changed if these lands are conveyed.
He said he has heard from many people expressing concern that
their lifestyle will be changed because of this conveyance.
MS. REDMAN answered it is hard to provide specifics for each
parcel because at this point in time the university does not
have land plans for all of the acreage. The bill includes many
educational properties as well as gas lands in Interior Alaska.
She has heard a lot of scare stories about what the university
will do, from clearcutting to building McDonald's restaurants.
While she understands people's concerns, they are unrealistic in
many cases.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said legislators feel that the concerns are
realistic because they know what is going on in their districts
and have heard from people in the communities. He argued that
even if some acreage is taken out, there would still be plenty
of land from which the university could make money.
6:44:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how these lands were selected to
begin with.
MS. REDMAN explained that after passage of Senate Bill 7, in
which all 260,000 acres were undesignated, it became clear that
it would be a very difficult, expensive, and time-consuming
process. It was decided to go back to the Department of Natural
Resources and have the department select lands around the state
from its portfolio of lands already designated as available for
conveyance. While the university had some discussions with DNR,
the department basically had a list of lands it felt most
appropriate. The university therefore agreed on those lands and
came forward with those lands in House Bill 130.
6:45:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether the arguments on the
parcels that have been withdrawn have been made before.
MS. REDMAN responded yes, but some things have changed. New
boroughs have been formed and existing boroughs have expanded
and can now make other selections. Some of the changes made in
HB 295 to date reflect changes that have happened since the
original bill was passed. For example, Haines is trying to form
a larger borough and the only lands available for additional
selection would have been the lands in HB 295, so those lands
were dropped from the bill.
6:47:14 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON observed that in the northern areas on the map
he sees a lot of pipeline rights-of-way that have been selected.
He asked what the advantage is to the university in selecting
lands around the Dalton Highway, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and
the proposed gas pipeline.
MS. REDMAN deferred to Mr. Dick Mylius and Ms. Mary Montgomery.
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, replied that the Dalton Highway
parcels are specific nodes that have been envisioned as areas
where there would be future development along the highway. For
example, the parcel at Coldfoot has always been envisioned as a
possible community development; the parcel where the pipeline
and the road cross the Yukon River is an ideal parcel for some
sort of development related to the road, river, or gas load-off
facility; and the northern-most parcel has some potential for
commercial recreational facilities. Therefore, these are
parcels that have good potential for various development
activities that may or may not be related to the gas pipeline.
6:49:41 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON surmised the current right-of-way-easements
through these parcels would remain in effect under a new owner.
MR. MYLIUS answered correct. These parcels are subject to any
existing authorizations for rights-of-way, including some right-
of-way applications and rights-of-way issued for gaslines. For
any new authorizations, the applicant would have to work with
the university. However, since the university is looking at
these parcels as economic development opportunities, he said he
is sure those kinds of additional rights-of-way would be
something the university would be willing to consider.
6:50:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether the State of Alaska can condemn
by eminent domain property owned by the University of Alaska.
ANNE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Department of Law, responded that under state code,
which she believes is AS 14.40.291, university property can only
be acquired by the state through eminent domain condemnation
proceedings. In further response, she said she misspoke and she
believes the wording in the statute is that the state may
acquire university property through eminent domain.
6:51:48 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether it would cost the state money
to get its own land back should it need a new right-of-way.
MR. MYLIUS replied yes, that is a possibility if new rights-of-
way are needed that do not already exist. He added that if it
is a private right-of-way across state land, such as a gas
company, the private entity would have to pay the state, unless
the state itself is building the gasline.
6:53:40 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that north of the Yukon River there is a
five-mile corridor along the Dalton Highway where snowmobile
access is denied. He asked what the university's position is on
making available turnouts and other areas that could be used to
have access outside of that five-mile corridor.
MS. REDMAN answered she is not familiar with this, but she will
get information on that specific area to the committee members.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he would appreciate the university's
cooperation and if a five-acre parcel needed to be carved out of
this for keeping with the state, he would be willing to do that.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON reiterated his question to Mr. Mylius.
MR. MYLIUS responded it would be up to the university to
determine whether it wanted pullouts, but these would be ideal
locations because one is right at the Yukon River, one is at
Coldfoot, and the other is at an airstrip/old development node
from pipeline construction. In response to further questions,
he reiterated that these would be good locations for pullouts
and such. Because the easement through that area is already
state-owned, any pullouts would be subject to the existing state
highway rights-of-way. He said he would get back to the
committee regarding how wide that easement is.
6:56:50 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, in response to Representative Tuck, said the
university chose the aforementioned sites because they are ideal
for development, especially on the Yukon River and in the
Coldfoot area. They would provide places for communities and
offtakes, and are potential development areas for natural gas up
and down the Yukon River.
MR. MYLIUS agreed.
6:57:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether Mr. Mylius thinks it is
a good idea to convey the Nenana oil and gas tracts to the
University of Alaska, given the university changes presidents
from time to time and could decide it does not want to develop
that area.
MR. MYLIUS replied the transfer is subject to the existing
exploration license, so the university would basically step into
DNR's shoes and would have to honor those existing commitments
for that license. The whole intent is for the university to
receive lands that generate revenue, so he cannot imagine it
would not pursue development of the oil and gas resources on
this property, if the resources are there.
6:59:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how covenants would interact with
the university in the future and would it be better to place
covenants or to strip that land out.
MR. MYLIUS answered that the question of whether a covenant is
preferred over not getting the land would be better addressed by
the university. He said CSHB 295(CRA) puts a covenant on the
Sumdum parcel to protect the archeological and historical
resources. That is the only parcel that currently has a
covenant, except that all the parcels are subject to Revised
Statute (RS) 2477 and any valid and existing rights.
7:00:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-
GH2829\C.2, Bullock, 3/16/10, written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 9, line 20:
Delete "and"
Page 9, line 21, following "Place":
Insert "; and
(4) Parcel Number KT.1002, Cleveland
Peninsula, Sunny Bay parcel"
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she would like to add this parcel
to the area of land that the university cannot have. She
explained that when House Bill 130 was discussed in 2005, both
Wrangell and Petersburg were talking about becoming boroughs,
but the boundaries had not been determined at that time.
Wrangell became a borough in 2008. The Sunny Bay parcel on the
Cleveland Peninsula provides economic income because it is an
area used by Alaska Island Community Services (AKICS), a mental
health provider that is the biggest employer in Wrangell. The
university has told AKICS that it cannot guarantee what it will
do with the land. So, unless the Wrangell borough controls this
land, AKICS might have to move its operations from that area.
She is therefore asking that the Sunny Bay parcel be included in
this section of the bill so it would be available [for selection
by] the Wrangell borough.
