Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/07/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| HB85 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 85-MUNICIPAL LAND SELECTIONS: PETERSBURG
[Contains discussion of SB 28]
9:01:57 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act relating to the general grant land
entitlement for the Petersburg Borough; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER began a motion at the chair's request to
bring HB 85 before the committee; [however, the motion was
subsequently deemed unnecessary].
9:02:25 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:02 a.m. to 9:03 a.m.
9:03:19 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH [confirmed that before the committee was HB 85].
9:03:38 AM
JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 85. He stated that HB 85 has a companion
bill in the Senate. He noted that as part of the process that
made Petersburg a borough, it was allowed to select land.
Because of idiosyncrasies with the land base from which the
borough is allowed to select, there is a minimal amount of
acreage available. He explained that HB 85 would recalibrate
the acreage to the historic norm that newly formed boroughs in
the past in Alaska have been able to select. Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins noted that he and Representative Talerico had
held a conversation about the issue the day before and learned a
lot about the process. He deferred to his staff to present the
bill in more detail.
9:05:46 AM
BARETT WILBER, Staff, Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 85 on behalf of
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, prime sponsor. She conveyed the
information from the sponsor's statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB 85 would allow the Petersburg Borough to select
14,666 acres of land as part of their land entitlement
for incorporating into a borough.
The City of Petersburg dissolved in 2013 to become the
Petersburg Borough. Under AS 29.65.050, the Borough is
entitled to claim a land grant from the state: a
percentage of the vacant, unappropriated, unreserved
land (as calculated by the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources), minus land which belonged to the
old city and State land conveyed to the University of
Alaska, Alaska Mental Health Trust, Southeast State
Forest, and private ownership.
This leaves Petersburg with only 1,438.53 acres, or
.08% of their actual Borough land area, which is well
below the average of other municipalities and is
insufficient to meet the borough's development,
economic, cultural, and resource needs.
Boroughs in Alaska typically request additional land
from the legislature by amending AS 29.65.010 on a
case by case basis, providing a specific date and
amount of land for a newly incorporated municipality.
Fourteen such land grants have been given to boroughs
across the state since 1990.
Petersburg calculated the average amount of land
granted through legislation to new boroughs in
proportion to their size: on average, they've received
.79% of their total land base from the state. This
bill would give Petersburg a reasonable and
proportionate amount based on their size: 14,666
acres.
MS. WILBUR noted that new boroughs have gone through this
process 14 times wherein they have edited land entitlement
grants through statute, and that is what Petersburg is
attempting to do right now.
9:07:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked the bill sponsor to cite the
statute that pertains to the awarding of land to a newly formed
borough.
9:07:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Ms. Wilbur or the
Department of Natural Resources.
9:08:27 AM
MARTY PARSONS, Deputy Director, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
told Representative Saddler that the particular statute he
sought is AS 29.65.030, which established that 10 percent of
vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land be available to a newly
formed municipality or borough to select to create its land
entitlement.
9:09:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, regarding "historic norms" and the use
of term "traditionally," asked if those standards appear in
statute or "any place else" or is just "a post-facto
construction."
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned past legislation of
former Representative Peggy Wilson from Wrangell, Alaska, which
he offered his understanding calibrated the 7.8 percentage of
land that a borough or municipality could select. He expressed
that limiting a small percentage of land to boroughs may be
taking away the incentive of local governments to create,
because "they wouldn't have a land base from which to work and
offer the local control that helps them function."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if - since there have been 14
formed municipalities or boroughs that considered it necessary
to get an additional land selection - the bill sponsor had ever
considered changing the formula to avoid the problem of having
the formulaic allocation of land be di minimus.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that he generally finds
an appeal to changing a system to make it more functional rather
than addressing a series of stopgap solutions; at the same time
he indicated he may proceed cautiously. He suggested perhaps
"that could be pursued in parallel." He stated that he was
giving his best effort to accelerate the Petersburg issue, but
did not think it should be exclusive of a more holistic
solution. He expressed willingness to confer with the members
of the committee toward that end.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER indicated there was a request from the
Nikiski Borough in the works, as well as "other things."
9:12:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the Borough of Petersburg
would do with land that would help support its economy.
9:13:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to representatives of the
Borough of Petersburg. Notwithstanding that, he proffered that
the community has a keen interest in developing value-added
industry with seafood and marine services. He said there is a
high cost of living, partly because of a limited land base,
which makes it difficult to develop new housing.
