Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/18/2010 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB273 | |
| HB280 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 280 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act relating to general grant land entitlements
for the City and Borough of Wrangell; and providing
for an effective date."
9:27:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, SPONSOR, spoke briefly to the
legislation.
9:27:55 AM AT EASE
9:29:08 AM RECONVENED
REID HARRIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, explained that
the bill related to land entitlements for the City and
Borough of Wrangell. Wrangell had originally received a
smaller land entitlement of 1,952 acres from the state when
the borough was set up. The formula used by the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) for giving land to boroughs
deeds 10 percent of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved
(VUU) state land; Wrangell is comprised of 97 percent
federal land. Wrangell negotiated with DNR to get 6,506
acres total. Later, the borough realized that the 2,500
acre Sunny Bay parcel shown on the map (copy on file) was
slated for the University of Alaska.
Mr. Harris referred to various parties who used the Sunny
Bay parcel: Alaska Crossings, a statewide wilderness youth
program; another individual with a guide business; and the
inhabitants of Meyers Chuck. He explained that an amendment
would allow the City and Borough of Wrangell to exercise
control over the area to provide for the economic and
recreational needs of its citizens. He pointed to a
conflict with HB 295, the university land grant bill, and
noted that Representative Wilson had passed an amendment in
the House Resources Committee giving Wrangell precedence
over the university related to the requested land.
9:32:28 AM
Representative Fairclough asked whether Wrangell still has
first choice over the university. Mr. Harris responded that
the university bill was amended and would give Wrangell
first choice over the university.
Representative Fairclough thought there was already a
statute stating the fact and wanted to know why an
amendment was also needed. Mr. Harris responded that HB 273
had been amended in the Community and Regional Affairs
Committee (CRA) to provide 6,506 acres; the amendment
before the House Finance Committee seeks to add an
additional 2,500 acres (the exact size of the Sunny Bay
parcel). He detailed that the sponsor wanted to amend both
bills: HB 295 to give Wrangell priority choice over the
university, and HB 273 to increase Wrangell's land grant to
allow them to select the parcel.
Representative Wilson stated that the normal process allows
a borough to select 10 percent; if the amendment passes the
amount would only be one half of one percent. She added
that the Sunny Bay parcel was not in the original bill
because the boundaries of the borough were not known.
Representative Fairclough understood that the preference of
the borough's selection over the university was already in
current statute (AS 14.40.365). She asked whether something
had changed to necessitate changing statute. Mr. Harris
responded that the statute does not list the particular
parcel.
Representative Fairclough wondered whether the intent was
then further clarity. She asked if the statute allowing the
borough first choice was still in place. Mr. Harris
responded in the affirmative.
9:35:52 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED Amendment 1, 26-LS1292\R.4 (Cook,
3/16/10):
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "6,505"
Insert "9,006"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Thomas spoke in favor of encouraging the
formation of boroughs, and opined that the state should
give state land when a borough does not have enough. He
hoped DNR would support the addition of the parcel.
9:37:27 AM
DICK MYLIUS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND and WATER,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference),
addressed Representative Fairclough's question, explaining
that the university statute needed to be amended because it
was ruled unconstitutional, which is why the university
land bill is before the legislature again. He underlined
the fact that there is no current statute giving the
borough preference over the university.
Mr. Mylius turned to the position of DNR on HB 273. He
explained that the department agrees that the entitlement
for the City and Borough of Wrangell was not sufficient. He
detailed that the formula regarding how much land is
allotted to municipalities is driven by AS 29.65 allowance
of 10 percent of vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved
state land. He noted that the City and Borough of Wrangell
and Haines Borough entitlements are small because both are
surrounded by national forest land. The department had
agreed to work with both Wrangell and Haines to consider
appropriate parcels of land in order to increase the
entitlements. He reported that the number DNR proposed for
the City and Borough of Wrangell was 6,506 acres.
Mr. Mylius stated that the department did not support the
amendment to increase the entitlement because it felt
transfer of the [Sunny Bay] parcel to the university was
more appropriate. In addition, commitments had been made to
the university. He noted that the House version of the bill
had been amended in the House Resources Committee to remove
the parcel, although the parcel is still slated for the
university in the Senate version of the bill.