7:03:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether Representative P. Wilson wants the
university to receive this land or wants to remove the land from
the list of property that would go to the university.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that as the bill is written,
[Amendment 1] would give the City and Borough of Wrangell first
priority to pick the land before the university. The State of
Alaska has been encouraging borough formation across the state
and that has now happened for Wrangell. However, there is not
much state land to pick from because the borough encompasses
much of the Tongass National Forest; therefore, this Sunny Bay
parcel is crucial. She read aloud the following language from
the original 2005 bill, House Bill 130:
Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the state land
identified and described may not be conveyed to the
University of Alaska under this section if the land is
included in a borough formed before July 1, 2009.
7:05:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that by adding the Sunny Bay
parcel to the bill it would be available to the City and Borough
of Wrangell for selection, and if the parcel is not selected by
the borough it would then go the University of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she is unsure whether this
particular parcel was in House Bill 130, but she wants to ensure
the parcel is included in the list of lands in HB 295 that the
City and Borough of Wrangell can choose from. She said her
constituents and her city want this provision, so she is sure
the land will be selected by the borough.
7:07:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified for the listening public that
the parcel is not being removed from HB 295. It is being moved
onto a list of lands from which the City and Borough of Wrangell
may make selections. However, if the borough does not select
all or some of that land, then all or the remaining portion of
the parcel would be transferred to the university.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to Representative
Guttenberg, confirmed that the Borough of Wrangell is newly
formed and just began selecting land this past month, which is
why the Sunny Bay parcel was not yet selected by the borough.
7:08:29 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN noted that a lot of these local communities are
working on development plans, and looking to the legislature for
assistance. Whether communities choose to select these lands at
a later date has yet to be decided, but the concept is that a
tremendous amount of land will still go to the university. He
asked how much land is currently in HB 295.
MS. REDMAN replied [the bill began with] 260,000 acres. In
further response, she said 197,600 acres now remain in the bill.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN added it is good policy to respect the public so
he supports the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI withdrew his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was passed.
7:11:18 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN drew attention to the March 16, 2010, letter in
the committee packet from Mr. Don Pegues, Mayor of Tenakee
Springs [requesting that the lands contained in the ST 1003
parcel not be transferred to the university.] He said members
have talked to numerous folks in Tenakee Springs in this regard.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-
GH2829\C.3, Bullock, 3/17/10, which read as follows:
Page 8, lines 26 - 27:
Delete "the portions of United States Survey 2459
and United States Survey 6855 that are within"
7:12:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes. He
related that when HB 295 came before the House Education
Standing Committee there were two parcels. One of the parcels,
the 17-acres surrounding the dock area, was removed in response
to a fair amount of testimony. He said he has not seen the
second parcel, but he is concerned about stifling community
development because a number of communities want to grow and
have worries about school closings and economic development.
While testimony in the other committee indicated a lot of people
use that area for hiking and other uses, he wants to ensure
there is strong, broad testimony about this second parcel.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
7:14:12 PM
LARRY HURA, Member, Tenakee Springs City Council, drew attention
to City of Tenakee Springs Resolution 2010-16, dated February
11, 2010, that supports the exclusion of Tenakee Springs lands
from HB 295. He said removal of the parcels near the boat
harbor from transfer to the university is greatly appreciated.
The other parcel, which is designated C34, is near a logging
road that is no longer used. He explained that both of these
properties were subject to litigation in the early 1980s and the
court judgment requires that these lands be kept for public use.
Transfer of these lands to the university would not coincide
with that judgment. If the university opened these lands to
development all at once, the size of private land in Tenakee
Springs would double and would overwhelm the city.
7:16:44 PM
STEVE LEWIS, Member, Tenakee Springs City Council, thanked the
previous committee for removing the parcels near town. The
other parcel, 261 acres, is a couple of miles east of the town
core and is heavily used by the residents of Tenakee Springs for
subsistence, hunting, recreation, and commercial trapping. He
said Tenakee Springs already has quite a bit of land of its own,
so it is not incumbent upon the state or the university to
provide lands for the city to develop. The city has been
developing its lands rationally and slowly and is not opposed to
development, but it does not want development thrust down its
throat. Development would double the private land and providing
and supervising services to those lands would overwhelm this
little community. Removing this land from conveyance would have
a small impact upon the university, but transferring it to the
university would dramatically impact the community of Tenakee
Springs. He urged members to support Amendment 2.
MR. LEWIS, in response to Representative Seaton, said Tenakee
Springs has a school with about 14 students.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that school personnel in many
areas where the schools are close to the minimum number of 10
students required for staying open have expressed concern about
the need for development. Thus, it has been a balancing act
when people testify that they do not want additional
development, which in one way would probably lead to having
enough people to keep the school open, and then there is also
testimony requesting waivers to keep the school open.
Therefore, he wants to be sure the city council considered the
population of the school without development of the lands around
the Tenakee Springs area.
MR. LEWIS answered that council members took that into
consideration in their hearts while looking at this issue. He
does not believe the lands in question would have any impact on
the school, especially in the timeframe necessary to keep the
school open because if the school were to close it would happen
soon. The city needs people moving into the town core where
there is plenty of property, rather than far out.
7:21:32 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said Amendment 2 addresses the land that is
talked about on page 2, paragraph 1, of Mayor Pegues' letter,
which reads [original punctuation provided]:
Two of those lands specifically excepted from the
transfer to the City were lands designated as tracts
C30 and C34 in the Northern Southeast Area Plan
[NSEAP], adopted October 15, 2002. In 2005, DNR took
the position [House Bill] 130 that tract C30 was not
among the parcels in the 2005 list. The City is
relying on DNR's position that C30 is, similarly, not
included now in HB 295. However, if for some reason
C30 is considered included in the 2010 legislation,
the City objects.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN surmised the plan is to have this land
transferred to the City of Tenakee Springs.
MR. LEWIS replied he could not hear the question.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN understood that the letter talks about a
memorandum from the state to transfer those lands to the city.
7:23:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he is trying to determine what
the land in question looks like. He read from page 1 of the
City of Tenakee Springs Resolution 2010-16 [original punctuation
provided]:
WHEREAS, Parcel Number ST 1003 also includes the
parcel identified in the NSEAP further as C24, 261
acres more or less, and the NSEAP and March 9, 1981
Court Order declares that "Lands within this parcel
are to be retained by the state"; and
WHEREAS, the Stipulation for Settlement, (para 1.4),
Tenakee Springs vs. State of Alaska, IJU-80-1666,
March 9, 1981 stipulates these retained lands to be
managed for "Commercial, industrial, right of way, and
borrow pits" uses; and
MR. LEWIS responded the land has a road coming up from a landing
facility that was used by the old logging process, and there is
an old borrow pit along the road. The bulk of the rest of that
land is forested, except for the area that was pushed around at
the shoreline when the logging was going on.
7:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that if the City of Tenakee
Springs retained this land for its own use, it seems it would be
inappropriate to use it as a buffer zone. For example, a
hatchery, cannery, or something industrial could not be stopped.
MR. LEWIS responded he believes that would be correct under the
existing stipulation. In further response, he said that at this
point he does not think the city has any thought of using the
land for the near-term future.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether this land is
designated for anything besides commercial, industrial, road
right-of-way, and borrow pits under the Northern Southeast Area
Plan (NSEAP).
MR. LEWIS answered he does not know.
7:26:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he does not have a copy of the
memorandum of understanding between the city and the state. He
read the following from Mayor Pegues' letter, beginning with the
last paragraph on page 1 [original punctuation provided]:
The Stipulation for Settlement provides that the
State "convey to the City ... fee simple title to all
selected lands within the City's boundaries conveyed
to the state by the Bureau of Land Management, except
for the sites and acreages set out below."
Two of those lands specifically excepted from the
transfer to the City were lands designated as tracts
C30 and C34 in the Northern Southeast Area Plan,
adopted October 15, 2002. In 2005, DNR took the
position [House Bill] 130 that tract C30 was not among
the parcels in the 2005 list. The City is relying on
DNR's position that C30 is, similarly, not included
now in HB 295. However, if for some reason C30 is
considered included in the 2010 legislation, the City
objects.
MR. LEWIS noted that C30 is no longer included for conveyance to
the university because it was taken out by the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. In further response,
he explained that C30 is comprised of two parcels and parcel C34
is comprised of 261 acres located to the far east of town.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN directed attention to the topographic maps in
the committee packet for the location of C34.
7:28:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood Mr. Lewis to be testifying that
the concern is this area will be developed too fast for the city
to provide services and asked whether this is the reason for the
second and fourth whereas clauses on page 2 of the city's
resolution, which state respectively [original punctuation
provided]:
fiscal Note 3 of [HB] 295 indicates, "after
substantial additions to the LGTF endowment UA can see
modest operating revenue i.e., in approximately 20
years UA anticipates annual investment earnings on new
land sales to reach 1 percent of state general fund
support or $2.6M."; and ...
parcel number ST 1003 is approximately 301 acres in
size, which equates to .0013 percent of the total
acreage of land to be conveyed to the University;
MR. LEWIS replied the council was trying to clarify that
excluding .0013 percent of the land included in HB 295 would
have a trivial effect on the university, but transferring this
land would have a major effect on Tenakee Springs.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what would create fast development in
this parcel if it is supposed to be managed for commercial,
industrial, road right-of-way, and borrow pits.
MR. LEWIS answered that should the university take the position
that the stipulations are invalid and therefore choose to put in
subdivisions or other development that would impact the city, it
would take a legal effort to fight that development and the
community is not rich.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired where the city is at in regard to
the [Stipulation for] Settlement from its previous lawsuit.
MR. LEWIS responded that the litigation was resolved nearly 30
years ago in 1981 and prior to his time in Tenakee Springs. In
response to Co-Chair Neuman, he said he cannot hear over the
telephone much of what the committee members are saying.
7:32:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested further explanation of the
potential legal problem should this parcel be transferred to the
university.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested former city council member, Molly
Kemp, to answer the question since she was in Tenakee Springs
during that time and he talked to her by telephone last night.
MOLLY KEMP replied she was present in Tenakee Springs at the
time of that lawsuit, although she was not on the city council
at that time. She explained that there was a long-term
controversy over U.S. Forest Service logging operations up the
Indian River Valley because the City of Tenakee Springs
controlled the tidelands in that area. Negotiations occurred in
1977 between Tenakee Springs, the State of Alaska, and the
Alaska Pulp Corporation, which were resolved by a memorandum of
understanding that conveyed land to the city through the state
selection process. When that process did not occur after
several years, the city litigated against the state. That suit
was resolved in 1981 with the Stipulation for Settlement, which
she said she believes is still in effect. The stipulation
states that this specific area will be retained as public
property and assigned the uses of commercial, industrial, road
right-of-way, and borrow pits. Those uses were assigned at that
time because there was an ongoing logging operation that was
utilizing the road and this was to accommodate that process
until it was over.
7:35:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his concern with this amendment is
that the school has low population; therefore, he wanted to hear
full discussion about development of this property so that if in
the future the school falls below 10 students and closes local
residents do not then say it is the legislature's fault.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, given the community support for removing
this parcel from conveyance, withdrew his objection to Amendment
2. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was passed.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that he just heard a great sigh of
relief from Tenakee Springs.
7:37:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the university has
backup land for adding to the bill to replace those lands that
are being taken out.
MS. REDMAN answered no.
7:38:45 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN presumed it would take awhile to sell the
conveyed parcels, but that the sale of those parcels would
provide a substantial amount of money to fund the university.
MS. REDMAN responded the bulk of the properties in HB 295 are
already educational properties on which the university has
campuses, and an additional 95,000 acres are the Nenana gas
lands. The other pieces are much smaller and not all are
saleable. In further response, she confirmed the university
might lease some lands for gas and other lands would provide
substantial funds to the university.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that Ms. Redman is not before
the committee to pitch for university funding, she is here to
pass this bill. He said conveying these lands does not
necessarily translate into a budget item down the road, and he
is hoping the actions taken on HB 295 will not have an impact on
how the legislature addresses the University of Alaska budget.
To say that the university will become suddenly solvent with
passage of HB 295 would not be accurate, he argued.
7:41:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, to give Petersburg extended time to
become a borough, moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 as
follows:
Page 9, line 1:
Delete "2012"
Insert "2017"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that while she doubts this will
happen, she would like to give Petersburg extra time in case it
does happen.
7:42:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected, saying that while he does
not mind allowing Petersburg more time to decide whether to be a
borough, he is wondering what the impact of an extension would
be for other entities that might be in a similar situation.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said this provision specifically addresses
Petersburg and whether a borough is formed in that specific area
of the state.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed.
7:43:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired about the background and
reason for including this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said this language was included in
[House Bill 130] because at that time Petersburg and Wrangell
were talking about becoming boroughs. Wrangell has since become
a borough, but Petersburg is still working on it and she thought
it would be nice to give the city some extra time. In further
response, she clarified that the provision was in [House Bill
130] in 2005, and the language from that bill is now before the
legislature again. The amendment does not make any changes
other than extending Petersburg more time and right now it looks
like it will take longer than 2012.
7:45:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved a friendly amendment, Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 3, to change "2017" to "2014". He said
that since the desire is to stimulate action, 2017 is too long
and a shorter time extension might be better. Thus, Conceptual
Amendment 3, as amended, would read:
Page 9, line 1:
Delete "2012"
Insert "2014"
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON accepted the friendly amendment.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN stated that forming a borough is a tremendous
amount of work given the legal issues involved and the amount of
time required for public notice of meetings and so forth. He
said he therefore thinks a five-year extension of the deadline
to 2017 is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he thinks hastening the formation
of a borough is where the sponsor of the friendly amendment to
the amendment is going. He asked whether the lengthened
timeline could hinder the university's ability to acquire other
lands and whether the Department of Natural Resources and the
university could figure out other lands in the meantime.
