Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
02/05/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB295 | |
| HB317 | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 295-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT
8:05:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 295 "An Act relating to the grant of certain
state land to the University of Alaska; relating to the duties
of the Board of Regents; relating to deposits made to the Alaska
permanent fund received from certain lands conveyed to the
University of Alaska; ratifying and reauthorizing certain prior
conveyances of land to the University of Alaska; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
8:07:41 AM
DEBBIE SPENCER, Owner, Shoreline Incorporated, suggested that
the consternation surrounding the Mite Cove and Sumdum parcels
stems from having the land use designations, previously
determined via public process, being disrespected under the
University of Alaska (UA) land selections. The many years of
work, incorporating all of the stakeholders, were not mentioned
in a letter [not cited] from Commissioner Tom Irwin, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), regarding the parcels, only that
land selections were the result of cooperation between the
department and the UA. She directed attention to the committee
packet report from DNR titled "University of Alaska Land Grant
List 2005," dated January 12, 2005, Revised 2010, and the tab
labeled "Parcel Descriptions," page 9 of 15, Approx. Area in
Acres column, to point out that Mite Cove is listed as a 320
acre parcel, but under the heading Description/Plan Designation
it is described as being nearly 200 acres. Elsewhere in the
document, it is identified as a 180 acre area; the document is
in conflict with itself. Neither does the written description
correspond with the land use plan developed through the public
process [Northern Southeast Area Plan (NSEAP), adopted 10/15/02
by DNR]. The final sentence in the description column states,
and she read, "Considered appropriate for remote residential or
commercial recreation marine services," and does not reflect the
NSEAP, which specifies the area for public recreation and
tourism, undeveloped; coded RU. Turning to page 11, of the same
document, she pointed out the description for the Sumdum parcel.
The designation reads "Public Recreation-Dispersed." Ms.
Spencer said the NSEAP indicates the same use designation for
Sumdum, as for Mite Cove, and further that they must be held in
the public domain. These two parcels will continue to be held
in contention due to the inconsistency of the list before the
committee and the land use plan developed through the public
process. Pelican passed a city resolution, in 2005, in
opposition to the bill previous to what is before the committee,
and will be passing a similar resolution to oppose HB 295.
8:14:20 AM
CHAIR SEATON directed the committee's attention to a letter
dated 2/2/10, from the witness, page 2, and the excerpt from the
NSEAP describing the intended use of Mite Cove and fully
defining the RU designation.
8:15:26 AM
TIM LYDEN, urged the committee to remove the Sumdum parcel,
indicating that it is central to Tracy Arm-Fords Terror
Wilderness, and serves as a vital public access area for
Endicott Arm. There is a safe anchorage and camp located on the
five acres, unique to the area that is primarily sheer cliffs.
Privatizing the area would have an effect on the public's
ability to utilize this remote locale. He stated his fears that
privatization would bring development to the area.
8:20:23 AM
MR. LYDEN referred to a document signed by 17 tour operators
that depend on use of the Sumdum area, and paraphrased the
statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
The undersigned seventeen commercial tour companies
bring thousands of visitors to Southeast Alaska every
year. Our businesses provide guided hunting and
fishing kayak expeditions, and week-long excursions
aboard small and mid-size vessels. Our segment of
Alaska's tourism industry provides vital and unique
economic benefits to southeast Alaska, and many of us
are local business people. We stand out among other
segments of the tourism industry because many of us
provision our excursions locally, and a high number of
our clients dine and seek local accommodations before
and after their trips. University of Alaska research
shows businesses like ours pump millions of dollars
into the Southeast economy annually. Bringing clients
to wild Alaskan landscapes is the backbone of our
businesses, and it's the reason for our concern over
the Sumdum parcel. The Sumdum parcel is in Sanford
Cove, in the heart of the Tracy Arm-Fords Terror and
Chuck River Wilderness Areas. For each of us, the
area is a hi9ghlight of the services we provide. Many
of us use Sanford Cove as a safe and scenic anchorage.
With bears, wolves, salmon and cultural ruins, it is a
common location for walks ashore, fishing hunting and
camping; not only for our commercial clients, but for
many independent and local travelers, too.
Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness is especially unique
because it currently contains no lodges, private
cabins, or other developments. Some of us have
operated in southeast Alaska for several decades, long
enough to know that such undeveloped anchorages are
increasingly rare.
Privatization of the Sumdum parcel would displace many
of us from long-standing business activities. It
would also displace many independent and local
recreationists and mar an undeveloped landscape. But
removing the Sanford Cove parcel from the bill would
have only a minor impact on university funding, one
that could be compensated by other means.
