Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
01/29/2010 08:00 AM House EDUCATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB310 | |
| HB295 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 310 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 295 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 295-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT
8:24:31 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next 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."
8:25:14 AM
DICK MYLIUS, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining, Land
and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), explained that
HB 295 would transfer 200,000 acres of state land to the
University of Alaska. He shared that the previous bill, passed
in 2005, was found to be unconstitutional because the revenues
from the land went into a dedicated fund. He said that HB 295
had resolved this by directing the funds into the general fund
as university receipts. He pointed out that the university was
a land grant university and noted that the federal land grant
for the university was the second smallest ever given. He
conveyed that the U.S. Congress had given the State of Alaska a
large land grant in 1959, and since that time, there had been
interest in transferring some of that land to the University of
Alaska. He summarized a history of past legislation attempting
the land transfer.
8:28:37 AM
MR. MYLIUS affirmed that legislation passed in 2000, which was
subsequently upheld by the court, granted 250,000 acres to the
University of Alaska, but it did not specify which lands. He
specified that the legislation included a list of types of land
which could not be transferred. He explained that DNR and the
University of Alaska conferred, drafted a list of land parcels,
and submitted this list to the legislature for approval. He
reported that this list, included in House Bill 130, was passed
by the legislature, and signed by Governor Murkowski in 2005.
When DNR attempted to implement the bill, a suit was filed by
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), and an injunction
was filed to stop the land transfers. He stipulated that HB 295
transfers almost 200,000 acres of land to the University of
Alaska. This included 29 parcels of land in Southeast Alaska, 5
parcels in Southcentral Alaska, and 18 parcels in Interior
Alaska. He reported that HB 295 also includes transfer of
educational properties, currently in use by the University of
Alaska. He announced that HB 295 had excluded 9 parcels from
the 2005 bill.
8:31:41 AM
MR. MYLIUS directed attention to a transfer delay for another
nine land parcels to allow Wrangell and Petersburg the
opportunity to form boroughs, which would allow these
communities to select that land under the Municipal Entitlement
Act (AS 29.65.010-140).
8:32:17 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the nine parcels removed from the earlier
bill had been added back in to HB 295.
MR. MYLIUS replied that the parcels were not included in HB 295.
8:32:49 AM
MR. MYLIUS detailed the two exceptions to the decision in House
Bill 130, which were transferred: a parcel of land near
Fairbanks, the University Research Forest, which was an
educational property with a restriction on re-sale; and two
small parcels near Fairbanks which were transferred under
authority from the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities.
8:34:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if there are any legal questions
with the bill.
8:35:12 AM
ANNE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
replied that HB 295 removes an earlier provision that dedicated
revenue. She stated that the bill addresses any and all legal
concerns.
8:37:49 AM
MR. MYLIUS, in response to Representative Buch, explained the
criteria for choosing the land parcels. He said that DNR land
use plans were considered and no land was offered which had
previously been designated oil and gas property, had
restrictions from Senate Bill 7, or were designated for
development by DNR.
8:39:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if there had been any consideration to
land adjacent to water, which could be developed for
mariculture.
MR. MYLIUS replied that DNR had only transferred upland parcels,
and had retained any land which had been identified "for public-
type development."
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked about the DNR projected intent for the
University development of the land.
MR. MYLIUS replied that it varied to each land parcel, and he
disclosed that the University of Alaska would have access to the
mineral resources. He pointed to a few parcels which had
mineral resources, but he noted that most of the land would be
for surface land development, such as recreation or land sale.
8:43:30 AM
DEB SPENCER, Owner, Shoreline Incorporated, stated that HB
295 would displace her fish buying station, which was
permitted by DNR. She confirmed that Pelican was
struggling economically, and that HB 295 would divert the
fisheries business tax. She emphasized that Pelican had
been opposed to the bill five years prior, and was now
opposed to HB 295. She directed attention to the borough
formation language in the bill which was used to mitigate
the impacts of use of this parcel, noted that Pelican had
never requested borough formation, and stressed that it was
contrary to the needs of Pelican residents. She
established that 30 percent of the Pelican state land base
was already distributed. She called attention to the DNR
Northern Southeast Area Plan - October 2002, noted that
this parcel had not been designated for DNR development,
and conveyed that the parcel had been designated "Ru-
Public Recreation and Tourism-Undeveloped." She read from
Chapter 3, Page 3-4 of the plan: "These lands cannot be
sold to individuals." She offered her support for funding
to the University of Alaska, but she requested that the
parcel designated PA1002, Mite Cove, be removed from the
proposed HB 295.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to the University of Alaska
Land Grant List 2005, which indicated that the Pelican
parcel was deleted by the legislature from the 2002 land
list.
