Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/23/1995 09:30 AM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                             MINUTES                                           
                    SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                         March 23, 1995                                        
                            9:30 a.m.                                          
  TAPES                                                                        
                                                                               
  SFC-95, #20, (000-575)                                                       
  SFC-95, #20, (575-end)                                                       
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Senator  Rick Halford,  Co-chair,  convened  the meeting  at                 
  approximately 9:30 a.m.                                                      
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  Co-chairs Halford  and  Frank,  Senators  Phillips,  Donley,                 
  Rieger, Sharp and Zharoff were present.                                      
                                                                               
  Also  Attending:   Senator  Ellis,  Senator   Salo,  Senator                 
  Parnell,  Margot  Knuth, Attorney,  Department  of  Law; Ron                 
  Swanson, Director, Division of  Land, Department of  Natural                 
  Resources;  Wendy  Redman,  Vice  President,  University  of                 
  Alaska;  Juanita Hensley,  Department Public  Safety, Driver                 
  Services;  and  Tom  Waldo,  Attorney,  Sierra  Club   Legal                 
  Defense.                                                                     
                                                                               
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
                                                                               
       SB  67 UNLAWFUL EVASIONS CLASS A MISDEMEANOR                            
                                                                               
       Discussion was had by Senator  Ellis, and Margot Knuth.                 
  SB         67 was REPORTED OUT of committee with a "do pass"                 
                 recommendation   by   all   members  of   the                 
  committee, with 3 zero       fiscal notes from the  Dept. of                 
  Administration, Dept. of Law,                                                
       and Corrections.                                                        
                                                                               
       HB  27 DNA TESTING OF VIOLENT OFFENDERS                                 
                                                                               
       Senator  Parnell,  sponsor of  the  bill presented  his                 
  testimony.        SB 27 was REPORTED OUT of committee with a                 
  "do pass" recommen-        dation and 10  fiscal notes  (see                 
  pages 3 and 4 for listing).                                                  
                                                                               
       SB   7 NO BAIL FOR FELONS W/PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS                        
                                                                               
       Discussion was had by Senator Salo and Margot Knuth. SB                 
  7 was     REPORTED  OUT  of  committee  with   a  "do  pass"                 
  recommendation,     with  5  zero  notes  (see  page  6  for                 
  listing).                                                                    
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SB  16 INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA                           
                                                                               
       Testimony was  given by Co-chair  Frank; Wendy  Redman,                 
  Vice            President, University of Alaska;  Tom Waldo,                 
  Attorney, Sierra                                                             
       Club;  and  Ron Swanson,  Director,  Division  of Land,                 
  Department                                                                   
       of  Natural  Resources.    Co-chair  Frank   offered  a                 
  conceptual                                                                   
       amendment to  reflect that  University holdings,  which                 
  are                                                                          
       income producing, hold a taxable  status.  No objection                 
  having                                                                       
       been raised, the amendment was  ADOPTED. This bill will                 
  be                                                                           
       taken up at the next meeting.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SENATE BILL NO. 67                                                      
                                                                               
       "An Act relating to the crime of unlawful evasion."                     
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Halford   invited  Senator  Ellis   to  join   the                 
  committee.  Senator Ellis testified that this legislation is                 
  an effort  to increase  the penalties for  escape, or  walk-                 
  aways, from a  half-way house  facility.  He  said there  is                 
  agreement  among  the  professionals  and  the  neighborhood                 
  activists  that   the   penalty  is   not   sufficient   for                 
  misdemeanants,  in  those  facilities,  to  keep  them  from                 
  walking away.  This is a documented problem.  He stated that                 
  in FY  92 there were 49 walk-aways, in  FY 93 there were 23,                 
  in  FY 94  there were 68,  and in  FY 95 there  have been 31                 
  walk-aways.  Senator  Ellis noted that there  are documented                 
  cases resulting  in drunk  driving deaths,  drug deals,  and                 
  firearm  violations,  to  name  a   few.  There  is  general                 
  agreement that the penalty  for felons who walk away  from a                 
  facility  should  be a  class  A  misdemeanor.   He  cited a                 
  personal  experience  that  he   had  encountered  with  the                 
  Anchorage police department.                                                 
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger questioned  the definition  and statute of  a                 
  half-way house.   He felt  that the language  may be  loose.                 
  Senator Ellis testified  that there has  not been a need  to                 
  tighten  up  the language  on  this  bill.    Margot  Knuth,                 
  Department of  Law, Criminal  Division, supports  this bill.                 
  She stated it will  not add fiscal impact to  the Department                 
  of Law. It  does not cost  any more to  prosecute a Class  A                 
  misdemeanor than a Class B misdemeanor.                                      
                                                                               
