02/09/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB107 | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2005
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Co-Chair
Representative Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Relating to the labeling of fish and shellfish to identify the
country of origin and to distinguish between wild and farmed
fish and shellfish.
- MOVED CSHJR6(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 107
"An Act providing for the award of full actual attorney fees and
costs to a person aggrieved by unlawful obstruction or hindrance
of hunting, fishing, or viewing of fish or game; amending Rules
79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and amending Rule
508, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 130
"An Act granting certain state land to the University of Alaska
and establishing the university research forest; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE: LABELING OF FISH PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KERTTULA
01/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/05 (H) FSH, RES
01/26/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
01/26/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
01/26/05 (H) RES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/26/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/31/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/31/05 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
02/02/05 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NT 6DP
02/02/05 (H) DP: HARRIS, ELKINS, SALMON, WILSON,
THOMAS, LEDOUX
02/02/05 (H) FSH AT 8:30 AM CAPITOL 124
02/02/05 (H) Moved CSHJR 6(FSH) Out of Committee
02/02/05 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/09/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 107
SHORT TITLE: ATTY FEES: HUNTING/FISHING INTERFERENCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RAMRAS
01/24/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/05 (H) RES, JUD
02/02/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/09/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 130
SHORT TITLE: UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/07/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/05 (H) RES, FIN
02/09/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSHB 107(RES) on behalf of Senator
Ramras, sponsor.
ROBERT LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 130.
JOE BEEDLE, Vice President for Finance
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Trustee
Land Grant Endowment Fund
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 130.
CECIL RANNEY, Assembly Member
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
ANISA BERRY
Port Alexander, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
LANI BRENNAN
Anchorage and Baranof Warm Springs, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
JULIE KAVANAUGH
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MARY MONTGOMERY, Director
University Land Management Office
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 130.
MIKE ROUND, Assistant General Manager
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
KENNETH DUGGETT, Executive Director
United Southeast Alaska Gill Netters
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
IVAR MALUTIN
Kodiak Area Native Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
BRUCE WALLACE, Commercial Fisherman
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
JOHN MARTIN JR
Tenakee Tribal Council of Elders
Tenakee, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
JOHN MARTIN SR
Tenakee, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02:06 PM. Representatives
LeDoux, Elkins, Ramras, Samuels, Seaton, Olson, and Gatto were
present at the call to order. Representatives Crawford and
Kapsner arrived as the meeting was in progress. Representative
Beth Kerttula was also present.
HJR 6-LABELING OF FISH PRODUCTS
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6 Relating to the labeling of fish
and shellfish to identify the country of origin and to
distinguish between wild and farmed fish and shellfish.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO moved to report CSHJR 6(FSH) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 6(FSH) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:02:19 PM to 1:03:44 PM.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said that HJR 6 was not discussed because a
letter regarding the fish labeling issue was already sent from
the legislature to meet a federal timeline.
HB 107-ATTY FEES: HUNTING/FISHING INTERFERENCE
1:04:06 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 107 "An Act providing for the award of full
actual attorney fees and costs to a person aggrieved by unlawful
obstruction or hindrance of hunting, fishing, or viewing of fish
or game; amending Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure; and amending Rule 508, Alaska Rules of Appellate
Procedure."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt the CSHB 107, Version 24-
LS0444\F Utermohle, 2/7/05, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for discussion purposes.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:05 PM to 1:09:25 PM.
1:09:38 PM
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, described the
changes made to HB 107. He said "we added in language that was
in the section 790 which was the proceeding of the original
bill." He added that "in discussions with the Alaska State
Troopers and the court system, these are additions that they
thought would help, particularly with the court system's fiscal
note, possibly bringing it down to zero."
MR. POUND noted that the first addition is on page 2, lines 4
and 5, "this is based on a criminal situation in which the
individual actually cut a trap line and released the animals,
but because of the existing statute the only thing they could
charge the individual with was criminal mischief." The second
change, he said, is on page 2, lines 14 and 15, and is based on
a suit that was recently settled. He said the state was sued
after a fish and wildlife enforcement helicopter disrupted a
commercial fishing operation. Mr. Pound said the change will
protect police officers and law enforcement officials from being
sued for obstruction.
