Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 09:03 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 1995
9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Eileen MacLean
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CSSB 16(FIN) am: "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and
university land, authorizing the University of
Alaska to select additional state public domain
land, and defining net income from the University
of Alaska's endowment trust fund as 'university
receipts' subject to prior legislative
appropriation."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 91: "An Act amending the area within designated
marine park units of the Alaska state park
system, and adding marine park units to the
Alaska state park system."
CSHB 91(RES) PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN SHIVELY, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2400
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 16
MARTIN EPSTEIN, Director
Land Management
University of Alaska
3890 University Lane
Anchorage, AK 99508
Phone: 786-7766
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 16
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
University of Alaska
3rd Floor Signers' Hall
Fairbanks, AK 99774
Phone: 474-7211
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 16 and answered questions
regarding SB 16
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Ste. 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 762-2692
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 16
KATTARYNA BENNETT, House Researcher
to Representative Caren Robinson
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 114
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 91
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 114
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 91
BILL GARRY, Superintendent
Southeast Area
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-4563
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 91
TED MERRELL
3240 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 789-7876
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 91
GAIL BILLS
536 Park Street, Apt. A
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-9566
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 91
CRISTI HERREN, Representative
Juneau State Parks Advisory Board
477 W. 11th Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-9857
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 91
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 16
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIV. OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) FRANK, Kelly, Sharp, Rieger, Miller;
REPRESENTATIVE(S)
Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/06/95 17 (S) PREFILE RELEASED - 1/6/95
01/16/95 17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (S) CRA, RES, FIN
01/20/95 60 (S) COSPONSOR(S): RIEGER
02/15/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) CRA AT 01:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/20/95 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/95 365 (S) CRA RPT CS 2DP 3NR SAME TITLE
02/22/95 366 (S) FISCAL NOTES (F&G, DNR, UA)
02/22/95 366 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTES (REV-2)
03/03/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/17/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/95 695 (S) RES RPT 3DP 1DNP 1NR (CRA)CS
03/20/95 696 (S) FN (DNR)
03/20/95 696 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (F&G, DNR, UA)
03/20/95 696 (S) ZERO FNS (REV-2)
03/23/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/23/95 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/95 788 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 1DNP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/27/95 789 (S) FNS TO CS (DNR, F&G)
03/27/95 789 (S) ZERO FN (REV)
03/27/95 789 (S) PREVIOUS FNS (UA, DNR)
03/27/95 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/28/95 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
03/28/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/10/95 956 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/10/95
04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/10/95 958 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/10/95 958 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 16(FIN) AM
04/10/95 958 (S) COSPONSOR: MILLER
04/10/95 959 (S) (S) ADOPTED ZHAROFF LETTER OF INTENT
04/10/95 959 (S) PASSED Y11 N9
04/10/95 959 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
04/11/95 983 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/11/95 984 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/12/95 1276 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/12/95 1277 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/25/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/26/95 1557 (H) CRA REFERRAL WAIVED
04/27/95 (H) RES AT 04:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/28/95 (H) RES AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 91
SHORT TITLE: MARINE PARKS ADDITIONS/CHANGES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROBINSON, Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/95 52 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 52 (H) TRA, STA, RES, FIN
03/29/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/30/95 993 (H) TRA RPT 4NR
03/30/95 993 (H) NR: MACLEAN, WILLIAMS, BRICE, G.DAVIS
03/30/95 993 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
04/13/95 1315 (H) STA RPT 3DP 3NR
04/13/95 1315 (H) DP: JAMES, WILLIS, ROBINSON
04/13/95 1315 (H) NR: PORTER, GREEN, OGAN
04/13/95 1315 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 3/30/95
04/13/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/13/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/28/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/95 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-61, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Joe Green at 9:03 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman, and Kott.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
SB 16 - INCREASE LAND GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
JOHN SHIVELY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR),
said the department does not support SB 16. He stated the
department does not believe it makes good public policy to transfer
one million acres of state land to the university. He noted at
best some kind of short-term incremental benefit for the state will
be received. The university has argued if they receive the land,
there are less restrictions on how they develop the land and they
can develop it faster. He observed that is an accurate argument,
although those processes are all under review by the
administration, as to whether or not the state's processes are too
complex.