  Senator Zharoff asked for explanation in Section 4, line 26.                 
  Ms.  Knuth responded that it states  the unlawful evasion in                 
  the  second degree that  exists now.   This legislation will                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  create one offense  of unlawful evasion  and will no  longer                 
  have both in the first degree and in the second degree.  All                 
  of the same conduct that is  now covered by unlawful evasion                 
  in the first and second degree will be covered in the single                 
  crime of unlawful evasion.   This bill will have  the effect                 
  of  repealing  AS  11.56.350,  so that  it  will  become  AS                 
  11.56.340.                                                                   
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Halford spoke to the fiscal notes attached to this                 
  bill.  He stated  that with an additional penalty,  it would                 
  appear that the departments are willing to absorb the costs.                 
                                                                               
  Senator  Phillips  MOVED  to  pass  SB  67  with  individual                 
  recommendations.  No objection having been raised, SB 67 was                 
  REPORTED OUT of  committee with three fiscal  notes from the                 
  Dept. of Administration, Dept. of  Law, and Corrections. Co-                 
  chairs Halford  and Frank,  along with  the full  committee,                 
  Senators  Rieger,   Phillips,  Donley,  Zharoff   and  Sharp                 
  recommended "do pass".                                                       
                                                                               
                                                                               
       HOUSE BILL NO. 27                                                       
                                                                               
       "An Act directing  the Department  of Public Safety  to                 
  establish        and maintain a deoxyribonucleic acid  (DNA)                 
  identification         registration system and requiring DNA                 
  registration by  persons         convicted  of a  felony sex                 
  offense; and providing for an           effective date."                     
                                                                               
  Co-chair Halford invited Representative  Parnell to join the                 
  committee.  Rep. Parnell  as the sponsor to HB  27 testified                 
  that the legislation establishes a  DNA data bank within the                 
  Department of Public Safety.   Essentially, this will enable                 
  Alaska to  become the 33rd  State to  collect blood  samples                 
  from  violent felons.  The Department of Public Safety would                 
  be contracting with  the Department  of Corrections to  take                 
  samples from  the felons.   The samples would  be catalogued                 
  and stored by the Department of  Public Safety.  After three                 
  years there would be a data bank of samples ready for typing                 
  for  DNA   matching  in  violent   crime  scenes.     It  is                 
  particularly  useful  in  sexual  offenses.    The  FBI  has                 
  software  which  will  allow Alaska  to  check  the data  in                 
  existence throughout the  United States.  He  testified that                 
  it would work the same as fingerprinting.                                    
                                                                               
  Senator  Donley  inquired if  this  applied to  first degree                 
  arson?  Representative Parnell  responded that arson  is the                 
  only  property  crime that  it  does apply  to,  because the                 
  elements of first  degree arson include endangering  a human                 
  being.  Senator  Donley asked  how the bill  would apply  to                 
  juveniles?    Rep.  Parnell  responded  that it  applies  to                 
  juveniles  16  years  and older  who  have  been adjudicated                 
  delinquent for these crimes.                                                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Rieger  asked how  the DNA  data bank  works?   Rep.                 
  Parnell  responded  that  the  blood  sample  is  stored  on                 
  swatches of clothe.   DNA typing is done with  this sampling                 
  and stored on software.                                                      
                                                                               