7:48:47 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN directed Representative Kawasaki's question to
Ms. Redman. He further understood that House Bill 130 included
a federal land match of 250 million acres as a result of work by
U.S. Senator [Lisa] Murkowski.
MS. REDMAN answered the original land grant bill in 2000 [Senate
Bill 7] was prior to that match. The federal idea picked up
steam by the time of House Bill 130 and it was at that point
that they came together. She deferred to Mr. Mylius regarding
any contingency plans. She said she did not expect quite so
much controversy on HB 295 because she thought much of the
controversy had been worked through. During the five years
since passage of House Bill 130, the university worked with
several communities and was therefore anticipating land trades
and development activities in these communities.
7:51:15 PM
MS. REDMAN, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, said she thinks the
University of Alaska currently owns 160,000 acres. In regard to
a further question from Co-Chair Neuman about how much
university land is available for sale that is not under lease,
she deferred to Ms. Mari Montgomery.
MARI MONTGOMERY, Director, Land Management, University of
Alaska, estimated that approximately 10,000 to 15,000 acres are
currently for sale. She explained that about 500 parcels are
usually for sale or in an offering at any given time. It is a
balance of not flooding the market and easing the lots out. The
university watches how it moves parcels out because it does not
want to put 50 or 100 lots for sale in any one community.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said the university could use the money from
lands it sells to buy other lands for resale that are more
valuable or could undertake other upgrades. He said his point
was the amount of property the university actually sells per
year and how much land the university already actually owns.
7:53:11 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked what ability DNR has to assist the
university in selecting other lands to replace the lands removed
from conveyance under HB 295.
MR. MYLIUS responded there are no contingency plans because
legislation would be required to allow the university to select
other lands. The idea with HB 295 was that this is a set list
of lands with no backup lands if land was taken out. He pointed
out that if the date on page 9, line 1, is changed the
subsequent dates in that section would also need to be changed
accordingly.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether it is difficult for DNR to
assist the university in selecting other state lands.
MR. MYLIUS reiterated that DNR would need specific legislative
authority to transfer additional lands. He said the challenge
in this process is finding lands that have development
potential. Even though the state owns a lot of land, the
acreage fitting that criteria is fairly limited. For example,
the department did not want producing oil and gas properties to
be on the list and has tried to minimize the impact on the
state's timber program as well as minimize the impact on some of
the prime recreational parcels. So, any parcels that meet the
criteria for giving to the university are probably going to be
equally or perhaps even more controversial than those currently
in HB 295. It is not an easy process to come up with 200,000
acres of land that have development potential that are not in
someone's back yard.
7:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his motion to adopt Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Guttenberg,
Kawasaki, and Tuck voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 3. Representatives P. Wilson, Neuman, and Johnson
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 3 passed by a vote of 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG withdrew his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 3 as originally offered. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 3, as amended, and with any
conforming language necessary, was passed.
7:58:36 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 to remove
Frying Pan Lake from the list of parcels that would be conveyed
to the University of Alaska. He explained that this parcel is
located in Southcentral Alaska near Nancy Lake State Recreation
Area, an area that is unavailable for development. He said the
amendment is in response to the needs and desires of people in
the community of Willow, one of the fastest growing areas in the
state. Willow is currently working on its development plans and
several hundred people usually come to the community council
meetings.
8:00:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected, saying the Frying Pan Lake
parcel was identified by DNR as being land from which the
university could benefit. Given the university's testimony, he
surmised that it would use these parcels for development and
would put the parcels on the market and into private ownership
faster than would be the case under DNR. He said he is hesitant
to pull a lot of these parcels out if the committee is serious
about ensuring that this bill passes.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out it is not like the community is
unwilling to give up some lands within its boundaries. It is a
give-and-take situation of one parcel being taken and one being
left. The other parcel, Deception Creek, is prime land.
8:03:06 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired what DNR would do with the Frying Pan
Lake land if it remained in the department's possession.
MR. MYLIUS responded he believes this is an area the department
would look at for possible land sales. A number of dog mushing
trails go through this area and DNR worked extensively with the
community to identify and reserve these trails when preparing
the deeds for the university on this parcel. Any sort of land
sale would have to protect the recreational trails that go
through this area. He added that the deeds have already been
prepared for many of the other parcels included in the bill. In
further response, he said that protection of the recreational
trails would be required with conveyance to the university
because the draft deeds include reservations for the trails. If
the land remained with DNR, the department would also likely
reserve those trails in a land sale, given they have already
been identified as important trails.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN interjected that due to the rapid growth in this
area, conflicts have been arising between motorized and non-
motorized uses. It is important to keep trails where the dog
mushers can have their piece and motorized trails where the
motorized people can have their piece. He said Willow is a huge
mushing community, especially with the start of the Iditarod
trail being located there, and it is out of respect for these
people that he is proposing the amendment.
8:05:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related that HB 295 was heard in the House
Special Committee on Education and not one person from that area
testified in opposition to including these areas in the bill.
He offered his belief that the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee also did not hear any objections from
the Willow community. Since work has been done with the
community on this, it does not seem like the community is
unaware of the proposed conveyance to the university. He said
he is reluctant at this point to remove this parcel given there
has been no correspondence.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said there was lots of correspondence a few
years ago that included dog mushers from the area. The
amendment is out of respect for their goals and what they would
like to see in their community. He reiterated he wants to be
responsive to the people in the area because they have been
working on development plans. He said he has another issue with
the university: when the new Trunk Road extension went through
from the Palmer experimental farm, the university made the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) pay
tens of millions of dollars for that property. He allowed that
while the money goes from one pocket or another, the university
sold that land to the state but did not put any of that money
back into the experimental farm or other nearby areas.
8:08:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether Co-Chair Neuman wants to
see this parcel developed or not.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN replied he would like to see this land used as
the community sees fit because he likes local control rather
than the state telling the community what it must do.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether keeping this parcel under
state ownership would provide more local control than would be
the case under university ownership.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN answered the community would love to receive
this conveyance so it could sell the land to support the
community. The community would like to grow but does not have
the ability to do so because it does not have land to sell and
does not receive state revenue sharing since the area is
unincorporated. He said communities cannot be weaned from state
coffers unless they are allowed these opportunities.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in response to Representative Tuck about the
boundaries of Willow, said Nancy Lake at White's Crossing is
about four miles south of Willow town center. In further
response, he agreed this location is close to the borough
limits.