MR. SHIVELY stated he does not believe there is currently a huge
bonanza out there that will make a big dent in the state's budget
by getting lands out to development one year, two years or even
five years quicker. He felt there are other opportunities for the
university. Currently, many people think the federal government
has more land than it needs and in Alaska, the federal government
is the largest landowner. He stated the department has offered
support to the university to go back to discuss federal lands with
Congress and the administration.
MR. SHIVELY said even if the university pays DNR to do the work
necessary to transfer the land, it is extra work and an extra cost
to be taken out of the incremental benefit. He noted the fact that
SB 16 is a 13 page bill indicates the complexity the state is
facing in trying to get something that makes sense. He felt the
bill will further complicate things and does not give the state the
benefit it needs at this point.
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN asked why the first course would not be to
try and get the land the university needs from the federal
government.
MR. SHIVELY responded he is not even sure where the one million
acres figure came from. He said his understanding is it is just a
figure that was determined to give the university a land base from
which they can generate income in order to offset university
expenses. He noted there is no magic to the number. He pointed
out at the time of statehood, there was no guarantee as to how much
land the university would get.
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS felt Mr. Shively was off base in regard
to his comments about the benefits that would be received and the
costs it would take to get the land to the university. He said the
state has 105 million acres of land and is in a very tight budget
crunch presently. He stated it is a proven fact, at least in
regard to the Native corporations, the lands were made to work.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt if the university got the land, they
would make it work and the amount of money the university would
receive by managing it would be received faster since they are in
the private sector. He said anytime one has to go through a
process like the state has to go through in managing its lands...if
it takes five years to get a piece of legislation out or five years
to get a timber sale out, the marketplace has been lost. He found
Mr. Shively's comments disturbing.
MR. SHIVELY stated if SB 16 passes, the university will not have
one million acres of land. Rather, they will have the right to
negotiate with the state to get one million acres of land. He said
that land would take some time to transfer. He pointed out the
single, most viable resource the state has to sell is timber. The
potential for oil and gas leasing for the university is not great
and mining would not give them much ready revenue. He noted the
university will still have to manage any timber given to them under
the sustained yield requirement, which is a requirement the Native
corporations do not have.
MR. SHIVELY said it is not clear whether or not the university, if
they do not manage their resources responsibly, will also have the
same requirements the state does, either through the Board of
Regents or the legislature, since they are a public body. He
stated there is no question the university can get things out
faster than the department can but it is an incremental time value
to the state and may be responsive to the timber market. He
reiterated the university is not going to have the land July 1, and
probably will not have it by July 1, 1996, if SB 16 is passed.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted that Mr. Shively had been a land manager
for quite some time in the Native community and knows the Native
community has not received all of its 44 million acres of land. He
said when that land is received, it is known the land will not
start working immediately. He stated it takes a lot of management
time to get that land working in the right manner. He felt if the
university at least got the nod they were going to get the land,
they would start managing it.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) was passed in 1971. He stated the village corporation he
is from still has not received all of its conveyances but is
planning for it and has had the time to plan for it.
Number 242
MR. SHIVELY stated the Native corporations, even though they have
not received all of their entitlement, have a good idea where that
entitlement is going to come from. The university, on the other
hand, will be selecting out of 83 million acres and it is not as
easy for them to plan exactly what lands they are going to get,
whether it will be timber, minerals, or lands used for individual
land disposals. He stressed he is not saying there would be no
benefit to the state. He is not sure the incremental benefit the
state will get is worth the process required to determine where the
university gets their one million acres of land, taking the
department's attention away from other things.
MR. SHIVELY said the last time it was a contentious issue as to
which lands the university was going to get. He noted the state
just went through one major distribution of state lands with the
mental health trust issue, which still is not completed. He
thought the mental health trust land disposal will take at least
two more years.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS felt the university understands the processing
required. He said this land grant will provide jobs and noted the
Governor has talked about families and jobs over and over.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked what kind of process will be
involved in selecting the one million acres.