MR. POUND stated that regarding full attorney fees, "in most of
the cases that we'll be looking at that's in Section 791, that's
the original language of the bill, we are normally dealing with
something that [has] already had a criminal conviction. This is
primarily language intended to further induce individuals not to
obstruct people enjoying the Alaska lifestyle, similar to what
the criminal side of it would be." Mr. Pound said the original
language in statute contains the term "intentionally obstruct,"
which is described in Black's Law as he read: "to do something
purposefully and not accidentally," and "a person acts
intentionally if he desires to cause consequences of his acts or
he believes that consequences are substantially certain to
result."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he noticed that obstruction offenses
do not apply to lawful competitive practices among persons
engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping. He expressed
his concern that the laws regarding the distance between nets in
a gill net fishery may result in unlawful fishing practices.
"Therefore," he said, "commercial fishing in those situations
would be included in this full award of attorney fees for the
plaintiff." He asked Mr. Pound if that is correct.
1:14:12 PM
MR. POUND said he believes Representative Seaton is correct.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony after no one came
forward to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON removed his objection to the adoption of
CSHB 107, Version 24-LS0444\F Utermohle, 2/7/05,. There being
no further objection, Version F was before the committee.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to report CSHB 107, Version F, out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that there could be unanticipated
consequences by including commercial fishermen. If a fisherman
is sued for having nets too close to another fisherman's nets,
the plaintiff could get full attorney fees and the defendant
would be limited by Rule 82 of the Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure. "So I do not think that we have solved that problem
in this bill," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she has the same problem with the
legislation, and it "goes beyond the commercial fishing aspect
of things, although I see that, actually, as the most
significant problem." She said that the ability of the
plaintiff to get full attorney fees and the defendant, even if
fully exonerated, is limited to 30 percent of the attorney fees
- "that just strikes me as fundamentally unfair."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the legislation also takes out
the word "reasonable," so that there won't be consideration of
the number of lawyers. The defendant could be charged full and
actual attorney fees "no matter how egregious" the costs and
fees are, he said. He also warned that "we may have people
loading up attorney fees to make the other person default on the
case instead of having the case go to court."
1:18:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said a person suing for $3,000 could have
attorney fees build up to $10,000. Without Rule 82 a litigant
could hire a "bank of attorneys" knowing he or she could get
those fees back. He said he is concerned that there will be
people not willing to take a risk because they could afford to
pay judgment but not attorney fees, and intimidation will cause
them to default in the judgment.
1:20:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said that he had the same concern. "I
can't support this."
1:20:15 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said, "...let's take it back and we'll work on
it some more, clean it up, and bring it back."
[HB 107 was held over.]
HB 130-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
1:20:38 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 130 "An Act granting certain state land to
the University of Alaska and establishing the university
research forest; and providing for an effective date." He
announced that it is not the intent of the committee to amend or
move HB 130 today.
1:21:02 PM
ROBERT LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, said that he will cover "the
problems and opportunities that this bill addresses."
"Currently our land grant University of Alaska has a land grant
of approximately 170,000 acres," he said. "It is one of the
smallest land grants of any of our western state land grant
institutions." He added that the idea of adding additional
lands has been addressed numerous times by previous
legislatures, most recently in 2001 when a bill was proposed to
transfer 260,000 acres to the university. The bill had a
selection process that was cumbersome and prevented the
university from getting good lands, he said. This current bill
avoids a long, expensive selection process, because DNR has
already listed 71 parcels, he said. He added that the cost to
the state will come only from title searches, identification of
existing rights, and the necessary work to retain public access
and easements. Mr. Loeffler listed the advantages of HB 130: it
is much cheaper, it finishes the problem quickly, it provides a
stable useful portfolio to the university, and it eliminates the
"cloud on title" that could occur from lands being in a limbo
status while the selection process proceeds.
1:24:20 PM
MR. LOEFFLER said that HB 130 will transfer 260,000 acres to the
University of Alaska. One third of the lands are for
educational purposes, which are not designed primarily to make
money, including a 51,000-acre research forest, which will be
managed by DNR but dedicated for purposes of research. He said
it will be one of the largest university-owned forests in the
nation. There are 12 properties statewide proposed for
educational purposes, comprising 90,000 acres.