9:14:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "This went through Boundary
Commission, right?"
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his belief that the
formation of the Petersburg Borough did go through the local
boundary commission.
9:15:03 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH opened public testimony on HB 85.
9:15:21 AM
MARK JENSEN, Mayor, related that the Petersburg Borough Assembly
had passed Resolution 2017-02, included in the committee packet,
which supports HB 85 and its companion bill, SB 28. He
confirmed that the residents of Petersburg had gone through the
local boundary commission process to form a borough in 2013. He
said the borough is asking for the legislature's support to help
Petersburg acquire up to 14,666 extra acres within its
boundaries.
9:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his understanding that about 96
percent of the land encompassed by the borough's boundaries is
[Tongass] National Forest land.
MAYOR JENSEN confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that in general the large area of
the Tongass National Forest puts a cap on private development
throughout Southeast Alaska. He asked Mayor Jensen, "So, to
further push the point, if there were a little bit less national
forest in your borough areas, would that open up land for
development that could benefit the people of the Petersburg
region?"
MAYOR JENSEN answered that he imagines so.
9:18:32 AM
LIZ CABRERA, Director, Community Development, Petersburg City &
Borough, read her written testimony, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided, with some formatting changes]:
HB 85 increases the general land entitlement of
Alaska's newest borough, Petersburg, to be comparable
to the land entitlement received by all other boroughs
in the state. An amount equal to approximately .79% of
a borough's land mass, which in Petersburg's case is
14,666 acres. For those of you who are unfamiliar with
our community, the Petersburg Borough is located in
central Southeast Alaska and encompasses an area of
3,800 square miles of land and sea. The borough's
population center is located on the northern tip of
Mitkof Island, which is home to a diverse and prolific
commercial fishing fleet and three major seafood
processing facilities.
In 2013, the residents of Petersburg voted to form a
borough for a number of reasons, including having a
greater say on land use decisions in our surrounding
area, having an opportunity to increase our municipal
land base, and many also felt it was important for all
area residents to support our school system through
local taxes. About 12 months after borough formation,
Petersburg received a general land grant entitlement
certification from the state indicating we were
entitled to 1,896 acres under AS 29.65.010. However,
this amount was reduced by the 457.47 acres already
received by the City of Petersburg, even though
certain tracts of the City's 457.47 acres is
restricted from development and only available for
public, charitable, or recreational use. After
deducting the 457.47 acres, the Borough's land
entitlement was 1,438.53 acres. An area roughly 1/3rd
the size of the Anchorage International Airport.
In making this calculation, DNR uses a statutory
formula a municipality is entitled to 10% of VUU
land within its boundaries. The lands available for
selection are designated as VUU or "vacant,
unappropriated and unreserved" land by the State of
Alaska. These lands are either "unclassified" or
classified as "agricultural, grazing, materials,
public recreation, settlement, and resource
management" but for the most part no development has
occurred on any of the VUU lands.
You may wonder why we received such a small land
entitlement to begin with. The majority of land
within the borough, over 96%, is managed by the
federal government as the Tongass National Forest. Of
the non-federal lands within the borough, 1.73% is
owned by the Goldbelt Corporation, 1.34% by the State
of Alaska, and .4% by the Alaska Mental Health Trust
and University of Alaska. Only .3% is in private
ownership and a mere .04% is owned by the
municipality. When DNR applied the land entitlement
formula to the Petersburg Borough, only a very small
amount of land remained in VUU status.
As we began to evaluate our potential selection, we
realized that our entitlement wasn't adequate for what
we were hoping to accomplish and many other boroughs
also received small land entitlements initially and
then were able to increase these through the
legislature. You'll note in HB 85 that Petersburg is
listed as the 16th borough, so 15 boroughs out of 18
boroughs have received an increase in their
entitlement through the legislature. The most recent
example was in 2010 when both Wrangell and Haines
received additional acreage.
9:22:45 AM
MS. CABRERA continued reading from her written testimony, the
remainder of which read as follows [original punctuation
provided, with some formatting changes]:
Why is this important to Petersburg specifically? As
I mentioned previously, just over 96% of our land base
is federally managed and of our non-federal lands the
major landholder are Goldbelt Corporation and the
State of Alaska. In short, while the borough itself
is relatively large, the majority of land is not and
will never be included in the local tax base1 and most
is not available to generate economic return for our
residents or the state.