  Senator  Phillips  MOVED   to  pass  SCSCSHB  27(JUD)   with                 
  individual  recommendations.    No  objection  having   been                 
  raised, HB 27 was  REPORTED OUT of committee with  10 fiscal                 
  notes as follows:                                                            
  Dept. Public  Safety, Info. Net,  $20.0; Dept. of  Law, -0-;                 
  Dept.  of  Public  Safety, Lab.  Serv.  $25.8;  Dept. Public                 
  Safety,  Records,  $11.0; Dept.  Health  & Social  Services,                 
  Johnson/Juno, -0-; Dept. Health & Social Services, Nome, -0-                 
  ; Dept. Health & Social Services, Fbks, $0.3; Dept. Health &                 
  Social Services,  McLaughlin,  $1.6; Dept.  Health &  Social                 
  Services, Bethel, $0.1; Alaska Judicial Council, $1.2. Total                 
  $60.0.  Co-chairs  Halford  and  Frank  along  with Senators                 
  Rieger, Phillips and Sharp recommended  "do pass".  Senators                 
  Zharoff and Donley signed "no recommendation".                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SENATE BILL NO.  7                                                      
                                                                               
       "An Act relating  to bail after conviction  for various                 
  felonies        if the defendant has certain previous felony                 
  convictions."                                                                
                                                                               
  Co-chair Halford invited Senator Salo to join the committee.                 
  Senator  Salo,  as sponsor  of SB  7,  testified that  it is                 
  identical to  the legislation completed last year as SB 228.                 
  This legislation is to add to the list of offenses for which                 
  bail is not  available.   Currently, those  convicted of  an                 
  Unclassified or Class A felony are prohibited of having bail                 
  following conviction.   This would  prohibit the release  on                 
  bail following conviction for those defendants who have been                 
  convicted of a  Class B or C felony, and who have a previous                 
  conviction  for  an  Unclassified  or Class  A  felony.   In                 
  general, this adds  to the  lists of crimes  for which  bail                 
  would be denied.  She noted that last year SB 228 passed the                 
  Senate 19-0  vote. SB 7  carries 5 zero  fiscal notes.   She                 
  stated that based  on whether the  time of incarceration  is                 
  now or later, there is no additional cost.                                   
                                                                               
  Senator Salo defined  the statutes mentioned in the bill: AS                 
  11.41.260,  stalking  in  the  first  degree;  AS  11.41.420                 
  through AS 11.41.425, sexual assault in the  second or third                 
  degree, a Class B  or C felony; and, AS 11.41.436 through AS                 
  11.41.438, sexual abuse  of a minor  in the second or  third                 
  degree, a Class B or C felony.                                               
                                                                               
  Margo Knuth, Department of Law, Criminal Section, stated the                 
  purpose   of  this  legislation  is  to  deny  bail  to  the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  individual  who  has been  convicted  of  a  crime,  and  is                 
  awaiting  an  appeal.    Existing  law  allows  that  as  an                 
  Unclassified  felony or a  Class A  felony, bail  is denied.                 
  She said that a  conviction as a Class B or  C felony, which                 
  is a lesser offense,  should still deny bail.   She cited  a                 
  case  in Kenai:  The offender  had a  conviction for  sexual                 
  assault, subsequently was prosecuted  for burglary, appealed                 
  the conviction and was released on  bail.  While that appeal                 
  was  pending,  he raped  another  person.    This bill  will                 
  prohibit judges from making such a mistake again.                            
                                                                               
  Senator Salo cited  the case that  was the impetus for  this                 
  bill.    She  said  the  offender  had a  previous  list  of                 
  convictions  both  in Alaska  and  California that  was very                 
  extensive, including statutory rape.   His crime, before the                 
  court,  was  a  felony  drug  offense.   He  was  convicted.                 
  Pending an appeal,  he was released  on $5,000 bail.   While                 
  out on bail,  he raped 2 women.   Those are two  women whose                 
  lives are  forever changed,  by an  offender who should  not                 
  have been out  on bail. That is a mistake that should not be                 
  made again.  She  stated, it was this man's  background that                 
  made him  dangerous relative to his being  released on bail.                 
  This is  the reasoning  behind not  limiting the  bill to  a                 
  crime against the  person.  The  bill is defining a  conduct                 
  dangerous enough, to keep them off the streets.                              
                                                                               