MR. LOEFFLER said that another 90,000 acres will be comprised of
prospective oil and gas lands, opposite Nenana, which will be a
potential long-term income source for the University. He said
that if commercial quantities of gas are found, the gas will be
exportable to Fairbanks.
MR. LOEFFLER said that the final 80,000 acres in SB 130, are
near- and mid-term investment properties, which can be turned
into cash more quickly. These are located throughout the state,
but half the acreage is in Southeast Alaska. He explained that
DNR no longer has valuable lands that are good for "subdividing
that can be quickly turned into cash" on the road system near
Anchorage or Fairbanks, because "DNR's holdings have been picked
over."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked if the university has the same statewide
rules as DNR for leasing oil and gas lands.
MR. LOEFFLER said that currently there is a license on the oil
and gas land by Andex Corporation, so that exploration and
development rights will continue to belong to Andex, and they
will operate under their DNR lease, but if Andex leaves, the
university would operate under different leasing rules than DNR.
1:28:52 PM
MR. LOEFFLER said the most valuable lands are the 44 parcels
throughout Southeast Alaska. During the selection process DNR
excluded Division of Forestry lands because it would reduce
DNR's allowable cut which in turn would reduce the amount of
timber going to local mills. He said DNR also excluded any
lands that it was planning to sell within the next five years.
He said that DNR also tried to exclude "sensitive areas." He
explained that it was impractical to go to all the communities,
so DNR used its area plan process. DNR "tried to look at only
the lands that are categorized in a "development category -
particularly settlement or general use." He added that of the
44 parcels, 37 are classified for settlement or general use. He
said that "the importance of the Southeast parcels are that they
are the major near-term income source for this package." Mr.
Loeffler said that DNR would have liked to pick parcels that
weren't in "someone's backyard," but it is not possible;
everywhere is in someone's backyard, he said.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked Mr. Loeffler to describe the difference
between how the University and DNR would sell land.
MR. LOEFFLER answered that DNR has an expansive public process,
first going through an area plan to classify a parcel for
settlement, followed by a best interest finding with public
notice, and then DNR sells it competitively.
1:32:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked if there is a state program that does
that on an ongoing basis.
MR. LOEFFLER answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that when the state sells land they
are required to maintain access rights, and he asked if the
university lands will have the same process.
MR. LOEFFLER replied that most of DNR's maps for the university
transfers show easements, but the law says DNR would identify
those areas during the title process, including navigable
waters, which will be retained in DNR management.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the same process is done by DNR
whether it is selling to the university or to an individual.
MR. LOEFFLER said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he couldn't understand how
many of the lands were chosen. He expressed his desire to get
the most money to the university in the shortest amount of time,
and that some parcels don't look marketable. Biorka Island is a
sea lion pull out, he said, so how can the university develop it
and turn it into money?
MR. LOEFFLER said that he can't address Biorka Island in
particular, but, in general, DNR went through a land-use process
focusing on parcels identified as settlement or general use. He
added that Biorka Island was found to be appropriate for remote
cabin sites.
1:35:27 PM
Representative Crawford said that he was told that there was a
small parcel in Willow, which is near a large population center,
and that is where we should be putting state land into private
hands. That is where there is a need, he said.
MR. LOEFFLER said that he agrees, and if DNR had land there it
would. Most of it has gone to the Alaska Mental Health Trust,
to municipalities, or previously to the university. "So the
state doesn't own land near roads in that area," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he thought there were still many
thousands of acres in the Willow area.
MR. LOEFFLER answered that the capital site has 60,000 acres and
that a lot of it is unsuitable for settlement.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what use the university can make of
the rocket launch range in Kodiak.
MR. LOEFFLER deferred to the university, but he added that it
dovetails with the university's ownership of the Poker Flats
Rocket Range for similar research.
1:37:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he was confused about many of the
parcels, in particular the land in Neets Bay, which is the
watershed for the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture
Association (SSRAA) hatchery. He noted that the hatchery
generates about $28 million in goods and services annually to
Ketchikan's economy, and he thinks it is the most successful
fish hatchery in the state. Representative Elkins questions why
DNR would want to jeopardize the watershed and that he is "upset
about it."