Mr. Mylius added that DNR supports the efforts of Wrangell
and Haines to increase their entitlements.
9:40:15 AM
Representative Gara pointed out that the bill does not
identify the parcels; he wanted to know whether the acreage
discussed corresponded to the parcels. Mr. Mylius responded
that the department had a "gentleman's agreement" with the
City and Borough of Wrangell as to what lands would be
selected. He noted there were limits to the land that could
be selected, as the statutory definition of what lands
municipalities can get is still "vacant, unappropriated,
unreserved (VUU) state lands." He stressed that all the
lands that have been discussed with the City and Borough of
Wrangell qualify as VUU lands; a subsequent decision-making
process will have to take place to determine whether it is
in the state's best interests to transfer the specific
parcels of land. He added that one of the big issues was
impact on the state's timber program in Southeast; the
department wanted to minimize the valuable timber lands
that would be transferred.
Representative Gara voiced concerns regarding the
Crittenden Creek watershed and asked whether the watershed
was part of the proposed land transfer. Mr. Mylius
responded that the borough had indicated an interest in a
portion of the parcel, not the entire parcel.
Representative Gara pointed to statute that requires the
state to maintain a public access easement to water bodies
(including streams) when it transfers land. He asked
whether the "to and along easement" would be automatically
reserved if the parcel was transferred to the borough. Mr.
Mylius responded that providing for the easement is a
requirement of any land transfer. Public and navigable
waters are identified and then easements along and to the
water bodies are reserved.
Representative Gara asked whether the easement language was
required in the bill or if current statute was sufficient.
Mr. Mylius replied that all land transfers routinely
require the easement and that there is no need to reference
it specifically.
9:43:37 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked whether the university parcel was
part of the allowable timber cut in Southeast. Mr. Mylius
responded that the university parcels were not, but the
parcels Wrangell is interested in were. Most of the parcels
the borough wanted prior to the Sunny Cove parcel were not
targeted by the university.
Representative Fairclough asked the estimated value of the
6,506 acres of land. Mr. Mylius replied that he did not
know; municipal entitlements are strictly acreage driven
and DNR does not calculate the value.
Representative Fairclough wondered whether the 9,006 acres
requested by the sponsor should be incorporated. Mr. Mylius
responded in the affirmative. He explained that although
municipal entitlements are formula driven, there have been
times when the legislature has chosen to change the
purview. He gave the examples of Yakutat and the Lake and
Peninsula Boroughs.
Representative Fairclough asked whether the constitutional
challenge to the university land grant was the only reason
the parcels were available. Mr. Mylius responded that the
Sunny Bay parcel would have remained deeded to the
university if the university land bill had not been
challenged or if the state had prevailed. He added that the
university would have to deed the parcel back to the state
by May 1 if the university land bill did not pass.
9:47:00 AM
Representative Kelly queried the history of the changing
acreage requested. Representative Wilson explained that
Wrangell had originally asked for 19,000 acres; the amount
has gone progressively down to 6,500. The amendment would
add a parcel already used by residents and bring the total
up to half of the original request.
Mr. Mylius added that the original entitlement for the City
and Borough of Wrangell was about 1,900 acres, the formula-
driven 10 percent of the VUU state land. The original HB
273 asked for 19,000 acres; DNR felt that amount was
unacceptable as it would significantly affect university
lands and allowable timber cut calculations for Southeast.
Discussions with the city and borough resulted in agreement
regarding the 6,500 acre figure. The Sunny Bay parcel was
added still later; DNR still felt it was more appropriate
for the parcel to go to the university.
Representative Kelly asked whether the parcel the amendment
would add would violate the original university bill. Mr.
Mylius responded in the affirmative.
9:51:43 AM
Representative Fairclough asked whether the university
would be adversely affected by the 6,506 acre request. Mr.