Thank you for your consideration, and please help us
maintain current use of this important part of
Southeast Alaska.
8:23:25 AM
MARY IRVINE reminded the committee of her previous testimony
[1/29/10] and the request which Representative Munoz made for
DNR to provide further documentation of the archeological nature
of the site. She said that as a private individual she is
restricted from receiving archival information from the state
[Office of History & Archeology Alaska Historical Commission,
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources], which is available to state agencies and
legislators. One 1946 report, titled HAA AANI, published by
Goldschmidt and Haas, is an anthropological report on Southeast
Alaska, which contains maps and historical information including
the Sumdum area. She described the history that has revolved
around this area dating from the 1800's, marking it as a multi
culturally layered historic area.
8:27:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there are archeological
remains at the site.
MS. IRVINE said that without access to the confidential
documents held by DNR she cannot answer that question. However,
photographs of the area compiled by the UA, and state libraries,
available for viewing via the internet at [vilda.alaska.edu],
are indicative of the industry and activity that once existed in
the thriving Sumdum community. She encouraged the excising of
this five acre parcel from the university land grant.
8:30:41 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that one of the
criteria used in the land selection was based on consideration
of land available to municipalities, under the municipal
entitlement act. The type of lands that municipalities can
select is specified in AS 29.65.130, which reads:
(10) "vacant, unappropriated, unreserved land" means
general grant land as defined in (3) of this section,
excluding minerals as required by Sec. 6(i) of the
Alaska Statehood Act, that
(C) is unclassified or, if classified under AS
38.05.300, is classified for agricultural, grazing,
material, public recreation, or settlement purposes,
or is classified in accordance with an agreement
between a municipality and the state providing for
state management of land of the municipality
MR. MYLIUS said that because of the allowance, by the
legislature, to transfer public recreation lands to
municipalities, the department surmised that it would also be
appropriate to transfer the same public recreation lands to the
university; hence the Mite Cove and Sumdum parcels were
selected.
8:32:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON pointed out the conflicting use designations of the
Sumdum parcel: The University of Alaska Land Grant List 2010,
page 11 of 15, use description of "Public Recreation-Dispersed,"
versus the NSEAP stipulation for "Public Recreation and Tourism-
Undeveloped.
MR. MYLIUS replied:
In terms of the actual land classification that gets
applied to those, it's the same classification as the
public recreation classification. So that's why we
considered that one as appropriate for transfer. Even
though it says it's dispersed recreation, and tourism,
it still ends up ... classified as public recreation,
when you actually put the land classification on it.
8:33:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about the public process that
occurred during the selection.
MR. MYLIUS said there was not a public process for the
selection, because it was based on the previous decisions made
in determining land use plans, which did incorporate the public
process. The selected parcels were reviewed, and public
testimony occurred, during the 2005 legislative hearings.
8:34:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER remembered that the governor, at that
time, stated a desire to have the list be accepted as presented
without change. She sympathized with the small communities who
may have felt up against the wall in the decision making
process.
MR. MYLIUS indicated that the legislature did remove nine
parcels, following the 2005 public testimony. The original
legislation, SB 7, introduced in 2007, put the onus on the UA
and DNR to sort out the details. The department expected there
to be some contention, and decided to bring it back to the
legislature to address the public concerns. He suggested that,
without exception, any of the high value parcels of land will be
objected to by the locals.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER summed up that there is general public
support for the university to have land, as long as it is not
"their land."
8:36:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether the land use code for
Mite Cove will be maintained under university ownership; what
uses can the university apply to the parcel.
MR. MYLIUS said once the transfer occurs the university can
utilize parcels for whatever purposes they choose.
8:37:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that state land ownership is not
vast, given the federal holdings, and particularly in the
southeast region, due to the Tongass National Forest. She
suggested that land selections may be inappropriate in the
southeast region, but not as hard felt, and contentious,
elsewhere in the state.
MR. MYLIUS concurred that state land holdings are minimal in the
southeast region. The lands acquired were identified as
suitable for recreational development or private ownership,
which makes them valuable as well as contentious.
8:39:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON recognized that the southeast region doesn't want
to lose population; however, if there is not land available for
development, opportunities diminish. A value exists in having
undeveloped land, but it presents a dichotomy for supporting
population growth. The committee, and legislature, is charged
with striking the appropriate balance between competing
interests.