MR. LOEFFLER said DNR doesn't want to jeopardize the Neets Bay
hatchery, but it is a valid existing right no matter who owns
the land. He added that the surrounding area is also important,
and his expectation is that the university would be a good
manager.
1:39:40 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS noted that there is "certainly a constituency"
that is "concerned about precisely that."
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS questions whether the Neets Bay watershed
is protected.
MR. LOEFFLER said that the hatchery's lease doesn't address the
watershed, and DNR's plan was to protect the hatchery watershed,
and he "doubts [the university] will do different."
1:40:36 PM
JOE BEEDLE, Vice President for Finance, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer Trustee for the Land Grant Endowment Fund,
University of Alaska, said that it is the Land Grant Trust that
takes the receipt from lands sold by the university and holds,
invests, and provides money to the university. He stated that
land is a very important aspect of land grant universities, and
the University of Alaska has received the smallest amount of
land of any land grant school except for Delaware and Hawaii.
The original intent of land grant universities, he said, was to
encourage engagement with the community and to create a funding
source. He said the challenge to DNR of finding land was "not
insignificant." DNR needed to select land in a way that was
consistent with its area plans. Mr. Beedle said that the
university was holding informational meetings this week. He
stated that most people are not aware of DNR's area plans in
spite of efforts by the state. In the selection process, DNR
had to retain state forest lands for timber harvesting, it had
to retain five years of its own supply of land sales, and it had
to protect important habitat. Mr. Beedle added that there are
already designated parcels for settlement, development, and
recreation in the area plans. He said that "recreational lands"
mean lands for recreational cabins or tourism. He added that
the university does not have specific plans for the use of the
lands in HB 130, and it plans to work with professionals and
local interest groups to ascertain a parcel's best use.
1:45:43 PM
MR. BEEDLE said that the university has a land management
process which includes long-term strategic plans; annual
development plans to identify compatible and economic uses;
annual sales plans, which are on the university's web site and
include public notice; and oversight by its board of regents.
Mr. Beedle said that the university has $130 million in an
endowment, which pays out five percent of a five-year average of
the fund balance. He added that approximately $5 million a year
goes to the university which is about one percent of its budget.
MR. BEEDLE reported that it is only speculative, but he is
optimistic that the oil and gas lands will provide funds for the
university to the tune of about $2-3 million a year after 20
years. Since 1987, the university has sold 1,146 properties for
a total of 15,000 acres, which has brought in approximately $44
million at principle. The university's timber sales bring in
about the same amount of money. He said it is very serious
business for the university, but it is not a large part of its
budget; however, "it's the discretionary receipt authority
that's so valuable for us." Mr. Beedle concluded that the
university "looks forward to the passage of this legislation."
1:50:25 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked what percentage is the $130 million to the
university's total endowments.
MR. BEEDLE responded that there is a foundation with $125
million in its fund. He said there is another $50 million in
funds that are not endowed that come from such things as
donations for a building fund, grants for scholarships, and
museum donations, which are all held and invested until needed.
1:51:52 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked if it is fair to say the university is
trying to fulfill its mission as a true land grant college, and
the long-term plan is to build the endowment up similarly to the
centuries-old universities across the United States.
MR. BEEDLE responded that other land grant universities receive
about ten to twenty-five percent of their revenue from land,
compared to the University of Alaska's one percent. Mr. Beedle
added that Alaska's university is very small and new at the game
of endowment.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked what Harvard's endowment base is.
MR. BEEDLE responded that Harvard has a $28 billion endowment
with returns of 15 percent, and some of its managers are paid
millions of dollars. Harvard's money is invested in hedge funds
and new private equities.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said "I just want to reiterate that this is the
big plan...to try to fulfill some of the promise and directive
that we've had from President Hamilton which is to make the
University of Alaska a truly competitive institution across the
country and globally by developing resources like this endowment
and by fulfilling the land grant promise and getting land into
the hands of private individuals and at the same time enriching
the university to get us on the right track over the next
decades."
1:54:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the university wants with the
rocket launch in Kodiak.