8:11:43 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in response to Representative Guttenberg,
clarified that the Frying Pan Lake parcel is within Willow city
limits. In further response he said he did not know whether the
parcel was available for selection [through the state land
selection process].
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG proffered that when looking to build a
tax base, the university is generally considered to be an
aggressive developer, which would provide property tax if Willow
has property taxes. He said the university's development
process is generally much less cumbersome that the state's. Not
wanting to convey the land because the desire is no development
is one thing, but if the desire is for development then it would
seem that conveyance to the university would be doing people a
favor because the mushing trails would be retained.
8:13:10 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN allowed that is a good point, except that Willow
is not yet an organized community. A goal in the community
development plan is to become an organized area. If Willow
received conveyance of this land the community could sell those
properties for development and set the boundaries and covenants
as the community sees fit. The dog mushing trails would create
conflicts and controversy when trying to sell the properties.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in response to Representative Seaton, confirmed
that Willow is not a municipality and added that it is an
unincorporated area of the state. In further response, he said
Willow has city limits but is not a Class B city.
8:14:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Willow is organized or
unorganized.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN replied his best guess is that Willow is
unorganized because there is only one organized city within his
district and that is Houston, which is a Class B city.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested implementing language for a future
date similar to that included in the bill on page 9 for the
cities of Wrangell and Petersburg. He said this would give
Willow the time to organize and have the ability to acquire
lands, including the Frying Pan Lake parcel.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN appreciated the suggestion, but said he does not
know the timeframe that this would take and he is trying to
respond to the community.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he is hesitant without any written or
oral testimony in this regard. A good way to promote local
control is to provide the opportunity to become organized and
independent and able to acquire the land, so his suggestion
would be a potential solution to meet the needs and desires of
the Willow community.
8:17:29 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed that this could be done on page 9 by
adding a paragraph (6) after line 11. However, he would like to
allow Willow a longer time period, at least until 2016, which is
why he thinks it would be easier to remove the parcel.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he wants to see this area protected for
the interests of Co-Chair Neuman's district, but it is difficult
without any testimony and no further information. He said he
supports giving more time and wants boroughs to be developed so
they can sustain themselves and develop their own areas. He
said he would like to propose a friendly conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 4 that would be a compromise and would give
the community a chance to weigh in, and would likely be located
on page 9 after line 11.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN suggested that a conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 4 allow the community of Willow 10 years to
request conveyance of the Frying Pan Lake parcel, and if this
does not occur within that time period the parcel would be
conveyed to the university.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed that 10 years is reasonable given
that the timeline for Petersburg was extended to 2014 and that
community is further along in the process.
8:20:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 4 [to allow the community of Willow 10
years to request conveyance of the Frying Pan Lake parcel and if
this does not occur within that time period the parcel would be
conveyed to the university].
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected, pointing out that there are no
contingency plans for adding more lands to the bill and this
amendment would potentially lock out the university from being
able to use this land. He said he would prefer the land either
be given to university or not, rather than having to wait.
8:21:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the time period for Wrangell
under House Bill 130 was from 2005 until 2012, so he agrees that
10 years is a long time. With a hold on this parcel, neither
DNR nor the university could do anything with the land. Given
that DNR has worked with the community and the university and
drawn up deeds for the trails identified by the community, this
parcel is probably in a readily developable stage, so a 10-year
limbo would be a long time. This would tie up the parcel even
more than would its removal from the list of conveyances. He
said he also has a problem with this amendment because no
objections to the conveyance have been heard from any community
members during any other committee hearings. He recalled that
objections expressed during consideration of House Bill 130 were
from people fearing that the dog mushing access would be cut
off, but this issue has now been handled in the title transfer.
8:23:43 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he also recalls those discussions, but he
does not think 10 years is too long because the university would
receive about 190,000 acres under HB 295 and already has other
lands. He reiterated it is a give and take as the Deception
Creek parcel would remain in the bill and the Frying Pan Lake
parcel would be taken out. He estimated the Deception Creek
parcel to be about one section [640 acres] in size and argued
that this 10-year delay would not cause a problem given that the
university does not want to dispose of land too quickly at one
time in an area. He asked Ms. Redman whether he is correct.
MS. REDMAN responded she is the wrong person to ask.
8:25:16 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired who the owner is of land that is
conveyed with a timeframe on it.
MARTY PARSONS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, replied that,
technically, until title passes from the state, the state still
owns that land.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether this would be like a lien where
nothing could be done with the property until it is transferred.
MR. PARSONS answered that if the land is set aside where no
action or development can be taken for a 10-year period while
the community of Willow determines whether to incorporate, then
no development or land sales could occur in that parcel through
either the university or the state.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether the state would be able to
maintain or monitor the dog mushing trails.
MR. PARSONS responded the state would still have ownership and
would be required to manage the land just like any other state
parcel. From the committee conversation that he has heard, he
said there would be no conveyance available to any other entity
or individuals until the 10-year period had run.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether the state would make any
improvements on the parcel during that 10-year period.
MR. PARSONs replied that if this land is set aside and in a
state of limbo, the department would maintain the status quo as
he cannot imagine there would be any development or expenditure
of state funds on lands for which future ownership is unsure.
8:28:05 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether Willow could request conveyance
of the land to itself if it forms a city.
MR. PARSONS answered the land surrounding the parcel has been
transferred to the borough, so nothing could be done as far as
conveying the parcel to a new municipality until it had
incorporated and any land entitlement determined and which lands
would be available. He said it is quite a process that must
take place after a community is incorporated and he believes the
state has about 2.5 years to complete that process.
8:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood Mr. Parsons to have said that
the lands around this parcel were selected by the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough, but that this parcel was not selected by the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough for borough entitlement.
MR. PARSONS responded correct, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough has
received its entire entitlement of 355,000 acres. This land was
retained by the state and that is one reason why it was selected
for inclusion in the university bill.
8:29:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Willow is part of the 355,000
acres that were given to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
MR. PARSONS replied Willow is within the boundaries of the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, so much of the lands surrounding the
community of Willow would have been conveyed to the borough as
part of its selection.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said the [Willow] city boundaries within the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough are not incorporated and he is sure
the community would take this land if it could.
8:30:53 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN reiterated the effect of Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI maintained his objection.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN stated a roll call vote would be taken and that
a yes vote would support the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 4,
as amended, and a no vote would reject the adoption of
Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, Neuman, and
Johnson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended.
Representatives Guttenberg, Kawasaki, and P. Wilson voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 4, as amended,
failed by a vote of 3-3.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN realized he was mistaken and the vote should
have been on whether to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Conceptual Amendment 4.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:33 p.m. to 8:33 p.m.
8:33:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to rescind the action on adopting
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 4. There being
no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 4
was before the committee.