  Senator  Sharp stated  he is  against  designing laws  for a                 
  specific situation. He asked if this person was on parole or                 
  probation  from  a  previous  crime  when he  was  arrested?                 
  Senator Rieger  asked  how felonies  track on  record.   Ms.                 
  Knuth stated that felonies stay on  a record for a lifetime.                 
  When a Suspended Imposition of  Sentence (SIS) is completed,                 
  law enforcement is aware that there were felony proceedings,                 
  but it would not count as a prior conviction for purposes of                 
  presumptive sentencing.   Anyone who  successfully completed                 
  the SIS would not be effected by this legislation.                           
  Co-chair Halford asked Ms.  Knuth if it could be  written to                 
  say  that as  a matter of  policy there  will be no  bail on                 
  appeal following conviction?   Ms. Knuth responded  that she                 
  did not know  the answer  to that question.   Senator  Sharp                 
  said  he could  support a  universal application of  no bail                 
  after a second conviction of a felon.                                        
  Ms. Knuth clarified that after the  first conviction, for an                 
  Unclassified or  Class A felony,  there is  no bail  pending                 
  appeal.                                                                      
  Meaning, if  there is  assault in  the first degree,  sexual                 
  assault in the first degree, sexual abuse of a minor in  the                 
  first degree, misconduct of drugs  in the first degree,  and                 
  if there is  a conviction while  appeal is pending, bail  is                 
  denied.  This is  addressing those on second offenses.   Ms.                 
  Knuth stated that even  now, on first offenses, if  they are                 
  Class A or Unclassified, bail is denied. This bill is saying                 
  that if it  is a second  felony conviction, and a  defendant                 
  has one of the above convictions already, then the defendant                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  will be placed  in the  same position on  this new  offense,                 
  even if it is a B or C felony.  The second part to  this, is                 
  the length of sentence that the defendant can be expected to                 
  receive.    With a  first-time conviction  of  a Class  A or                 
  Unclassified offense,  there is  going to  be a  presumptive                 
  five, eight,  or up  to twenty  years.   On a  first offense                 
  conviction of a Class B or C felony, it is likely there will                 
  be no jail time or minimal  amount of jail time.  But,  when                 
  there is  a prior  felony conviction,  then the  presumptive                 
  sentencing scheme  is in  place for  two years  for Class  C                 
  felony.   Class  B is  4 years.   She  reiterated that  time                 
  served before sentencing will count toward the time required                 
  after sentencing.                                                            
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp questioned  the zero  fiscal notes. Ms.  Knuth                 
  explained that the person  convicted is going to  spend time                 
  in jail as a matter of his sentence on the offense.  Senator                 
  Salo interjected  that the  Department of  Law reviewed  100                 
  cases and found that 100% of the cases resulted in sentences                 
  of incarceration.  She stated  that annually  the number  of                 
  people that this will affect is a guess.  Her guess is under                 
  20.                                                                          
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips MOVED for  passage of SB 7  with individual                 
  recommendations.  No objection having been raised, SB  7 was                 
  REPORTED OUT of committee with 5  zero fiscal notes from the                 
  Dept. of Administration, Dept. of  Public Safety, Council on                 
  Domestic Violence, and Troopers, Dept.  of Law, and Dept. of                 
  Corrections.                                                                 
  Co-chairs  Halford and  Frank  along  with Senators  Rieger,                 
  Phillips  and   Donley  signed  "do   pass"  recommendation.                 
  Senators Zharoff and Sharp signed "no recommendation".                       
                                                                               
                                                                               
       SENATE BILL NO. 16                                                      
                                                                               
       "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."                                                              
                                                                               