MR. BEEDLE responded that this parcel was suggested by
university people many years ago. The university, he said, does
not have an eminent law school or medical school, but it is
known for its Geophysical Institute and its study of northern
latitudes. Mr. Beedle noted that satellites can be interrogated
much more often at Alaska's latitude. He said the university's
investigations of global change and the aurora give the
institute international prominence. The institute also studies
the atmosphere, and it has huge contracts with NASA, and it
boasts investments from Japan to coordinate with the Geophysical
Institute. The university also owns Poker Flat where the
institute built a rocket range with the Department of Defense,
NASA, and other agencies, and it is an area of excellence that
the university takes pride in and wants to expand, he said. He
added that land around the launch site will "give us a place at
the table" whether it is research or a future Kennedy Space
Center.
1:58:11 PM
MR. BEEDLE stated that near Poker Flat there is a park and a
wild and scenic river, and the university gets "high marks" with
how it interacts with the community. He said he thinks Kodiak
will be pleased to work with the university.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that since the president of the
university chairs the board of the rocket launch facility,
doesn't that give the university "a place at the table." She
also asked if the university could lease the land and have
similar clout.
MR. BEEDLE said the university does not need to own land to do
research, but there are restrictions, and he said that the
university will have a stronger seat at that table if it owned
the land.
2:00:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about a recent university sale of
real estate in Palmer and if that money went into the endowment.
MR. BEEDLE said there are restrictions on federal grant lands
that the university gets, and it must go into the land grant
trust. He said there have been other processes by which the
university has gained land. The Palmer Research Farm was
provided to the university without restriction. The university
will receive $5 million for a very small piece of property
because there is a willing buyer and willing seller, he said.
The Land Grant Trust Fund will also buy property for investment
purposes.
2:04:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked if anyone has expressed interest in
the gas and oil land.
MR. BEEDLE responded that DNR sold the exploration permit to
Andex Corporation, which covers over 400,000 acres. Doyon
Regional Corporation also owns some surface and subsurface, and
it has been doing exploration. Mr. Beedle said the potential
looks very promising, and investors have recently put in money.
It shows excitement, but it needs a lot more studies, he said.
2:06:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what would happen if the state
transfers property to university and then wants it back.
MR. BEEDLE said that the university has traded land with the
state, and it would be looking for fair value.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked why Neets Bay was selected.
2:08:20 PM
MR. BEEDLE said that DNR, not the university, selected that
parcel, and it was a surprise. But, Mr. Beedle said, he
believes the university could work with SSRAA. That area has
been extensively clear cut, he added, and it would be wrong to
clear cut it again. If the university owns it, it would do a
selective helicopter cut. He said he thinks there are tourism
opportunities, "I believe the very fact that those fish return
there are an asset that has value to other people, just as
Katmai [National Park] does for bear viewing and the lodges that
exist around the area - still preserving that natural habitat.
Having said that, we understand fully, having met with SSRAA
three different times on Monday while we were in Ketchikan, what
their concerns would be. We're sensitive to their issues."
2:10:46 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said that much of the lands in HB 130 will not
be highly contested; however, a few parcels could be "debate[d]
forever."
MR. BEEDLE stated that land has as much emotion as family, and
"we walk a delicate line." Alaska wants to send students to
school, he said, and the board of regents urged him to tour
Southeast Alaska as soon as possible. "We will be doing this,"
he said, but will probably not be addressing controversial
property now. It is about economic gain for the trust, he said.
He then noted a thesis done by a University of Alaska student on
customer satisfaction with the university's land grant process,
which showed more than 90 percent positive responses.
2:14:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the university would take some of
the sensitive areas off the table to allow this bill go forward.
MR. BEEDLE said that one third of these lands are for research,
another third is speculative, and the remaining income property
is "our bread and butter." He added that there is not an over
selection, and there is not a back up list, so the university
"would be concerned with a dilution of the bill, but would be
interested in how it progresses through the process."
2:17:03 PM
CECIL RANNEY, Assembly Member, Kodiak Island Borough Assembly,
said he is concerned with the 2,280 acres containing the launch
facility in Kodiak. This area has been controversial, he said,
and it is an important recreation area for the citizens. He
added that the community has been supportive of the launch
facility, and it is supportive of the university. But this bill
appeared rather suddenly, he stated, with a "cloud of
suspicion." He said everyone needs to take a really close look
at the educational value of that land. The borough also has
concerns with section 6, which changes some of the public
process, he added. The main concern is what would happen if the
university decided to dispose of the land. The borough assembly
wants more time to consider this, he said.
