Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/04/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 130 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2005
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Co-Chair
Representative Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
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."
- MOVED CSHB 130 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
02/09/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/14/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/14/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/16/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/16/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/02/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/02/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/05 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/04/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DORIS BAILEY, Assembly Member
City and Borough of Sitka
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
VALERY MCCANDLESS, Mayor
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
STACEY FRITZ, Student
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
DEB SPENCER, Co-owner and Manager
Shoreline, Inc.
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
JOHN BURKE, General Manager
Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of removing Neets Bay
from HB 130.
STACY STUDEBAKER
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
TED SMITH, Mayor
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
RON SCHONENBACH, Retired Employee
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to 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 and against the
changes in the committee substitute (CS).
REBECCA MCGUIRE, Graduate Student
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
ROSEMARY MCGUIRE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MIKE REEVES
Hollis, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on problems with HB 130.
ROBERT LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 130.
LORI MASTRELLA
Port Alexander, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MONA CHRISTIAN
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
STEVE JOHNSON
Kiksadi Tribal Clan
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
LEIGH GERBER, Member
Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
CHARLIE PIERCY
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of removing Neets Bay
from HB 130.
DEEDIE PEARSON
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
JULIE HURSEY
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MIKE LITZOW
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
DENNIS ROGERS
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
BOB LESHER
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
NORM CARSON
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MIKE SALLEE
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
MIKE ROUND
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of removing Neets Bay
from HB 130.
KEN DUCKETT
United Southeast Alaska Gill Netters
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of removing Neets Bay
from HB 130.
JIM SLATER
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
CHRIS HOWARD
Pelican, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 130.
MYRL THOMPSON
Susitna Valley, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 130.
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding an amendment
offered by Representative Ramras.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:07:06 PM. Representatives Samuels,
Seaton, Elkins, Ramras, Gatto, Crawford, and Kapsner were
present at the call to order. Representative LeDoux arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representatives Bill Thomas and
Peggy Wilson were also present.
HB 130-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the only 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."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt committee substitute (CS) HB 130
labeled 24-GH1034\G, Bullock, 3/4/05, as a work draft. [No
objection was stated, and the committee treated Version G as
before it.]
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said the committee will take public testimony in
increments of two minutes, and try to vote the bill out today.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD objected for purposes of discussion. He
said he was told that the land selections were set in stone, and
he wanted to know how the changes in the CS came about.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he fought long and hard on HB 130 and
is pleased that the committee is close to moving it. He said he
is supportive of Representative Crawford, and now that he and
some others have what they want, he is embarrassed that
Representative Crawford's concerns were not addressed.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said most public complaints are taken care of.
He added that he thought the community of Kodiak should buy the
rocket launch site. He opined that the committee essentially
made parks out of all the lands that were removed from HB 130.
He said he agrees with the watershed-related changes. He thinks
the committee "listened to the public process," including
personal attacks directed at Co-Chair Ramras.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX thanked the co-chairs for eliminating the
Kodiak parcel from HB 130.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he did not remember any testimony on
Lena Point.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted there was a lot of testimony by
the public, the committee, and other members of the legislature.
