Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/18/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing: || Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (aogcc) - Cathy Forester | |
| SB96 | |
| SB113 | |
| HB197 | |
| SB170 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 96-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 96 to be up for consideration
again.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 96(RES), version G, as the
working draft. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt the letter of intent.
3:43:28 PM
SENATOR GUESS objected for discussion purposes. She asked what
would happen if a not-for-profit wants to buy the land to
develop it, because it seems like the letter of intent is for
them to not receive the land.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that the intent is that the land is not
for conservation purposes; it's for development.
SENATOR GUESS asked if that means if the university can get more
money for the land, but it's for conservation, it still has to
sell it for development.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that would be the practical result and
he thought that would be a reasonable handicap.
SENATOR GUESS asked what if the land in question couldn't be
developed for some reason.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that he didn't think the lands were
selected because they are useless. Therefore, they should be
used for development.
3:49:23 PM
CHAIR WAGONER added that the real meat of the letter of intent
is in the next to the last paragraph where the university agrees
that the parcel at Coldfoot will not be used to establish a
business in direct competition with the one already there.
3:50:56 PM
SENATOR ELTON said that some people have testified that land
held for conservation purposes does have a strong economic
component; it attracts people to lodges in the area. He is
worried that this language would preclude that kind of
consideration to be made by the university.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he understands that concern, but if the
land is put into conservation, that lodge owner is precluding
anyone else from ever coming in to compete in what could be a
two-lodge area. He didn't think that type of situation should be
precluded.
3:52:44 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said that remote cabin sites are the highest and
best use for a majority of the Southeast parcels, not large
scale industrialized logging that might be conducive on other
parcels. Most of the land has been held in private hands
previous to statehood. He wanted it made clear to the University
that the intent is to have land go to individuals.
3:54:10 PM
SENATOR ELTON responded that he appreciates the discussion, but
again pointed out that there could be an economic benefit to an
existing landowner or a new business owner for not developing
the land. Not allowing transferred land to be used for
conservation purposes could preclude a neighboring lodge owner
from purchasing it to keep it in its natural state to enhance or
protect his business.
3:54:54 PM
CHAIR WAGONER replied that's the reason he favors this letter.
If we start taking lands that are meant to be
transferred to the University of Alaska or any other
area to be developed and all of a sudden we not only
take them out of the realm of developable land, but if
we put them into 501(c)(3)s or some other tax exempt
organization, we then take the ability - if there's
boroughs organized - we take the ability of the
borough to have that land on the local tax roles to be
part of their tax base, too.
That's one of the things that I'm more concerned about
- especially in some of the areas in Southeastern than
any other area. Because that land should always remain
on the borough tax roles. I think we've taken enough
land out of the private sector and put it in the
public sector. I happen to have a lot of land in the
Kenai Peninsula Borough that that has happened to just
recently and they wanted to have a lot more....
3:56:16 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he understands that argument, but an existing
lodge would pay taxes on the land even if it is being held in a
conservation state.
3:56:52 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if the university pays taxes on the land it
owns.
CHAIR WAGONER answered no, but he's concerned about who it
transfers its lands to.
SENATOR GUESS maintained her objection to adopting the letter of
intent. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Elton and Guess
voted nay; Senators Seekins, Dyson, Stedman and Chair Wagoner
voted yea; and the letter of intent was adopted.
3:58:11 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN offered Amendment 1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR STEDMAN
TO: CSSB 96(RES), version "G"
Page 7, line 30:
Delete "JU.LM.1001, Lena Creek", and insert "HA.CH.1001,
Haines-Chilkoot"
Page 8, following line 9:
Insert:
(p) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the state land
identified in this subsection and described in the document
entitled "University of Alaska Land Grant List 2005," dated
January 12, 2005, 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, that includes Wrangell or
Petersburg. If such a borough is not formed before July 1,
2009, the following land shall be conveyed to the University of
Alaska on July 1, 2009; or if land within the following parcels
is not selected by a borough before January 1, 2013, the
following land shall be conveyed to the University of Alaska on
June 30, 2013:
(1) Parcel Number SD.1001, Beecher Pass;
(2) Parcel Number SD.1001, Favor Peak;
(3) Parcel Number CS.TL.1001, Three Lake Road;
(4) Parcel Number SD.1001, Read Island;
(5) Parcel Number SD.1001, Whitney Island;
(6) Parcel Number CS.EW.1001, Earl West Cove;
(7) Parcel Number CS.OV.1001, Olive Cove;
(8) Parcel Number SD.1001, Thoms Place;
SENATOR STEDMAN said there is very little private or state
property in Southeast Alaska; it's mostly in the middle of a
federal forest. This amendment gives the communities an
opportunity to possibly pick up the parcels if they organize. It
is not as far-reaching as he would like as far as the amount of
parcels are concerned and he is concerned over the public
process, which he thought needed work with the university. It's
nice to go to the communities that are affected and hold public
hearings.
4:01:34 PM
SENATOR ELTON proposed Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 on page 8,
line 3, under subsection (n) to add "(8) MF1002, Idaho Inlet;
(9) MF1001 Mite Cove; and (10) Pelican."