2:21:30 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said the committee is in no rush to pass the
bill out.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if DNR was taking care of the access
problems.
MR. RANNEY said that the whole area is used by many residents
for recreation.
2:22:17 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that he would like "to remind the
committee that this is not a university bill, the university is
the beneficiary, but this is the governor's bill. It was
introduced by the governor, and this is a relationship between
the Department of Natural Resources and the University of Alaska
that has done their land selections [which] was promised to them
in the Statehood Act. So the governor is not involved...it's
something that we've all got to come to terms with it."
2:22:59 PM
ANISA BERRY, Port Alexander, Alaska, said she really supports
the university but she is opposed to the loss of undeveloped
state lands near the Port Alexander and Conclusion areas. The
bill will double the size of Port Alexander and it violates the
town's comprehensive plans by allowing changes that are not in
accord with the town's desires, she said. She noted that recent
comments to DNR's area plan recommended that no home site be
chosen from that area. The town's infrastructure can't keep up
with such an expansion; the water facilities are limited and the
dock is at capacity in the summer. She said she doesn't believe
these lands are a good investment for the university because
there is already private property that has been on the market
for years, and if the university sells lots, it would further
depress the local market. She added that local residents hunt
and recreate in the HB 130 areas, so the bill infringes on the
Alaskan rural lifestyle. She asked that the legislature find a
way to fund the university in the most realistic way without
infringing on locals.
2:25:52 PM
LANI BRENNAN, Baranof Property Owners, Anchorage and Baranof
Warm Springs, said that HB 130 represents a short shrift to the
public process. She stated that the Alaska State Constitution
prohibits the disposal of land "without prior public notice and
other safeguards of the public interest." She opined that
saving money is not a justification for eliminating meaningful
public process with appropriate scrutiny. "The bum's rush,
don't-bother-us-with-the-facts approach now sought by the
administration is unbecoming of Alaska," she said. Ms. Brennan
specifically protests the transfer of the 267 acres at Warm
Springs Bay. She said current development is:
appropriately confined mainly to a townsite which pre-
existed statehood, on which many small developed and
still undeveloped lots exist. The proposed disposal
would surround a habitat-sensitive lagoon and extend
up to Baranof Lake, a trail-accessible recreation
area. The area to be disposed is largely wetlands...I
am sure you recognize that there is no way the
legislative committee process can adequately
scrutinize each specific disposal. Some very
knowledgeable voices...will not be heard from in
time...What is the big rush? Please follow the
constitutional approach, and meaningfully include us
Alaskans in the process for state land disposals.
2:30:23 PM
JULIE KAVANAUGH, Kodiak, said that she is a supporter of the
university, but she is against acquisition of the Kodiak parcel.
She expressed her concern that the transfer has been discussed
at length, "but it is the first that anybody in Kodiak, that I
know of, has heard of it." If HB 130 goes through, she said,
she would like it to exclude roads and trails, which are used by
"all kinds of users." Ms. Kavanaugh owns a stable and uses the
area for horseback riding. She added that it is a controversial
subject in Kodiak, and requests the removal of the Kodiak area
from the bill because of its sensitive nature. She suggested a
lease of the land instead because she heard the university say
it wanted the property for status, not monetary gain. She would
like guaranteed access to the area by not including roads and
trails in the transfer.
2:33:08 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked the university for some clarification on
their sales process and access issues.
MARY MONTGOMERY, Director Of University Land Management Office,
said the university has different processes for different lands.
She said if a property is being subdivided, the university
advertises for 60 days and sends mail to all legislators and
municipalities. After that process, the board of regents
approves the development then it determines if the property is
"feasible." She said the university hires a third-party
consultant to go to the community closest to the development and
conduct an 8- to 12-hour workshop to hear what the community
wants. The university then goes back and designs the project,
trying to consider the community's concerns. The university may
put in covenants and restrictions in order to develop the land
in a way that is compatible with the community. Finally, the
land is surveyed, platted, and offered in a competitive sale.
The university offers its own financing, she said. She added
that if a property will not be subdivided or developed by the
university, it can be sold after a 30-day comment period.
