Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/29/1994 04:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 29, 1994
4:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Bill Williams
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative John Davies
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice Chairman
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 217: "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state public domain
land, and defining net income from the University
of Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university
receipts' subject to prior legislative
appropriation; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President for University Relations
University of Alaska
910 Yukon Drive
Fairbanks, AK 99775-2388
Phone: 474-6302
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 240
ROBERT W. WARD, Lobbyist
Alaska Miners Association
10003 Frank Maier Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-1648
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern over CSSB 217
RUSSELL HEATH, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSSB 217
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 217
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S)FRANK,Kerttula,Miller,
Rieger,Taylor,Sharp
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/11/93 2311 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
05/11/93 2311 (S) HES, RESOURCES, FINANCE
01/26/94 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/26/94 (S) MINUTE(HES)
01/31/94 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/02/94 (S) HES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/02/94 (S) MINUTE(HES)
02/04/94 2679 (S) HES RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
02/04/94 2679 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DNR)
02/09/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/14/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/14/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/15/94 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/15/94 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/18/94 2882 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
02/18/94 2882 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTE APPLIES
(DNR)
03/10/94 3145 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
03/10/94 3145 (S) FNS TO CS PUBLISHED (UA, F&G)
03/10/94 3145 (S) ZERO FN TO CS PUBLISHED (REV)
03/10/94 (S) FIN AT 08:30 AM SENATE FIN 518
03/16/94 3238 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED
(DNR)
03/29/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
03/29/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/06/94 3465 (S) RULES RPT 2CAL 1NR 4/6/94
04/06/94 3466 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/06/94 3466 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/06/94 3467 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY KERTTULA,
ADAMS
04/06/94 3467 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED Y12 N8
04/06/94 3467 (S) AM NO 2 MOVED BY ADAMS
04/06/94 3473 (S) AM NO 2 WITHDRAWN BY ADAMS
04/06/94 3474 (S) AM NO 3 MOVED BY ELLIS
04/06/94 3474 (S) AM NO 3 ADOPTED Y11 N9
04/06/94 3474 (S) AM NO 4 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/06/94 3475 (S) AM NO 4 ADOPTED Y11 N9
04/06/94 3475 (S) MOTION TO RESCIND ACTION IN
ADOPTG AM 1
04/06/94 3475 (S) MOTION TO RESCIND ACTION
FAILED Y10 N10
04/06/94 3475 (S) MOTION TO RESCIND ACTION IN
ADPTG AM 4
04/06/94 3476 (S) MTN TO RESCIND ADOPTING AM 4
WITHDRAWN
04/06/94 3476 (S) HELD IN SECOND READING TO 4/7
CALENDAR
04/07/94 3505 (S) HELD IN 2ND RDG TO 4/12 CAL
W/AMS PNDG
04/12/94 3602 (S) HELD IN 2ND RDG TO 4/14 CAL
W/AMS PNDG
04/14/94 3674 (S) AM NO 5 MOVED BY DUNCAN
04/14/94 3675 (S) AM NO 5 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/14/94 3676 (S) AM NO 6 MOVED BY FRANK
04/14/94 3676 (S) AM NO 6 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/14/94 3677 (S) AM NO 7 MOVED BY LINCOLN
04/14/94 3677 (S) AM TO AM 7 MOVED BY TAYLOR
04/14/94 3678 (S) AM TO AM 7 WITHDRAWN
04/14/94 3678 (S) AM NO 7 ADOPTED Y12 N7 E1
04/14/94 3678 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
04/14/94 3678 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 217(FIN) AM
04/14/94 3679 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
04/14/94 3679 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE SAME AS PASSAGE
04/14/94 3690 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/15/94 3458 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/15/94 3458 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/25/94 (H) CRA AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/27/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/28/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/28/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-22, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 4:08
p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Toohey,
Willis, Bunde and Davies were present and that a quorum was
present.
