Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/09/2005 11:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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.
11:13:49 AM
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT work draft #24-
GH1034\L, Bullock, 4/08/05, as the version of the bill
before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
JOE BEEDLE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VICE PRESIDENT
FOR FINANCE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER TRUSTEE
FOR THE LAND GRANT ENDOWMENT FUND, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
PETE KELLY, DIRECTOR, STATE RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
noted the University objects to the committee substitute.
The legislation does not meet the needs that the University
lands bill intended. The University of Alaska is a lands
grant institution, founded with the intent that it would
supplement its operating expenses with the establishment of
a lands grant trust. Currently, the University uses
earnings from the trust for their day-to-day facility
operations.
At statehood, it was anticipated that the University would
receive a much larger grant than it actually did. The
University received approximately 140,000 acres. The
th
University of Alaska land grant ranked 48 out of the 50
states.
Mr. Kelly noted that when SB 7 was passed and vetoed by the
Governor, it ended up in Supreme Court. The Legislature
prevailed in that suit and it became law. HB 130 would be
phase two of that and actually transfers the land.
The University of Alaska has an active lands department and
is the most successful public entity of the State. He
pointed out that the University has sold 12,000 parcels
since 1986. The lands department has to act in a fiduciary
position with the lands based trust. It is important that
the University is able to balance those obligations taking
into consideration that they are a public institution.
Mr. Kelly noted that the University engages in a high level
of public process in order to meet obligations. Decisions
have to pass through the Board of Regents to address issues
such as land decisions and policies. Public testimony is
taken to inform those decisions.
He noted the concern that SB 130 had not had enough public
process and reminded the Committee that the Alaska
Constitution stipulates there is no higher public process
than that which happens during deliberations of the
Legislature. The other complaints deal with specific
parcels. The University worked with the Department of
Natural Resources to determine the list.
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out concerns that the
University had transferred lands to organizations such as
the nature conservatory not placing the lands into a
developing mode. Mr. Kelly advised that was a court
decision and not something that the University would have
normally chosen to do. Since there is fiduciary
responsibility to the trust, it has to be sold for the
highest and best value. The intention of the University is
to get land into development.
Representative Weyhrauch asked if the transfer resulted from
a court order. Mr. Kelly said yes. Representative Weyrauch
asked if they offered the highest value for the land. Mr.
Kelly deferred that question to Mr. Beedle.
Representative Weyhrauch noted that the committee substitute
attempts to provide intent that the University be required
to transfer lands for development purposes.
Representative Weyhrauch understood that the 260 thousand
acres proposed in the original bill was reduced to 249,000
acres and asked if it would make or break the bill with that
reduction. Mr. Kelly said it would not be sufficient.
11:23:28 AM
Representative Weyhrauch asked if anything above the 250,000
threshold would be adequate. Mr. Kelly responded it would
be doable as long as the value was similar to the original
request.
Representative Weyhrauch mentioned on fish habitat concerns.
Mr. Kelly replied that he was was not referencing specific
spots.
11:24:24 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked why the University objected to the
committee substitute.
Representative Weyhrauch explained that the new committee
substitute accomplished two things. It removed two
sections, which had a number of findings and legislative
intent. That language was placed into a draft letter of
intent. It does state that the University maintains its
role as a land grant institution.
11:25:33 AM
Representative Weyhrauch addressed the language taken from
Sections 1 & 2 of the bill. Also, the committee substitute
clarifies that if the University gets the lands, that they
contribute to both the economic diversification of the State
and if they do not go into non-economical purposes, they
strike a balance between conservation and development. The
committee substitute bill adds back the Lena Creek property.
Additionally, it affirms that the University is a lands
grant institution and outlines a cooperative extension
program. The most significant change occurs on Pages 6 & 7
and listed the other property changes made to that version.
11:28:11 AM
Representative Weyhrauch said that the draft totals 195,000
acres and retains parcels having Native allotments. He
pointed out that the last provision adds a new Section P.
There were a number of concerns around Wrangell and
Petersburg. Concerns have to be balanced with a sense of
policy. The provision requires that the properties contain
a date-certain for formation of a borough so that the lands
are not hanging out there into the future. Page 7
stipulates an offer to the municipalities, so that they can
develop the land or organize a borough and they would have
to pay fair market value.
