Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/12/2005 03:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB130 | |
| HB109 | |
| HB225 | |
| HB210 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
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 Chenault MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-GH1034\X,
Bullock, 4/12/05, as the version of the legislation before
the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Weyhrauch explained the changes, deleting
Page 6, Lines 12-18; deleting Page 6, Lines 25-26; Page 7,
Line 5, deleting "shall"; Page 7, Line 6, deleting material
after (1) and inserting "shall"; Page 7, Line 7, after (2)
inserting "may".
3:15:51 PM
He indicated that the Native allotment language had been
added back and the lands conveyed are included under
Subsection (e), which simplified the bill.
Representative Weyrauch noted that initial testimony related
to the 250,000 acres in the bill. The draft committee
substitute identifies specific parcels outlined in
Subsections N & O on Pages 5 & 6. Those sections remove
parcels based on that information.
In adopting the committee substitute, it became a public
policy call that the University receives land for
development, promotes private investment and increases the
tax base of the State. All those things must overlay with
concerns regarding quick development and insure that the
communities that have lands adjacent can get the lands for
borough formation. Subsection N identifies parcels that
would be deleted from University lands while Subsection O
addresses if a borough forms. The language provides a four-
year opportunity for specifically Wrangell and Petersburg so
they can move forward in forming boroughs.
3:19:07 PM
Representative Weyhrauch informed members that there are
more requests for exclusion of certain lands.
3:20:29 PM
Representative Weyrauch addressed language on Page 7,
Subsection C, before the Board of Regents offers a parcel
for sale, they "shall" offer the right of first refusal to
the municipality. That language encourages and allows the
Board of Regent to give the first right of refusal to
develop land for municipal purposes. The second thing it
does is offer the second right of refusal to non-profit
organizations to develop the land for purposes consistent
for historic uses. That would be a discretionary offer. In
the Committee's Letter of Intent, it does not indicate that
the University should convey land to a non-profit
corporation for conservation uses or non-productive
purposes. He noted he had worked closely with the
University of Alaska on that language.
3:22:33 PM
Representative Weyhrauch addressed the Letter of Intent,
which indicates that land, conveyed for the Coldfoot node
area would not be used for businesses that would compete
with other business already there. He explained why that
language had been included in the Letter of Intent and not
in the body of the bill. The Department of Natural
Resources and the University of Alaska are working out
arrangements for the provision.
Representative Weyrauch advised that Sections #1 and #2
inserted in the House Resources Committee had been deleted
in the proposed committee substitute.
3:24:32 PM
DICK MYLIUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, stated that the
Department is "generally satisfied" with the changes,
however, he had not yet seen the committee substitute nor
the Letter of Intent.
Representative Croft questioned making the change from
"shall" to "may". Representative Weyhrauch referenced
Subsection C, Page 7, explaining that language was:
· When the University receives the lands from the
Department of Natural Resources and they decide to
dispense of them, they must offer the first right of
refusal to the closest municipality; and
· They may offer the second right of refusal to a non-
profit organization.
Representative Weyrauch continued, Version X does not
include all lands that Wrangell and Petersburg want.
3:29:20 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the old version used
"shall". Representative Weyhrauch explained that "shall"
was used in the version to which statewide testimony had
th
been taken on April 9. He noted that "may" had replaced
"shall" in the version before the Committee as requested by
the University.
3:30:11 PM
PETE KELLY, DIRECTOR, STATE RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
commented that the changes seemed consistent with
conversations between Representative Weyrauch, the
University and the Department of Natural Resources. He
pointed out concern on Page 2, regarding the duties of the
Board as the new language represents a departure from the
rules for that board. He thought that it would direct the
resources from the University's budget in statute rather
than through an appropriations bill.
Representative Weyhrauch responded that the duties of the
University's Board of Regents could insure that they
adequately fund the Cooperative Extension Service. The
University "shall" hire any vacant position within the
Cooperative Extension Service within 90-days of vacancy.
That language was removed because of concerns from the
University. However, the duties of the Board of Regents to
insure that the Cooperative Extension Service is staffed are
broader language and became the compromise.
Representative Weyrauch believed that the entire "notion" of
the University lands bill would generate income to the
University of Alaska. That is integrative to the public
support of the University and the public's support of a
strong and healthy University system. He thought that one
of the best ways would be to work with the Cooperative
Extension Service.
3:33:57 PM
Mr. Kelly interjected that the Board of Regents duties are
very broad; they do not get into the hiring of chancellors
or vice presidents, however, the proposed version regulates
that the Board of Regents "shall" attend to specific
staffing of a low level position. That would be directing
appropriations, which is a far departure for the duties of
the Board of Regents.
3:34:58 PM
Representative Croft asked the relationship between the
Cooperative Extension Service and the management of the
proposed lands. Representative Weyhrauch emphasized that
the lands are connected to the people and the people use
those lands.
3:36:12 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the University was willing to accept
that "fit". Mr. Kelly replied that the University does not
accept the language. He stressed that this is a lands bill
and that the proposed language could fit under the title.
He reiterated that inclusion of that language would make the
bill address duties for the Board of Regents. There is a
far distance between the general duties of the Legislature
and the specific duties for such a low level position.
3:36:58 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze appreciated the proposed language.
Co-Chair Meyer stated the language would remain in the bill
and if a Committee member wanted to make an amendment, they
could.
3:37:44 PM
Representative Moses MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
GH1034\F.4, Bullock, 4/8/05. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
MOIRA SMITH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WOODIE SALMON, explained
the amendment, which takes into consideration testimony
received from residents in and around McCarthy regarding the
land in that area intended to be transferred to the
University of Alaska. The residents are opposed to that
land being included.