SB 217 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
Number 020
WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR UNIVERSITY RELATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, said "This bill started out...as a
fairly simple idea and we thought that it would have a
tremendous amount of support and frankly, I've been a little
bit surprised at how controversial it's become. As you know
the University of Alaska is the state's land grant
university and that's a concept that we've found is more
difficult for people to understand than I would have thought
in this state. People in Alaska aren't used to thinking of
the University of Alaska as a land grant university...
because, first of all, we didn't have access to our lands
until 1978. Our original land grant lands , which were
approximately 100,000 acres, were given to the state of
Alaska to manage and our lands like the mental health lands,
were mismanaged, were included with municipal entitlements,
were given away in homesteads. The Chilkat Eagle Preserve
was university land, much of downtown Anchorage was
university land, the Minnesota bypass was all university
land. We had to go to court to get our land back too, which
we got back in 1978. It then took another decade for us to
make land selections to try to get land of equal value so
it's a new thing in Alaska to have the University managing
its own land. It's only been really in the last five years
that we've actually had real control of our lands and begun
to try to make the investments necessary to support the
university."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS joined the committee at 4:11
p.m.
MS. REDMAN continued, "The whole idea of land grant
universities was that they be given land to help support the
educational research and public service programs at a public
university. When the federal government first assigned
lands to the University of Alaska, the original bill would
have given the university 260,000 acres, I believe. At the
time of statehood, the lands had not yet been conveyed and
the Statehood Act itself extinguished the transmittance of
that land. At the time, the thought was that the feds were
giving the state of Alaska so much land that they would be
able to make up the difference. Only 100,000 of the total
had been conveyed at the time of extinguishment and that
never happened. So we came back, and actually this whole
thing began with the Governor, who in appointing five of the
eleven regents and in his discussion with the new regents,
what he has told them is he expects the regents to manage
their ranch. They pointed out to the Governor that in fact
the university didn't have much of a ranch. So this idea
really began with the Governor and the board of regents
going back to the history and deciding that we would come
back in and try to in fact secure a land base to try and
help support the university over the coming years. We
originally started out with the idea of five million
acres...trying to figure out if we took the average of what
all the other state land grant universities got of their
federal land grant, it would have been five million acres.
We're now down to five hundred thousand acres as a result of
action in the Senate. I think the board of regents and the
university administration are extremely conservative and
sensitive about the future funding that will be available to
the university and want very much to try to figure out how
to make us less dependent. During the last decade, the
university has gone from 60 percent of our total budget
being general fund to now 40 percent. We're going in the
right direction. We're trying to do everything we can.
We've over doubled tuition in the last decade. We're
bringing in more and more federal receipts. We're trying to
figure out how to leverage what money we have to get more
money... This is just another tool for us to try to
generate the revenue that we need to support growing student
enrollment. During that same decade our student enrollment
has gone up over 20 percent...I think that we are being
realistic and we would like the legislature to try to work
with us in trying to figure out how we can come up with some
alternative revenue sources. Land management is one way
that we can do it."
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS joined the committee at 4:15
p.m.
MS. REDMAN continued, "The bill has become extremely
controversial... There's been a lot of misinformation put
out and a lot of information from people who are concerned
about things that are not misinformation, they're just
differences of opinion. There are many people who feel that
there should not be more state land in private
development... There are other people who feel that the
university's particular kind of selections may not be the
selections that they would like to see. We've tried
to...respond as much as we could to the concerns that have
been brought to us by both state agencies, as well as
private groups and individuals, in terms of trying to amend
the legislation in a way that we hope will make it more
popular. There are some things that we simply can't fix.
The legislation does not take effect until after final
resolution of all the mental health claims and until after
final resolution of all of the municipal entitlements...
We've extended the time period for selection on oil and gas
lands to five years from the effective date of the bill.
