Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/27/1995 04:15 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 16 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA Number 233 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the committee has for its working document CSSB 16(FIN) AM, version F. SENATOR STEVE FRANK, PRIME SPONSOR, said SB 16 is a bill introduced again this year. He noted last year the bill moved through the Senate, through the House and was scheduled on the House floor but did not get a vote because of adjournment. He explained the purpose of SB 16 is to increase the university's land grant. The university is a land grant university. The university's current land grant is 112,000 acres and is the smallest land grant of any other western public land state. He pointed out SB 16 would bring the university's land grant to over 1 million acres including the amount the university currently has. He noted this land grant would not be the biggest, as other states have higher land grants. SENATOR FRANK stated SB 16 would allow the university to continue to move on resource development as a source of income. He noted the bill would not make a big difference on the short-term, but in the intermediate to long-term, it would be a significant source of revenue to the university and help the university continue to diversify away from the general fund for financial support. He said an attempt was made to make the bill flexible so it would not run into problems with existing land uses. No legislatively designated areas would be subject to selection such as parks, refuges, etc. Oil and gas lands, mental health trust lands, and municipal lands or any lands the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioner expected to be selected by municipalities would not be available. SENATOR FRANK said the language in SB 16 gives a great deal of authority to the DNR commissioner to withhold any lands if it is in the state's best interest. He stated if there is a dispute, there will be no litigation over it--the Regents can appeal to the Governor but it can no further than that. He urged the committee to support SB 16. Number 308 CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted in the findings section, a reference is made to the fact that most land grant colleges in the western states received more land from the federal government than the University of Alaska. He felt that seemed to be a wrong done by the federal government to the university, not one done by the state. He said before the state gives 1 million acres of state land to the university, out of the state's 102 million acres, perhaps there should be work done to get another 1 million or 2 million acres out of the federal government. SENATOR FRANK replied the university is going to ask. However, he does not want to make that a contingency. He said if a further grant is made to the university, it will enhance the university's chances with the federal government. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked what kind of land will be involved and what process will be used to select the land. SENATOR FRANK stated the university will have to select the lands and will want to select lands having the greatest potential for generating revenue. He noted he was not sure where the land would be located. The university is trying to diversify the character of their land grant. He said it is clear, with the way the bill was drafted, the university will have to work with DNR closely. If the university is doing something the public does not want, the Governor, through the commissioner, or the Governor himself can say no. He stressed he would like to see the university find lands that would be productive and have them develop the lands responsibly for the benefit of the people. SENATOR FRANK noted there are several proposed amendments. He did not object to any of the amendments. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered if language could be put in the bill providing that when the university starts developing lands and getting income, they would be forced to put some money in deferred maintenance. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there were nine people to testify. He said since there has been considerable dialogue exchanged on the bill already, if anyone testified previously, they should identify themselves, give a brief review of what they said previously, so other people who have not previously testified can testify. Number 392 JEFF PARKER, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA SPORT FISHING ASSOCIATION/TROUT UNLIMITED, testified via teleconference and stated his organizations are strongly opposed to SB 16. He said the main concern is the bill will result in selections of lands important for recreational fisheries and habitat for fish and wildlife. He noted the legislature has already conceded that lands very valuable for oil and gas and minerals are not going to be conveyed to the university, which means recreational lands will be selected. MR. PARKER said his organizations recommend the committee ask the university to identify what lands it wants, which is only fair to the public. He stated if he was a student from the university, he would be embarrassed to see the university not willing to put the issue of what lands are involved on a level playing field with the public. He felt SB 16 is also a run around the constitutional prohibition against dedicated funds because this is money dedicated to the university. If the state sold these lands itself under a dedicated fund provision such as this, it would be unconstitutional. MR. PARKER stated what is lacking is any evidence that SB 16 can create any significant infusion of revenue for the university over a long term. He noted his organizations are not opposed to funding the university adequately. He said the university has shown it receives about $8 million from its existing land base, and 75 percent of that comes from one-shot timber sales. He pointed out the current university budget is approximately $300 million from all sources, which means over time the