2:37:09 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked how the university would address sensitive
parcels like Neets Bay, because there is so much concern about
what the university is going to do. He added that Mr. Beedle
and Ms. Montgomery say the university is a good steward of the
land, and "is going to go about trying to improve the
communities. Can you give us a hypothetical as to how the
university would approach the Neets Bay area?"
2:38:00 PM
MS. MONTGOMERY responded that first the university will
determine whether there is a need to develop the property
immediately or at all. "It may not be developable for 50
years," and many of the parcels will sit in the inventory, she
said. "We would work very closely with the community, with the
aquaculture group, be very sensitive to water quality, and there
are laws that protect water quality," she added. She said she
can't see an immediate development opportunity for that area,
and it will be several years while the university evaluates its
inventory. She added that her office can only do so many
subdivisions a year, and it usually chooses five or six parcels
to evaluate each year. She said the university "would work with
the lessee and the community to determine what's the best use of
that property." She added that in Ketchikan the university
holds property that it wants to develop, but the community wants
to use it to recreate, so the community is trying to purchase
the parcel.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS stated that some people are concerned that "they
will see no trespassing signs go up on university lands once
they are titled over." He asked how the lands will be treated
while the university is determining what it will do with each
parcel.
MS. MONTGOMERY said the bill provides for continued public use
of the properties, and she can't think of a time when the
university put up a no trespassing sign. She spoke of the trail
systems on the university's campus, which the public is allowed
to use. "We want the public to be comfortable on our lands,"
she said, but "we still have to generate revenue from them."
Commercial users of university lands need a permit, she added.
2:41:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that the university's experimental
farm is used by people to take walks. There are gates but
people walk around them, and he would like to reinforce that the
university doesn't "seem to take their land away from the
public, so much as simply own it."
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS thanked Ms. Montgomery "for debunking the myth
that the university is a terrible landlord."
2:42:38 PM
MIKE ROUND, Assistant General Manager, Southern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA), read a letter from the
general manager of SSRAA, which is entered into the record. He
expressed SSRAA's strong opposition to transferring Neets Bay
land to the university based on the following (original
punctuation provided):
1. The Neets Creek land parcel is almost exactly the
small watershed that is the sole source of water for
Neets Bay Hatchery and the hatchery site, which lies
in the lower end of the parcel at saltwater.
2. The Neets Bay Hatchery site is one of the few true
production hatchery sites in Alaska that can sustain
both large-scale production as well as cost recovery
in a Special Harvest Area.
3. The single over-riding goal in the administration
of university land is to generate revenue for the
university.
4. University land administrators pursue two courses
in meeting their goal: if the land is appreciating in
value or provides significant revenue through use it
is held; if the land is not appreciating in value or
does not otherwise provide funds through use it is
sold to generate revenue.
5. SSRAA is a non-profit corporation. Regional
commercial salmon fishermen chose to tax themselves 3%
of the ex-vessel value of their harvest to initiate
funding for SSRAA in the early 1980's and continue to
do so as collateral for SSRAA's well being.
6. If SSRAA is significantly charged for use of the
Neets Bay Parcel, SSRAA would necessarily have to
increase cost recovery harvest and revenue, taking
fish that would have otherwise been harvested by
fishermen. This is in essence a tax on salmon
fishermen.
7. If SSRAA is required to buy the land to retain its
current site, the organization will have to increase
cost recovery harvest to repay the required loans.
Again, this is in essence a tax on SE salmon
fishermen.
8. If the watershed is used for another form of
resource extraction, the quantity and quality of water
in the small watershed will likely be altered and
detrimental to hatchery operations.
9. Regardless of whether both parties work in good
faith, the current goals of University Land
administration of the Neets Creek Parcel and SSRAA are
mutually exclusive.
10. The University could not reach its goals without
significantly impacting a non-profit organization that
would have to take more from its users to meet the
increased costs of operation. Or put otherwise, the
University would be taxing fishermen to support its
programs.
11. The other alternative is the SSRAA would leave the
site and either cease to exist or reduce production to
a fraction of what the organization now produces. This
would result in a significant loss in harvest for SE
fishermen.
12. Any long or short-term value the University would
receive for this parcel is very small related to the
long-term value now produced for SE Alaska communities
from SSRAA's activity on the site.