   Co-chair Frank, as sponsor of SB 16, testified that this is                 
  the University land grant bill. He stated that last year the                 
  Senate did pass the bill  on a 14-5 vote.  The  House had it                 
  on schedule, but did not get to it.  The purpose of the bill                 
  is to increase the  University's land grant.  He  cited that                 
  in  most  states,  land  grants  support  universities.  The                 
  University of  Alaska is a  land-grant university.   It  was                 
  granted  land prior to  statehood and never  did receive the                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  entire amount that  was entitled.  The  university currently                 
  has 112,000 acres.   This bill would add one  million acres.                 
  He  stated that as  the state oil  revenues decline, greater                 
  pressure is placed  on the state's  general fund.  To  grant                 
  the university one million acres would allow them to develop                 
  lands to support their programs.  It is consistent both with                 
  our constitutional requirement, that we  develop our natural                 
  resources  for   the  benefit   of  the   people;  and   our                 
  constitutional mandate with  regards to the university.   He                 
  urged getting beyond the  thought that the state has  to own                 
  all  the  land.   He  supports  allowing the  university  to                 
  increase  its activities  and further  support its  programs                 
  through  a land  grant. There are  protections in  the bill.                 
  The university cannot take  land that the state has  already                 
  developed or targeted for development, or from the five year                 
  oil  and  gas   program.    In   the  final  analysis,   the                 
  Commissioner of Natural Resources has the final say  and any                 
  appeal would be to the  governor, not to the courts.   There                 
  is  no opportunity  for the courts  to file  action.   It is                 
  basically a situation where, the  Dept. of Natural Resources                 
  and the governor,  ultimately would make the  final decision                 
  on  which  million acres  are  transferred.   Co-chair Frank                 
  asked for favorable consideration.                                           
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips spoke  to Section 6. Co-chair  Frank stated                 
  that the university would like to  keep lands open to public                 
  use.  The  university wants to  allow people to continue  to                 
  hunt, fish and recreate on their lands.  Section 6 speaks to                 
  the protection required  so the University will  not be held                 
  liable for personal injuries, death or property damage which                 
  occurs  on  their land.    If  the university  is  guilty of                 
  reckless, intentional misconduct,  then they  would be in  a                 
  position to be held liable for those acts.                                   
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Halford  asked  how  much revenue  the  university                 
  generates  now  from  the  140,000  acres?   Co-chair  Frank                 
  responded that the university has become increasingly active                 
  in  developing their lands.  It took  a long time to finally                 
  get their land grant. The process has not gone as quickly as                 
  they would have liked, but they are increasingly active.                     
                                                                               