university will fund less than 1 percent of its budget from land, while creating problems for subsistence, commercial and sport fishing, recreation, guided, unguided, floats and motorized users. MR. PARKER said if municipal selections are on the table, almost every municipality in the state (indiscernible) select and receive title to all of its land, which means even if SB 16 is passed, the university could not select any land because the prior municipal (indiscernible) has to be fulfilled. Therefore, he felt there is no rush. He urged committee members to not pass SB 16. Number 440 ERUK WILLIAMSON, REPRESENTATIVE, ANCHORAGE FISH AND GAME ADVISORY COMMITTEE, testified via teleconference and stated SB 16 would generate a pittance of revenue for the university for only a short term. He said logging and selling of state lands, which are a pride and (indiscernible) wildlife habitat will aggravate the shrinking of these resources, while the demand steadily rises. He felt recreational access will be reduced by granting land to private holdings. He stressed SB 16 will create more conflict between user groups than over habitat loss. MR. WILLIAMSON pointed out these lands have the potential to sustain various subsistence, recreational, and commercial uses through wise planning. Logging and privatization precludes these long term benefits. The time and fate of subsistence and nonsubsistence uses is a (indiscernible) to reduce the amount of valuable habitat and recreational land available. He urged committee members not to support a bill which offers minuscule short-term economic benefits while robbing future generations of Alaskans of subsistence, recreation and sustainable resource use. Number 461 CLIFF EAMES, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, testified via teleconference, and stated while he supports the university, he also supports other state programs and services which would be disfavored by SB 16. He said SB 16 will provide an illegal dedicated fund. Whether SB 16 is illegal or not, it will close options for the future use of revenues and lands. He noted a development colleague recently said if lands are retained in general public ownership, everybody gets a bite of the apple. He pointed out that will not happen if these lands are transferred to the university. He felt conflicts will grow tremendously when lands are actually identified for transfer. He stressed SB 16 is not an appropriate approach to fund any state programs. Number 479 LAUREN CARLTON, CO-CHAIRPERSON, STUDENT LEGISLATURE, KACHEMAK BAY BRANCH OF THE KENAI PENINSULA COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, testified via teleconference and expressed support for SB 16. She said there are so many budget problems throughout the university. At an earlier teleconference on a different subject, the point was made that there is not much money to go around and only the first four things will be funded on the Board of Regents priority list. She felt there is a need for creative ways to come up with money for the university. MS. CARLTON disagreed with the previous speaker's argument that the land will not be used properly. She pointed out that the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, after much public comment, did not lease land to a major retailer in Fairbanks due to the critical waterfowl habitat on the area they were going to lease out. She felt the university would be a good vehicle for the conveyance of state lands to an entity that would be responsible in the use of the land. She said she trusts the university and pointed out that the university has been known to be very responsible with the land they have currently. MS. CARLTON noted a previous speaker mentioned the borough land has not been fulfilled. She did not feel that is a reason to not allow the university to have state lands available to them. She did not think it was necessary for the university to indicate what they plan to do with the land before they even get it. She felt it was important for the university to have a public comment period to discuss how they want to use the land once they acquire it. She stressed the university is a land grant college and yet has the least amount of land available compared to most land grant universities. She noted the state has a lot of land which could be given to the university. MS. CARLTON recalled a previous speaker said the state only made $8 million. She felt that was a lot of money when only $10 million is in the budget for the entire university system. She stated if the university had more land, it would have more versatility to get money in the coffer and therefore would not have to be dependent on the legislature, but rather be financially self-sufficient. Number 530 DON CORNELIUS, PETERSBURG, testified via teleconference and stated SB 16 would allow the University of Alaska to select one million acres of state land for a single use...to generate revenue. He felt such legislation could have a major impact on Petersburg and other Southeast communities. He said to put one million acres in perspective, the draft Tongass Land Management Plan preferred alternative would have made 1.6 million acres of land available for timber harvest on the entire forest. Many scientists, as well as others, said that was too much if other forest values were to be protected. He noted Admiralty Island is approximately one million acres in size. MR. CORNELIUS stated SB 16 is a particular problem for Southeast because much of the state land in Southeast is around the towns. This includes most of the shoreline and adjacent uplands on Mitkof Island. He pointed out one of the quickest ways to make money off land in Southeast is to log it. He said these same lands have other values not protected by the proposal. They support deer and other wildlife used by local hunters and wildlife viewers. They provide clean water for salmon streams. They provide a scenic backdrop to communities. He stressed all of these uses would be adversely affected by SB 16. MR. CORNELIUS told committee members to witness what happened to the Whipple Creek area on the Ketchikan