This CS came from somewhere, but he said he did not know how it
was negotiated. Representative Wilson's concerns weren't
addressed in it, he said, and he would like to know how the CS
came about.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said there is nothing that puts any lands
into a park status--they are fully developable by DNR through a
public process. "We have not put any restriction on this land,"
he added.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said that Lena Point was in the original bill
and was deleted because of ingress and egress problems. "We
approached Representative Weyhrauch, and our intention in the
resource committee was to get a bill that we thought would be
able to move out of resources and through finance, and make it
to the house floor." He said that Representative Weyhrauch sits
on finance and wanted his concerns on behalf of his constituents
in Southeast. DNR's letter dated March 3, 2005, references
Lisianski Point and Biorka Island, he added. He said he didn't
want the finance committee to "listen to constituents and try to
extract land parcels." He said the resource committee listened
to two constituent groups, the public who called in, and the
members of the committee. He said he got together with the co-
chair and staff to make it work, and "we will deliver 97.12
percent of the land the university requested." If there is a
suggestion of chicanery or anything less than sunshine, he will
stand by the bill, and he anticipates getting some heat from the
administration and the university. He said he wants to get on
with the people's business and not clog up the committee with HB
130 for another two or three weeks.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he would have liked to have input,
but "the minority is the minority." He removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS explained that in the CS, page 5, lines 27-28,
covers the issue of access and it allows DNR to protect trails,
easements, and miscellaneous errors. He said page 7, lines 21-
24, corrects omissions and errors like were found in Hollis and
"perhaps Tenakee." On pages 7-8, lines 28-31, acreage is
extracted from the bill based on concerns by the public and
Representatives Wilson, LeDoux, and Elkins. He said that on
page 8, lines 11-29, the CS addresses an amendment for public
notice and process, and on page 10, lines 16-22, the municipal
entitlement process is addressed.
1:24:24 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said he will offer an amendment for logging
interests in his district.
1:25:17 PM
DORIS BAILEY, Assembly Member, City and Borough of Sitka, said
the assembly had an emergency meeting to unanimously oppose the
transfer of HB 130 parcels that are within the borough, with the
exception of the Japonski Island parcel. She said that using
the term "not in my back yard," is an excuse not to "consider
the very strong and loud protests you have heard from Southeast
Alaska." She noted that the bill is intended to transfer
"viable commercial property" appropriate for development, which
would provide funds to the university. She explained that the
university already controls 680 acres in Sitka, and the Alaska
Mental Health Trust controls substantial acreage, so she said
the community is "already shouldering more than its share" of
trust lands. She questioned whether the university will accept
local land-use controls. Biorka Island is 16 miles into the
Pacific Ocean and impossible to get to for days at a time, and
it is near a heavily used fishery. The possibility of a lodge
could put pressure on that fishery and on Goddard Hot Springs.
1:28:25 PM
MS. BAILEY said that Biorka Island contains navigational aids,
including two radars and other communication equipment, and she
asked if the Federal Aviation Administration has been contacted.
She said that she is "amazed" that the university would want
land that has a specific encumbrance. Middle Island now has
many homes and cabins, and "the entire developable beachfront of
Middle Island is targeted for residential and recreational uses
and has already been selected. The university would acquire two
beachfront areas, one which is very steep and one that that runs
dry at low tide. The center of the island is steep and rocky...
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked Ms. Bailey to "wind it up."
MS. BAILEY concluded that development is not appropriate on the
parcels in HB 130. She said the city needs land for building
residential units, and the university owns a large parcel that
the city "has coveted for residential-building use for many
years." She mentioned the cost of utilities, and her testimony
was cut off.
1:30:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he tried to give Ms. Bailey's
concerns "a voice," but decisions were made without it.
1:31:16 PM
VALERY MCCANDLESS, Mayor, Wrangell, said the Wrangell city
council has not taken an official position on HB 130. She added
that the city will make its position on Olive Cove, Thoms Place,
and Earl West Cove known in a few weeks.
1:32:02 PM
STACEY FRITZ, Student, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said
that it was wonderful that the concerns of the public regarding
Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island were considered. She added that
funding the university is important and she feels terrible
opposing support, but "this type of support" has conflicts and
provides little funding. She noted that it is a land grant
university, but the land grant act was passed about 150 years
ago and she questions how applicable it is in today's world.
The land transfer could provide only 2.5 percent of the
university's annual funding, but only if it is managed perfectly
with no problems. She questions whether the potential
environmental degradation and stress to small communities is
worth it.
1:34:24 PM
DEB SPENCER, Co-owner and Manager, Shoreline Inc, Pelican, said
she compared land selections in Lisianski Inlet with the parcels
identified in DNR's Northern Southeast Area Plan, and she said
that the parcels in HB 130 are categorized as recreational: not
to be sold to individuals and to remain in their current state.
The areas designated in the area plan for settlement are only
for residential and private use. The university will not have
to follow the plan. People worked very hard on the area plan...