MS. SPENCER agreed that the two adjacent parcels were
deleted, but that the Mite Cove parcel, located in
Lisianski Inlet, was not.
8:49:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked Ms. Spencer if she would
support the bill should this parcel be deleted.
MS. SPENCER offered her belief that other parcels were also
controversial and she would appreciate a review of all of
these. She opined that the land base was still sufficient
without including these controversial parcels.
8:50:28 AM
NORM CARSON, President, Pelican Chamber of Commerce,
paraphrased from a prepared statement, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Within HB 295 there is a 320 acre parcel of land
identified as "Mite Cove/Ewe Ledge." The nearest
communities to this parcel are Elfin Cove,
approximately 8 miles to the North across a
portion of Cross Sound and Pelican, approximately
13 miles South on Lisianski Inlet and on the
opposite shoreline.
The Mite Cove/Ewe Ledge parcel should be removed
from HB 295 for the following reasons:
There is no potential for hydro power on the
parcel; any development will be totally dependent
upon diesel generation for electricity. The
nearest hydro power is at Pelican; it is not
economically feasible to run a line to this
location.
Pelican is presently upgrading its hydro. By next
August the new penstock will be in place and the
Utility will need electricity users to help reduce
the Kilowatt cost. Land offered adjacent to
Pelican will have greater value and development
would utilize the Utility and consequently lower
the rates.
The Mite Cove/Ewe Ledge area is continually
utilized during the summer and shoulder season
months in a passive manner by the local tourism
businesses, local residents, and out of town
visitors. This use is in the form of anchoring,
picnics, hiking, scenic photography, and hunting.
As a person involved in tourism I would like to
see development kept closer to the communities.
The bight at Ewe Ledge has been utilized by a
floating commercial fish buying operation for the
past 25 years; between July and late September an
average of 30 commercial fishing boats congregate
in this area daily. The potential for conflict
with new land users is significant.
The isolation of the Mite Cove/Ewe Ledge parcel
will make any development likely to be for
seasonal use, this will not benefit the nearby
communities with year round residents.
The Mite Cove/Ewe Ledge parcel is located on a
route utilized by commercial fishing and
recreational boats as they travel up and down the
coast. From my experience in law enforcement I
foresee a great problem of theft and vandalism for
any property owners that leave their buildings
unattended.
For all the foregoing reasons this parcel is not a
good deal for the University, potential investors,
nor the closest communities to this site.
8:53:43 AM
STEVEN LEWIS, Community Representative, said that the
community of Tenakee Springs opposed the current version of
HB 295, but supported the goals of the bill. He
paraphrased from prepared statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Tenakee Springs is a small isolated community in
Northern SE Alaska. With a population of about
100 people, it is not connected to any road system
& is accessible only by ferry or boat or float
plane.
With a relatively undeveloped infrastructure and
small population, the impacts of developing the
one parcel of two sections of 17 and 3 acres would
be huge for Tenakee, overwhelming in fact. This
acreage would have relatively little impact on the
overall acreage in the bill's nearly 200,000
acres, which are important for University.
For this reason, we request that any parcels in
Tenakee Springs be removed from the bill.
8:55:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH stipulated that the Tenakee Springs
parcel was ST 1003.
8:56:08 AM
MR. LEWIS added that the smaller parcel over the harbor
uplands would inhibit access to the harbor breakwater and
barge landing facility which Tenakee Springs is planning to
develop.
8:56:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said that she had received
correspondence from the Mayor of Tenakee Springs regarding
the harbor parcel, but that no opposition had been
indicated to the other site. She asked if Tenakee Springs
has an official position on either parcel.
MR. LEWIS replied that the Mayor had requested opposition
to both parcels.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for an official resolution.