That was a concern of some people that DNR doesn't really
have all of their lands selected right now into the five
year oil and gas leasing plan. We're prevented from
selecting anything that's in that plan and they wanted to
give DNR extra time to get more lands into that. We also
added additional language in terms of public processes and
notification, trying to make people feel a little more
comfortable... There was also an addition in the Senate, in
the final version that required consideration of traditional
use both prior to conveyance by DNR, as well as prior to
implementing any particular development program by the
university for plots of land.
Number 202
MS. REDMAN concluded, "I have had discussions with...Larry
Holmes...represents a group of sports fishermen. I think
he's the head of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory
Committee... He and several members of his group have
written many letters. His concerns have to do with possible
university selections in prime hunting and fishing habitat.
I don't know, after a lengthy discussion with him, exactly
how I can fix his problem because he's anticipating
something that we have no way of knowing... All I can say is
the way the legislation is drafted, the land that's
available for conveyance is totally in control of the
commissioner of DNR. The commissioner is required to make
the best use determination of the land that is made
available. There may be a lack of confidence on the part of
some constituents in the DNR commissioner's choice on which
lands are made available, I don't know how to fix that... I
will continue to talk with those groups. We're eager to
find ways to try to reach some compromise."
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked about an amendment proposed
by Representative Phillips. (A copy of this amendment is on
file.) He said, "She speaks to the university having
200,000 acres of land which in your information doesn't
jive. You say you have less than that... Anyway, the
indictment is that you have only actively managed 13,000
acres. I guess I'd like you to address that concern..."
Number 264
MS. REDMAN responded saying, "Actually we have 140,000
acres. I believe the 200,000 acres includes not just land
grant lands but educational lands, which are lands that are
attached directly to the campuses... The issue of active
management is an issue that is complicated. In terms of
generating revenue, we've gone from around $700,000 when we
first got control of our lands to generating seven and a
half million (dollars) last year. And we expect ten million
this year. So from our perspective, we've done phenomenally
well in generating revenue. Part of the problem when we got
land from the state in our original settlement is we had to
take a lot of bad land in order to get some good land... We
have a lot of mountain top and a lot of land DNR required us
to take along with some good timber and gravel and
subdivision land and so on... We have quite a few timber
tracts that are currently in litigation. We feel that we've
been extremely aggressive in trying to manage the land
without being irresponsible. We're trying to do it in a way
that is sensitive to the university's needs as well as to
the environmental interests."
Number 307
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'll grant you that you have
been relatively active in your management of lands, but as
you point out, your management of the good lands is limited
by court action and should you get 500,000 acres more, would
you anticipate 500,000 more lawsuits?.. What kind of income
stream would you realistically expect, understanding the
obstacles..."
Number 323
MS. REDMAN replied, "I really couldn't give you a number on
that. I would certainly guess that over the next decade
from an additional 500,000 acres assuming, you have to
remember it will probably be a decade before we even begin
making selections based on our placement at the back of the
cue in terms of the selection opportunities. But we should
certainly be able to generate over ten million dollars from
that kind of land plus. But what we're looking for in terms
of land at this point...we're a little over-inventoried in
timber, so they're really more interested at this point in
looking at land that has subdivision potential, some
mineral, gravel..., recreational properties."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "If and when the day comes when
we can't afford a university in this state...and your land
grant becomes the only funding for the university,... what
kind of money are you looking at?"
Number 357
MS. REDMAN said, "We were not anticipating that 500,000
acres would, in fact, provide the sole support for the
university. If the university was to, by some fluke, hit
oil on some university land then perhaps, in fact, it would
be feasible to think that Alaska like Texas could, in fact,
support its public university solely from its land grant
trust land income. I, however, do not expect that to
happen. More realistically what we would be looking at is
that over time the trust funds would be able to provide some
measure of support... I'm not looking at 50 percent even of
the level of support, with 500,000 acres..."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I've been doing some arithmetic
calculations based on the data that Vice President Rogers
provided in his memo and using the $20 per acre number which
is derived from taking into account the almost 200,000 acres
the university has or has interest in. They would generate
about ten million dollars a year if they had 500,000 acres
total. And for comparison that represents about six percent
of the current GF (general fund) dollars or about two
percent of the current total budget of the university... It
would represent a relatively small percentage of the total
budget of the university. So while it would certainly help,
it wouldn't even come close to being a ranch that the
university could manage and entirely support themselves."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Would the fact that you have
to come up with 20 or 25 percent... That would obviously
change your outlook on how you'd manage the land wouldn't
it? What is going to make you aggressively manage those
lands so you get the most bang for your buck?"