1:36:00 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS told her that her two minutes were up.
MS. SPENCER continued to note that her business has a tideland
permit to anchor her scow off lands in HB 130. The business has
held the permit for over 20 years, and the land transfer will
displace her business which buys fish from over 100 vessels.
She speculated that the parcels that were removed from HB 130
were in the district from a house resource member or had a high
proportion of testimony, and she pointed out that only one
person was allowed to testify from Pelican in spite of many
attempting to.
1:37:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how the land transfer will hurt Ms.
Spencer's business.
MS. SPENCER said she has a fish-buying scow anchored three
months each year, and after the university owns the adjacent
land, she will not have any right to be there.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked what her family would do.
MS. SPENCER said it was her family's main source of income so
they would scramble to find another place to anchor the scow.
1:38:51 PM
JOHN BURKE, General Manager, Southern Southeast Regional
Aquaculture Association (SSRAA), said he is against transferring
Neets Creek to the university, so he supports the amended
version of HB 130. He told the committee that conversations
with the university that were designed to lessen SSRAA's
concerns about the land transfer have only heightened the
organization's concern. The university told him that the sole
purpose of owning the property would be to generate revenue. He
said SSRAA agrees with the principle of privatization of public
lands but the cost may be to great with this land. SSRAA
programs generate approximately $30 million in the local economy
annually, he added.
1:40:41 PM
STACY STUDEBAKER, Kodiak, thanked the committee for being
responsive to Kodiak's concerns and eliminating the rocket
launch site from HB 130. She supports the university and is an
adjunct faculty, but she is "having trouble with this bill." It
is not a good way to fund the university for more reasons than
she says she has time to discuss. She said the original bill
would have given the university a bad name. She added that
Kodiak has very little public land for recreation and that
Narrow Cape is the choicest accessible recreational land. She
concluded that the bill was on a fast track with no input from
affected communities.
1:43:22 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said, "We are not funding the university...we
are fulfilling a contract between the State of Alaska and the
university...the lands have to come from somewhere and they have
to have some value...we can't simply transfer over frozen
tundra."
1:44:11 PM
TED SMITH, Mayor, Petersburg, is disturbed that HB 130
disregards DNR's Central Southern Southeast Area Plan that was a
product of over two years of hard work by the state, federal
agencies, local governments, interest groups, and the public.
Fast-tracking HB 130 does not allow people to analyze the
impacts of the land transfers, he said, and the affected public
should have ample opportunity to review and comment on it. He
added that the Sitka Access Study identifies the Warm Springs
Bay parcel as a ferry terminal site. State agencies, such as
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, were not
involved in the land selections. He added that Petersburg is
getting pressure to form a borough, and one of the few remaining
enticements for forming a borough is the ability to acquire
unencumbered land. "There's virtually no remaining unencumbered
state land that could be transferred to a borough," he said, and
the City of Petersburg will send a resolution and letter in
opposition to HB 130.
1:46:25 PM
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska,
said his organization has strong concerns regarding the Neets
Creek parcel, and he appreciates the CS.
RON SCHONENBACH, retiree, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, said that he was involved in
land selections in Southeast for many years. He said it is
shocking that such a vast majority of the HB 130 land selections
are in Southeast, affecting 13 different communities, when there
is such a large land base throughout the state. He opposes
conveying wildlife habitat, settlement lands, and public
recreation lands to the university. He noted that all witnesses
commented that DNR did a tremendous job on the area plans, and
the plans should be honored by retaining wildlife and recreation
lands in state hands. He believes it is short sighted to convey
the settlement lands to the university, which should be sold in
a land disposal program to the public. He said that once DNR
issues a quitclaim deed, the area plan has no meaning or
relevance to the university, and the public is betrayed. It
"paints a very ugly picture for DNR because they lose trust in
DNR," he said. He concluded that there is nothing magical about
the number of acres in HB 130, it could be any number, and the
legislature can fix SB 7 and include fewer acres. There is a
"terrible misconception" that the university will obtain long-
term revenue from these lands, because the best state lands have
already been conveyed to others.