MR. LEWIS said that a resolution would be provided shortly.
CHAIR SEATON noted that it will be included in the bill
package.
8:58:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked about the ferry schedule into
Tenakee Springs.
MR. LEWIS replied that the ferry arrives twice a week, and
it was usually a four to eight hour trip. Additionally, he
mentioned that barge service occurs two to four times each
year. He opined that development of the breakwater would
make it easier for the barge companies.
8:59:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, reflecting that local concerns are
important, pointed out the disparity of community needs and
asked how the legislature could reconcile these
differences.
MR. LEWIS offered his belief that individual determinations
would need to be scrutinized.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER agreed that it is difficult to
appease each community.
9:01:28 AM
CHAIR SEATON reiterated that the committee takes public
testimony seriously, and that specific concerns are helpful
to form appropriate legislation.
9:02:33 AM
JOAN MCBEEN paraphrased from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I am concerned about the transfer of a parcel of
land in Tenakee Springs to the U of A. This
parcel is within the city limits and is used
extensively by the residents & visitors to
Tenakee. It is a subsistence area & recreation
area & used for commercial trapping. My husband
and I have hunted & hiked the area over the thirty
years we've lived in Tenakee. We are concerned
about the impact that the transfer of this parcel
will have on our tiny community and our dependence
on undisturbed, accessible land for our hunting,
gathering and commercial use. We are also
concerned about the financial burden placed upon
Tenakee for education. I request the removal of
this Tenakee parcel from the University Land
Grant.
9:05:01 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked if the testimony was for both the
parcels.
MS. MCBEEN replied that it was.
9:05:56 AM
STEVEN TODD stated support of full funding for the
University of Alaska, but expressed concern with two parcel
listings in HB 295: CSOV 1001, Olive Cove and SD 1001,
Thoms Place. He explained that these two parcels were
adjacent and upslope to homeowners and were traditionally
used for subsistence. There was a concern that the land
would be used for an extensive forestry harvest, and he
mentioned the Wrangell community resentment to the land use
by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. He opined
that the land revenue generated was minimal, but the effect
on the communities was extensive. He reflected on the
Municipal Entitlement Act and the availability of these
parcels for Wrangell.
9:09:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if there was any commercial
development planned for either of these parcels.
MR. TODD replied that neither parcel has current commercial
development. He also noted that the anadromous fish
streams are used primarily for subsistence and community
purposes.
9:10:30 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked that testifiers share any land
classification information.
9:11:27 AM
MIKE SALLEE paraphrased from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
My name is Mike Sallee. I was born in and reside
in Ketchikan.
I have owned & operated a small sawmill across
Moser Bay from one of the parcels to be
transferred by this bill. For most of the last 3
decades, I've provided rough sawn lumber for homes
and other projects for nearly all those people who
reside in the immediate area.
I'd hoped the sponsors of this bill would have
heeded objections to inclusion of certain parcels
before reintroducing the bill. It seems the
sponsors don't have much respect for the efforts
citizens have put into researching and commenting
on State Area Plans and Coastal Zone Management
plans among other venues for public input on local
land use.
Generally, I support the University of Alaska, I
have a degree from that institution. I'm not
opposed to granting U of A means to generate
income.
However, more specifically - the Moser Bay parcel
contains a great deal of steep, landslide-prone
shoreline, not very suitable for homesites.
Indeed, those slide-prone shores have yielded a
small but sustainable source of firewood for local
residents and the occasional saw log for my nearby
mill.
The Moser Bay parcel contains a recreation trail
to Wolf Lakes, important estaurine areas for fish
& wildlife, access to uplands for local deer
hunters & trappers, & relatively untouched
landscapes & viewsheds for small commercial tour
boats that ply the area in summer. I believe I
understand some adjacent borough lands are
encumbered as wetlands mitigation for local coast
zone management.
It would be a travesty to clear-cut the parcel as
the University did on Slide Ridge near Whipple
Creek & the Mountain Point area - both on
Ketchikan's road system. A selective helicopter
harvest is little better though less visually
impacting. Helicopter harvest has trashed areas
with limbs topes, & whole discarded trees that
don't make the grade to justify the expense of
helicopter removal. Evidence of helicopter
harvest is quite abundant on Mental Health lands
in Bear Valley, Minerva Mtn. trail and the Tongass
Narrows side of California Ridge on Gravina Id.