The Petersburg Borough would like the opportunity to
move some these lands into private ownership and add
them to our tax base as residential or commercial
developments. We would like the opportunity to secure
new sources of rock for construction and maintenance
of our roads and other projects. And, we'd like the
opportunity to use some of our land to address the
requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers
compensatory mitigation rule, which effects nearly
every new development project within the borough, by
establishing a community wetlands mitigation bank.
This would directly benefit residents by expediting
the process of obtaining a wetlands permit for new
development projects, including projects as small as
single-family residences. 1,400 acres simply does not
provide sufficient developable land to support these
goals.
In our discussions with the Department of Natural
Resources, they explained that the agency generally
does not voice support for this type of legislation,
but neither does the agency oppose Petersburg's
request. We provided a general outline of the lands
we would select under HB 85 and DNR did not express
any concerns about these potential selections.
Lastly, the members of this committee know better than
most that these are difficult times. In our own small
way, we, in Petersburg, want to be part of the
solution, not a casualty of crisis. An increased land
base is a key component to the long-term
sustainability of our municipality.
9:24:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the characteristics of land
Petersburg hopes to acquire are and how the extra land will help
the community.
MS. CABRERA related that the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) had already provided a "pool" of land that would be
acceptable, and it ranges from muskeg in the middle of an island
with no road access or utilities, to the top of a mountain, and
to some waterfront property. She explained the land selected by
DNR is not contiguous. She indicated that the Petersburg
Borough put together an ad hoc land selection committee, which
included residents, some of which are licensed land surveyors.
The committee set criteria by which it then figured out which
lands would be suited for what purposes. She said, for example,
some land is suitable for settlement, while some has a rock
quarry on it that would be useful, because Petersburg is almost
out of its rock source. She said the committee is trying to
identify where it might have an entire watershed on which it
could create a "wetlands mitigation bank." She added that
hopefully that would be land for which there is no other use.
9:27:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked, "How much acreage does the state
have down there for granting your wish?" He asserted that
Alaskans absolutely believe in home rule and creating their own
destinies. He queried, "By everything said and done, will we
[emphasis on 'we'] have land (indisc.) state of Alaska?"
MS. CABRERA responded that while she does not know the entire
amount the state has, she does know that there are 18,000 acres
in vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved (VUU) status. She
said that leaves out a large acreage in the center of
Petersburg's main population area, which includes the airport
and any developed facilities. She explained, "So, all of the
things that the state has used for a state function have already
been developed and set aside. And so, all we're looking at is a
portion of that land that they haven't used anything for." She
said she could get the numbers for the committee.
9:28:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked if it would be a fair assessment
to describe Petersburg as a community with a desire and drive to
be self-sufficient.
MS. CABRERA answered yes.
9:29:31 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 85.
9:29:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said the state apparently has a system in
which the formula under statute does not give sufficient land to
local boroughs, thus there is an ad hoc selection process by
modifying AS 29.65.030. He asked Mr. Parsons, "After all the
adjustments are made, what have we come up with? About what
percentage of the VUU land do boroughs actually have now -
obviously with an eye towards looking at possibly modifying the
formula to reflect the ... end state?"
9:30:52 AM
MR. PARSONS answered that AS 29.65.010 provides a list of
communities and boroughs in the state that have received
entitlement. He said it is important to remember that 12 of
those are under that statute as part of an historic
memorialization of pre-1978 land selections, and those were
"approximately 10 percent of the VUU land within the borough."
He indicated that the Aleutians East Borough reduced its
entitlement, because it did not feel comfortable managing the
vast amount of VUU land. Mr. Parsons noted that recently the
City & Borough of Wrangell and the City & Borough of Haines
requested an additional entitlement above and beyond the 10
percent VUU land, but primarily the amount is calculated under
AS 29.65.030, which is 10 percent of the VUU land within the
borough.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that Mr. Parsons
was saying that historical boundaries are 10 percent, but
Wrangell and Haines - and now Petersburg - have requested more.
MR. PARSONS confirmed that 10 percent is the historical average.
He added, "Regardless of how many acres are contained within the
boundaries of the borough, it's only those state lands that are
considered VUU that are used in the calculation."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER ventured that Petersburg is a special
case because of the preponderance of land that is locked up in
the Tongass National Forest.