Number 283
MR. SHIVELY responded the process could happen in several different
ways. Ordinarily what would happen is the university would look at
the state's land base and make suggestions as to which lands they
might want title to. Assuming the state and the university could
come to some agreement, the process of transferring the lands would
begin. He noted there are certain lands mentioned in SB 16 which
the university cannot look at.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "You made a very good point in that if
those lands that could be convertible perhaps into money generating
interests within a reasonable foreseeable future, those are
excluded from their selection base. Would that then...your early
comments kind of set the stage that what they would be
selecting...unless they were going to wait and see what happens to
the other 20 million acres that we eventually get patent to...would
be goat pasture..."
MR. SHIVELY stated currently, lands which have immediate economic
value are timber lands not on the department's five year schedule.
He said lands with oil and gas leasing potential are unknown. The
department is doing some frontier areas now and proposing some
lands not having a lot of potential. He said the department would
probably not want to give lands on the North Slope to the
university. Otherwise, it is lands the university might want to
lease for recreational use. He noted those type of lands do not
bring a huge amount of money to either the university or the state.
Number 331
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT questioned based on the one million acres to be
selected and all the exclusions built into the bill, how much land
is potentially available.
MR. SHIVELY replied he did not know the answer to the question. He
said if the map on the wall is looked at, particularly the blue
areas, there would still be a substantial portion of the land
available to the university but what kind of economic value there
is in much of that land is questionable. He stated it might be
possible for the university to look at approximately one-half of
the state's entitlement.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representative Nicholai
had joined the committee at 9:10 a.m.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the two issues causing concern are why the
university would not be selecting federal lands rather than state
lands and the nebulous number of one million acres as it relates to
the university's need. He stated the annual report of the
Statewide Office of Land Management indicates the Wrangell-St.
Elias Park had selected about 250,000 acres of university land and
the exchange amount had not been arrived at yet. He wondered if
that is something which would continue.
MR. SHIVELY clarified the question is whether the university might
sell or trade the one million acres.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN replied yes.
MR. SHIVELY stated he could not answer the question. He felt the
university has done a good job in managing their assets.
Number 385
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated in Section 4 of SB 16, on page 4, lines
24 through 29, prior existing rights are addressed including coal
leases, mining claims, and timber sales. He asked how these prior
rights will be handled under the provisions of SB 16.
MR. SHIVELY said it was his understanding those lands are not
available to the university.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted there does not seem to be any provision
in SB 16 for a minimum size for selections and conveyances. He
thought it might make more sense, and be cheaper for the state to
convey lands in a minimum size of 640 acres. He said that is the
way land selections by the state, under the Statehood Act, are
handled.
MR. SHIVELY stated he cannot answer the question. He agreed the
larger the parcel conveyed, the easier it is. He thought in
dealing with the university, the department would try to address
that issue.
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if SB 16 would have an impact
on the Tanana Valley State Forest.
MR. SHIVELY said the Tanana Valley State Forest is a designated
area and it is his understanding if the land is in a unit like a
state forest, it is unavailable for selection but there are other
state lands in that forest which could be available.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA stated the Tanana Valley State Forest is a
popular place for people interested in the timber industry which
concerns her.
Number 437
MARTIN EPSTEIN, DIRECTOR, LAND MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA,
testified via teleconference and stated he was available for
questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled a question regarding the university
selecting state land versus trying to get federal land.
WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, responded the
university has pursued a federal land grant and has spoken at
length with Senator Stevens and Representative Young. They have
told the university they do not see any opportunity for that to
occur at this point in time. She noted Senator Stevens and
Representative Young are helping the university with some language
which would free up some constraints on the university's original
land grant.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if they gave a reason.
MS. REDMAN stated the rationale goes back to the original land
grant. She said at the time of statehood, when the original land
grant was extinguished, the rationale was that because the federal
government was giving the state so much land, the federal
government told the state they could pick up the balance.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that was here say and not written
anywhere.