Mylius answered that the university would not be adversely
affected. In 2005, Wrangell was not a borough and had no
municipal entitlement. Wrangell formed a borough between
the time the university land legislation originally passed
and the present. The assumption was that the borough could
trump the university on three of the parcels if Wrangell
formed a borough. The Sunny Cove parcel was never discussed
in 2005.
Representative Fairclough summarized that the university as
well as Wrangell had expectations of receiving the parcel.
She thought the measure before the committee represented
additional growth inside Wrangell's new boundaries. She was
looking for value in dollars. She thought the question was
what the university would do with the property and wanted
to balance that against benefit to Wrangell. She believed
the university would probably sell the parcel for a profit.
She wondered whether Wrangell was concerned that the
community would be harmed if the land was clearcut or
developed in a way that adversely affected employment. She
noted that the state had other options available for the
university that were outside Wrangell's boundaries.
9:56:02 AM
Representative Austerman questioned DNR's stance on the
additional 2,500 acre request. Mr. Mylius responded that
DNR did not agree with the additional increase.
Representative Austerman asked whether the department's
position was related to making sure the university got its
land selections. Mr. Mylius replied that DNR supported the
governor's bills in both bodies to give the land to the
university. He noted that the pool of land in the current
university bill was the same as that approved in 2005.
Representative Austerman asked whether any part of the
6,500 acres was included in the original university land.
Mr. Mylius replied that the land was included but an
earlier provision (the 2005 legislation and the current
version of the bill moving through the legislature) allows
the borough to trump the university on certain parcels.
9:58:11 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked how many parcels in Southeast and
how many in northern Alaska had been taken out of the
university land grant. Mr. Mylius explained that of the
original list submitted in 2005, amendments took out nine
parcels, eight in Southeast and one in Kodiak. The current
bill started with the nine parcels already out and he
believed five Southeast parcels have been removed in the
committee process on the House bill; the Senate bill has
not moved yet. One additional parcel has restrictions and
part of the Pelican parcel was taken out.
Vice-Chair Thomas emphasized that Southeast municipalities
are trying to keep land. He did not believe giving the land
to the university and the Mental Health Trust would provide
incentive to struggling Southeast communities to grow and
form boroughs. He thought the parcel being considered by
Wrangell was necessary for the community to grow. He stated
the communities should have preference over the university.
Representative Kelly thought the entitlement percentage
would have resulted in 1,900 acres. He supported the fact
that Wrangell's entitlement was met and now tripled.
However, he pointed to the "tough fight" related to the
university. Mr. Mylius agreed that the present legislation
would triple Wrangell's entitlement.
10:03:50 AM
Representative Wilson noted that the 15 boroughs that had
gone through the process had each received an average of
1.13 percent, the amount that Wrangell was asking for. She
acknowledged that 97 percent of the borough is Tongass
National Forest, along with some state land. The Department
of Natural Resources did not want to give that state land
to Wrangell, which left only the university land. She
underlined that Wrangell would have received 19,000 acres
if it had received the 1.13 percent average. She felt that
the extra 2,500 acres requested in the amendment was fair
since Wrangell had received only one third of 19,000 acres.
Representative Wilson asserted that the parcel is important
to one of Wrangell's largest employers, Alaska Crossings,
and that the community had already lost 50 jobs since last
October due to mill closure. She did not want to lose
another 85 jobs by giving the parcel to the university.
10:06:42 AM
Representative Gara needed more information about the
university land bill. He asked whether Wrangell would have
jurisdiction over the parcel if it were given to the
university. Mr. Mylius responded that the land is already
within the borough boundaries and would be subject to
borough regulations; if the university received the land
and developed it, the university would be subject to
taxation. Mr. Harris noted that Alaska Crossings had
already developed the parcel and intended to continue to
use it as they have.
Representative Gara asked what would be different if the
university had the land. Mr. Harris answered that the
university land grant bill contains a privacy clause; the
university does not have to tell the communities about its
negotiations with sellers or land use plans. Wrangell is
concerned that the land would be sold or developed. The
borough intends to keep the parcel as it is for the use of
Alaska Crossings and hunting guides.
