Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
05/12/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB25 | |
| SB28 | |
| SB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 107 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the general grant land entitlement
for the Petersburg Borough; and providing for an
effective date."
2:09:32 PM
MARK JENSEN, MAYOR, PETERSBURG BOROUGH, PETERSBURG (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He read from a prepared statement:
I'm speaking to you today in support of SB 28, a bill
that would set our general land grant entitlement at
just over 14,500 acres.
As the borough mayor, a small business owner and life-
long Alaskan, I've witnessed many changes to our
community. Most recently, our 103 year old city was
dissolved in favor of a home-rule borough. Our
decision to form a borough was not made in haste.
Borough formation was not supported by all area
residents. Nonetheless, the majority of us felt it was
an important step for the future welfare of our
community.
Likewise, SB 28 is an important step in the future
development of our borough. As you've heard in
previous testimony, the Petersburg Borough's land base
is dominated by public lands - 96 percent of the
borough is in federal ownership. Public lands are not
taxable by the local government; nor open for
commercial development by local business; nor
available for residential use. SB 28 makes a
relatively small amount of land available to the
borough for these important uses. These can contribute
in very significant and positive ways to grow our
local tax base, employment, and population.
If you consider borough formation and SB 28 together,
it demonstrates that our community is taking decisive
steps toward the type of local self-government
envisioned by the state constitution- and the type of
self-reliance necessary for us to succeed for at least
another 103 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today
and I ask for your support to pass SB 28 out of House
Finance this afternoon.
2:12:11 PM
BOB LYNN, SELF, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), spoke in
favor of the legislation. He read from a prepared
statement:
As a Borough Resident and Former Tongass National
Forest Supervisor I support SB 28 transferring 14,666
acres of State of Alaska land to the Petersburg
Borough. Over 96% of the land within the Petersburg
Borough is in Tongass National Forest, State of Alaska
and Goldbelt ownership. That ownership pattern
significantly limits the Petersburg Borough's ability
to diversity the local economy.
The current economy is primarily related to the
fishing industry. Any annual up turn or down turn is
immediately felt locally, the same can be said for
policy changes related to the National Forest since it
is such a dominant owner of lands within the Borough.
SB 28 would significantly help diversity and provide
stability to the local economy in a number of ways.
1. It would provide for a larger tax base in the
borough.
2. It would help diversify the economy by providing for
other uses.
3. It would provide opportunities for the start of more
small businesses.
4. It would help in the development of the Borough
infrastructure.
5. It would help the Borough in the long term provide a
better services and quality of life to its
residents.
As the committee is aware, the municipalities in
Alaska as elsewhere are limited in the ways they can
generate revenues. This bill helps the Petersburg
Borough provide a long term, stable, sustainable local
economy that can better serve the needs of the local
residents.
2:14:14 PM
MARA LUTOMSKI, ADMINISTRATOR, PETERSBURG CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the legislation. She read from prepared remarks:
I am testifying today in support of SB 28 to set the
general land entitlement to the Borough of Petersburg
so it will be more closely aligned with other Boroughs
across the State of Alaska.
According to ADNR, the Petersburg Borough's current
land entitlement is 1,374 acres - approximately only
.04 percent of the Borough's total land area. Through
this same legislative process, other boroughs have
received close to .8 percent of their total land area.
Petersburg's request would not set a precedent as the
14,600 acres would be less than .79 percent of the
total lands within the Borough. It would however move
the Petersburg Borough towards more economic self-
sufficiency.
Petersburg right in the boundaries of the Tongass
National Forest - 96 percent of the land within our
borough is federal land - only 4 percent is left over
for the State and borough use.
In recent years, State land within our Borough has
been designated to the Alaska Mental Health Trust, The
University of Alaska, and Southeast State Forest;
leaving very little for the Borough to select for
future economic development and planning.
The land entitlement was created for the purpose in
which the Municipality is asking: the lands would be
used to address the economic, cultural, and resource-
based goals of the Borough and its residents.
We understand that in the near future, Municipalities
will be responsible to fund more of their own
operations, relying less on state and Federal monies.
The Borough's request is moving them toward being more
self-sufficient and an increased land base is
essential in moving the Borough in that direction.
The Petersburg Chamber of Commerce fully supports SB
28 and we ask that you vote to pass this legislation
forward today.
2:16:49 PM
LIZ CABRERA, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PETERSBURG
BOROUGH, PETERSBURG (via teleconference), was available for
questions.
Vice-Chair Gara discussed that when the state conveyed land
to a municipality or borough easements to or along water
bodies were retained. He asked for verification that the
borough would maintain access. Ms. Cabrera replied in the
affirmative and added that the borough did not restrict
access to any of its land.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
2:18:25 PM
RANDY RUARO, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, had no further
comments.
Representative Kawasaki mentioned that there had been no
opposition to the bill. He asked whether a property owner
adjacent to the municipal land selections would be notified
of the entitlement.
Mr. Ruaro deferred to the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).
MARTY PARSONS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), responded that the conveyance process was
public and included information specifying the land
proposed for transfer.
2:20:24 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked for more clarity regarding
what information was conveyed to residents. He exemplified
a potential land conveyance in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough that was closely aligned with the Fort Knox mine.