11:31:13 AM
Representative Weyrauch continued, it would be required to
go to a non-profit organization that was established to
manage, develop or sell the land for historic purposes,
which would accomplish two things:
· It would allow the University to determine the best
use; and
· It would allow organizations that understand the
property to use and develop it for historic
purposes.
Representative Weyhrauch stated that the types of
compromises that committee substitute intended are to:
· Insure that the University could get the lands
needed to meet its educational purposes;
· Recognize the important of the lands for local
organizations and peoples; and
· Offer the lands to the municipalities to form
municipalities at the highest and best use of those
lands.
11:33:03 AM
Mr. Kelly agreed with the spirit, however, emphasized that
it is below the 250,000-acre threshold requested. He
reiterated that this legislation is the Governor's bill and
that the University is the beneficiary of the legislation.
The University will continue to work with the Department of
Natural Resources.
11:34:31 AM
DICK MYLIUS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, noted the handout in
Committee member's file. (Copy on File). He provided a
brief background of the bill, pointing out that it is the
Governor's sentiment that the University receives more land.
The 250,000 acres comes from SB 7 and is envisioned as a
match for a federal bill. That legislation initially did
not pass but has been reintroduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski
and would grant the University of Alaska 250,000 acres of
federal land. The 250,000 acres is a magic number for two
reasons as it was the commitment made in SB 7 and it is the
match if the federal legislation passes.
11:36:14 AM
Mr. Mylius noted that SB 7 established a process for
transferring lands to the University and was a ten-year,
expensive process. That legislation carried a $1.7 million
dollar fiscal note per year for ten years. HB 130 has an
$800,000 dollar fiscal note for three years. He believed
that HB 130 would provide a more efficient process.
Mr. Mylius stated that the committee substitute carves 62
parcels, amounting to approximately 250,000 acres. The
parcels fall into three categories of lands.
· Educational properties, which will serve the
University's educational intent and amount to
approximately 80,000 acres of the package;
· One track of 90,000 acres near the Nenana River,
which has good possibility of discovery of natural
gas; and
· Investment properties in the amount of 80,000 acres.
Those are the properties the University would sell.
About ½ of those properties are in SE Alaska.
11:39:53 AM
Mr. Mylius referenced the maps on display in the Committee
room indicating how they relate to the lands discussed. He
mentioned access restrictions and University management. He
noted, the properties in SE Alaska have been the most
controversial.
Mr. Mylius explained how the parcels had been identified.
Most were parcels that the Department of Natural Resources
would eventually sell and/or develop. The Department's
restrictions go away when the land is transferred. The
Department did not let the University select lands managed
for forestry. Lands were withdrawn intended by the
Department for land sales in the next five years and ones
those municipalities had natural selection upon. There has
been concern brought up by municipalities that plan future
expansion of their boroughs.
Representative Kelly referenced the Coldfoot area concerns
and asked if there had been discussion with that area. Mr.
Mylius said his office had not been contacted, but he was
aware of concerns. He noted that the University of Alaska
offers a public testimony process and it would be better for
them to address those situations.
11:47:02 AM
Representative Kelly commended Representative Weyrauch for
the work done on the committee substitute, noting that he
still did have concerns, which he hoped the University could
address.
Representative Hawker referenced Page 3, Section 3, the
three categories of land and asked for a breakout of the
property by those categories. Mr. Mylius replied that
Section © properties do not show up because when the federal
government transfers land to the State, if there are
existing claims on that land, they will not transfer it.
That land would be excluded in the transfer to the State.
If the claim ever went away, then the lands could be
transferred. Those lands are kept in the State's "top
filing", waiting for selection. The reason that the
provision is included is that the law states that the lands
should be transferred by 2005 with the understanding that
there is no outstanding obligation.
11:51:02 AM
In response to Representative Hawker, Mr. Mylius did not
think that there were many of that land type. The transfers
to the University are subject to any valid existing rights.
The primary "in-holdings" would be federal reservations or
State land already transferred to other parties.
11:52:02 AM
Representative Weyhrauch thanked Mr. Mylius for the work he
had done.