1:50:33 PM
MR. SCHONENBACH said it is appropriate that the university gets
some land, but the committee needs to sit back and look at what
the public is saying and not rubber stamp what the governor has
proposed. There is no urgency, he said, and he is happy to see
the CS, but there are additional changes needed.
1:51:37 PM
JOE BEEDLE, Vice President for Finance, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer Trustee, Land Grant Endowment Fund, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, said that he hopes there is land to replace
the land parcels removed from HB 130 or else that there will be
an opportunity to put the parcels back in the bill. He is
concerned that the trend is for removal of land that witnesses
have concerns about.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS has a conceptual amendment to add a parcel
to HB 130 that was in SB 7: 3,000 acres north of Tok near the
Canadian border.
MR. BEEDLE said that the property did not have an income value
as good as others.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said he won't introduce it.
1:54:43 PM
REBECCA MCGUIRE, Graduate Student, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, said she wants a well-funded university system but
she is concerned with HB 130 because it is removing public
involvement and gives the university a bad name. People are cut
off after two minutes, when they obviously have more to say, she
said.
ROSEMARY MCGUIRE, Fairbanks, said she is speaking for a large
number of families that are involved in the university as
faculty, staff, or students, and they are united in the belief
that the university lands bill is bad for the state and for the
university. The bill will not generate much income for the
university, she said, but it may keep the state from granting
future funds. The bill treats Alaska's people unethically,
because communities are given very little time to respond to a
bill that has been in preparation for over a year. Many
communities may be affected strongly and adversely, she said,
and her primary concern is losing the right to public process.
She said she heard Mary Montgomery attempting to assuage the
fears of the loss of the public process, but it is disingenuous
because the bill specifically eliminates the process. The bill
is not so much a plan to fund the university but it is a
transparent plan to develop public lands without public
sanction.
1:57:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told Ms. McGuire to look at the CS on page
8, line 10, which addresses the public notification process. He
said that he is comfortable that it has been addressed.
MS. MCGUIRE said that her group has been looking at that, and it
doesn't solve the problem.
MIKE REEVES asked the status of the Hollis area mapping error.
ROBERT LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources, Juneau, said the CS allows DNR
to fix mapping errors.
1:59:39 PM
LORI MASTRELLA, Port Alexander, said she has been listening to
all the hearings on SB 130, and this is the first time she has
been able to speak, and she knows that there are more people who
might not get that opportunity. She noted that there is so much
overwhelming negative testimony, and the amendments are not
enough. The bill goes too far too fast, and a couple of band-
aids will not make bad legislation good legislation.
2:00:51 PM
MONA CHRISTIAN, Petersburg, Alaska, said she owns property that
is in SB 130. Although DNR told her it would get fixed, she
said property owners elsewhere encountered a similar problem and
it took several years to clarify. She noted that SB 130's map
shows the conveyance of beachfront land, and that is already
privately owned. Most of land actually being offered is 1,200
feet off the beach in swampy habitat. The parcel is 27 miles by
water from Petersburg, and there are no building codes, zoning,
utilities, or fire protection. Land was recently offered in
that area, she said, only 13 parcels of 40 were even bid on, and
last year there were 28 parcels offered by the university and
only two were bid on, she said. Dumping volumes of property on
the market depresses land values and takes away from future
borough selections. Most importantly, she said, the state needs
to responsibly fund education in Alaskan.
2:03:12 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS told her to look at section 9 of the CS, which
takes unorganized boroughs into account.
STEVE JOHNSON, Kiksadi Tribal Clan, Sitka, said that Lisianski
Peninsula is adjacent to a Native allotment and a fish camp
where children learn cultural traditions. The land to be given
to the university has house pits and significant cultural sites,
he added. Mr. Johnson said Biorka Island was owned by a famous
man in Tlingit history, and his house is still there. His land
was taken by the military with a promise to give it back, and
that promise is yet to be fulfilled. Next to that allotment was
Mr. Johnson's great grandfather's house, and his grave is still
there, he said. The Kiksadi clan is opposed to HB 130.