MS. REDMAN said there is nothing written. However, there is a
record that people have researched at the time of statehood but
there is nothing in the formal dissolution of the original
conveyance acknowledging the state would pick up the difference.
Number 475
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that is based on memory, would there be
any merit to a joint resolution to the federal government. He also
wondered if there is any urgency in the university getting the land
before such a resolution could be acted on.
MS. REDMAN stated a resolution would be helpful. She thought a
resolution asking the federal government to match the amount
finally realized through SB 16 would be beneficial. She said the
university would encourage the legislature to move forward with
conveyance of some portion of land.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the university has specific land it
would like to select.
MS. REDMAN responded the university does not have specific plans
for any lands, although Mr. Epstein is aware of lands available.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled he had earlier referred to the annual
report of the Statewide Office of Land Management which had
mentioned the 250,000 acre transfer. He asked for comments on that
transfer.
MR. EPSTEIN stated the item Representative Green is referring to
was a sale of land to the National Park Service (NPS). He said the
NPS plans to construct its Wrangell-St. Elias headquarters on that
property. He noted the sale was quite advantageous to the
university because in addition to receiving funds for the sale of
the property, the university will also benefit from the large
number of employees and tourists who stop in to visit the
headquarters site because the university owns the land surrounding
the parcel sold.
MS. REDMAN explained it is the policy of the Board of Regents to
not sell land unless there is an enormous benefit or it is
impossible for the university to determine a way to develop the
land effectively. She said the university's land grant lands are
held for a long term to develop revenues, so it is quite unusual
for the university to sell land.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the article in the report says the final
purchase price had not yet been determined. He asked if that sale
had been consummated yet.
MR. EPSTEIN replied the university got fair market value for the
land sold to the NPS and at this point, and some incalculable value
that the surrounding lands will benefit from due to the presence of
the employees and tourists. He stated the NPS was unwilling to
invest in a new headquarters on leased lands.
Number 543
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked why the number one million acres was
chosen, since the university does not have a plan already.
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LAND, DNR, testified via
teleconference and stated he has no idea where the figure came
from. He did not think there was any justification behind the
number as far as past legislation on the federal side. He stated
the only thing he can surmise is that the mental health trust land
was one million acres and perhaps the university felt their land
grant should be equal to that amount.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the state is entitled to more lands
from the federal government.
MR. SWANSON replied the state currently owns 89 million acres and
the full entitlement is 106 million acres.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS questioned whether or not the state can get
more than the 106 million acres.
MR. SWANSON responded no and added that amount of land is all the
state is entitled to under the Statehood Act.
Number 574
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the state gives the university one
million acres, could that one million acres be picked up as part of
the 106 million acres.
MR. SWANSON stated no.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled the commissioner had indicated that
because of the restrictions in SB 16 and the problems with the
mental health settlement, it would be costly manpower wise and that
the value of the land left available would be diminished. He asked
Mr. Swanson to comment. He wondered since the plan is not there
yet and there is no justification for the one million acres, why is
there such an urgency.
MR. SWANSON stated the best thing he can do is compare this to the
mental health issue which everyone has suffered through for the
last decade. In the end, the legislature designated 900,000 plus
acres to become mental health land and the department went through
a very exhaustive process to identify those lands with
environmental groups, public interest groups, and industry. He
said the bottom line is there is not that much out there for the
state to offer. He noted the state has a lot of habitat land,
recreation land, etc., but not a lot of land available immediately.
MR. SWANSON said the concerns with SB 16 include having the
university select land, the department conveying the land and
getting challenged at every turn by industry or interest groups.
With SB 16, the department will probably be challenged by someone
on every acre. He thought it was a much better process to identify
the land up front and get it behind them. He stated he is not
aware of any land, other than possibly timber, that can be turned
into bucks right away.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted last year, the legislature passed an
exploration licensing bill for large blocks of acreage to be put up
for concession-type leasing and those are not on the five year
forecast now. He asked if the selection of land took some time,
would that allow the university to come into a concession-type
block and select land not on the five year forecast.