Co-Chair Chenault inquired what that area currently was
being used for. Ms. Smith responded that it is used
primarily for gravel and wood. Currently, those residents
apply for permits from the Department of Natural Resources
to extract gravel and take wood. Co-Chair Chenault inquired
if the residents tend to own their own lands. Ms. Smith
believed that many of them do. She noted that the amendment
would add a new parcel to the list.
Mr. Mylius interjected that the bill must come up with
250,000 acres in order to make the requested amount for the
University. The McCarthy parcel that is being requested is
12,500 acres. He stated that the Department of Natural
Resources was opposed to the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Moses
OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Stoltze, Weyhrauch,
Chenault, Meyer
Representative Joule was not present for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-7).
3:42:22 PM
Representative Croft clarified the changes necessary to
Amendment #2 in order that it fit the version before the
Committee.
3:43:31 PM
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-
HB1034\L.2, Bullock, 4/12/05. Vice Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Croft stated that Amendment #2 would provide
a change in direction for the legislation. He acknowledged
that if the lands were in the University's hands, they would
be more aggressive in their management. When addressing
State lands that have not been developed to the support of
the people of Alaska, is not okay. By giving the
University, Point Thomson, the University might be more
successful in getting the value from that resource
production. He declared there was no better potential the
State could offer.
Representative Croft pointed out that the amount of funding
needed by the University is substantial at $225 million
dollars a year. Let the University do the development that
has so far eluded the State. If the State develops it, the
University could continue the arrangement and in addition,
25% of the remainder would go into a trust fund. He
acknowledged that the amendment was aggressive, but
suggested what is needed is "real development with real
resources".
3:48:38 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that the amendment would totally
change the direction of the bill. He asked the State's
share of Pt. Thomson. Representative Croft replied that
they would own the land. The University is a State entity.
The Legislature can transfer State lands or sub-surface
rights between the pockets of State government entities.
Co-Chair Meyer recalled that the area is Exxon's gas field.
Representative Croft advised that the State of Alaska owns
the land and it is leased out.
Representative Holm questioned if it is possible to transfer
the sub-surface rights.
3:50:26 PM
Mr. Mylius responded that the Legislature could do that.
The prohibition of transferring the mineral, oil and/or gas
rights is somewhat restricting and that it could not be
transferred to an out of State ownership. Since the
University is an entity of the State, legally it could be
done; however, he clarified that the Department of Natural
Resources does not support the amendment.
Representative Kelly thought that the proposed amendment
would destroy the bill.
Representative Weyhrauch hoped that the State could endow
the University with income producing properties to help make
it a wealthy institution so that it could do all the
necessary research programs. He aspired to that. He
thought that the amendment sometime could provide that seed;
however, said it would be better in another bill at another
time. He indicated that he would support pursuing that
idea.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
3:53:39 PM
Representative Croft distributed a handout: "The 15-year
Forecast of Point Thomson Unit Royalty Revenues" from the
Department of Natural Resources projections. (Copy on
File). He disagreed that Amendment #2 would be a major
shift of direction for the bill. If the University could
get that land, it could be more aggressive. There could be
$1.2 billion dollars in that trust fund; nothing in the
proposed bill could come close to that amount. He urged
reconsideration of the amendment.
Representative Croft pointed out how the University of Texas
had obtained their wealth from sub-surface rights. He
thought that the amendment encourages an alternative and
that the core title of the bill would continue to be the
same. The Senate could place other parcels back into the
bill.
Representative Croft referenced the suggestion of creating a
new bill including the concept and questioned why do that.
Since the University needs substantial funding and if
development is important, then the University would be more
aggressive getting it done. The amendment should be
adopted. He commented that the amendment provides an
opportunity to do the largest land grant for the University.
He urged that the Legislature "put their money where mouths
are".
3:58:38 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze understood that the bill was a companion
to federal legislation and asked how it could merge with the
federal proposal. Representative Croft replied that he had
spoken with the Department of Natural Resources and if the
State gives 250,000 acres, the federal government would
match that. If the State put up the Point Thomson land that
would not qualify under that bill; however, if the State did
put up Point Thomson, it would be known that land had
greater potential then the other. He did not think it would
be an impediment, but would indicate that the State of
Alaska was doing a significant amount to provide land at
that value.
4:00:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Moses, Croft
OPPOSED: Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Stolze,
Weyhrauch, Meyer, Chenault
Representative Joule was not present for the vote
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
4:01:42 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to DELETE language on Page 2,
Lines 24-25: "ensure that the University of Alaska's
Cooperative Extension Service is adequately staffed to meet
the needs of the public". Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch explained that the purpose of the
bill is to deal with land and resources in the State of
Alaska. The Board of Regents is in charge of governing
those lands. The agency between public lands and the
University is the Cooperative Extension Service. He urged
inclusion of that language. Vice-Chair Stoltze added that
the language was a good way to remind the University of
their obligation to public lands.
4:03:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kelly, Croft, Foster, Chenault, Meyer
OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Moses, Stoltze, Weyhrauch
Representative Joule was not present for the vote
The MOTION FAILED (5-5).
4:05:17 PM
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that the Committee had
received much attention regarding inclusion of Thoms Place
near Wrangell.
4:05:52 PM
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 130 (FIN) out of
Committee, the House Finance Committee Letter of Intent,
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CS HB 130 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation", a House Finance Committee Letter of Intent,
a zero note #1 by the Department of Fish & Game, fiscal note
#2 by the Department of Law, fiscal note #3 by the
Department of Natural Resources and fiscal note #4 by the
University of Alaska.
AT EASE: 4:06:41 PM
RECONVENE: 4:13:09 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|