Worse - much of the timber helicopter-logged was
round-log exported bleeding future jobs form the
local economy.
For such a miniscule return to the University's
overall budget, transfer of those parcels in the
Ketchikan area make little sense, and will place
undue burden on local citizens.
9:14:12 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how far the Moser Bay parcel is from
Ketchikan.
9:14:17 AM
MR. SALLEE replied that it is about twenty miles and
apologized that he did not have the parcel details. In
further response, he said that he has resided on a
peninsula separating Mosier Bay from Clover Pass, and from
Grant Island.
9:15:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how he acquired the logs he
milled.
MR. SALLEE explained that he collected blow down and tidal
wash-ups, and that he received wood to mill from people in
the area who had cleared property. He shared that he
ranged about 50 miles for logs.
9:17:38 AM
WENDY REDMAN, Executive Vice President, University of
Alaska, stated that many of those who opposed the
university land bill were often supporters of the
university. She pointed out that conflict arises when
attempting to put Alaska lands into development, while
preserving recreational and subsistence usage. She
affirmed that the university, as a land grant university,
relied on the land grants, and she gave a brief history of
the conveyance of land to the university. She stated that
the university generated about $10 million per year from
development of the lands that they hold, including
residential, commercial, mineral, and recreational. She
stated that the earnings paid tuition for 1000 students
through a scholarship program.
9:22:44 AM
MS. REDMAN determined that the land in this bill was
carefully selected as land previously designated by DNR for
development, and it was divided into three parts:
educational lands, Nenana oil and gas development lands,
and other recreational and residential lands. She shared
that the university desired that HB 295 be passed in order
to access the lands. She opined that it was a responsible
land management program. She disclosed that the Supreme
Court ruling was a surprise, but that HB 295 allowed the
revenues to be returned to the legislature and be
appropriated to the university. She compared the revenue
from the development of land grants with that revenue from
private funds, in that all the monies had to be
appropriated back to the university from the legislature.
She shared that it was a disincentive for the university to
raise private funding if that allocation was offset by a
decrease in general fund allocations.
9:26:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that it was a valid
concern for re-appropriation of the funding.
9:27:37 AM
MS. REDMAN opined that the university could not support
itself on the earnings from the land grant. She endorsed
this funding to be a margin above the normal operating
costs.
9:29:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked about any impact to the long
term plans if the controversial parcels were removed.
MS. REDMAN ascertained that any land to develop for income
was better than none. She considered this bill to be the
best approach.
9:31:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked about any other obstacles that
were overcome to recognize these obligations.
9:32:03 AM
MS. REDMAN reflected on when the university chose to sue
the state and DNR in order to take back the land
management. She offered to provide a copy of the Terrance
Cole book to the committee.
9:33:30 AM
MARY IRVIN, paraphrased from a prepared statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Good morning members of the Committee. As a 20-
something resident of the State of Alaska, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you
this morning about this important piece of
legislation.
I would like to be very clear. I am a strong
supporter the University of Alaska. Although I
received both my undergraduate and graduate
degrees Outside at private institutions, I have
taken many rigorous classes at UAS, several fun
classes at UAS, and I served the University for
several years as an instructor for ED593, a
continuing education course. I truly wish OUR
university system had more financial stability and
support in many ways. I find it regrettable that
OUR university professors - especially adjunct
professors - are underpaid.
However, I am here this morning to respectfully
request that you please consider exempting a small
5-acre parcel from this funding bill. In the
alternative, I'm requesting that you ask DNR to
provide you with a different, alternative 5-acre
choice parcel for inclusion in this bill, instead
of the 5-acre parcel named...Sumdum.
The 5-acre parcel known as Sumdum is a parcel of
land about 40 miles south of where we are right
now, and it contains the mouth of an extremely
productive salmon stream, AND a historic cultural
site important to many Tlingit people and many
mining history scholars as well. The parcel is on
the site of the old fish camp just across the
inlet to Endicott Arm, from where the Soundon
People lived in 6 large clanhouses. Several of
the clanhouses in this area have been specifically
documented - they were Black Bear House, the
Glacier House, and others, the people of which,
drew fish from this stream for thousands of years.
