Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/08/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB85 | |
| SB96 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 96-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 96 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 96(RES), version \G, as the
working document. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
4:43:00 PM
MARY JACKSON, Staff to Senator Wagoner, explained that the
companion bill to SB 96, HB 130, now has completely different
language and has had multiple hearings. A number of properties
were deleted that were problematic; language has been added
that was described in a separate document.
Briefly she explained that on page 5 language - "In addition to
access under" - was added on lines 27 and 28 and on page 6,
lines 2 through 4. A new subsection (m) was added on page 7,
lines 21 through 24. Language on pages 7 and 8 deletes the
problematic parcels. A new subsection (o) with specific
reference to two properties in Biorka and Lisianski was added on
page 8, lines 4 through 6. Pages 8 and 9, section 6, subsection
(b) through section 7 contains all new language. New language is
on page 10, lines 20 through 22. Section 9 on page 10 is also
new language. She said the fiscal notes still apply to the CS.
4:45:04 PM
DICK MYLIUS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), said that the
Governor feels that the University of Alaska should receive more
land as part of its land grant charter. When he was in Congress,
he introduced legislation to give it more land as well. The
Legislature has promised to give the university more land in SB
7, which was passed in 2000. It was vetoed, overridden by the
Legislature and subjected to litigation relating to whether it
was an appropriations bill or not.
4:48:20 PM
The Supreme Court finally ruled in April 2004 that SB 7 is the
law and since then the state has had an obligation to provide
the University with 260,000 acres of land. SB 7 had several
problems and SB 96 is essentially a substitute for it. The issue
is the value of the land that had potential for generating
revenue was taken off the table as part of various compromises.
For example, no mineral, oil or gas properties could be acquired
through the use of the bill and survey requirements created a
$1.7 million fiscal note over a 10-year period for a total of
$17 million. SB 96 has a fiscal note of less than $800,000 over
a three-year period. The old bill would have required a 10-year
process during which the University and DNR would have been
haggling about which parcels might or might not go to them and
that would have created uncertainty for development on some of
them.
4:50:22 PM
The decision was made by the Legislature that DNR has a three-
year process to issue the deeds. This CS transfers 64 parcels, a
total of about 253,000 acres, of land. The parcels were selected
from lands DNR had identified for development.
4:52:10 PM
MR. MYLIUS reviewed that there are three primary acreage
components to the properties. The first is about 80,000 acres of
educational properties that would fit in to the University as an
educational institution and are not meant to generate revenue.
The largest of those is a large portion of the Tanana Valley
State Forest that is educational and experimental. The
University's Sitka campus and Poker Flats rocket launch
facilities are on DNR land and are also being transferred. A
90,000-acre tract in Nenana that has high potential for
discovery of natural gas, that is currently under exploration
license to Andex Petroleum Corporation, will be transferred
subject to the exploration license. When the gasline is built,
this gas could feed into the line at Fairbanks. Another 80,000
acres consists of investment properties, which the University is
thinking of using for land sales and commercial type
developments. About half of those parcels are scattered around
Southcentral and Northern Alaska and about half [according to
the CS and the House version] or 35,000 acres are in Southeast
Alaska. He referenced the parcels on maps hanging in the
committee room.
4:56:17 PM
SENATOR ELTON said that there has been great concern in Southern
Southeast that the state is giving away the land would diminish
the ability of communities to incorporate - especially property
on Prince of Wales Island.
4:57:23 PM
MR. MYLIUS responded that is true to some extent. When new
municipalities form boroughs or cities they receive 10 percent
of the vacant and unappropriated and reserved state land. So, if
the University is given 5,000 acres out of what becomes a
municipality, their entitlement would go down. The CS actually
takes care of that issue because it says that entitlements from
new municipalities formed will not be reduced by this acreage.
However, the University is looking at the best land to be used
for development and that may be the same land the municipalities
want. He has heard that concern from a number of communities and
he doesn't have a solution for that.
SENATOR ELTON asked why Lena Creek and Sumdum Island were
removed from the list. He was wondering what potential use Lena
Creek could have been put to, because the availability of land
for housing is difficult in Juneau.
MR. MYLIUS replied that he did not know why the Lena Creek
property was selected. The City and Borough of Juneau originally
nominated it for state ownership from the National Forest. It
has clearly been viewed as a residential property. He did not
know why Sumdum Island was removed from the list. Someone
mentioned that it was viewed as recreation sites.
SENATOR SEEKINS said concerns had been expressed to him that
some of these lands would be sold to 501c3 nonprofits and become
de facto conservation lands and he is considering a conceptual
amendment to prevent that kind of land transfer. A letter of
intent on page 3, lines 12 through 18, encourages the University
to be mindful of developing in-state value-added industries to
the extent economically feasible and practical.