8:35:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN clarified that a yes vote supports the adoption
of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual Amendment 4.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, Neuman,
Johnson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 4. Representatives Kawasaki, P. Wilson, Seaton, and
Guttenberg voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1
to Conceptual Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 3-4.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that before the committee was
Conceptual Amendment 4, as originally proposed to remove the
Frying Pan Lake parcel from HB 295.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives P. Wilson, Neuman,
and Johnson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 4.
Representatives Tuck, Seaton, Guttenberg, and Kawasaki voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 4 failed by a vote
of 3-4.
8:38:49 PM
KEVIN HOOD requested that the five-acre Sumdum parcel located
about 50 miles south of Juneau in Endicott Arm be removed from
HB 295. Recalling the Department of Natural Resources' earlier
testimony that it tries to avoid disposal of prime recreation
areas, he said the Sumdum parcel would qualify as such an area.
The parcel is a state in-holding that is entirely surrounded by
[federally] designated wilderness, he explained. He and his
fiance make regular trips to this special area to view wildlife
and pick berries. It is further unique in that the Endicott
Arm-Tracy Arm-Holkham Bay area is the first place south of
Juneau with no development. This area is the only federally
designated wilderness between Skagway and the Stikine-LeConte
Wilderness. The Sumdum parcel is used by big game hunters and
provides a protected anchorage, which is hard to find in this
area because Endicott Arm is a fjord with sheer walls and a lot
of fetch.
MR. HOOD suggested that the Sumdum parcel be traded to the U.S.
Forest Service for lands closer to Juneau that would have higher
value and be more appropriate for development, rather than
extending development into every bay south of Juneau. The
wilderness designations of the lands surrounding the Sumdum
parcel indicate this area has much value to many different
people. He said he supports withdrawing the Sumdum parcel from
conveyance to the university, but if it is not withdrawn he
would then request that a restrictive covenant be added that
disallows any development. In response to Co-Chair Neuman, he
said his state representatives are Representative Munoz and
Senator Egan.
8:43:51 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN suggested that Mr. Hood make his opinions known
to Representative Munoz and Senator Egan.
MR. HOOD said he would do that.
MR. HOOD, in response to Representative Kawasaki, confirmed the
Sumdum parcel has already had covenants added to it that would
restrict mining and timber. However, he said that in his
opinion those covenants do not go far enough because that is
neither the value nor the threat to this parcel.
8:44:23 PM
MARY IRVINE stated she is a very strong supporter of the
University of Alaska and has served the university for several
years as a volunteer instructor. She said she is respectfully
asking for the committee's help in regard to the Sumdum parcel.
Abutted on either side by the mouth of two very productive
salmon streams, the parcel was an important seasonal fish camp
to the Sumdum Clan of the Tlingit people. The late Andy Hope
documented clan houses about four miles distant from the parcel
and the people there drew fish from all these streams. While
there was no Tlingit village on the Sumdum parcel, it was the
town site of Sumdum from 1879-1903. She said that in her
research she came across Interior Board of Land appeals cases
revealing the special nature of this area, as well as a PhD
thesis documenting some of the cultural exchange that makes this
area so interesting historically and culturally. The Tlingit
name translates as the people of the sparkling green water.
MS. IRVINE said that although the Sumdum site was used by the
Tlingit people as a fish camp, it was one of the very first
towns in American Alaska during the gold mining days. The site
was not frequented by the Russian America Company. From 1879-
1903, the town of Sumdum consisted of several hundred people:
some local Tlingits, some out-of-the-area Tlingits who came for
work in the new economy, and some new gold miner immigrants to
Alaska. These people used the very beach at Sumdum that is
being talked about to pull up their boats and barges and later a
large dock and staging area were erected. Cabins and a
bunkhouse went up, as did a laundry, a cookhouse, and American
Alaska's first brewery. A corduroy road and a horse ore cart
tram system were put in place. Dozens of miles of tunnels were
blasted into the surrounding hills for the hard rock gold and
those tunnels still remain today.
8:49:51 PM
MS. IRVINE said that in October 1879, three Tlingit Indians from
Wrangell paddled a dugout canoe through a storm to bring over a
Presbyterian missionary and John Muir. Ship logs indicate that
many ships stopped at the site. The Alaska State Library has
several photographic collections showing the town of Sumdum.
She herself possesses a letter with a stamp cancellation from
the U.S. post office in Sumdum for a package that was mailed
from Sutter Creek, California. The Alaska State Museum holds
several items collected at Sumdum, one of which is a unique
rifle that was used experimentally by the U.S. Navy in the early
1800s. There are historical accounts of early botanists
collecting un-to-for undiscovered plants at Sumdum, as well as
writings about labor disputes that occurred during the early
corporate mining era at the town of Sumdum. An early governor,
Governor Shakely, stepped in to mediate civil unrest and
disputes at Sumdum in a historical act of cross-cultural fact
finding and discerning the rights of land users at Sumdum. She
said the question is how this public history and diversity of
people are valued because they are part of the formative
beginnings for today's great and diverse state.
MS. IRVINE urged that the amendment regarding the Sumdum parcel
made last week by Representative Munoz in the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee be strengthened by
adding the words "development including" on page 10, line 6,
after the word "to" and before "commercial". Thus, lines 6-7
would read: "(1) may not be open to development including
commercial timber harvest or mineral development;". She said
she believes that if the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee had been able to work on the amendment
further, this is what it would have done.
8:54:23 PM
MS. IRVINE added that this change to the covenant would also
technically and legally fulfill the letter and spirit of the
[Central/Southern] Southeast Area Plan which outlines the
state's long-standing management intent for the parcel known as
Sumdum. She said the plan was the result of intense public
process with adequate notice and comment and intense public
input. The plan was formally adopted by the state in November
2000 and should be considered the controlling document that this
committee and the legislature looks to, not the lands list that
has been provided from House Bill 130 because there are many
errors in that list. In the plan, Sumdum is designated
recreation undeveloped (RU) and RU is the most restrictive
category for lands as these lands cannot be sold to an
individual. She maintained that under this language the
university lands office would either constitute an individual or
the university would intend to sell the land to individuals.
She said the history of Sumdum does not belong to one person or
one corporation; it is a history that can be offered to future
generations and visitors.
8:56:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the university's intention is
to use the Sumdum parcel for research and whether Ms. Irvine's
intent is to not see any development of any kind.
MS. IRVINE responded her interest is to see the Sumdum land
preserved and remain public. The 4.9-acre parcel is outside the
city limits of Juneau and is surrounded by the 730,000-acre
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness. She said she cannot envision
more than a lodge or a dock on that area, and has had heartburn
with the meetings the university has had with potential buyers
since 2005 because she does not believe that is in the best
interest of the public.
8:58:39 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON referred to page 10, lines 8-10, which state
the site must be preserved for historical, cultural, scientific,
and educational purposes and must remain accessible to the
public. He surmised this provision would do what Ms. Irvine is
asking.