2:05:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said that he thought those issues have been
taken care of, and that it is in the Bureau of Land Management's
hands.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said that Mr. Loeffler is "nodding his head."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she is uncomfortable because the
federal government moves so slowly and cultural effects could be
destroyed by then. She asked DNR if it will wait before
conveying the land.
MR. LOEFFLER said the "potential conflict for Native allotments
are for Biorka Island. That area has been excluded from our TA
[the land tentatively approved to the state]. If Mr. Walton
reinstates a portion of his allotment which was denied by BLM,
and they approve it, it is automatically excluded from our TA."
Regarding developing it with that cloud on title, he said, "The
answer is we would probably try to work with BLM so they get
their answer before we convey it to the university. Should that
not be possible, we would probably convey it with the
exclusion." He said the land is not developable until the cloud
on a title is lifted, which could take three or four years or
more.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said there were a lot of ifs.
MR. LOEFFLER noted that there is other state land where the
state knows there is a Native allotment, and DNR knows it is not
ethical to sell land with a cloud on the title, so it doesn't.
"I have no doubt that the university would be the same way," he
said. He added that if the state gives the land to the
university, it will have no affect on whether Mr. Walton gets
his land from BLM.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the university will be under the
same rules as the state.
MR. LOEFFLER replied, yes, Mr. Walton's ownership is excluded
from the title. If Mr. Walton's claim prevails, whatever land
is included will be his.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS suggested the bill could be worded to say the
land will be conveyed to the university when the title is clear.
MR. LOEFFLER said, "It wouldn't matter one way or the other
because we can't convey what we don't own."
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she is satisfied.
LEIGH GERBER, Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber
supports the removal of Neets Bay from HB 130, and it passed a
resolution on it.
2:11:35 PM
CHARLIE PIERCY, Commercial Fisherman, Ketchikan, stated that he
supports removing Neets Bay from SB 130 because a third of his
income comes from that hatchery. He said that he has two
children at the University of Alaska, and, "I would much rather
catch a fish and pay their way than have them come steal my
livelihood."
DEEDIE PEARSON, Kodiak, said, "I hope you hear the sigh of
relief from Kodiak to have the rocket launch area removed." She
said she came to Kodiak in 1941, and there is a lack of
recreational area for the people of Kodiak; Narrow Cape is
"about the only open land for recreating." She cautioned that
the committee's decisions "have a very long-reaching effect for
generations to come." She said there is a viable cattle ranch
at Narrow Cape. She thanked the committee.
2:13:33 PM
JULIE HURSEY, Petersburg, stated that she was very glad to hear
about the exemptions in the CS, but she is still concerned about
remote sites that were designated as "R.U." in DNR's area plans,
including Sanford Cove, Endicott Arm, Whitney Island, Reed
Island, and Mite Cove. It took several years to develop the
plans, and those areas should be removed, and she asked the
committee not to rush the bill out.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS reminded Ms. Hursey that the resource committee
"is only the first stop," for the bill.
2:15:38 PM
MIKE LITZOW, Kodiak, said he is part of a group of residents who
have been circulating a petition for continued public access to
Narrow Cape. After Co-Chair Ramras told him he had succeeded,
Mr. Litzow said he would continue circulating the petition
because that is what the group told people they would do, and he
wants to show the local support for continued access to that
parcel in the future.
DENNIS ROGERS, Petersburg, said he applauds the committee for
removing the Warm Spring Bay parcel. He suggested the process
for land selections be reviewed, and it should have involved the
public more in the beginning.
2:18:00 PM
BOB LESHER, Pelican, questioned why this land grant proposal
became the funding source for the university. He said that the
lack of public hearings suggests that another agenda was being
served. There are $30 billion in the state's permanent fund,
and he asked why that money wasn't considered. He added that HB
130 is a statewide issue, and the solution should be shared by
everyone. He stated "the best solution means a contribution
from our Permanent Fund Dividends. This income is a great
windfall we did not earn. What better way to demonstrate our
direct support for such a worthy program? If we do not accept
this reasoning, why should we direct a land-grant solution to
targeted regions to solve this issue?" He said according to Mr.