MS. REDMAN replied, "I think the pressures on the university
right now are the motivation that we need to try to find
additional resources. We're looking at flat to declining
budgets with eleven percent enrollment growth statewide..."
Number 419
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "You understand, of course, that
the more income you produce, the less GF money you're going
to get, even if there's GF money available."
MS. REDMAN said, "I've heard that suggested, in fact, I saw
that distributed actually by one of the environmental
groups, that why would the university want to do this when
they're going to lose the general fund. Our intent would be
that we would be able to offset general fund. However, if
your intention would be to offset every general fund dollar
with every dollar we make from the trust fund, I would
suggest to you that our motivation for managing the land is
now gone." She then added, "We're also doing a tremendous
amount of private fund raising. The Fairbanks campus, in
the last two years, has raised $12 million in private funds.
If we get into a situation where the legislature, instead of
trying to encourage us in these ways, is in fact providing a
disincentive to raise private money or to manage our lands
for income, then it costs us money to do this, we simply
won't do it. It doesn't make sense for us to make that
investment...a dollar for dollar loss is not going to work."
Number 446
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'm not that pessimistic...but I
do think that it is possible that the budget will stay flat
and that this GF won't change... We hope."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "I think this is a very good
way to generate income. I think the university is looking
at how to collect more income and if they do take a dollar
away to help us put into other areas of the state, I think
we would benefit from this... This bill is very good. I
would encourage us to move this bill along..."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Does this...also allow you to
sell it as fee simple land?"
MS. REDMAN said yes.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Is there a mineral reservation if
you acquire and sell it to a third party, are the minerals
reserved?"
MS. REDMAN said, "Yes...the university has the subsurface
rights based on prior land grant provisions that do not
extend. We have made several amendments in here through the
bill on the oil and gas and subsurface rights. They were
in, out, in, out. They're back in again with certain
restrictions on the oil and gas provisions to allow the
state more time," and added, "...One of the issues that I've
heard most frequently from legislators and from others on
this bill is that the university would be taking state
revenue, grabbing the land and the revenue. From my
perspective...what the university is doing is generating new
revenue for the state, that these lands are not currently
generating. So it's a net gain for the state..."
Number 491
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "The overall feeling at the
university is positive for this, for development?"
MS. REDMAN nodded.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I'm strongly ambivalent. I
have concerns, Mr. Chairman and that is I think that all of
the arguments that Vice President Redman made are probably
true. I think the university would generate more money from
the lands than the state will. After all, the lands that
they are going to be selecting are going to be after mental
health...so they're not necessarily going to be the best
lands. The state is probably generating something less than
ten cents an acre on those lands right now and if the
university were able to manage those lands at the rate that
they're managing the approximately 200,000 acres total that
they have some interest in now at $20 per acre, clearly the
argument that they'd be generating new income would be
correct. That's the upside, and the total amount again is
maybe around ten million, twenty million dollars a year...
So it's not a large amount of money, but it's significant.
The downside from my point of view is, it may well embroil
the university in a lot of lawsuits and it may affect the
university's standing in the community to some extent
because of that... With respect to that, the university may
have an opportunity to be...a white hat land manager. Maybe
they could manage some of these lands for revenue, but in a
way that's particularly sensitive to environmental concerns,
and maybe demonstrate some ways that we could generate money
and at the same time be sensitive. So I have some fairly
strong feelings on both sides of the issue and I haven't
made up my mind how I'm going to vote."