8:41:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON opined that because an area is
designated for community use, such as Mite Cove, it should not
be assumed that transferring it to the university would result
in the type of benefit that the town desires. She questioned
whether the legislature should allow this type of land
conveyance.
8:42:41 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the communities have suggested
alternative parcels for selection.
MR. MYLIUS said it depends on the parcel and the community. In
the case of Pelican, the city limits do not extend far enough to
include Mite Cove. Other communities, such as Wrangell, have
formed boroughs large enough to select some of the parcels under
municipal entitlement. The Ketchikan Gateway borough is a non-
issue as all of the entitlements have been received. These
represent the three categories of communities that are being
dealt with: no borough and no entitlement currently; borough
still working on entitlement; and entitlements satisfied.
8:44:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER underscored the importance of holding a
public process in selecting lands to address the competing
values represented and ensure that voices have been heard. She
then summarized the process described: a public process is used
to identify land use plans and classifications; the plans and
classifications were the basis of the selections made by the
department and university; a public process ensued through the
legislative process, allowing further testimony; and once the
land is transferred to the university it is no longer subject to
the land use plan that was initially developed.
MR. MYLIUS concurred.
8:45:42 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked what uses would be considered regarding
development of the Sumdum parcel, should ownership be conveyed
to the university. Further, he questioned the universities
regard for the historical and cultural concerns of the area.
MARI MONTGOMERY, Director, Office of Land Management, University
of Alaska System, said there are no specific development plans
for any of the parcels being conveyed. Lands considered
archeological resources are protected under state law. Sealaska
Corporation has indicated an interest in purchasing the Sumdum
parcel for cultural preservation reasons. Others would like to
acquire this property, but no decisions are being made pending
acquisition. The possibility exists for it to be preserved for
academic study.
8:49:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired about the annual cost of
managing the UA land office, and the annual average revenue that
is derived through the office, to benefit the university.
MS. MONTGOMERY reported that the office budget averages 2.5
million. She said the office has a mission which includes
managing and permitting academic research land, as well as land
acquisitions, disposals. The office generates revenues
averaging $10 million.
8:51:04 AM
NORM CARSON, President, Pelican Chamber of Commerce, said that
given the circumstances unique to Pelican, it would be
beneficial to the city to have land closer to the town conveyed
to the university. He pointed out that there is a DNR parcel
[C18], within 2 miles of Pelican, currently designated for
settlement, unlike Mite Cove, which is 13 miles away and
designated RU. For purposes of furthering community growth, the
city would welcome the conveyance of the C18 parcel.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that this is a request for a parcel
exchange and not opposition to conveyance.
MR. MYLIUS noted that the land cited was originally on the list
and could be reconsidered by DNR: ST 1002 Warm Springs Bay
[University of Alaska Land Grant List 2010 Parcel Descriptions,
page 10 of 15].
8:56:22 AM
CAROL CAIRNES, Representative, Tongass Conservation Society,
expressed concern with using this approach as a significant
funding support for the UA budget. The Ketchikan parcels
conveyed to the university have resulted in several issues. She
reported on property that was sold, without local advertisement,
adjacent to residences, for $1,200 per acre, and clear cut. The
existing residents had no opportunity to purchase the land. The
Moser Bay parcels are near existing settlements, but the
selections for Cleveland Peninsula, and Leask Cove, may prove
marginal for development. If the university were to develop the
parcels for academic purposes, it would be acceptable; however,
a law suit has been filed due to the concept of using the land
in this way for funding higher education. The program has only
contributed a small percentage to the university budget, and the
clear cutting has devalued neighboring property. She stressed
that any land sales should be well advertised, and she asked for
reconsideration for how the dispersals are handled.
[HB 295 was held over.]
9:00:46 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:00 a.m. to 9:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 295 Background.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 295 Fiscal Notes.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| Alaska Historic Preservation Act.ppt |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| University of Alaska Land Grant Booklet link.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 206 material.pdf |
HEDC 4/15/2009 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| Briefing paper for high schoolers taking postsecondary courses HB206.doc |
HEDC 8/25/2009 9:00:00 AM HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 Post Secondary courses for High School Students - HB 206 |
| HB 317 materials.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |
| HB317_EED_ACYA_1-27-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| HB317_EED_ESS_1-27-10.pdf |
HEDC 2/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
|
| House Education questions on HB 295 .doc |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 295 |
| HB 206 Version P February 4, 2010.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 version P Sponsor Statement February 4, 2010.docx |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/12/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/19/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/1/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/8/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 3/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 206 |
| HB 317 version S.pdf |
HEDC 2/5/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/10/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 317 |