MS. IRVINE said this language is very general and while it fits
what she is talking about, it is so non-specific that someone
could put in a tramway, a zipline, or a dock with full access to
the public. Therefore, she is interested in the parcel
receiving a more restrictive covenant to protect the land.
9:01:11 PM
DONALD BULLOCK JR., Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, said he thinks it would be helpful to outline the
structure of the bill for the people still waiting to testify.
Section 5 would convey the land to the university in AS
14.40.365(a): subsection (n) would take parcels out of the list
that is referred to under (a) and would keep them in the custody
of the Department of Natural Resources; [subsection (o)] would
provide conditional delays in which land is conveyed to the
university to allow newly formed municipalities to lay claim to
those lands; and [subsection (r)], the Sumdum provision, would
allow the land to go to the university but the parcel would be
subject to certain limitations and covenants. He suggested that
when witnesses testify they specify whether they want the land
to be taken out of the list and not transferred, or have the
conveyance delayed, or want the land to be transferred but
subject to certain conditions.
9:03:39 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN noted he is providing members with a list of
concerns received from Mr. Bullock via electronic mail.
MR. BULLOCK, in response to Co-Chair Johnson and in regard to
[Conceptual Amendment 3] which extended the date from 2012 to
2014, inquired whether the committee's intent is to also extend
the date on page 9, line 29, from 2016 to 2018. He said his
reason for raising the question is that 2016 is still past 2014,
so it is conceivable that within that two-year period the land
selection could be made, but whether or not it was the intent of
the committee to extend that date to 2018 should be clarified.
9:05:17 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in consultation with Co-Chair Johnson, said he
would prefer not to take on a clarifying amendment at this time.
He added that discussions with Speaker Chenault indicate there
may be some constitutional issues with the bill so it will be
receiving assignment to the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
9:06:13 PM
MR. BULLOCK addressed the issues he raised with the bill [in his
paper entitled, "Issues with CSHB 295(EDC)]. He said one legal
issue is with Section 13 [pages 14-15] which would provide that
a certain amount of money that is generated from mineral lease
rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, and net profit shares
go into the permanent fund. Article IX, Section 15, requires a
minimum of 25 percent of these type of monies to go into the
permanent fund. The beginning of Paragraph (1) in Section 13
would provide for the minimum amount to go into the permanent
fund, but the paragraph is limited in time because the last part
of the paragraph includes the dates of on or before December 1,
1979, and on or before February 15, 1980. Paragraph (2) would
provide for 50 percent of those monies to go into the permanent
fund, which is the 25 percent required by the constitution plus
an additional 25 percent the legislature chose to appropriate.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said the committee would have Mr. Bullock return
to address these issue further.
9:08:25 PM
MR. BULLOCK, in response to Representative Seaton, explained
that when the state received land from the federal government it
was subject to the condition that the state could lease the
mineral interest but could not dispose or transfer ownership of
the mineral interest. It is possible to transfer land to the
university which can hold title to land, and as an entity of the
state the university can have the mineral rights with the land.
Section 13 talks about mineral income. For example, if the
Nenana gas fields prove to be productive, then the mineral
income from that would be subject to being added to the
permanent fund. Since university land is state land this raises
the issue of whether some state land can be only subject to 25
percent and other state land subject to 50 percent. He said his
recommendation is rather than applying it to these old leases,
it be added to paragraph (2) or else to say nothing because it
is mineral income from state land.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN returned to public testimony.
9:11:34 PM
TIM LYDON said he and his wife Barbara Lydon are speaking on
behalf of 18 commercial tour operators ranging in size from
local operators in Southeast Alaska to large out-of-state
operators that run multiple vessels in northern Southeast
Alaska. He said when he last testified on the bill, he spoke on
behalf of 17 operators, so the number of people concerned about
the Sumdum parcel is growing. The group has testified before
the other committees, but frustration is growing because the
group's interests have not been met. He said it is important to
note that this 4.9-acre parcel sitting in the middle of 730,000
acres of federally designated wilderness is the only undeveloped
mainland bay between Juneau and Frederick Sound. It has this
federal designation because it is a very unique place. It is
valuable to him, his wife, and other Juneau residents who go to
there to sightsee, fish, hunt, kayak, and camp because it is an
undeveloped bay. It is also valuable to the 18 companies he is
representing because they use this location for guided hunting,
fishing, walks ashore, sightseeing, kayaking, and camping.
Sanford Cove where the Sumdum parcel is located is a safe
anchorage for the boats of these 18 companies; this is of very
high value because Endicott Arm and Tracy Arm have virtually no
anchorages. The reasons for caring about the Sumdum parcel are
its important cultural and aesthetic values. Additionally,
there is the compatibility issue with the surrounding federally
designated wilderness, which is indicated by DNR's management
designation for this parcel.
9:16:05 PM
MR. LYDON addressed the issue of economics, noting that the 18
companies he is represents include small and mid-size tour
companies, hunting operations, kayaking operations, and others.
He said research by the University of Alaska has demonstrated
that this sector of Alaska's nature-based tourism industry pumps
tens of millions of dollars into the Southeast Alaska economy
every year. The clients served by these companies must spend
their nights before and after their tours in hotels in Southeast
Alaska, which makes them unique from the cruise ship industry.
These 18 companies represent approximately 22 vessels that
provision in Southeast Alaska throughout the summer, meaning
each week's load of fuel, food, and supplies is shopped in
Southeast Alaska. He pointed out that the backbone of this
industry is nature-based tourism where people are brought to the
undeveloped places in Alaska that they see on television and the
Internet.
MR. LYDON said the 18 companies he is representing would prefer
that the Sumdum parcel be removed from conveyance to the
university. Given that the group realizes there is pressure to
keep the parcel in the bill, it would be amenable to a covenant.
However, the covenant as currently written is inadequate because
the area is not threatened by mining or logging. The threat is
someone building a small lodge on the parcel with flight seeing,
catamaran tours, and so forth, and all of that can be done under
the current language that describes preserving the area for
education, cultural, and historical values. Therefore, an
amendment providing for no development is important to these 18
companies, himself, and other Juneau residents.
9:19:27 PM
ROBERTA CHARLES expressed her concern about Biorka Island
because it is a customary place for her family, which has a
reinstatement application for the 115 acres that Rudolph Walton
had applied for as a Native allotment but did not get. The
basis of the reinstatement is that Mr. Walton was not provided a
hearing to present evidence of use and occupancy for the
additional acreage that was originally denied. The family would
like Biorka Island to be excluded from conveyance to the
university. In response to Co-Chair Neuman, she said she is 73
years old and this is a family matter that goes back to her
grandfather's time.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether there is a question of
whose land it is and that this is not state land.