The parcel is also the direct site of the old 1879
- 1903 townsite of Sumdum. ON record at the
University of Alaska itself is a PhD thesis on
what makes this area so historically compelling as
to be reserved as an intriguing and culturally
diverse site! The thesis documents some of the
cultural exchange that makes this area such an
interesting one, historically and culturally, to
study. Although it was used for thousands of
years by Tlingit "people of the sparkling green
water" as a fish camp, ...later in history, during
the early gold mining days, one of the first towns
in "American Alaska" - consisting of several
hundred souls - sprang up - some Tlingits but also
new gold miner immigrants to Alaska as well.
Cabins went up, a huge bunkhouse for the miners, a
laundry, cookhouse and "American Alaska's" first
brewery, to serve the booming area. A corduroy
road and tram system with horses and ore carts
were put in place, and tunnels - to blast the hard
rock out of the earth - penetrated deep into the
hills. The Presbyterian missionary Samuel Hall
Young stopped here, another time, officers with
the US Geographic Survey stopped here in the
1890's, and throughout the years of its heyday,
there was a United States Post Office staffed
here.
Members of the Committee,
How do we value a salmon stream? How do you put a
price on still-WILD runs of natural salmon that
have nourished people in this area for thousands
of years? Can we? Should we?
Moreover, how do we value the PUBLIC history of a
diversity of people _ Tlingit and later Alaskans
alike, interacting together, getting used to each
other, experiencing each other and learning to
live and work together in a certain place, in a
certain time? Can we value this? Should we value
this?
I believe we should value such things - maybe even
put fiscal values on them - since we will be
taking these out of the PUBLIC domain which
benefits all Alaskans, and PRIVATIZING them for
the benefit of those individuals able to avail
themselves of our excellent university system.
I believe the Department of Natural Resources is
the correct agency to manage this 5-acre parcel.
Sumdum should remain rightly placed within DNR,
and not be transferred to the real estate agents
of the Lands Office for "disposal" to the highest
bidder. This 5-acre parcel is a priceless Alaskan
treasure that I'm not sure the real estate agents
in the Lands Office at the University have any
clear idea as to how to place a value on it, let
alone manage it, as effectively as DNR has done
over the past many years.
9:39:29 AM
MS. IRVINE stopped her testimony, and interjected that this
parcel was a state registered archeological site of record.
9:39:54 AM
MS. IRVINE continued with her testimony:
Perhaps I'm wrong - perhaps the fishing industry
from Washington and Oregon would pay a darn fair
price for one of our salmon streams. Or perhaps
the Tourism industry would be happy to pay a fair
price for a 5-acre parcel in order to put another
zipline over the mouth of this salmon stream or
one more tee shirt shop in place, en route to
wherever it is they are going in such a big hurry
on their vacations to Alaska.
I submit that Alaskans would appreciate at least
your at least attaching a fiscal note value to a
bill that removes a salmon stream OUT of the
PUBLIC DOMAIN and gives it over to the realtors in
the fundraising business.
I also submit that our summer visitors are coming
to learn about just such history as the PUBLIC
history that the little 5-acre parcel named Sumdum
can offer to us Alaskans, and that we in turn can
value and offer to them.
Would you please consider looking further into
EXEMPTING the small 5-acre parcel called Sumdum
from this bill?
9:41:16 AM
CHAIR SEATON clarified the parcel number as SD 1001.
9:41:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the university would view
this five acre parcel as an historical site.
MS IRVINE replied that the university had already been
approached. She suggested that the University of Alaska
ask DNR for the site to be designated for academic use as
that would protect the parcel from development. She shared
that the University had not shown much interest in the
Sumdum parcel for academic use.
9:44:00 AM
CHAIR SEATON affirmed that DNR would supply the information
regarding the current land use planning classification of
the parcels.
9:44:31 AM
CAROL RUSHMORE, Economic Development Director, paraphrased
from a prepared testimony, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Wrangell participated in the 2005 legislative
process on HB 130. Our comments at that time were
mostly concerned with 3 parcels of lands that the
University had selected which were lands that we,
as a potential borough, would also be interested
in selecting under the entitlement program.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:45 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.