road system. He noted over the protests of local residents, the university logged Slide Ridge near Whipple Creek. He stated the university representative, who lives in Anchorage and did not have to live with his actions, said the people were unreasonable, that they were being selfish. What resulted is some of the worst logging ever seen. He said it is an eyesore to local residents, as well as tourists. He pointed out that area previously supported deer. They will be lost because second growth does not provide feed for wildlife once the canopy closes over in 15 to 25 years. It used to stabilize the soils on Slide Ridge and that soil stability is lost. MR. CORNELIUS stated the university already owns lands next to and above Banana Point boat launch ramp on Mitkof Island. It is a major deer concentration and wintering area and is used extensively by local hunters. He said when confronted with that concern, a university land manager stated the hunters were trespassing on private land. He stressed that is what SB 16 could mean...losing wildlife, damaging watersheds that provide fish habitat, destroying the scenic backdrop of Petersburg and other Southeast communities and losing access to the back yard. MR. CORNELIUS said unlike residents of Southcentral who live on the road system, people in Petersburg cannot drive someplace else to do their recreating as there is a very limited land base. He stated if that land base is turned over to private enterprise, as the university is considering, Petersburg's limited opportunities to enjoy the Alaska way of life will be even further restricted. He pointed out if SB 16 passes, Southeast residents will have lost much of their voice concerning what happens on state lands on Mitkof Island and around other Southeast communities. It will be in the hands of absentee landlords...university land managers from Anchorage and Fairbanks who will not have to live with the consequences of their actions. He noted the university has not in the past, nor are they required to, listen to the concerns of local residents. MR. CORNELIUS urged committee members to reject SB 16 because it is not for the common well being of the people of Alaska. He said as an alternative, it is time to realize that the state cannot continue being a welfare state, handing out almost a thousand dollars to everyone who lives here for a year. He felt Alaskans could have a higher standard of living if they used the permanent fund for the common good...for things like providing a good university for the state's citizens. He stated it is also time to accept responsibility for the state's destiny by anteing up for state taxes. He stressed this is another responsible way to provide for roads, sewers, and universities without making rural residents pay an unfair cost...loosing the opportunities to live the Alaskan lifestyle. Number 578 BONNIE WILLIAMS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference. She stated she is a former employee of the university and has no interest or intention to pursue any interest in any natural resource or real estate development but is testifying as a member of the general public. She said as a fly fisherman, she is deeply concerned about fishing conditions, etc. She expressed strong support of SB 16 and urged committee members to pass it with the full one million acres intact. MS. WILLIAMS said SB 16 would go a long way toward providing the University of Alaska the original land intended to be granted to the university by the federal government and never fulfilled by the state. She stated in the late 1970s, the university received full control of the management of its lands from the state and after several years budget details inventory, both documentary and on site, the university began to earn revenue from its land. MS. WILLIAMS noted previous speakers have thrown out numbers in their testimony that do not correlate with the numbers she heard when she worked at the university. She pointed out the university's revenue over the past year was up to approximately $7 million and has been rising every year. She stressed $7 million is not insignificant and is revenue off of approximately 100,000 acres. Adding another 1 million acres would provide for a projected annual revenue of $70 million. She stated that amount would significantly help the university and all of its branches, and help the state with its annual budget problems. MS. WILLIAMS stated equally important is that each one million dollars in revenue accruing from natural resource development means jobs. She guessed that $1 million in revenue profit to the university translates, at a 7 percent return, $14,285,000 worth of activity, at least 100 jobs...more likely 300-500 jobs. She said with real resource development occurrence on long-term leases (indiscernible), the state would begin to develop (indiscernible). MS. WILLIAMS said the university has been a good steward of its land and will continue to be a good steward whether the grant is 100,000 or 1 million plus acres. She stated the university needs a stable source of revenue and the state needs real, long-term permanent relief on the demands of its funds. Citizens need a more diversified economy and jobs paying good wages. She urged committee members to support SB 16. TAPE 95-59, SIDE A Number 000 DAN RITZMAN, BOREAL FOREST COORDINATOR, NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER (NAEC), testified via teleconference and stated NAEC opposes SB 16. He said SB 16 transfers public lands out of public ownership, which means Alaskans will lose their voice on the decisions affecting the management of one million unspecified acres. He pointed out the university will select the best and most valuable land, leaving the poorer land to the public. This type of highgrading, without the opportunity for public comment, is not responsible land management. MR. RITZMAN said SB 16 exempts the land transferred from virtually all of the public participation and resource protection requirements of the Alaska Lands Act. He stated public lands traditional uses--fishing, hunting, trapping, and many other recreational