  Co-chair Halford invited  Tom Waldo,  attorney, Sierra  Club                 
  Legal  Defense  Fund,  to join  the  committee.   Mr.  Waldo                 
  testified that SB 16 creates conditions that can lead to the                 
  same conflict and  litigation as in the Mental  Health Trust                 
  Lands.    When  congress  passed  the Alaska  Mental  Health                 
  Enabling  Act,  it dictated  it had  to  be used  for Mental                 
  Health programs. In the 1970's  the legislature decided that                 
  there  were other uses for the land  that were in the public                 
  interest   and  included:   disposal   to  individuals   for                 
  settlement  purposes; disposal  to municipalities  for local                 
  government purposes,  such as  below-cost mineral  leases to                 
  encourage  development, or  setting  aside areas  for public                 
  use, such  as parks.   Those  uses violated  the trust  that                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  congress had set up. It led to  12 years of divisive, costly                 
  litigation for the  state. He  stated that SB  16 will  "tie                 
  your hands" in the same way  that congress "tied your hands"                 
  with the Mental Health Enabling Act.  It will prevent making                 
  the best decisions  in the  future for use  of these  lands.                 
  Remember that congress  passed the Enabling Act  in 1956 and                 
  40 years later it is  still an issue that we are  struggling                 
  with.  If  SB  16 passes,  40  years  from  now and  beyond,                 
  legislatures  and the public, will still be dealing with the                 
  implications and the  loss of discretion in dealing with the                 
  lands.  For those reasons the Sierra Club encourages you not                 
  to support SB 16.                                                            
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Halford   asked  Wendy  Redman,   Vice  President,                 
  Statewide University  System, to  join the  committee.   She                 
  testified that she is concerned that this bill has become so                 
  controversial.  She spoke to the actual  land grants for the                 
  University of Alaska  as compared to the  other universities                 
  in the other states within our  nation. Land grants in other                 
  states do provide  a large  portion of the  support for  the                 
  state  land  grant  universities.    She  stated  that  this                 
  legislation has been crafted in such a way to respond to all                 
  the   considerations  surrounding   land   grants  for   the                 
  university.      The   crafters   have   worked   with   the                 
  environmentalists to build in better public process,  worked                 
  with  hunters and  fishermen to  provide continuing  access,                 
  have  worked with  the mining  groups  to provide  for their                 
  interests and concerns.   The environmental community  wants                 
  the university  land to  be treated  as public  domain land.                 
  She stated that she could not fix that problem.   She stated                 
  she could try to mitigate the problem by building in greater                 
  and greater public  processes.   She stated that  2% of  the                 
  state land is in private ownership  in Alaska.  If the State                 
  of Alaska does not feel that more  land should be in private                 
  ownership  for development  purposes,  then the  legislation                 
  should be voted  against.  The  universities goal is to  get                 
  more  land into private  ownership to development, encourage                 
  new  revenue,  and  develop  new  land which  would  develop                 
  revenue.  She stated that the argument last year was that it                 
  would off-set  state general  funds to  the university.  She                 
  stated that she  would not want it to be a dollar for dollar                 
  off set because that leaves very  little incentive to try to                 
  continue to develop the  land. Ideally, over time,  the goal                 
  is  to  create  an  endowment  that  would  support a  large                 
  portion,  and free up other general funds that are currently                 
  going to the university.                                                     
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips asked if the total land grant is 112,000 or                 
  140,000?  Ms. Redman stated that  the total land holdings of                 
  140,000  includes  some   lands  that  were  given   to  the                 
  establishment  of  the  College  of  Agriculture and  Mines,                 
  referred to as the Fairbanks campus  lands which are managed                 
  as part of the trust, but not part of the actual land grant.                 
  Senator Phillips then  cited a  letter from Northern  Alaska                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Environmental  Center  which  stated, "political  opposition                 
  could be substantial, especially as  lands to be transferred                 
  are  actually identified on  the ground." In  the letter, he                 
  states that  they list  the  Alaska Miners  Assoc., and  the                 
  Resource  Development Council.    He asked  if  they have  a                 
  position for or against the bill?  Ms. Redman responded that                 
  originally the Research Development Council was reluctant to                 
  support the bill.  Their feeling was that the university was                 
  not  aggressive enough in  developing the lands.   They were                 
  concerned instead that the university had sold lands through                 
  Exxon to  go in preserves  and were  not in support  of that                 
  kind  of  development.   Subsequently,  they have  been very                 
  supportive.   She believes  that  they do  have a  position.                 
  With regards to  the Miner's Assoc.,  last year they took  a                 
  position, though not formal, that  the status quo is perfect                 
  with  the  miners.   They  do  not  want  any change,  their                 
  concerns are that the university will be a different kind of                 
  landlord than the Department of  Natural Resources, and they                 
  are correct.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Halford asked if  the university sold  land to the                 
  Exxon trust?   Ms. Redman responded that  the university did                 
  not sell land  to the Exxon trust, but that there was a bill                 
  in the legislature 3 years ago  (HB 16) which was ultimately                 
  vetoed.  The university  has a fiduciary interest  and Exxon                 
  was offering  cash, not to cut trees.  They offered the same                 
  amount of money that we would have received from cutting the                 
  trees, so our interest was not supportive of that bill.  She                 
  stated the university did not  actively oppose the bill, and                 
  the  RDC  was  upset.    Subsequently,  the  university  has                 
  negotiated  on the  timber land and  are going  forward this                 
  summer with a $15 million timber cut.                                        
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips then spoke to the letter from the Anchorage                 
  Fish and  Game Advisory  Committee of the  State of  Alaska,                 
  quoting that:  "annually  the university  gains $10  million                 
  from current land base, and of that, $7 million comes from a                 
  one-shot timber sale."  Ms.  Redman responded that over  the                 
  past few  years, $7  million has  come from  a major  timber                 
  sale.   Ms. Redman stated  that the university  did generate                 
  $10  million last  year, but  it does go  up and  down every                 
  year.  The  total cash  in the  land grant trust  is at  $30                 
  million.  This is an accumulation of the last 10 years.  She                 
  stated   other assets  include $40 million  in real  estate.                 
  The total endowment  is worth about  $75 million.  There  is                 
  also a  strong inflation proofing  provision in the  fund so                 
  that it is kicking off actual  earnings to the university of                 
  about $3 million.  From this,  the university funds the land                 
  management office, and activities, so  that the general fund                 
  can be used for development  of the land. The balance is  $2                 
  million,  which  comes  back to  the  university  in program                 
  receipts  as  part of  our budget.    That's been  given out                 
  through  the  Dept.  of Natural  Resources  fund,  which was                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  established  in statute  by the  legislature,  defining that                 
  funds be used  to support natural resources  programs in the                 
  state.                                                                       
                                                                               