11:52:55 AM
AL PAGH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FOUR STAR LUMBER,
FAIRBANKS, commented that he was involved in the timber
industry, one of the few industries that uses renewal
resources. HB 130 would reduce the amount of timber
available throughout the State. It is difficult to
manufacture anything in Alaska that cannot be consumed in
the State because of transportation costs and that lumber
was the one thing that can be used here. Mr. Pagh voiced
strong opposition to the proposed bill.
11:56:36 AM
LARRY EDWARDS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SITKA, noted
that he did not like the legislation and recommended it be
"killed". He indicated that Sitka opposes all parcels
included in the bill except the one adjacent to the
University of Alaska-Sitka campus. He reiterated the strong
opposition to the bill throughout the State.
Mr. Edwards mentioned the matching legislation currently in
the U.S. Congress and thought that legislation too would
create many problems statewide. Clear cutting should not be
funding the price for higher education and that the
University system should be funded up front.
11:58:55 AM
TED SMITH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MAYOR OF
PETERSBURG, PETERSBURG, highlighted a drafting error in the
committee substitute, Page 4, Section 3, with the date
listed as "2055".
He noted that the bill undermines existing statewide
management direction. Through a very public process, the
State has worked in consort with citizens, public
organizations and federal agencies to development a
management plan for the State. That effort was done with
good will, which would be eliminated through passage of SB
130. He concluded that the legislation was insulting.
12:02:18 PM
Representative Weyhrauch noted that the 225 days had been
listed in the original bill. He inquired the last borough
formation vote in Petersburg. Mayor Smith replied that the
vote has not yet been established; however there have been
discussions with Wrangell. Representative Weyhrauch asked
the last time that Wrangell had a vote on borough formation.
Mayor Smith understood that the process for filing the
petition had occurred and declined by the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
12:03:39 PM
JULIE HURSEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PETERSBURG,
echoed concerns voiced by Mayor Smith. She noted her
opposition to HB 130 mentioning the about work done on the
South East (SE) Lands Management plan, produced with the
Department of Natural Resources. Once the University takes
the lands listed in HB 130, the land designations would no
longer be binding. The University would take lands
designated in the plan and sell it off to private owners who
would develop it as they want and private ownership
precludes public use. Ms. Hursey stressed that years of
research and expense went into developing those plans. She
urged that the RU designated lands be removed from the bill.
She asserted that there are other ways to raise money for
the University, recommending raising the taxes on oil or
implementing an income tax. The lands grant system was
developed in the 1880's. She urged that the bill not be
passed out of Committee or that it be altered to remove the
lands of concern.
12:06:28 PM
MICHELLE NILAND, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY,
testified against the legislation. She did not believe that
the lands proposed for the University could benefit them and
that the loss of those lands would completely devastate
McCarthy. The amount of revenue expected to be generated by
the bill is relatively small. The proposed lands are being
used for subsistence lifestyles and act as a buffer zone
between McCarthy and the local park service. It is
imperative that the lands stay available. She believed that
the bill would increase the local population and decrease
resources and through the transfer, the McCarthy lifestyle
would be eliminated. She emphasized that McCarthy should be
removed from the land transfer. Ms. Niland recommended a
possible solution would be amending the federal bill.
12:11:07 PM
JASON ESLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CULTURNAL
ANTHROPOLOLGIST, MCCARTHY, voiced concern with the
legislation and the effect that the law would have on the
resources, the community and the existing "terrible"
relationship that already exists with the park service and
the people of McCarthy. The community does not have a
formal government. Within the community, there are limited
places that the residents can go to collect wood and/or hunt
that not on federal lands. The zones indicated are an
important buffer zone. The proposed 12,000 acres is a huge
amount of land for the size of McCarthy. He urged that the
McCarthy land be removed from the land transfer to the
University.
12:13:35 PM
GARVIN BUCARIA, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WASILLA,
spoke against HB 130. He urged that other programs be added
to provide the support requested by the University. He
emphasized that public lands should not be transferred out
of public ownership. The full public oversight would be
reduced to the University's Board of Regents. They do not
have the same attitude in managing the lands. He encouraged
that the Legislature fund University programs directly.
Research and education projects could be conducted on State
and federal lands without an ownership change.