SENATOR SEEKINS objected for discussion.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he wanted to know if it was permanent
removal or removal of a time certain to be included into a
borough. He would accept it as a friendly amendment if it was
similar to the purpose of the original amendment.
SENATOR SEEKINS said his objection is based on his reading of
the bill; that the amendment would accomplish a permanent
withdrawal of those lands.
SENATOR ELTON said that Senator Seekins' statement is correct.
It adds it to the previously excluded list and does not include
language under subsection (p), which is specific to the Wrangell
Petersburg area. He said there has been discussion of borough
formation in this area and those parcels equal more than 99
percent of the state land that would be available to that
borough. He had no idea where borough boundaries would be.
SENATOR SEEKINS recalled that Mr. Johnson's (SRES 4/11/05)
testimony emphasized that he wanted a specific date for boroughs
to be formed so that lands could be left for them to choose
from.
I am very much in favor of allowing that land
selection process to be there, but I think there needs
to be some kind of a date in time where either they're
faced with those lands being transferred because they
don't want to form a borough or they come back to the
legislature to extend that period of time to be able
to protect those lands if they do intend on forming a
borough of some kind.
4:06:12 PM
SENATOR ELTON commented that lands can remain available for
borough selection only if they remain with DNR. The difficulty
in this instance is that you have several different entities
like Elfin Cove, Pelican, Gustavus and Hoonah. He suggested that
any deadline would guarantee that they will come back at a later
date because, "I think that between now and then, it's going to
be very, very difficult to get these entities together to try
and figure out the governance systems that they might want."
SENATOR SEEKINS said he wouldn't mind them coming back at a
later date and if there had been some movement toward creating a
borough, he would be very sympathetic to extending those
deadlines.
4:08:17 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked what happens if someone wants to form a
borough with this land without Wrangell or Petersburg.
Are we giving leverage to Wrangell and Petersburg in
discussing borough formation by saying that the land
has to be in a borough form that includes Wrangell or
Petersburg?
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that they are included in one borough
under the planned boroughs, but they may decide to create two
separate boroughs. Earl West Cove, Olive Cove and Thoms Place
would be in the Wrangell area and Favor Peak, Beecher Pass and
Three Lake Road would be in the other. The amendment language
intends to clarify that those properties can be selected if one
or two boroughs are created. If none are created, that's fine,
too.
4:10:31 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS said he thought Amendment 1 to Amendment 1
permanently removes Mite Cove, Idaho Inlet and Pelican from the
list to transfer to the University of Alaska.
4:11:38 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he opposed Amendment 1 to Amendment 1,
"Because if the amendment to the amendment goes forward, I've
got a whole list I'd like to add to it." He thought adding a new
paragraph, (q), that would address those parcels would be a
better way of dealing with it.
4:12:34 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS called the question on Amendment 1 to Amendment
1. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Stedman, Seekins, Dyson,
and Chair Wagoner voted nay; Senators Elton and Guess voted yea;
and Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed.
4:13:20 PM
SENATOR ELTON moved conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 that
would provide that those three parcels be protected with the
same deadlines and in the same way as the parcels listed in (p).
4:14:08 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the conceptual amendment would give
Pelican, Idaho Inlet and Mite Cove the same opportunity to form
a borough before January 1, 2013.
4:14:58 PM
SENATOR BEN STEVENS joined the committee.
4:14:44 PM
SENATOR ELTON replied that such a borough would have to be
formed before July 1, 2009. If not, those parcels would then be
transferred to the university prior to June 30, 2013.
4:15:19 PM
There were no objections to conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment
1 and it was adopted.
SENATOR GUESS clarified that in the new section (q) the borough
does not have to include Petersburg and Wrangell.
SENATOR STEDMAN replied that was correct.
CHAIR WAGONER announced that the committee had Amendment 1
amended in front of it.
4:16:22 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked what parcel was replacing Lena Creek.
CHAIR WAGONER replied Haines-Chilkoot.
SENATOR GUESS asked if that had been on the list before or is it
a new parcel.
SENATOR STEDMAN answered that it was on the list before and was
removed.
TIM BARRY, staff to Senator Stedman, added that Representative
Thomas requested that the parcel be put back. It's in his
district.
4:16:55 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked what the difference in acreage is between
the two parcels.
MR. BARRY replied the Lena Creek parcel is 610 acres and the
Haines-Chilkoot parcel is 60 acres.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what the amendment does.
MR. BARRY replied that the Lena Creek parcel had been excluded
from the transfer list, but it will now be included. The Haines
parcel will be excluded.
4:18:06 PM
CHAIR WAGONER announced that there were no further objections or
questions on Amendment 1 amended; and it was therefore adopted.
4:18:41 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he had another amendment, but wouldn't offer
it at this time.
4:19:00 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked if the University or DNR had any further
discussion. There was none offered.
4:19:13 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved CSSB 96(RES), version G, from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note.
SENATOR ELTON objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Dyson, Guess, Seekins,
Stedman and Chair Wagoner voted yea; Senator Elton voted nay;
and CSSB 96(RES) moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|