2:47:02 PM
KENNETH DUGGETT, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska
Gill Netters, said that the hatchery facility at Neets Bay
provides about 50 percent of the fish caught in district one.
Mr. Duggett said that Mr. Beedle talked about the bears at Neets
Bay which are a byproduct of the hatchery, but the function of
the hatchery is to provide fish for the common property fishery.
Water supply is the reason the hatchery is there, and the gill-
netters believe that the development of commercial activity is
unacceptable and cannot be done in a way that protects the
water. Mr. Duggett said that to compromise the economic
integrity of the hatchery for a short-term sale is fundamentally
irresponsible and unacceptable. He referred to testimony that
the university would study the site and determine the best use
of the property, but Mr. Duggett said the best use is to provide
clean water to the hatchery, other activities would compromise
that. The hatchery mission is inconsistent with the mission of
the University of Alaska Trust Fund, which is to raise as much
money as they can.
2:50:56 PM
IVAR MALUTIN, Kodiak Area Native Association, said he was born
and raised in Kodiak and wants to protect Native rights. He
noted several events that have "choked" Native rights, including
the influx of fisherman moving to Kodiak, the earthquake, and
World War II. He added that there are military sites on Kodiak
that used to be traditional lands, and have been "taken away
from us." He said the people of Kodiak are people of the sea,
"we live off the sea," he said, and the native association is
very concerned that the land transfer will eliminate access to
important marine harvest areas.
2:53:04 PM
BRUCE WALLACE, Commercial Fisherman, Board Member, SSRAA,
reported that he concurred with Mr. Duggett's comments regarding
Neets Bay, and the highest and best use of the areas is for the
hatchery.
2:54:01 PM
JOHN MARTIN JR, Tenakee Tribal Council of Elders, Tenakee
Springs, said he is a tribal descendent from the Tenakee Tlingit
Nation - the Tenakee Tribe - and an ambassador to Nations. He
said that the council vehemently opposes HB 130, "if it involves
even one footstep on tribal lands - that would be the whole of
Tenakee Inlet." Mr. Martin said the inlet is owned by the
Tenakee Tribe and predates "your state government and predates
the birth of your nation. Our lands are not for negotiation or
trade...our land is not about cash and it is not covertly
disguised as research land or educational land, it's about the
survival of our sovereign tribal membership. Our claims are
valid and they're existing and are owned by the Tenakee Tribe in
perpetuity."
2:56:27 PM
JOHN MARTIN SR. Tenakee Springs, told the committee the Tlingit
name he was born with and said his missionary name is John
Martin Sr. He said he was born in Tenakee Springs in 1935. He
said that Tenakee land must be withdrawn from all consideration
until the "recognition process has been accomplished. Tenakee
has valuable land in the area and they have been treated like an
orphan child." He said Tenakee was left out of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act, "and now you want to take the last
link of this heritage." He said the Tenakee Tribe was
recognized by President Roosevelt in 1935. "My preference is
that this parcel is given back to the Tenakee Nation while the
state is in a giving mood." Mr. Martin said he also made a
statement to Senator Lisa Murkowski "that all land exchanges -
land issues - cease until they deal with our precious land on
Chichagof Island and adjacent water sites." He added that, "We
give special recognition that we are not opposing the
university."
3:00:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that some maps are showing trails
that haven't been reserved, such as in Neets Bay, and he wants
to know why it doesn't show access. He said he wants to
preserve all access.
3:02:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO pointed out DNR's fact sheet describing the
land chosen for transfer, which reads (original punctuation
provided):
does not include any producing oil and gas or mineral
properties, nor legislatively designated Sate Game
Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas, Parks, or Public Use
Areas.
MR. LOEFFLER responded that the term "public use areas" refers
to lands that are legislatively designated as "public use" and
that would be the Nelchina Public Use Area and the Mat-Su Valley
Moose Range.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she has emails from constituents to
become part of the record.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS encouraged committee members to talk to him if
they wanted to slow the process down or alter it. He said he
wants to make sure the issue is given "plenty of sunlight." He
said he wants people to feel that they will get "a good, clean,
fair hearing on this."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that he wants an explanation
regarding section 6, where there appears to be quite a few
changes in the repeal and he would like an explanation on why
the legislature is eliminating current public policy sections.
[HB 130 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04:45
PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|