12:18:43 PM
DEB SPENCER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PELICAN,
represented other residents in Pelican and testified against
portions of the legislation. She pointed out that previous
University actions indicate that they are not consistent
when working with local communities. Pelican is
economically depressed and suffering and that the proposed
legislation would only make it worse.
12:23:09 PM
JON BILLING, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CRAIG,
testified in opposition to portions of the proposed
legislation. He maintained that there are areas within the
bill, which should be removed and maintained as State
ownership. The Thorne Bay area will affect opportunities
for logging and employment for Alaskans. He referred to the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) land
settlements as a model.
12:26:08 PM
JACK REAKOFF, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), expressed
concern that there are no provisions for pipeline crossings
and no considerations of year around service at Coldfoot.
THOR STACEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WISEMAN, echoed
concerns voiced by Mr. Reakoff. He added comments regarding
year around service in Coldfoot and asked if it that would
be withdrawn.
Representative Kelly questioned if by not removing that
parcel, could a plan be arranged to accommodate those
concerns. Mr. Stacey expressed concern that the University
of Alaska's management policy tends to be uncertain. They
want the most money possible for the lands and that could
preclude any public input.
12:32:10 PM
NEIL DARISH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY,
expressed concern over the Department of Natural Resources
control over partials in McCarthy. He stressed the
importance of harvesting firewood and use of the gravel pit.
He mentioned the difficulty of accessing federal lands and
voiced concern that the University would sell land to the
National Park Service. He reiterated that the National Park
Service is not willing to work with the community and that
the Department was.
12:34:32 PM
KELLY BAY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY, echoed
the remarks by Mr. Darish and stressed the importance and
need of harvesting wood. He stressed that much of the land
in question is not appropriate for development and rests
over swampy grounds.
ED LACHAPPEL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY,
spoke in opposition to the legislation. He pointed out how
little opportunity there had been for public input. He
urged that the McCarthy parcel be removed from the land
transfer proposal.
DAN ELLSBERG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY,
testified in opposition to the inclusion of the McCarthy
parcel in the legislation. He stressed his dependence on
local lands and the difficulty of obtaining access to
federal lands. He thought that the transfer would create
conflicts within the community.
12:44:29 PM
ANDY SNIDER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY, urged
that the McCarthy land area be deleted from the bill. He
stated that developing another 12,500 acres of land in
McCarthy would be "frightening" as there is already a
stressful demand on local resources. He warned about
significant issues that would result and recommended
creating a University endowment in other ways.
12:48:24 PM
PAUL ANDERSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VICE MAYOR,
PETERSBURG CITY COUNCIL, PETERSBURG, testified against HB
130. He claimed that the municipalities were being "held
hostage" by the Legislature. He added his support creating
an endowment from the Permanent Fund for the University of
Alaska.
12:51:23 PM
MELINDA HOFSTAND, BARANOFF WARM SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, PETERSBURG, voiced appreciation to
Representative Weyhrauch for excluding Baranoff Warm Springs
from the legislation. The watershed in that area is the
only water source for the community and they would no longer
have a water supply source if it remained in the bill.
12:53:47 PM
PAUL JOHNSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ELFIN COVE,
testified against the legislation, noting how "dramatically"
that land sale would impact Elfin Cove. It would affect
Elfin Cove's economic future. Mr. Johnson pointed out that
the proposed bill was the largest piece of legislation since
statehood or Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANLICA).
Representative Kelly asked about the situation existing in
Elfin Cove and hoped that Representative Weyhrauch had
addressed it.
12:56:56 PM
RJ KOPCHAK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ELFIN COVE,
indicated that he would fax testimony for Mr. Beedle and Mr.
Kenyon from Elfin Cove with comments against the proposed
legislation and land transfer.
12:58:06 PM
LOVEY BROCK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA NATIVE
SISTERHOOD (ANS), WRANGELL, spoke against any use of
traditional lands. These lands are still being used for a
traditional way of life for Alaska Natives in that area.
She stated that there has to be another way to help the
University than taking traditional lands.
12:59:01 PM
RICK KENYON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY, spoke
against inclusion of the parcel referenced in SB 130 for the
McCarthy area as it is an important resource to that
community. He strongly urged that the Committee reconsider
the legislation.