  Ms. Redman stated  that the  university is heavily  timbered                 
  and  is  looking  for  other   sources  of  income  such  as                 
  subsurface  rights,  gravel,  and  recreational  leases  for                 
  lodges and  hunting.  The  Board's position  is very  strong                 
  about not selling  property.  Although, there has  been some                 
  property placed in  subdivisions around  the state and  then                 
  sold.  The Board  prefers to keep the land  for development.                 
  The university  has offered  oil exploration  in the  Mat-Su                 
  area,  and  land has  been put  up  for auction  for private                 
  ownerships in the Fairbanks and interior areas.                              
                                                                               
  Ron Swanson, Director,  Division of  Land, Dept. of  Natural                 
  Resources, was  asked to join  the committee.   He explained                 
  that  "Muni Muni" refers to a lawsuit between the University                 
  and the State  of Alaska when  the State of Alaska  conveyed                 
  all the university land to  the municipality of Anchorage to                 
  fill their land entitlement.  Ms. Redman interjected that in                 
  the original land  settlement with the Mental  Health Lands,                 
  university lands were  commingled with state lands  and were                 
  mismanaged by  the state  so that  many of  the university's                 
  valuable lands  and property  in Anchorage  were given  away                 
  with the entitlements.                                                       
                                                                               
  Co-chair Halford asked Mr. Swanson what the administration's                 
  position  is  toward   this  bill.    He   stated  that  the                 
  administration is  opposed  to this  bill, though  it is  in                 
  support of the  university receiving more  land. It is  felt                 
  that the land should  come from the federal government,  not                 
  from state  lands.   The administration  is very  willing to                 
  work with the university and go back to congress.  He stated                 
  that the current political structure  there is interested in                 
  disposing of various lands in various areas.                                 
                                                                               
  Senator Phillips reiterated,  in 1915  congress gave a  land                 
  grant of  250,000  acres, in  1956  came the  Mental  Health                 
  Lands.    Ms. Redman  stated  that the  Mental  Health Lands                 
  really had nothing  to do with  university land grants.   At                 
  the time of  statehood, The  Statehood Act extinguished  the                 
  land grant which  had been given  to the university at  that                 
  time.  The supporters of the  extinguishment, at the time of                 
  statehood,  said,  "that  because   the  state  was  clearly                 
  receiving  more  land  from  the  federal  government   than                 
  imagined, that  the state could  keep the obligation  to the                 
  university."  That never happened.   Ms. Redman stated  that                 
  the president of the university, and she, were in Washington                 
  D.C. and met  with the  state's delegation on  the issue  of                 
  federal  land.  The  university felt  it  would  enhance its                 
  ability to  get state  land  if it  could come  back with  a                 
  federal  package, such  as,  5 federal  acres for  every one                 
  state acre. Senators  Stevens and Young felt the  timing was                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  not appropriate, and for the federal government to be giving                 
  more land to the State of Alaska  was not going to be a very                 
  popular notion.                                                              
                                                                               