Number 529
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I appreciate that because you
feel as strongly about nondevelopment as I do about
development... Somewhere down the line, I think what's
going to have to happen is, we're going to have to force the
university into developing lands if Representative Davies'
side wins, and it is a side of nondevelopment."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES interjected, "Mr. Chairman, I object
to that characterization."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY restated, "Not you, lets put you out
of that. Let's say the nondevelopers of the world decide
that we're developing too much, somewhere along the line,
and this is philosophical, we're going to have to force you
into developing the land, otherwise you don't get paid. You
don't get any money. And I think that is something we have
to keep in mind, that there has to be a little bit of
leverage in here that you have to realize that this, because
we're giving you this land with this responsibility of
aggressive developing."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Well obviously, there's no use having
the land if you don't develop it..."
Number 543
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I think a partial answer to
Representative Toohey's question is how does the university
feel about this. I'm sure we wouldn't be looking at this
bill if the regents hadn't decided that this was something
that they really would like to do."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES added, "Also, I think you have to
remember that under the best scenario that I can see, these
lands will generate only about ten percent of the general
fund budget. That's if they do far and away better than the
state is doing right now...and twice as good as the
university's been able to do so far on those lands that they
are managing well, the easiest to manage...under the best
scenario, it would still be a relatively small percentage of
the university's total operating general fund dollars and
for that reason, the legislature still has an enormous
hammer over the university in terms of control. They have
to appropriate the other 90 percent of the budget and if the
legislature looks at the university and says `you're not
managing these things very well,' they could send a message.
The other thing I think is to worry that the university's
not going to be aggressive enough, is not to understand the
university's track record very well."
Number 575
BOB WARD, LOBBYIST, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION, said "When
this bill was first introduced, the miners had some very
mixed emotions about it. The University of Alaska and
mining has been practically synonymous through the history
of the territory and the state, and there are very, very
strong ties between the mining community and the University
of Alaska. Also, Senator Frank has been very supportive of
the mining industry. So we approached Senator Frank and
expressed the fact that we did have some concerns primarily
based on divided management...different pieces of state land
managed by different people. Anyway, there was some
uncertainty there that caused a concern. Senator Frank felt
that he was helping the mining industry perhaps by making
some more land available for mining that might not have been
made available before, and so we're still in the posture of
not wanting to oppose this legislation but our comfort level
has not reached the point where we can support it yet. And
if that sounds like we've been sandbagging up to this point,
I guess that will just have to be but we've watched it
proceed through the Senate and come over here and it's been
improved, in our opinion. Ms. Redman had some suggested
amendments that we talked about that would comfort us more.
We appreciate the fact that she used our words in that one
amendment...but there were more issues that we had raised in
a draft of a letter that Ms. Redman is the only one that we
showed it to and her people weren't able to get back to all
the items that we had. So the only positive direction that
I've had from my people to this point now is to not, please,
please, don't get in a fight with the university. So I have
absolutely no intention of doing that and as far as we're
concerned, we would like to be able to work something out
with the university that we could go hand in hand on...but
we're not at that point today. If the committee feels that
they would like to move it out, our position on that is, I
guess that's fine and we'll hope that maybe by the next
committee we will come to a better agreement with the
university."
Number 615
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It's not my desire to move this
legislation today. We're anticipating the possibility of a
teleconference."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY pointed out that she may have a
conflict of interest. She said, "I have a mining claim. I
am a gold miner...and I am a member of the Alaska Mining
Association," and, "Is there anything we can do right
now...I would like to know some of your concerns without
causing undue hardship between you and the university."
MR. WARD said, "The biggest underlying concern that the
mining community has, that I'm aware of, is uncertainty as
to the rules of the game for mining if this bill passes.
Would they stay the same or would they change...for
royalties and access..."