purposes--will be lost or restricted after the land transfer. (Indiscernible) on transferred lands will conflict with existing uses of private land and neighboring landowners. MR. RITZMAN stated the "use it or lose it" clause in SB 16, which requires the university to generate income from the land in ten years or forfeiture back to the state, forces the university to rush into hasty, ill-conceived and especially destructive development. He said large scale clearcutting for export may be one of the few ways revenue can be generated within the specified time frame. He stressed SB 16 is not good for Alaska, it is not the answer to university funding, and it is not responsible resource management. Number 048 COLIN READ, REPRESENTATIVE, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FACULTY, testified via teleconference and expressed concerns in regard to funding for the university. He stated a conspiracy of factors will together apply to next year's funding for the university and will result in funding upwards of 8 percent lower than this year's funding. He expressed an interest in an even revenue stream for the university. MR. READ said higher education is not like some other public agency in that the university enters into a long-term contract with its clients. Students are promised the opportunity to complete their programs within seven years. He stated it is extremely difficult to engage in long-term contracts with Alaskans seeking a higher education when the university's budget is from fiscal year to fiscal year. He stressed there is a need for a mechanism to even out the flow of resources to the university. He pointed out a university land grant will allow the university to be less dependent on general funds. MR. READ stated the university has been identified as a model for how to work with various interest groups in the state. He said such successes are possible perhaps because of the quasi-public nature of the university. He pointed out it seems sensible for the state to encourage these successes, as these successes essentially reduce the need for state support of higher education. He felt it was ironic for him to be speaking on this issue. He (indiscernible) in Alaska and Rhode Island and takes pride in his association with the two states. He noted the irony is that Rhode Island, the smallest state in the Union, actually has a larger land grant than Alaska. Number 100 MARIE BEAVER, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and expressed opposition to SB 16. She stated SB 16 will eliminate important public processes and multiple use requirements. She also wondered if SB 16 is the best way to increase revenue at the university. She felt SB 16 would promote hasty and thoughtless resource development. She said important habitat would be destroyed, fish and wildlife populations would be crippled, and other uses such as hunting, trapping, recreation, and tourism would be damaged. She urged committee members to oppose SB 16. BRIAN ROGERS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated this is not an illegal fund. He said the state's Constitution prohibits dedication of funds for those funds which denies (indiscernible) pre-statehood. He noted the university revenue funds did pre-date statehood and do not give a constitutional dedicated fund. He pointed out the university has been sensitive to public concerns with land management in the past. He explained there are two opportunities specifically laid out in SB 16 for comments--first at the time of selection and second, at any time of development. MR. ROGERS felt it might be useful if the committee looked at the 1988 process where the university selected land. He noted there were concerns raised about some of those selections and the university backed away from some of the selections. He stated there were also controversial selections but ultimately all of the controversial selections were settled, including a settlement which involved a major timber harvest signed off on by several environmental groups, as well as the various state departments. He stressed the university has a demonstrated track record and the allegations of hasty development are not accurate. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted Mr. Rogers had not mentioned whether or not he was representing an organization. MR. ROGERS said he was representing himself, although he was a former vice president for finance of the university at the time the legislation was written. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the last time she saw this legislation, it contained a 250,000 acres land grant. She wondered why the figure is now 1 million acres. MR. ROGERS said last year the Senate bill contained 1 million acres and it was amended on the Senate floor to 500,000. He stated when the bill was in second reading on the House floor, it was amended from 500,000 to 250,000 and then sent back to Rules due to lack of time. Number 200 SEAN MCGUIRE, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated, "there could be legislation put forward that could give the university land near some of these communities where they could have real estate or other things like that, but to go out and say we are going to give the university one million acres...every single fisherman or hunter I have talked to is totally opposed to this. I think the Republicans are going to alienate large constituencies. Much of this land is (indiscernible) and private property signs are going to be sprouting up where people used to hunt and fish and people understand this. I think there is a real broad-base of opposition here." MR. MCGUIRE continued, "I cannot help but almost roll my eyes when people say the university has a good track record for stewardship. The worst single clearcut in the entire state was the university clearcut down in Yakataga. When you are flying in a jumbo jet, it takes about ten minutes, at 600 miles per hour, to go over that clearcut. Secondly, the university, here recently, tried to sell off a treasure that the whole community really is near and dear to their hearts. They tried to sell that off to Wal-Mart, and to me that is a very clear example that support to the economics here are going to dictate that the university is going to be scrambling to try to get as much money as possible. I think that is going to end up being the driving force here. I think that if you look around at the different constituencies, (indiscernible)." Number 254 NICO BUS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), expressed opposition to SB 16. He said just like the university, the state of Alaska has a revenue problem. DNR just completed its negotiations with the mental health trust, which the department considered a process bill. He noted the department tried five times to get a reasonable settlement. He felt this is going to be a very lengthy process that would be better used to answer the question of how to better utilize the current land base and maximize the revenue for the state as a whole. MR. BUS stated, "there are many other individual issues which have been mentioned with this bill. This attempts to make as many provisions...give DNR many powers to review the selections. It does include oil and gas right now. There are a lot of new initiatives in oil and gas exploration and the department would like to see the Administration analyze what their priorities are for these land uses and then revisit this issue later with the university." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered what kind of time frame would be involved with the review. MR. BUS stated since the Administration is new, they would like to look at overall financial long-range planning for the state, take all the issues in consideration including university funding, and move ahead. He said committing one million acres to the university is a little premature for this Administration. Number 293 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted the process of identifying land and going through the public process in selecting the land will take a long time. He said the department still retains a great deal of discretion in SB 16 as to which lands to approve. He suggested there is plenty of time for that review. MR. BUS said his understanding is the university is looking at this from a long-term financial planning standpoint as well. He stated what the department does not want to get involved with currently is diverting attention to negotiating with the university, looking at their selections, etc. The department wants to focus on how it can generate and maximize revenue for the state of Alaska and serve the public process. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered what the university does better than the state. He asked why the state does not just develop state land, make money off of it, fund the general fund and then fund the university. MR. BUS replied when the land is transferred to the university, it becomes private land and the university does not have the same requirements the state has such as sustained yield and buffer zones. He stated the university can maximize the dollar to a larger extent than the state. He said that is an area the department is currently looking at...what are the current statutes the department has to deal with and working with the legislature, how can the department make some changes enabling the state to make more money. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered if the department would support a smaller land grant to the university such as 200,000 acres. MR. BUS stated the department, at the present time, would not support any land grant to the university. Number 348 SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY, stated the university land grant is not a new discussion before the legislature. Since statehood, the university has sought additional lands to its federal land grant. She encouraged the committee to separate the two issues. She said endowing the university and discussing aggressive management of one million acres of state land are different and separate discussions. MS. HANNAN said the federal land endowment was fulfilled, unfulfilled, litigated for ten years, and settled in 1988. The specific settlement was five years in negotiation with every single parcel of land delineated in the settlement. She stated the university worked hard for that and they have done a good job of aggressively managing their land for the purpose of economic return to the university. She noted many people in the environmental community have been concerned about some of the university's developments but for the purposes in which they received the land, they have met their goal. MS. HANNAN asked the question, does the state owe the university another 750,000 acres above and beyond the original federal entitlement. The university says it does. She stated if the state pie is looked at, the state is taking its own resources, which may give the state some money, and giving it to the university. She said if the state gets a land entitlement to fulfill that federal land grant from federal lands, then the pie is being added to and every Alaskan benefits. MS. HANNAN asked the question, is it a good land management policy to fragment the land ownership even further. She thought it was a serious question to decide. She wondered if the state wants to encourage the university, because it is a private land entity separate from the state, to do value-added processing of timber. She noted that could be required but that is a policy discretion which needs to be put in statute before the land goes to the university. Once the university has the land, it is theirs. It is private land for the purposes of legal development and the state no longer has a say directly in what the university does and how they do it. MS. HANNAN said if the state decides it wants to aggressively seek mining and wants the university to be an aggressive manager of mines, the state should design that as a policy question going into the granting of land to the university. She stressed the state is going to give the university one million acres of land without delineating it and without negotiating it. She stated other legislatures have discussed different kinds of land disposals and every one of them has gone through lengthy hearings where the final acreage is delineated before it is given away. She added every municipality does that, every preserve of land does that, and every time the state disposes of land it specifies that. MS. HANNAN wondered if the state has a higher obligation to endow the university than secondary schools. In 1988, Governor Cowper agreed to endow the university and finalize the state entitlement but he also said the state should endow a secondary and primary school. She said that was never done. She pointed out the state has gone further down the economic slide. The state has less money and is looking for more ways to enhance the management and income of its lands. She did not feel the legislature was answering the questions regarding policy about land management before giving land to the university. MS. HANNAN felt SB 16 was being rushed through the session and needs a lot of work to be done on it. She urged the committee to keep SB 16 in committee. Number 420 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if she were to agree with Ms. Hannan, would she go from zero on the AEL's scorecard up to about ten. WENDY REDMAN, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, stated there were several issues raised which she would like to address. She said there are many rumors going around about the university selecting particular pieces of land. She stressed the university does not know what land they will be selecting. She explained the university wrote a special section in SB 16 which protects the customary and traditional use of the land and a section which provides tort protection for the university, letting the university allow people to come on undeveloped land. MS. REDMAN said the university has tried very hard in the last two years to address all of the concerns expressed by various groups in regard to SB 16. She stated people are concerned about 20 million acres in the state which they are certain the university is going to select. The university has tried to meet the concerns the environmental community has brought forward with a much tightened and different type of public process in terms of putting out the public land grant plan, going to the communities where the development is planned. She noted there are many examples where the university has gone into those communities with its land use plans, listened to the community and shaped the plan in response to that input. She added in some cases the plan has been called off in response to community input. MS. REDMAN stated she is tired of hearing the one issue which people bring up when they want to talk about bad land management by the university, which is Whipple Creek. She said it is the only issue she hears people bring up. She explained Whipple Creek is one of the clearcuts the university did. She agreed clearcuts are not beautiful to look at but she challenged anyone who suggests the university has not been an outstanding steward of its lands for the last decade. MS. REDMAN agreed this is a policy call which the legislature needs to make. She said the policy is simple--if they believe that having slightly less than 2 percent of the land of this state in private hands for development is too much, then they should vote against SB 16. If they think more land should be in private hands for development, generating new revenue for the state, then SB 16 should be supported. She stated the university has a record that is superior in being able to get land into development and generate new revenue for the state which otherwise would not be generated. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated the issue of whether or not more land should be in private ownership is not necessarily a reason to support SB 16. She believes in having more land in private ownership but would like to see that land in the hands of individual Alaskans, so the individual Alaskans can help develop the state as well. She wondered where in the bill it mentions that traditional uses will continue. MS. REDMAN replied that language is on page 10, line 28. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated it troubles her to hear people refer to the land grant of other states versus the amount of land the state has granted. She agreed that Alaska is the largest state in the nation and has less than 2 percent of its land in private ownership but on the other hand, the state does not have much developable land in the state. She pointed out if the university selects all of the developable land which the state can derive revenues from, where does that leave the state. That is why she asked the question about a smaller amount of land to be granted. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that most other states do not have to deal with the same environmental constraints that Alaska does, such as the adverse conditions and where development might take place as it relates to Alaska versus the Lower 48. She felt all of those things need to be balanced. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS agreed with Representative Barnes to a certain extent that there is a need to get land into private ownership. He felt one million acres is not even enough. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed that the university has been an exemplary developer of land in the sense that they brought communities to the table before developing land. He noted there is one other advantage the university has over the state which has not been mentioned. The university, being a quasi-public institution, is not subject to the interstate commerce restrictions the state of Alaska is. Therefore, the university can require in a contract, if they desire, to require local value-added processing. He felt SB 16 can be looked at as increasing the development pie in the state rather than slicing the pie thinner. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the committee cannot meet again until 5:00 p.m. April 28. He recessed the meeting until that time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|