5:02:07 PM
MR. KELLY said he was not sure how such a restrictive amendment
would be made. He explained that the piece of land the
University recently sold was in response to a court-mandated
settlement.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if it would be feasible, from a DNR
standpoint, to place such a restriction in the deed.
MR. MYLIUS replied that it would be more effective to place it
in statute.
SENATOR SEEKINS said that one of the premises of the bill is
that the land would be placed where it is most profitable and he
is concerned that allotting the land to conservation use is not
the most effective way to do that.
5:04:21 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he was surprised at the formidable
opposition that has arisen from this issue and he is reluctant
to support this bill without modifications to improve the public
process. Both Wrangell and Petersburg have an interest in just
tabling the bill entirely.
He hoped some kind of a compromise could be reached. One
suggestion is to add language requiring DNR to have a more
stringent process to develop and transfer land, in which case
all of the parcels should be included. Another option would be
for DNR and the University to hold public hearings with the
affected communities to determine what parcels should and should
not be removed. The only other option would be to just table
the bill, but he said he would leave that ball in the
committee's court.
5:13:12 PM
MR. KELLY responded that the University has a history of good
land stewardship and the Board of Regents has a constitutionally
mandated process that incorporates public input. He said that
only 1 percent of the land is in public hands and this bill will
only increase it by .4 percent. He remarked that it is in the
best interests of the University to maintain good stewardship of
the land since that would presuppose good will among prospective
local students. "We want people to support the University of
Alaska. We bend over backwards so it never appears as if we're
going in and running roughshod over a community."
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if he supported holding public hearings in
some of the communities. He added:
There isn't enough private property in Southeast
Alaska; there is too much national forest and the
people should be able to have access to property. Most
of this property that has been selected is premium
property; most of it is geared for remote cabin sites
or maybe small little clusters of groups of cabins or
small homes that want to live together. It's clearly
not an industrial policy that is being pursued
here....
MR. KELLY restated that the University has a history of meeting
with communities before and during development. He reminded them
that some of the land wouldn't go into development for years. "I
would just like to reassure you that we do that anyway...."
SENATOR ELTON remarked that it would be helpful for him and
Senator Stedman to have information on the land use
determinations made by the University.
5:21:24 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he didn't know of any tide or submerged
lands that were involved in the conveyance, so the 50 ft.
easement wouldn't be a problem. But, in the future, if any
tidelands are conveyed, easement size would be an issue.
If the intent here is to allow and insure public
access along the water front - and the public should
have access along the water front regardless if
there's any constitutional protection to the issue -
it's just the way Southeast has always been - why is
it set at 50 ft.? Because in my entire life I have yet
to see anybody walk down the beach at high tide. You'd
break your neck - because of the density of the forest
and the terrain....
5:25:26 PM
MR. MYLIUS responded that the bill does concern uplands and a 50
ft. easement would start at the high tide line and go inland.
The reason for having any public access is because the
constitution requires it and state law, AS 305.127, requires
reserving public access easements when transferring land, but
doesn't define how wide it would be. His research indicates that
the law was passed in 1976 or 1977 and DNR adopted regulations
at that time establishing 50 ft. easements. That language is
included on all of the department's conveyances with the
exception of requests for specific parcels with a physical
reason. He hasn't received any specific complaints about 50 ft.
and there is a process for vacating that that has been used. He
said there is no magic number for easement width. Fifty feet is
not an issue in municipalities that have 100 ft. setbacks.
5:27:27 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN disclosed that he has less than a mile of water
front broken up into four different parcels, some of which have
the 50 ft. access easement. He wanted to know the number of
times the easement has been reduced for the University.
I think it's a little egregious for the people
especially in Southeast Alaska who reside on islands
that are fairly rugged, most of them. If you happen to
have a parcel, which I don't, of land that has a rock
face in front of it or a raised bluff, [and] would
have either had to have a 50 ft. setback into the
trees when it's physically almost impossible for the
public to walk up and through there.
He said he didn't want to see California policies be implemented
in Alaska because they just don't fit. He understands that an
owner must go through the local planning commission to get a
reduction in an easement. Then the commissioner of DNR has to
sign off on it, which is a bit of a hindrance. People often
ignore it and put their structures wherever they want them and
enforcement isn't there unless a parcel is sold and the lender
requires a plat. He thought there should be a better mechanism
to deal with the public policy part of this issue.
5:29:24 PM
MR. MYLIUS said there aren't a lot of requests for these. He had
one last year in Excursion Inlet. He did not have a tracking
mechanism that could easily document how many easements had been
changed. It comes to his attention when a structure is
obstructing a public trail and the users complain about it.
SENATOR WAGONER thanked everyone for their testimony and said
there would be more opportunities to for them and adjourned the
meeting at 5:32:41 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|