10:09:53 AM
Representative Kelly asked whether there is other land
available to the borough that is not university land. Mr.
Mylius responded generally no; any non-university land is
timber land that DNR wants retained by the state.
Representative Wilson highlighted the fact that state land
is available, but DNR wants to use it as timber land.
Representative Fairclough queried the availability of other
lands in the state that could be used by the university.
Mr. Mylius responded that DNR had spent considerable time
in 2005 putting the list together for the university. He
stated that there is a limited amount of state land that
can be used for revenue without major problems. For
example, oil and gas land is specifically off limits to the
university. There are other lands, but those could be
equally contentious. The university land bill does not have
provision for substitute lands.
10:12:35 AM
Representative Fairclough queried the reasons for the
original 10 percent calculation. Mr. Mylius replied that
the number is from AS 29.65, the municipal land grant
statute. The statute specifies 10 percent of VUU state
land, determined by a combination of land classification
and whether the legislature has set aside any land. For
example, in Haines, the VUU calculation comes out low
because a large percentage of the state land in Haines has
been set aside by the legislature in the Haines State
Forest and the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve. In Wrangell the
10 percent was low because there is so little state land.
He did not think any of the state land in Wrangell was set
aside by the legislature, and only a limited amount was
VUU. The Department of Natural Resources determines VUU
through land use plans; for example, settlement or public
recreation lands by statute become part of the 10 percent
and are available for the boroughs. Lands that are
classified as forestry, oil and gas, or wildlife habitat
are off limits by statute.
10:14:12 AM
Representative Fairclough listed the reasons she supported
Amendment 1:
· There are other lands available to the university.
· The land was not available to Wrangell, but Wrangell
needs land to start a borough.
· Not all lands are equal; DNR and state law does not
put a value on the property, and does not distinguish
between swamp land and beach front.
· There is limited access to land to the region, which
is why the calculation for the borough of Wrangell is
so low.
· The reason the parcels are available to the university
is to turn them into revenue, which means the local
community will not have control over the use of the
land.
Representative Kelly asked whether the university was
available to comment. Co-Chair Stoltze replied that they
were not.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thomas, Austerman, Doogan, Fairclough, Foster,
Gara, Joule, Hawker, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Kelly
The MOTION PASSED (9-1). Amendment 1 was adopted.
10:17:21 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED Amendment 2, 26-LS1292\R.5, Cook,
3/17/10:
Page 1, line 2, following "Wrangell":
Insert "and for the Haines Borough"
Page 2, line 6:
Delete "."
Insert ";
(15) Haines Borough - 3,167 acres."
Page 2, line 18, following "AS 29.65.010(a)(14)":
Insert "or (15)"
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "or (14)"
Insert ", (14), or (15)"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Thomas explained that the Haines Borough had
only 2,800 acres left after the eagle preserve and the
state forest were taken.
CASEY SCHROEDER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL THOMAS,
detailed that the amendment would make some technical
changes and specifies the acreage amount as 3,167. The
amendment would also put Haines on the same selection
schedule as Wrangell.
Mr. Mylius commented that DNR worked with Haines on the
issue and agreed that the original entitlement was low as
so much of the land was in the forest and eagle preserve.
He thought Haines would propose a larger number of acres as
a larger number had been agreed to.
Vice-Chair Thomas stated that the borough was asking for an
additional 1,367 acres to the original entitlement. Mr.
Mylius thought 1,809 acres had been agreed to. He referred
to disagreement over one parcel.
Vice-Chair Thomas explained that the Lynn Canal/Lynn
Sisters acreage was around 1,300 and the parcel had been
removed from the university land bill. He noted that DNR
did not want to give the parcel to the Haines Borough but
wanted to use it for a marine park. He stated that he was
not a fan of additional parks and had made a policy call:
if the committee accepts the amendment, Haines will accept
the amount; if not, he would go back to the original
amount. He viewed Lynn Sisters as one of the best parcels
and thought it could be used as an exchange.