9:52:33 AM
MS. RUSHMORE continued with her testimony.
Those parcels are Thoms Place, Olive Cove and Earl
West Cove. We were also concerned whether
portions of these University selections were in
the best interest to the borough and residents for
selection by the University.
As you know, Wrangell was successful in
incorporating as a borough in May 2008.
In the previous bill, if we formed a borough
before July 2009, we were given until January 1,
2013 to make our entitlement selections. That is
the premise that we have been planning under since
working to form a borough. In the current bill,
HB 295, that date has been moved up to Dec. 1,
2011.
We have been working diligently over the last year
on our borough wide comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance. We are also tackling other planning
and zoning efforts, developing relationships with
residents in the outlying areas and developing our
goals and policies for the future of the borough.
We are working on our borough organization
efforts, and respectfully request that the CBW is
given until January 1, 2013 to make our selection
regarding land within the parcels of Thoms Place,
Olive Cove, and Earl West Cove.
We have a responsibility to our borough landowners
and residents to make sure we can remain an
economically sustainable borough. It is
challenging to make the selections necessary to
meet our goals and policies that are being
developed during our comprehensive planning
process. We have also introduced legislation
HB273 requesting additional acreage than the
amount DNR indicates is our entitlement, in order
to provide for our future economic growth. The
selection process is not a task we take lightly,
and we want to make sure that we get it right for
our residents -selecting lands that will help us
address our resource development, public
infrastructure development opportunities, cultural
resources, valuable habitat areas, and additional
settlement opportunity goals.
We also have some concerns regarding the
University's selection for some portions of these
three parcels, concerns of their development plans
in these areas, potential impacts of the
University's use of these lands could have to
habitats, cultural resources, recreation, public
infrastructure development and the subsistence
lifestyle of the residents. We are working on our
comprehensive plan to try and address these
concerns regardless of who selects the land.
Earl West Cove parcel is designated GU in the
Central SE Area Plan, includes timber lands, LTF,
recreational site, deep water access.
Thoms Place is designated HA, S, and GU
Olive Cove is designated GU and RU
9:57:48 AM
MS. RUSHMORE replied that the date was now December 1,
2011, as written on Page 9, line 7 of HB 295.
MR. MYLIUS explained the time deadline for the borough
formation process contained in the Municipal Entitlement
Act. He agreed that there would be a conflict between
statutes if a time change were made in the bill.
9:59:46 AM
MR. MYLIUS reported that not all the land parcels are
designated with area plans, but he clarified that none of
the parcels are designated for future state parks. He
pointed out that land use plans are for management during
the next 20 years, but only some parcels reflected further
planning. He directed attention to the land use
designations and classifications in the University of
Alaska Land Grant List 2005, and emphasized that all the
transfers are subject to existing state laws, and specified
that anadromous streams and archaeological resources in the
Sumdum parcel are protected. He acknowledged that DNR has
not actively managed the Sumdum parcel, and opined that the
University of Alaska could put it to use.
10:02:07 AM
MR. MYLIUS, in response to Representative Munoz, agreed to
submit the archaeological and historical resource
information for the Sumdum parcel.
10:02:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it would be practical for a
covenant on the Sumdum parcel.
MR. MYLIUS replied that the legislature had the ability to
do that.
10:02:54 AM
CHAIR SEATON shared that the maps in the Land Grant list
were alphabetized.
MR. MYLIUS noted that it was alphabetical within each
region. He pointed out that any valid existing business
authorization was included with the land transfer. He
offered his belief, however, that the fish buying station
mentioned earlier was subject to the state tidelands
authority.
MR. MYLIUS observed that the land transfer did not transfer
water rights, which were still administered by DNR and
would still be valid.
10:04:27 AM
CHAIR SEATON stated that the bill would be held, and public
testimony would remain open. [HB 295 was held over.]
| 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 |
| Sponsor Statement HB 310.docx |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| flow chart.docx |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| authorized projects for school debt bond reimbursment.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 14 07 020.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |
| 4AAC 31 020.pdf |
HEDC 1/29/2010 8:00:00 AM HEDC 2/17/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 310 |