MR. PARSONS advised that Haines received an additional amount
[of land] to bring its land to 21 percent of the VUU land within
its borough; Wrangell negotiated for 42 percent of the VUU land
within its borough. He stated that the Wrangell Borough also
contains a large percentage of the Tongass National Forest.
9:33:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if passage of HB 85 would open the
door for "past municipalities to ask for a little more."
9:34:16 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH directed Representative Rauscher's question to
Mr. Parsons and offered his understanding that Representative
Rauscher was asking if the proposed legislation would open the
door for municipalities that had already been granted land
allotments to ask for more.
9:34:26 AM
MR. PARSONS answered that although he could not predict what
would happen, when Wrangell asked for more land, Haines followed
suit; therefore, "it would not be outside the realm of
possibility that other boroughs would ... decide that they would
like to increase their entitlement through this process."
9:35:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that some history and
precedent might inform the question. He offered his
understanding that in the past when boroughs were formed, they
got their allotment and tried to "take care of it then and
there," and he is not aware of previously formed boroughs coming
back many years after the fact asking for more. He advised that
the Petersburg Borough just formed, so this is all part of the
borough creation process. He ventured that the Denali Borough
had a similar proportion of land during its process; therefore,
it may ask for more, "because in proportional terms, it's all
quite equitable."
9:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO added that the Denali Borough, with just
under 2,000 residents, was given a land grant of 44,000 acres.
He continued as follows:
I think probably the real difficulty would be the
borough approaching the state and passing the red-face
test to ask for ... more land. The limit here, I
think, in Petersburg, is all about their economic
development, being sufficient. ... If you look at the
grants that most of the other municipalities have been
given, it's been reasonably substantial piece[s] of
land. ... I know that the Denali Borough was
certainly aware of when the formation of the Wrangell
and Haines [Boroughs] came about, but I don't remember
any discussions of approaching the state to try and
acquire more.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO quipped that his borough over-selected
in hopes that the state would not notice, but the state stuck to
its "original acreage." He said he thinks most of the organized
boroughs have a substantial land grant now. He added, "I don't
believe all of the selections have even been done with the
larger municipalities; I think several of them still have land
to select."
9:38:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked the bill sponsor what drove the
Petersburg formation from the City of Petersburg to the City &
Borough of Petersburg.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that there had been a
spirited discussion in Petersburg. He noted there were areas on
Mitkof Island that were receiving various municipal services but
were not part of the City of Petersburg. The current request
from Petersburg is an attempt to create a more coherent means by
which to deliver local services, including fire and school. He
said there may have been other motivation, as well. He said he
thinks the local boundary commission process was both engaging
and complex, and there were interactions with the City & Borough
of Juneau related to jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the additional acreage being
requested under HB 85 would be sufficient for the City & Borough
of Petersburg to adequately provide fire, road, and educational
services.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered yes. He commented that
many communities are acknowledging there could be less state
support in the coming years and are moving toward increased
self-sufficiency.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered that he did not know whether
state educational support had, in fact, been reduced in
Petersburg.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that he believed that
statement is accurate.
9:41:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether DNR had ever considered
changing the formula under which land is made available, such as
increasing the percentage of VUU land, to avoid the "circle back
to pick up some spare acres."
9:42:10 AM
MR. PARSONS answered that because the formula is in statute, it
would take legislative amendment of statute to modify the
percentage of VUU land from which boroughs can select.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that is true, but pointed out that
the governor does request bills from time to time.
9:42:40 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted that the proposed legislation had another
committee of referral, the House Finance Committee.
9:42:59 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to report HB 85 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:43:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected for purposes of discussion. He
indicated there had been prior discussion about moving bills out
of committee after only a single hearing, and at that time [one
of the committee co-chairs] had said that if a bill had been
heard by a previous committee, then "that might mitigate towards
... passing out a bill after just one hearing." He offered his
understanding that the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee was the first committee of referral for HB
85, and he questioned, "Is that consistent with your policy?"
9:43:50 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered, "The policy, as clarified by my co-
chair, is going to be pretty case by case. In such cases as the
bill only has one committee of referral, then I think it's very
reasonable to hold it over for at least two hearings. In the
event that it has additional committees of referral and there'll
be additional occasion for public testimony, I see no reason to
hold it over."
9:44:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER removed his objection. There being no
further objection, HB 85 was reported out of the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.