Beedle, the university would realize $5 million annually; "our
average permanent fund dividends could be reduced by less than
one percent and would match that amount." He concluded that his
region wants "the right to determine paths to a vision of our
area's development."
2:19:55 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said the land grant commitment precedes
statehood and the permanent fund.
MR. LESHER asked why that should be set in stone. "If it is a
matter of money, shouldn't other sources be investigated?"
2:20:33 PM
NORM CARSON, Pelican, said that SB 130 is a tragic bill; it
takes large parcels out of his community. He said the South
Lisianski parcel is 280 acres, and DNR lots that have been sold
in the past have been three acres. He added that he knows the
parcel well, and there are less than eight buildable lots on it.
He suggested that either DNR is misleading the university or the
university has plans to sell huge parcels that only speculators
or land barons can buy. The average Alaskan will not be able to
participate. Trust and respect for the university and DNR has
been tarnished, he said. More effort should be spent looking at
other ways to fund the university. He stressed that the
development of HB 130 should have involved communities; instead,
people got maps on a web site three days before the first
hearing. "This bill is heavy-handed and demonstrates why the
public rightfully suspects bureaucratic institutions." He
concluded that the bill should be dropped, or else DNR should
start over and involve the public "on day one--not at the end."
2:22:50 PM
MIKE SALLEE, Ketchikan, thanked Representative Elkins for
getting Neets Bay extracted from HB 130; however, the bill was
ill conceived from the start. He said he has doubts that the
university deserves the land especially since federal lands will
combine to produce close to 3/4 million acres. He is concerned
with the Moser Bay parcel which will likely be an unsightly
timber harvest. The committee has made some valuable amendments
to HB 130, but it needs to go back to a public process. He said
he spent many, many hours on the DNR area plans, and that
process is not perfect but it has the HB 130 process beat by
far.
2:24:46 PM
MIKE ROUND, Ketchikan, said he commends Representative Elkins
for taking Neets Creek out of HB 130.
KEN DUCKETT, Executive Director, United Southeast Alaska Gill
Netters, said he echoes Mike Round's comments.
2:25:54 PM
JIM SLATER, Pelican, said the community has sent several
letters, and the majority of the town signed a petition. They
are concerned "that such a huge percentage of land is being
transferred related to the amount of existing private land."
The impact of transferring 1,000 acres in Lisianski Inlet is
significant. He added that Mite Cove should be removed from the
bill and the parcel at Sunnyside should be reduced.
2:27:03 PM
CHRIS HOWARD, Pelican, said that the university will be a good
steward of the Mite Cove land. He said there are two schools
that are boarded up, and HB 130 will help the economy.
MR. JOHNSON offered a follow-up comment from his previous
testimony. He said that Biorka Island has high levels of
military contamination including PCB, lead, and diesel. He said
that Middle Island has petroglyphs and it is one of the few
areas that subsistence harvesters can go to get herring eggs.
MYRL THOMPSON, Susitna Valley, said he spoke to people in the
Willow area, and no one is against land for settlement, but they
are against land going to the timber industry which is currently
clear cutting, chipping trees, and barging it all to Korea. He
said there is a lot of opposition. He ended by saying that
politics breaks down into two words: poly, which means many, and
tics, which means bloodsuckers.
2:29:55 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony. He said the committee
has heard every single person who wanted to testify today.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:30 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.