1:00:49 PM
MICHELLE CASEY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MCCARTHY,
spoke against the land listed around the community of
McCarthy. If the land is transferred and the Park Service
has access, they will impose fees for usage. The community
of McCarthy is an asset to the State of Alaska. She pointed
out that they had gather 60 signatures in one and half days,
which is a huge number for the size of McCarthy. She urged
reconsideration of the legislation.
RECESS: 1:05:36 PM
RECONVENE: 1:54:36 PM
1:54:55 PM
MARGARET CLABBY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), KETCHIKAN,
addressed four concerns of funding for the University with
parcels from Southeast Alaska, testifying in opposition to
the bill.
· The parcels contradict the State's land use plan;
· There are financial issues in using the lands for
the University;
· Leaving the parcels alone would help to stabilize
the economy in SE Alaska; and
· There are Public access concerns.
2:00:18 PM
Ms. Clabby concluded that placing the lands into private
ownership, then no one from the coast would be able to cut
through to national forest lands. The federal government
does not put access easements unless they are absolutely
required.
2:02:06 PM
Representative Hawker asked for a formal response from the
University regarding if the legislation would be fiscally
irresponsible in certain timberlands.
MARY MONTGOMERY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), UNIVERSITY
OF ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE, clarified that the University had
actually received an appraisal from a local appraiser and it
was determined that the property was sold above fair market
value. She reminded members that the University is tax-
exempt.
2:04:28 PM
GAYLE GROSS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WRANGELL,
echoed concerns regarding the land transfer, particularly
the parcel at Olive Cove on Ellen Island. She emphasized
the importance of the lands in question to Wrangell and that
the intent of the bill provides for logging. Logging would
remove stream habitats and the fish habitat would be
compromised. Ms. Gross pointed out that the State's fishery
management system is based on sustainable yield; it is
important to protect the fish-spawning habitat.
2:06:49 PM
VALERY MCCANDLESS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), MAYOR,
CITY OF WRANGELL, reiterated the importance of the Olive
Cove parcel and gave a brief history of the archeological
importance of that area. She maintained that the proposal
contradicts the State's Land Use Plan.
2:10:07 PM
WILMA STOKES, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WCA PRESIDENT,
WRANGELL, testified in opposition to the legislation,
expressing concern with a number of selections. She
requested that Thoms Place & Olive Cove be removed.
Ms. McCandless addressed the committee substitute, pointing
out that two of the parcels of concern had been pulled and
indicated her appreciation for that.
2:12:45 PM
RACHEL COLVARD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT,
ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to the legislation. She
maintained that the legislation is in opposition to State
policy. She recommended creating a research board. She
referred to Section AS 14.40.400(a) on Page 9, Line 4,
noting the impact on the State.
2:16:07 PM
RON SCHONENBACH, JUNEAU, noted that he had worked for 25
years for the Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Mining, Land, and Water. He stated that the bill was ill
conceived and should have begun with a public process. He
referenced the land management plans and how the guidelines
went through an extensive 2-year process. What is
disturbing about the land list is inclusion of a lot of
settlement and wildlife habitats. The land list takes all
of the settlement lands out of the Department's land base.
The Department of Natural Resources would not have any lands
left to sell in SE Alaska. He stressed that is a
shortsighted approach for land managers.
During the planning process, the Department of Natural
Resources and the public agreed on which lands would be
wildlife habitat and which would be for public recreation.
Once the lands are conveyed to the University, all that
would vanish. The Department of Natural Resources would
lose credibility and the University of Alaska will have to
withstand a fight.
Mr. Schonenbach referenced the 655 acres on Middle Island in
Sitka. He noted that there are only a few pieces of very
exposed and marginal land left on Middle Island. He
questioned inclusion of that land.
Mr. Schonenbach concluded that there are many "faults" with
the legislation, but should it proceed, it would fail the
intent of SB 7 (passed in 2000). He pointed out that 70% of
the investment properties are in SE Alaska. He recommended
that there is time remaining to recommend that the
Department of Natural Resources take another look at their
inventory.
2:21:23 PM
JENNIFER PRICE, WARM SPRINGS BAY, SITKA, testified in
opposition to the legislation. She expressed concern with
RU designated parcels. She spoke in support of the removal
of parcels that will dramatically affect lifestyles.