MR. SWANSON said if the land is not on the five year schedule, the
university may select it.
MS. REDMAN stated SB 16 allows an additional five years for the
state to get things into the five year plan before the university
can even select. She added the commissioner controls every acre of
land put up for conveyance. She said she was incredulous with the
discussion.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified there is no over-topping. He said this
is only a selection that is subject to the approval of the DNR
commissioner.
Number 632
MS. REDMAN stated the DNR commissioner has total control over what
lands are put up for possible selection by the university. The
restrictions within the bill relative to the state's five year oil
and gas plan...everything is off limits. She said as a result of
concerns expressed last year, an additional five years for the
state to get things into the oil and gas plan has been provided.
Therefore, the university could not select any oil and gas lands
for ten years.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified the university's plan cannot proceed
until the land is selected. He wondered if the university has a
plan they would select around.
MS. REDMAN replied yes to both. She said the university cannot
proceed until lands are put up for selection by the commissioner.
She noted the university currently has 100,000 acres in the state
on which it is generating substantial income from currently. The
university's plan for new selections would be compatible with what
it has now in terms of trying to build a diverse portfolio,
including lands which may be contiguous to lands the university
currently has. She stressed the university is trying to determine
ways to generate new revenue for the state as the university is
part of the state. Therefore, every dollar the university can
generate on state land is a new dollar generated for the state.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled it has been mentioned several times that
the only land available for the university's selection would be
either timber lands or high speculation lands.
MS. REDMAN stated the university is also making money on gravel and
recreational property. She said while it might be true that the
university is not looking at a bonanza, there is a steady stream of
additional income out there, which may not be great in terms of a
Prudhoe Bay but if it is generating one, two, or five million
dollars a year in additional revenue to the state, that is
significant over the long term. She pointed out that is additional
revenue not currently coming into the state.
MS. REDMAN said she appreciates Mr. Swanson's concerns about
additional work for DNR, which is the reason the university assumed
it would pick up all costs of the selections. She reiterated the
commissioner is in total control of how the lands get put up for
conveyance. Therefore, the university is agreeable to making some
sort of agreement with the commissioner on a mechanism to try and
adjust the department's workload.
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Redman if she has a map of the
lands the university is thinking about selecting.
MS. REDMAN stated the university does not have lands it may be
thinking about selecting and pointed out all of the blue areas on
the map on the wall. She noted the commissioner would first have
to put lands up for possible selection.
TAPE 95-61, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked when the university would begin
identifying lands for selection.
MS. REDMAN replied with the exception of oil and gas lands, or
lands currently tied up in the mental health settlement, the
identification of lands could begin immediately upon passage of SB
16, so the commissioner could put lands up for possible selection.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN clarified it is up to the DNR
commissioner.
MS. REDMAN replied it is totally up to the commissioner.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted only 80 percent of the state's lands are
patented currently. He asked if the university anticipates, and it
started now, they would be (indiscernible) for some of those or
would it confine its selections to that which is already patented.
MS. REDMAN responded the university would probably be doing some
betting in terms of lands that would be freed up when the mental
health settlement is concluded. She said there is a ten year
selection period, so the university would not select all of the
land in the next couple of years.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the university anticipates any degree of
similarity between the university's selection and the mental health
trust selection.
MS. REDMAN stated the university does not expect anything like
that. She stressed the university is prohibited from entering into
any litigation. She recognized Mr. Swanson's dilemma because as
far as he is concerned, in terms of the land selections and
conveyance, there is no difference between the mental health
situation and the university's situation. She noted Mr. Swanson
still will be hassled with a lot of land selection problems. She
said the university is sympathetic to that and is interested in
trying to mitigate that as much as possible.