Vice-Chair Thomas argued that the eagle preserve and the
state forest lands have automatic expansion rights to any
lands that the state selects, while the borough cannot
expand its boundaries unless it takes land elsewhere and
forces DNR to exchange land. He spoke to land that will not
be available to the borough because it will automatically
go to the eagle preserve and state forest when it has been
relinquished by the federal government. His tactic was to
get the requested parcel and exchange it later for land
nearer Haines.
10:23:05 AM
Representative Kelly asked whether the 1,809 acres could be
transferred without taking from the original university
allocation. Mr. Mylius replied that the parcel would take
from the university land; with the exception of a few
hundred acres in Excursion Inlet, the parcel was in the
2005 agreement.
Representative Kelly queried DNR's position, which appeared
to be positive [related to Haines' request]; he wondered
why the department responded negatively to what seemed a
similar situation in Wrangell. Mr. Mylius acknowledged
DNR's positions were different regarding the two
municipalities. He stated that there was no other land in
Haines and the department felt Haines had made a good
argument for the specific parcels. He explained that one of
the issues DNR had with the Sunny Bay parcel was that
Wrangell did not want to develop it, while Haines had
identified parcels for potential development. The issues
were the intended use of the land and the impact to the
university.
Representative Kelly summarized that the governor's bill
and therefore the administration would not support the
additional acreage request in Wrangell but would support
the additional request in Haines. Mr. Mylius agreed.
Representative Kelly asked why DNR did not want to go to
the original 3,167 amount. Mr. Mylius responded that the
department originally wanted the parcel to go to the
university. He stressed that when looking at municipal
entitlements, DNR has to make a determination whether the
entitlement is in the state's best interests. Part of the
best interest determination is looking at land use plans.
The northern Southeast area plan specifically calls for
retaining the parcel in state ownership, possibly for
future park use or because of its recreation value. The
department cannot be sure the state's best interests would
be protected if the parcel is transferred to the borough.
The legislature is deciding to give more acreage, not
giving specific parcels.
Mr. Mylius added that the reason the state could give the
land to the university despite the land use plan is that
the university legislation actually transfers specific
parcels of land; in that case the legislature is the one
making the best interest determination. With university
transfers, DNR only needs to issue the deeds; there is no
additional best interest finding or public process.
Representative Kelly commented that the development option
proposed by Vice-Chair Thomas was more attractive to him
than some "lock up" for a few people in Wrangell. He wished
the university was present to speak, and maintained his
concern.
10:28:43 AM
Representative Gara asked whether there was road access to
the Lynn Sisters parcel. He also wondered how the community
of Haines felt about the addition of the 1,300 acres.
MARK EARNEST, HAINES BOROUGH MANAGER (via teleconference),
replied that much of land comprising the current Haines
borough was placed into various reserve classifications by
the state, primarily for resource development and other
management designations. He added that when the third-class
borough formed, it received 2,800 acres, the smallest
entitlement; this resulted in Haines not receiving its
entitlement under state law. Haines had worked with DNR to
identify VUU lands that would be available. Originally, the
Lynn Sisters parcel was identified. The borough and the
community are very interested in acquiring the parcel.
Subsequently, the property was dropped from the request.
Mr. Ernest emphasized that the community supported the
amendment.
10:32:16 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas summarized that the parcels had been
taken out of the university lands and he did not support
giving them back to DNR to be put into park status. He
wanted the land for the borough of Haines.
Co-Chair Stoltze clarified that the amendment was version
R.5, 3/17/10.
Representative Kelly MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thomas, Austerman, Doogan, Fairclough, Foster,
Gara, Joule, Hawker, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Kelly
The MOTION PASSED (9-1). Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to the zero fiscal note by DNR.
10:34:31 AM
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 273 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 273 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and the previously published fiscal
note: FN 1 (DNR).
10:35:02 AM AT EASE
10:48:06 AM RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 280 Amendment #3.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280 Amendment #4 Hawker.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 280 |
| HB 273 Amendments #1&2.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| HB 273 Haines Map Backup to Amendment #2.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| HB 273 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 273 |
| HB 280 DNR Map & exploration Incentives.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 280 |