2:24:35 PM
BRETT CARLSON, COLDFOOT CAMP, testified in opposition to the
inclusion of the Coldfoot land selection. He gave a brief
history of the Coldfoot parcel. He believed that the intent
was to support the oil industry. Their lease requires them
to be open year round to provide services to the public. He
provided members with written remarks regarding the Coldfoot
Land Transfer. (Copy on File).
Mr. Carlson proposed that the State go through a public
planning process, which he maintained had not occurred. He
asked for a fair and rational public process.
2:30:24 PM
JOAN BRODIE, KODIAK, testified in opposition to the
legislation. She spoke in support of maintaining public
access to the narrow cape area. She pointed out that there
is only 70 miles of roads on the Kodiak Island & encouraged
that the area remain off the map for the University. She
urged reconsideration of the bill.
2:32:20 PM
KRISTEN DUNLAP, ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER, DOUGLAS INDIAN
ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, spoke on behalf of the Taku Quan
people. She stated that they are strongly opposed to the
public land conveyance contained in HB 130. She referred to
the Sum Dum Plot, a five-acre plot in Sanford Cove. She
pointed out the historical and cultural importance to these
people. Ms. Dunlap voiced concern over the University of
Alaska's poor history of land management. There are
concerns over public access and development. She believed
that the land acquisition would result in a reduction of
State support for the University.
2:35:11 PM
Representative Kelly asked for examples of the University's
failures. Ms. Dunlap provided examples of poor land
management. She pointed out unsafe logging practices in
University lands near Ketchikan, declared a contaminated
site by the Department of Environmental Conservation. In
the past, the University has not followed State and federal
land standards in developing their lands.
2:37:27 PM
ARTHUR BLOOM, CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS, TENAKEE, spoke in
opposition to the legislation. He commented that there are
two major problems with the lands selected around Tenakee.
There was a court order stipulation resulting between the
State and the City of Tenakee in 1981, which would be
breeched. He spoke to the zoning regulations currently in
place in Tenakee and that the zoning would not permit the
types of uses proposed by the University.
2:40:22 PM
MARY IRVINE, JUNEAU testified in opposition to the
legislation and provided members with written remarks and
maps. (Copy on File.) She spoke to the importance of the
archeological sites on State lands. She maintained that
these sites should be red flagged for their protection.
Forest service land is adjacent to the majority of these
parcels. She observed that the parcel in reference is only
5 acres. Tourism is a thriving business in the Tracy Arm
area. She noted that major archeological finds have been
made in that area.
Ms. Irvine referenced Page 5, Line 12, of the committee
substitute. She maintained that language would only
postponed the problems.
Ms. Irvine addressed the fiscal notes, which she felt were
unrealistic given the testimony over the last several
months. This is the biggest lands bill since the Alaska
Natives Settlement Act. She urged that the notes be
revisited.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS pointed out that these lands could
attract research dollars as archeological sites. Ms. Irvine
responded that the University currently has access to these
lands and that scholars are working with the parcels. She
maintained that if the parcel is part of the lands bill,
there is a greater risk that it would be alienated.
2:54:13 PM
DANIEL TRAIL, THOMS PLACE, WRANGELL, spoke in opposition to
the legislation. He read a Resolution against the transfer
of the Thoms Place parcel. (Copy on File.) He maintained
that the University could be funded by the State if the
State desired. The only reason for giving the land is to
remove the public process. He referred to the committee
substitute and asked for the removal of Thoms Place parcel.
The parcel being proposed for transfer is three times the
size of the community. It encompasses areas used by locals
and areas that have historic importance. Mr. Trail referred
to Page 7, Line 15. He concluded that the Thoms Place
Association would be included in the provision.
3:02:30 PM
MATT DAVIDSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA CONSERVATION
VOTERS (ACV), JUNEAU, testified in opposition to the
legislation. He clarified that there is no trigger that the
State must meet in terms of the land transfer. The federal
provision would match lands transferred to the University on
an acre-by-acre basis. He commented that non-public
purposes are not appropriate and expressed concern that the
lands would be sold for private ownership. He noted that
many of the lands were selected for their public purpose.
He referred to the fiscal aspect of the transfer. He
maintained that the purpose is not to fully fund the
University. He spoke strongly against the liquidation of
State lands as contained in HB 130.
HB 130 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|