MS. REDMAN added there is still a possibility third parties may
enter into complaints, grievances, litigation, etc., relative to
the final selection. She said the university would, through the
public process and through local community efforts, try to mitigate
as much of that as possible. She pointed out it is not in the
university's interest, as a major public agency in the state, to
get into any kind of conflict with different regional interests.
The university's interest is to try and reach land resource plans
within a region which people have general agreement on.
Number 083
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted Ms. Redman had indicated the selection
process could take up to ten years. He thought the university has
until the year 2009 to make the final selections. If that is
correct, he has a question regarding the fiscal note. He stated
the fiscal note shows a $71,000 amount tied to SB 16 beginning
fiscal year 1996. He asked if the selection process drags on until
2009, can it be assumed the $71,000 will carry forward until 2009
if that is when the university makes their final selection.
MR. SWANSON responded the university is going to be in control of
the way they make their selections. He assumed at the beginning
there would be a minimal amount of work (indiscernible) most amount
of work. He thought the $71,000 could go up an incremental amount
over that depending on the agency's (indiscernible) and demand.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted there is $60,000 in the fiscal note tied
to personal services. He asked if one person would be added to the
department's staff to work the issue.
MR. SWANSON replied that is a fair assumption. He stated the
details would need to be worked out with the university since they
would do the majority of the work. However, the department would
need one staff person to review best interest findings, final
findings, etc.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted it does not really matter if the expense is
through DNR or the university, the state still has to pay.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that was his argument. He pointed out the
state is obligated in the end to fund this.
MS. REDMAN said the costs are funded with proceeds from the land.
Therefore, program receipts money would be used to fund the
position.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if those proceeds are from the land to be
acquired.
MS. REDMAN replied the costs would be funded from the university's
current land grant funds. She said funds from all of the
university's land development go into a statutorily set up natural
resource fund which the legislature appropriates.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out if the university receives one
million more acres and it starts generating more funds, the $71,000
is well spent.
(Representative DAVIES joined the committee.)
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there were at least five amendments to be
made and there is not time to hear them. He assigned the bill to
a sub-committee to review the amendments. He stated the sub-
committee will be chaired by Representative Kott and include
Representatives Davies and Green. He said the committee will hear
SB 16 again on Wednesday, May 3.
Number
HB 91 MARINE PARKS ADDITIONS/CHANGES
Number 190
KATTARYNA BENNETT, HOUSE RESEARCHER TO REPRESENTATIVE CAREN
ROBINSON, PRIME SPONSOR, told committee members HB 91 designates 13
islands in the Juneau area as a state marine park. The islands
included in this parcel are located in Lynn Canal. They are unique
because they can all be reached within a few minutes by skiff or a
few hours by kayak from the Juneau road system. She stated the
primary use of the selected lands has been, historically, for
recreation purposes.
MS. BENNETT said in 1977, the islands were nominated by the city
and borough of Juneau for state selection from the Tongass National
Forest for recreation purposes. In 1989, the state selected the
Channel Islands from the federal government under the Alaska
Statehood Act. She explained establishing the lands as a state
park would preserve the quality of existing and future recreational
usage and put the lands under the jurisdiction of the Division of
Parks, which is the proper enforcement agency for the land usage.
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON, PRIME SPONSOR, noted that many of
the committee members had heard HB 91 in another committee. She
stated HB 91 is not her bill, it is not Representative Elton's bill
but rather is a Juneau bill. She noted this bill has passed the
House in the past and then got hung up in the Senate Rules
Committee. She pointed out the local borough assembly has a
resolution in committee member folders in support of HB 91. People
in the real estate agencies are also supportive of HB 91.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted very small islands are being
discussed. She said the islands are already being used as parks
and HB 91 gives the Division of Parks, working with the local
community, the type of enforcement needed to manage the islands
properly. She noted local citizen groups are willing to help and
do what is needed to ensure that no additional responsibility is
put on the state. She reiterated HB 91 was requested by the
community and has a lot of support.