2:34:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 as
follows: Lisianski Peninsula and Biorka Island lands will not be
conveyed from DNR until titles are clear. Hearing no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:35:11 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS said he would like to offer Amendment 2, which
read [with oral changes]:
Page 10, line 13:
Delete "and"
Page 10, line 14, following "(4)":
Insert "has determined, following notice and any
public comment, that the land is not considered by
local businesses to be commercially viable for future
timber harvest resource development and that disposal
of the land will not interfere with that future
development; and
(5)"
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS objected and asked for an explanation.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS read Amendment 2, and said that the committee
heard concerns from "lumber interests in the Fairbanks area who
harvest timber and use it locally, not for export, and they
don't want to be circumvented from being able to have access to
the boreal forest and any surrounding areas."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a local business can it halt the
university's transaction even if it doesn't commit to harvesting
the associated timber.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, responded, "What this has to do with, is that
there's a clause in the bill that allows for land swaps, and
there was concern in the boreal in particular up on the Nenana
Ridge, an area...that is considered relatively prime timber for
that part of the state for the local mills. There was a concern
that the university may decide to land swap that out for
something else, and they wanted to make sure that that could be
maintained for timber harvest before a swap was done with other
land, and its just part of the public process--they're allowed
to chime in and keep our mills open, unlike what's happening in
Southeast."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if it is possible to just veto the
swap or disposal and not actually harvest the timber.
MR. POUND said, "As I understand it...it has to do with swapping
land, and part of the public process that they will have, yes
they probably will have a little more say if that land is being
harvested for timber than other stakeholders may."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for Mr. Loeffler's comments.
MR. LOEFFLER said he has not seen the amendment.
2:40:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:40 p.m. to 2:44 p.m.
2:44:14 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS withdrew Amendment 2 and made it into Conceptual
Amendment 2, and he said, "On page 10, line 14, that we insert
"has determined following notice and any public comment that the
land is not viable for timber harvest or that disposal of the
land will not interfere with that development, and concludes
that it is in the best interest of the university to
disestablish some or all of that research forest."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected for discussion purposes, and she
asked what the future development is that won't be interfered
with.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS asked Mr. Pound to help him.
MR. POUND said he believes that the word future is being
deleted, and the development "would reference back to timber
harvest development."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said, "So if it's determined that the land
is not commercially viable, and that its disposal will not
interfere with timber harvest development, then the land can be
sold off, is that the idea?"
MR. POUND said yes, and he suggested Co-Chair Ramras leave the
word "commercially" in the amendment because there are two types
of timber--commercial and not.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested changing the wording so it says
"will not interfere with commercial timber harvest."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there is an official definition of
"commercial."
MR. POUND said Mr. Loeffler believes DNR has a definition.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that since Amendment 2 is conceptual,
the committee does not need the language.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX withdrew her objection, and thereby,
conceptual Amendment 2 carried.
2:50:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS said Co-Chair Ramras has done an excellent job,
with a lot of grace in spite of people being "overwhelmingly
abusive." He said he believes HB 130 helps the university and
gets more lands into private hands. He said lands will remain
controversial, and gas rights will likely be argued as well.
2:50:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX seconded Co-Chair Samuel's remarks about
Co-Chair Ramras, and she said she views HB 130 as an example of
the public process working. She said, "There were two very
controversial pieces of land, the public let us know where they
stood on that." Everyone was heard and the end result was that
several controversial parcels were taken out of the bill. It is
an example of how this legislature works, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS said this CS addresses most of the
problems, and it is a far better bill. He concluded that he
wants to wait until Monday to move the bill because the
committee has already been accused of fast tracking it, and the
committee did say it was going to move the bill Monday.
2:52:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciated clearing up the right-
of-way and public notice provisions of HB 130.
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS responded that he appreciates the kind words and
he feels bad "we didn't have time to give the public as much
time as they want to unwind on this." He noted that the
committee had thought it could agree on 250,000 acres of the
260,000-acre list. "With Amendment 1, we have withdrawn 9,000
acres." He added that since public testimony is closed and the
public will be able to continue commenting while the bill is in
house finance and on the floor, he doesn't feel the committee is
violating the public trust by passing HB 130 today. The CS
meets much of the public concern, he said, and he feels
comfortable moving the bill today.
2:54:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 130, labeled 24-
GH1034\G, Bullock, 3/4/05, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Hearing no objection, CSHB 130(RES) was moved out of committee.
2:55:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|