MS. CHARLES responded that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is
handling this. Her mother attended a hearing held a few years
ago by the Sitka Tribe of Alaska to request the land be returned
to the family. Congressmen were also present at the hearing.
The family's request is still in process. In response to Co-
Chair Neuman, she agreed to provide Representative Wilson with
further information in this regard.
9:22:20 PM
STEVE HENRIKSON related that Rudolph Walton was born on Biorka
Island in 1867 and was one of Sheldon Jackson School's first
Tlingit students at the Sitka Industrial Training School. At
the time of his graduation, Alaska Natives were not allowed to
hold legal title to any property except through the homesteader
Native allotment process. Rudolf Walton applied for about 140
acres, but only received 40 of those acres. Due to military
emergency during World War II, those 40 acres were taken from
him by the U.S. government with the stipulation that after the
war the land would be returned. Instead, the land was turned
over to several federal agencies. The family has been fighting
for this land for decades and several family members have passed
away during this time. In 2005, during consideration of [House
Bill 130], both the family and the Sitka Tribe of Alaska pointed
out this matter and explained it was not yet resolved, yet this
property remained in the bill. The family understands through
the Sitka Tribe of Alaska that this issue is being actively
dealt with by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the family
would like Biorka Island to be removed from conveyance to the
university under this bill.
9:24:52 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN observed that eight or nine other Walton family
members are still waiting to testify. He requested that further
information be provided to Representative Wilson's office.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said the bill would be remaining in
committee and asked the Walton family members to contact her
office. She surmised the university would not want something
that has been in litigation, but she would like to know exactly
what is being dealt with.
9:26:37 PM
MARY ANNE NAVITSKY, DDS, testified on behalf of herself and the
following Rudolf Walton family members: Irene Vaden; Josephine
Patterson; Charles Daniels Jr.; Elizabeth Goldsbury, great-
granddaughter of Mr. Walton; Cheryle Enloe; William Craig; and
Jeremiah Craig. Dr. Navitsky said she is a granddaughter of
Rudolph Walton. She spoke as follows:
Rudolph Walton was a Tlingit Indian born on Biorka
Island in 1867. Biorka Island was his summer home and
fish camp through his whole life. Mr. Walton had
applied and received Biorka Island as part of his
Native allotment. The federal government established
the Native Allotments Act of 1906 to return land to
Alaska Natives. The federal government issued Rudolph
Walton a certificate of ownership for the Native
allotment on Biorka Island. During World War II the
United States government requested Biorka Island to
help protect this country, and Rudolph Walton's
property was then used in the war effort. It was not
returned to him or his heirs as was expected when it
was no longer needed to protect the country. He was a
responsible citizen and a patriot and always supported
this country and believed his rights would be honored
and protected. The heirs of Rudolph Walton and the
Sitka Tribe of Alaska have worked very hard to have
this property returned to his family. Federal
agencies, including the Department of Defense, United
States Coast Guard, United States Forest Service, have
all supported this effort. The heirs and the Sitka
Tribe of Alaska are continuing to work to correct this
injustice and to have Biorka Island Native Allotment
returned to Rudolph Walton heirs and respectfully
request that Biorka Island not be included in the
University of Alaska Land Grant List 2005, which is
currently part of HB 295. Please amend this bill and
remove Biorka Island.
9:29:19 PM
CHERYLE ENLOE, in response to Representative Wilson, said Biorka
Island is further out in the ocean than is Fort Russo.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said it would be good to remove Biorka Island so
it can be re-submitted to the family. He offered his assurance
that Representative Wilson would work with the family on this
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON agreed.
9:30:13 PM
LEO LUCZAK, Community Development Director, City of Petersburg,
related that the Petersburg city council passed a resolution
requesting an extension of the moratorium on the selection of
university land within the boundaries of the proposed Petersburg
borough. He thanked members for the two-year extension, but
said he is afraid it may be unrealistic because the borough
petition must be re-done, attorneys hired, and an extensive
outreach program conducted to the 10 percent of the population
that resides in the unorganized borough. He said there is not
much to offer those residents in this regard, but one carrot is
that the borough would be able to select some unencumbered lands
outside the borough. He estimated that 95 percent of the land
outside the borough is owned by the federal government, so would
not be available for selection. The land that was available was
selected by many state agencies, including prior selections by
the University of Alaska. Nearly all of the remaining available
land was then taken by the Mental Health Trust when it was
reconstituted. The five parcels requested by Petersburg in HB
295 are the only available state lands left within the proposed
borough. He requested that Petersburg be given a five-year
extension because he does not believe an organized borough can
be formed in two years and if the opportunity is lost to select
these parcels, there will be nothing else to select that would
benefit the proposed borough.
9:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the committee added
four more years by amending the deadline from 2012 to 2014.
MR. LUCZAK responded that Petersburg has a very open,
Scandinavian-like government process that takes time and while
Petersburg really desires to form a borough, he is afraid the
2014 deadline will be hit. He said his personal opinion is that
if the opportunity is lost to select these remaining state lands
Petersburg will then never form a borough.
9:33:38 PM
DAVID KENSINGER said he is one of the residents of the proposed
Petersburg borough and is in the unique position of volunteering
himself to be taxed because he feels very strongly that
Petersburg must form this borough. He related that during the
past process, it became obvious that Petersburg was going to be
unable to complete the process in time to receive the community
selection lands. Hence, it was hard to motivate people outside
the boundary of the City of Petersburg to sign on to the
process. Forming a borough is a very cumbersome process. For
example, it can take a year or longer for the local boundary
commission to even look at the proposal and reply. He said he
is therefore asking for more time because he thinks forming a
borough is important and will happen.
9:34:51 PM
DENNIS ROGERS, regarding the Sumdum selection in Sanford Cove,
stated that he is one of the small business owners referred to
by Mr. Lydon. He said his business conducts extensive trips in
the Sumdum area and Sanford Cove and, in addition to being a
scenic location, it is one of very few anchorages in that area.
He speculated that these attributes are why it has had all the
historic attention referred to by Ms. Irvine. It would be a
shame to see the Sumdum parcel go into private hands for
development by a single corporation and preclude that area from
use by Alaskans. He urged that this parcel be removed from
conveyance to the university and, if not removed, then special
attention be given to the covenants suggested by Ms. Irvine.
9:36:37 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN left public testimony open and held over HB 295.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 295 Letter 3.16.10.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 amend C.2.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 amend C.3.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295-1-1-011910-REV-N.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295-2-2-011910-DNR-Y.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295-3-1-011910-UA-Y.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 DNR MLW Ltr 3.24.10.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 LAW Ltr 2.25.10.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 LAW ltr 3.30.10.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295(CRA).pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 UA Gen Couns Ltr 3.24.10.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |
| HB 295 Leg Legal Memo 3.22.10.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2010 6:00:00 PM |
HB 295 |