Number 626
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Ms. Redman, "Are you addressing
that concern?"
MS. REDMAN replied, "The majority of their concerns are
addressed in the amendment that you have, which in fact
requires of us a mineral entry location and mineral leasing
(indiscernible). However, one of the concerns, I think is
the whole issue, is split estate, where there may be two
owners over time on the same claim. Frankly, our position
has been that that really isn't an unusual situation in the
other 49 states. It's something that you just get into when
you have public lands where you allow mining. We haven't
found a way yet to really resolve that problem. We continue
to want to work with the mining group to try to figure out
if there's a way that we can accommodate that..."
Number 647
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "I doesn't seem to me that we're
going to have to do something very rapidly with this bill,
is that correct? The university isn't going to close
tomorrow if we don't pass this bill immediately because I
think that the concerns of the mining industry, I'm sure the
oil and gas industry, is there a time frame on this and how
rapidly do we have to start doing this because I certainly
think that we need to get to a more comfortable level with
this."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "If in fact, we're several years away
from actual selection, on one hand you could argue that
there's no crashing rush. On the other hand, we are in
Juneau, it is the end of April..."
RUSSELL HEATH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL
LOBBY, testified in opposition to SB 217. He said, "We
oppose SB 217 which would grant the University of Alaska
500,000 acres of state land. Endowing the university with a
large amount of revenue producing land may be an extremely
appealing idea to those that support the university and who
will value higher education, scholarships, and recognize the
need for a securely funded institution of higher learning in
Alaska. The idea, however, is flawed with many problems.
There are serious public policy questions hidden and
unexamined costs, and land management problems which all
argue against this bill. I'd like to just touch on a few of
them... The university will select the best and most
valuable state land that it can... In other words, it will
be high grading public lands that have already been picked
over by the mental health community and by the
municipalities. We do not believe it is in the best
interests of the state to lose more valuable land, which is
currently managed for multiple uses, to a single user. Our
second concern, is that the purpose of the university
acquiring the land is to generate revenue. This purpose
often conflicts with other purposes for uses of state lands
and these include public access and recreation, protection
of fish and wildlife habitat. Of course, you know that
protection of fish and wildlife habitat often is important
to the income of other users. University lands are private
and thus exempt from land management provisions of Title
38.04 and 38.05. The only nonenvironmental point that I
would like to raise is, the environmental community as you
know was involved quite heavily in the mental health
litigation with many other organizations around the state,
including the coal miners, oil and gas, and other resource
developers, and one of the lessons that we learned from the
mental health dilemma that we've suffered under the last
three or four years, is that to select land out of the
public domain is a laborious process. Some person, some
organization is going to have some kind of claim, common
interest or not, in every acre of land that the university
selects. They'll probably fight to protect that interest
and that can be the person who has fished there since
boyhood to the miner that wants to mine it, as well as the
environmentalist who's concerned about critical wildlife
habitat. And trying to select 500,000 acres of state land
is going to lead to a morass of litigation, you should be
aware."
Number 696
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Russell, do you have any
children? I have three children and I have a grandchild
coming."
TAPE 94-22, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY continued, "Land money is going to be
coming from the land grants. I think it is very critical
that we have development in this state. And I think it's
very critical that the university develop very aggressively
in every way they can; of course, within the confines of
healthy proper development, but I think it's very critical.
And I think we have to keep in mind what we're doing this
for. We're doing this to keep the university healthy. So
I'm sorry, but I do disagree with you totally."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "His comments are: The most
valuable land from the public domain leaving the poor land
to the public. I don't quite understand that when we have
so many millions of acres of land that are available to the
state of Alaska within the public domain and we're talking
about 500,000 of land. How can you say that?"