Number 259
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted Shelter Island is a popular deer hunting
island and is also used by duck hunters.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated all existing permissible uses are
still allowed under HB 91. She pointed out HB 91 ensures the
property is being managed appropriately. She noted the Alaska
Outdoor Council has a letter of support in committee member
folders.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if homesteads are affected by HB 91.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied homesteads would not be affected by
HB 91. She said the homesteaders have also expressed their support
for HB 91.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the state took ownership of the
islands and offered the land for private ownership, would there be
any interest.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said several years ago, any available land
was offered through the land lottery.
BILL GARRY, SUPERINTENDENT, SOUTHEAST AREA, DIVISION OF PARKS AND
OUTDOOR RECREATION, DNR, stated lands selected for disposal were
those lands at the south end of Shelter Island, which are the most
easily accessed. He noted there still are lots available there.
He explained the rest of the lands are fairly steep and access is
difficult. He said the other islands were selected mainly for
recreational use.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified this land was made available to the
public at some point in the past.
Number 316
MR. GARRY said the land made available on the south end of Shelter
Island was identified early on as the best for private disposal.
The state did not ask for the rest of the lands for disposal but
rather for public recreation. He noted under the Statehood Act,
there were two main themes for selection from the National Forests
--either community development or public recreation. He stated the
rest of the lands selected, which now have been tentatively
approved, were selected for public recreation. He felt if the
islands were made available for disposal, someone would probably
come forward and buy them as speculation. He added as far as the
islands' appropriateness for development and disposal, there has
not been any public support for that.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN wondered if there had been any discussion
about turning the ownership of this area to the Juneau community
rather than the state.
MR. GARRY replied the city does not have any further selection
rights under its municipal and selection entitlements. The city
has completed its selection.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said every year there are discussions
about closing certain state parks due to budget constraints. He
noted there is a zero fiscal note attached to HB 91 due to the
community's willingness to help. He asked if the community is not
willing to help, would this park be closed.
MR. GARRY stated funding for this park is not important at this
point. He said passive management exists. There are no plans to
put any facilities on the island, so there is nothing to close. He
stated the islands will always be available. The community has, on
a long term basis, volunteered to take care of the islands on a
volunteer basis.
Number 367
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked how the islands are currently policed.
MR. GARRY said the intent is to make the policing all volunteer.
He stated the division currently goes out to Shelter Island Marine
State Park and clean it up once a year. Volunteers would be relied
on to take care of the other areas.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained there is the Juneau State Parks
Advisory Board and the Parks Board through the city. She said as
with other parks, where volunteers are used, the intent is to work
with existing groups. She noted the Southeast Alaska Guidance
Program is very interested in working with the department to assist
in doing whatever is needed to keep the areas clean. She stated
many of these organizations not only have the skills, but also have
the equipment needed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it is hoped that the different groups
will be able to assist the department in doing the minimal kinds of
things that need to happen. She noted these things will have to
happen regardless of whether or not the islands are transferred.
She stated the citizens of Juneau are frequently using these
islands for recreation and one way or the other, the islands have
to be kept clean.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there will not be any change within the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and all land available for
private holdings have been sold, what is the advantage of
converting the islands to state park status versus leaving them as
they are.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON replied the main reason for converting the
islands to a state park is to give authority to the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation to assist in appropriate policing
which may need to happen, including signs informing the public
about fire management, cleanliness, etc.
Number 415
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified the public can take better care of
the state's land than the state can.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON responded that is correct.
TED MERRELL, JUNEAU, expressed support for HB 91.
GAIL BILLS, JUNEAU, expressed support for HB 91.
CRISTI HERREN, REPRESENTATIVE, JUNEAU STATE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD,
said her board was instrumental in asking Representative Robinson
to introduce HB 91 and is very much in support of HB 91.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted if HB 91 is passed, that will be a few
more acres less available.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a MOTION to CONCEPTUALLY AMEND HB 91
ensuring hunting would be preserved in perpetuity in the park.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she did not object to the amendment
but noted it is clearly in the statute that has to happen.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES made a MOTION to MOVE HB 91, as amended, with
zero fiscal note, out of committee with individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:15 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|