Residents of the borough involved in a running club were
concerned that if the land was annexed within the mining
claim the mine would prevent access. He requested the
specific types of information the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) conveyed to the public. Mr. Parsons replied
that DNR was statutorily mandated to relay the information
to the public via newspapers, websites, and post office
notices. The public would be alerted via email of any out -
of - state ownership conveyance. Representative Kawasaki
asked whether the department would be statutorily required
to contact adjacent property owners of any type of
conveyance. Mr. Parsons believed that through the public
process the department would not necessarily contact every
nearby owner, but they would publish notifications in
newspapers and online.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for assurance that DNR maintained
easements along and to a water body in order for the public
to access it for recreational purposes and whether easement
locations were shared with the public. He spoke
specifically to the conveyance in SB 28. Mr. Parsons
answered that all of the statutory required easements were
maintained as part of the conveyance process and were
identified in conjunction with the borough.
2:24:12 PM
Representative Pruitt queried whether there was a precedent
for conveying additional land to a borough or municipality.
Mr. Parsons responded that Southeast Alaska's situation was
unique due to the fact that so much land was part of the
Tongass National Forest. He explained that the amount of
"vacant unappropriated unreserved land" (VUU) was
relatively small. The Petersburg Borough requested 95
percent of the state's VUU land, similar to a Wrangell
Borough request for an additional conveyance of 9,600 acres
or approximately 48 percent VUU land, subsequent to its
first relatively small entitlement. The Petersburg
conveyance encompassed almost all of the state's VUU land
inside of the borough boundaries. Representative Pruitt
wondered whether requesting a second land conveyance after
an initial conveyance had happened before. Mr. Parsons
replied in the affirmative but he would not characterize
the situation as commonplace. He related that in the recent
past the Haines Borough requested an additional entitlement
subsequent to the formation of the Wrangell Borough.
Representative Pruitt asked whether the state was
comfortable with the amount of VUU land the Petersburg
Borough had requested. He appreciated that Petersburg was
trying to find a way to be self-sustaining and was
supportive but wondered whether a large conveyance of VUU
land set a precedent that concerned the department.
2:28:21 PM
Mr. Parsons responded that a large conveyance was a concern
when the state received revenue from land, timber, and or
material sales, easements, and right-of-ways. He noted that
the department's ability to generate revenues from program
receipts versus unrestricted general funds (UGF) would be
diminished if the state conveyed a large amount of revenue
producing VUU land to boroughs. Representative Pruitt
recognized the concern. He asked whether the department was
satisfied with the particular allotment for the Petersburg
Borough. Mr. Parsons replied that the administration had
not taken a position; it relied on the legislature to
determine the best course of action for the state.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the maps in members'
packets (copy on file) of the Petersburg area. He described
the type of land in the borough and asked what percentage
of state VUU land remained available after the conveyance.
Mr. Parsons responded that approximately 700 acres of VUU
state land inside the borough remained. Representative
Guttenberg remarked that when he had been previously
involved in land selection conveyances a hierarchy of
entitlement existed among federal, state, municipal, and
tribal parties. He stated that when land selection
processes were undertaken conflicts arose between involved
parties. He wondered whether the scenario applied to the
Petersburg entitlement. Mr. Parsons was unaware of any
conflicts associated with the land selection.
Representative Guttenberg wanted clarification that 700
acres of state VUU land remained within the borough. Mr.
Parsons confirmed that approximately 700 to 750 acres of
state VUU land remained.
2:33:48 PM
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the two previously published zero
fiscal notes from the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development FN 1 (CED) and the Department of
Natural Resources FN 2 (DNR). He noted that the DNR fiscal
note analysis on page 2 reported the value of the land at
$68 million.
Representative Wilson asked why the amount was not shown as
a loss to the state on the fiscal note. Vice-Chair Gara
offered that he recently had the same question. He answered
that fiscal notes reflected state funds and fund sources
and not assets. Representative Wilson asked whether non-
reporting the value of assets as a loss was standard
practice. Mr. Parsons replied that Vice-Chair Gara was
correct and the general practice was to report funding
gains, losses, or expenses. He delineated that the land
value was added at the request of Senator Anna MacKinnon to
show the potential lost revenue from the sale or
development of the land if retained.
2:36:51 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether the value was based
on selling the land outright or from mineral rights. Mr.
Parsons answered that the value was based on a combination
of many factors. The department assessed the land for land
sale offerings, potential timber or other material harvest,
right-of-ways or easements use.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT SB 28 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
Representative Kawasaki OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion. He appreciated the bill and the "maximum local
self-government" opportunity the entitlement offered
Petersburg. He spoke about private owners adjacent to the
land that he characterized as "non-contiguous." He wanted
to ensure that private landowners understood the possible
ramifications of the conveyance in terms of negative
impacts like timber sales or blocked views.
Representative Kawasaki WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Representative Pruitt recognized that much of the
Petersburg Borough was located within the Tongass National
Forest and was out of the borough's control. He understood
the borough's effort for self-sufficiency and supported the
bill. He worried about the precedent set by the state
granting 95 percent of its land to a municipality, but
maintained his support for the Petersburg conveyance due to
the unique situation caused by its location in a National
Forest.
There being NO OBJECTION, SB 28 was REPORTED out of
committee with a "no recommendation" recommendation and
with two previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (CED)
and FN2 (DNR).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 28 LOS Petersburg Economic Development Council 1.26.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 28 |
| HJR23 Additional Documents-Ak Perm Fund financial history and projections 5.9.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR23 Additional Documents-Presentation AK Perm Fund Corp 5.9.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR23 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR23 Supporting Document-APRN - PFD cuts 5.9.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR23 Supporting Document-ISER How PFDs reduce poverty 5.9.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| HJR23 Supporting Document-Leg Research Effect of PFD Reductions 5.9.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 23 |
| SB 6 - Amendment 5.12.17.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |
| SB6_Support_051217.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
SB 6 |
| HB25_Support_051217.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 25 |