MR. HEATH said, "You're right, the state of Alaska has some
hundred million acres, of which three million acres are in
parks and areas like that. The point I'm trying to make is
that the lands that they will want, and justifiably so if
they're going to generate revenue from them, will be
valuable land and those lands will be probably used right
now by other people for whatever uses... There's a whole
universe of uses that those lands may be put to, some of
them may not generate revenue that's true, but they're going
to want the most valuable lands they can get and they're
going to select those and they will be removed explicitly
from the public domain."
Number 052
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "We have a hundred million
acres of land within the state of Alaska. We have how many
other millions of acres in federal land. It seems like
every time that we tried to use this land for whatever
reason, we end up being objected to by the Alaska
Environmental Lobby... How can you say that the university
will manage its land for those purposes and why say it's
wrong to use it for the purpose of generating revenue and
how can you say the lands will not be managed for multiple
use and the access may be restricted..."
MR. HEATH said, "The university's primary purpose will be to
generate revenue. That will be their obligation to their
students, the university. That will be the reason why
they're selecting this land. The state on the other hand is
obligated statutorily to manage for a variety of different
uses... The state in managing the land for revenue, at the
expense of somebody else's revenue, and the classic example
is the conflict between forestry or timber harvest and
habitat destruction and fish... The university won't make
any money off of fisheries, so they don't have economic
interest (to protect the habitat)."
Number 110
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS continued, "It's totally untrue that
(those) people do not have an interest in either one of the
resources. I would like to think that the university of
Alaska is very well managed and the people that will be
managing this land will be thinking of the multiple use and
the fish and wildlife. To come up and say that the
university dealing with the timber industry would not want
to think about the fish habitat is totally untrue. I'd like
to believe in the University of Alaska and the people here
and the state of Alaska are going to try to take care of the
land. I think that's what we are trying to do all the time,
and for you to say that we're not going to do it is...I
don't know where you're coming from."
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked, "Of the land that is in
public domain, this hundred million acres, is there any
overall plan? If there is, what is that policy?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think the answer to that is, yes."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Under Title 38, the Department
of Natural Resources designates land for certain
purposes...and that really represents the state's policy on
how those lands should be used, how they're designated.
Some are not designated yet and they're just being held for
future purposes."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG added, "Some of our land has just very
recently been selected. As far as an overall plan, one
thing I'm certain, there is not a plan. There is a policy.
But as far as anybody in a cohesive way sitting down and
saying `okay, here's a hundred million acres, the state of
Alaska owns it, here's the plan to maximize its enjoyment,
its revenues, whatever. I'm sure that does not exist."
Number 163
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked, "How is the fish habitat
protected now?"
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "By the Forest Practices Act for one
thing. There are a variety of protections built into the
existing system. I actually think the university is more
apt to do a good job of land managing than the state of
Alaska because they've got a stronger vested interest, and
they are smaller, and they are driven by poverty which is
something we haven't quite grasped yet.
Number 177
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "There are two other protections
in the process that need to mentioned. One is that, if this
bill were to pass and the lands were to be transferred to
the university, the transfer of the land would be subject to
Title 38, the public hearing process. The second thing is
that explicitly in the bill there's a requirement that, I
presume that in that process, the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources is involved in two ways.
One is he has to make a best interest finding with the land
to be transferred... and secondly, the commissioner can
unilaterally object to any piece of land being transferred.
And the university can only appeal that to the Governor and
is forbidden from litigating that objection... So the
commissioner has a fair amount of power..."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "You mentioned earlier that
your plan was not to move this bill today."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG confirmed that and said, "My plan, and I
don't have a hundred million acres to worry about, is to
adopt the two amendments that appear to have consensus and
adjourn and resume this discussion on Monday at either 1:00
or immediately after session, whichever is earlier."
Number 211
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY moved that amendment number one be
adopted.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG referred to the amendment as Representative
Phillips's amendment.
REPRESENTATIVES DAVIES and WILLIS objected.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think if we're going to have a
debate about the adoption of these amendments, we're going
to do that Monday."
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY withdrew her motion to adopt the
amendment.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|