  Discussion was  had among  the committee  on  the 1  million                 
  acres.   Senators Phillips  and Sharp  indicated they  could                 
  support  250,000  acres.    Senator  Zharoff  could  support                 
  500,000 acres.                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp  asked about  the applicability  of this  bill                 
  with safeguards  to prevent  a delay  in the  utilization of                 
  lands  from time of  nomination to actual  time of transfer.                 
  Ms. Redman noted that on page 5, line 16, the preference was                 
  to close entry  for the university's protection  during that                 
  period of  time.  Senator  Sharp stated that  experience has                 
  shown that the  period of time  has become extended, and  in                 
  effect there  would be  no opportunity  to use  the land  by                 
  private enterprise during the time  of nomination and actual                 
  time of transfer.                                                            
                                                                               
  Mr. Swanson stated  that when a  selection is made from  the                 
  federal government  it also segregates the land  so that the                 
  federal government cannot  create something  that we do  not                 
  want.   Within ANILCA  we did  create a  provision that  the                 
  state will allow the federal government to do something with                 
  our permission only.   This could be written into  this bill                 
  as well.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Swanson urged conveyance from  the federal government to                 
  the state.   It  would be  desirable, if  in the  developing                 
  process, there would  be a requirement  of the developer  to                 
  develop the land  so that the state would not be burdened at                 
  a later time.   Ms. Redman  stated that conveyance has  been                 
  provided by  parameter  surveys  to  accommodate  that  cost                 
  factor.   It is the  intent of  the university  to have  the                 
  developer  handle  the  full cost  of  surveying.   Co-chair                 
  Halford asked about  conveyance for eloquent parks.  Do they                 
  require  surveying?     Mr.   Swanson  stated   that  in   a                 
  municipality they would, but not in an unorganized borough.                  
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp stated he would prefer a "not withstanding (d)                 
  above" clause  added just  below item  (d) on  page  5.   He                 
  suggested stating it  in such a way as to  allow the filings                 
  and utilization subject  to university concurrence. Co-chair                 
  Halford suggested not  closing it, that  it remain open  and                 
  when the university selects it, whatever the benefit of that                 
  use and  entry is,  it transfers  to the  university. So  it                 
  wouldn't close to  mineral entry  under state leasing  laws,                 
  but the  state leasing laws would  be to the benefit  of the                 
  university versus the benefit of the state.                                  
                                                                               
  Co-chair Frank proposed a conceptual amendment drafted to go                 
  with the  bill.   Co-chair Halford  asked if  there was  any                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  objection to amending the transition section that deals with                 
  closure to entry. Once the university makes the selection it                 
  is essentially  the beneficial owner, that  other activities                 
  are not  stopped.  Mr. Swanson helped out by saying that the                 
  language in  ANILCA could be extracted and inserted into the                 
  bill saying, "the university concurs and they get 90% of the                 
  revenue".  Administrative  costs would  be handled with  the                 
  other  10%.  Co-chair Halford asked  if the university would                 
  grant the concurrences  routinely?   Ms. Redman stated  that                 
  the   university's  interest   is  in   getting  land   into                 
  development as  quickly as  possible, so  the interests  are                 
  concurrent.  The university is looking to  get interest from                 
  the land  that is not  closed, then there is  not a problem.                 
  Co-chair  Halford asked  if there  was any objection  to Co-                 
  chair  Frank's  amendment?   With  no  objection,  the draft                 
  amendment  was  ADOPTED   and will  be  made into  a  CS and                 
  brought before the committee at the next meeting.  He stated                 
  that  the  assumption is  to  use  the  ANILA language.  Mr.                 
  Swanson stated  that it  was in  section 906K  just for  the                 
  record.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Senator Sharp asked if the present CS contained the  ability                 
  of  local municipalities to  tax improvements  on university                 
  land that is  not being used  for educational purposes.   He                 
  stated the property should not be  tax exempt property if it                 
  producing income.  Ms.  Redman stated that it was  so stated                 
  in the bill.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Co-chair  Halford  MOVED  to  delete  1,000,000  and  insert                 
  250,000 on page  4 line 13.  Co-chair called for  a show  of                 
  hands and the motion FAILED. SB 16 will be recognized at the                 
  next meeting.                                                                
                                                                               
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 a.m.                        
                                                                               
                                                                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects