Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/07/1999 01:59 PM 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 7, 1999
1:59 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Sanders, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act modifying the Department of Natural Resources' power to
control and manage certain land within the Hatcher Pass Public
Use Area and making that land available for selection by the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to the sovereignty of the State of Alaska and the
sovereign right of the State of Alaska to manage the natural
resources of Alaska.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: HATCHER PASS PUBLIC USE AREA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/06/99 1201 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/06/99 1201 (H) RESOURCES
5/07/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Scott Ogan
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2338
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 227 on behalf of sponsor.
JANE ANGVIK, Director
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-8503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager
Southcentral Region Office
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-8559
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 227.
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Deputy Commissioner
Anchorage Office
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1122
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-8431
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about fiscal note for
HB 227.
GREG ROMACK
Hatcher Pass Development Corporation, Incorporated
740 Bonanza
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 562-2336
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
MIKE SCOTT, Manager
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia Avenue
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 272-1068
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
RON SWENSON, Director
Community Development
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia Avenue
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-9868
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 227.
JIM TURNER, Assembly Member
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
P.O. Box 1567
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-6161
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
KATHY WELLS
P.O. Box 3331
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 373-6414
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 227.
KEVIN KEELER
5460 East 112th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-3475
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 227.
NANCY MICHAELSON
HC 5, Box 6916F
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-6673
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 227.
GARY MICHAELSON
HCR 5, P.O. Box 6916-F
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-6673
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 227.
DARCIE SALMON, Mayor
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia Avenue
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
DORI McDANNOLD
Valley Alaska Center for the Environment
HC03, P.O. Box 8012
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 745-4801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 227.
GARVAN BUCARIA
P.O. Box 870298
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 373-4974
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227 and suggested a public
hearing be held in the Mat-Su area.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-31, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:59 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ogan, Sanders, Masek, Morgan
and Barnes. Representatives Joule, Harris, Whitaker and Kapsner
joined the meeting at 2:01 p.m., 2:05 p.m., 2:09 p.m. and 2:18
p.m., respectively.
HB 227 - HATCHER PASS PUBLIC USE AREA
CO-CHAIR OGAN announced the committee would hear House Bill No.
227, "An Act modifying the Department of Natural Resources'
power to control and manage certain land within the Hatcher Pass
Public Use Area and making that land available for selection by
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if the Commissioner of Natural
Resources was there.
CO-CHAIR OGAN answered no, that he had been asked to come but
was not coming.
Number 0199
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant to Representative Scott
Ogan, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 227, noting that
the packet contains a memorandum that sets out some background
information. He explained that the sections used to formulate
HB 227 were taken from SB 140, basically Section 4 and Section
25. There is also a proposed committee substitute (CS)
reflecting language that the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) and the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough, after long
negotiations, agreed upon to safeguard public uses of the
resources in the area, and also to allow a small portion of land
along the road to be transferred to the Mat-Su Borough, as it
relates to the proposed Hatcher Pass development area. That
land, just over 900 acres, is delineated in both the proposed CS
and the original bill.
Number 0327
CO-CHAIR SANDERS made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for HB
227, version 1-LS0949\D, Kurtz, 5/6/99, as a work draft. There
being no objection, Version D was before the committee.
Number 0401
[Underlined by hand on Version D were the following: Page 1,
lines 9 - 12, beginning with "Furthermore"; page 3, lines 22 -
25, beginning with "subject"; and all of the language in
subsection (b) on page 4, lines 2 - 11.]
MR. STANCLIFF noted that the language which the borough and the
DNR arrived at through consensus was hand-underlined in the
committee copy of Version D. On page 1, preceding the hand-
underlined language, is wording which Co-Chair Ogan believed
necessary to reflect that the original record, established in
setting up this area, had indicated that the land in the Hatcher
Pass Public Use Area would be available for municipal selection.
It was taken from Senate Finance Committee minutes in 1986,
relating to a question by Senator Halford and a response by Mr.
Ned Farquar, then Special Assistant to the Commissioner, who had
indicated this land would be available for municipal selection.
Since that time, however, there has been some re-evaluation of
that particular position. Therefore, it was thought by all
parties - the borough, the state and Co-Chair Ogan - that
specific legislation authorizing such a transfer should be put
forth; that is the proposed CS before the committee, Version D.
MR. STANCLIFF reported that Section 1 is the findings of fact;
Section 2 describes the area of the Hatcher Pass Public Use
Area; and Section 3 lays out the requirements regarding this new
area. On page 3, line 23, is an agreed-upon reference, AS
38.05.035 and AS 38.05.945, which makes it clear that the
director has full authority in the decision-making process, and
that the proper public notice for hearings regarding this
transfer should take place. A map in the packets shows this
narrow strip along the Hatcher Pass road, which is necessary for
the access for this project. The map shows the general idea of
the development plan, which has been in the making for several
years.
MR. STANCLIFF explained that Section 3 sets some dates and times
certain for land selection; it also states that any land not
conveyed by the DNR shall remain available for conveyance to the
Mat-Su Borough until all administrative and judicial appeals
regarding the failure to convey the land have been exhausted.
It keeps in place another option if there is not agreement,
however. The lands are ultimately conveyed to the Mat-Su
Borough following the exhaustion of the administrative and
judicial appeals, and shall remain in the Hatcher Pass Public
Use Area unless otherwise specified by law. Section 4 refers to
this taking effect once the transaction has been agreed on, and
says the DNR shall promptly notify the Revisor of Statutes of
the conveyance once it occurs.
Number 0750
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if the Mat-Su Borough has selected
this land as part of its municipal land grant.
MR. STANCLIFF answered that he didn't know for sure, but that
the borough manager could be asked.
Number 0879
JANE ANGVIK, Director, Division of Land, Department of Natural
Resources, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She
informed members that the DNR has worked closely with the Mat-Su
Borough on the language of HB 227, and they are supportive of
the bill. The selection of lands by a municipal government is a
two-step process, she said. First, they exercise their right to
select the land. Second, the DNR goes through a public review
process to determine if it is in the state's best interest for
lands to be passed from the state to a municipal government.
The question today is: Should a portion of the Hatcher Pass
Public Use Area, which was set aside by the legislature, be made
available so that the Mat-Su Borough could select it?
MS. ANGVIK indicated that currently, its being a public use area
precludes it from selection by the borough. However the bill
before them says that, notwithstanding the previous action of
the legislature, this strip of land could be selected by the
Mat-Su Borough as part of its municipal entitlement. The bill
further says that, should they choose to select any portion of
this land, the DNR would then go through a public decision-
making process; if it is found to be in the best interest of the
state, it could convey these lands to the Mat-Su Borough.
Number 1012
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked what the status is of the Hatcher
Pass ski area under the DNR.
MS. ANGVIK said as she understands the history, the area was set
aside as a legislatively designated area, to see whether it is
possible to develop a ski area in Hatcher Pass. The boundary
for that management area differs from this strip along the road,
which was set aside as the public use area. There were numerous
efforts to offer the land for lease, Ms. Angvik noted. Today,
the Mat-Su Borough has management authority for the land, while
the state retains both ownership of the land and oversight on
the development plan for the ski area. Davis Construction
Company is currently the lessee on the state holdings.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Angvik whether it is a lease
from the state or from the Mat-Su Borough to a private entity.
Number 1170
MS. ANGVIK answered that the lease is owned by the state, and it
is between the state of Alaska and Davis Construction. There is
a memorandum of agreement between the state of Alaska and the
Mat-Su Borough to allow the borough to manage the lease, but it
requires the state's oversight. Although it has been assigned
to the borough, the state still owns it.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if any income from a ski resort
developed on state land would be income to the state.
MS. ANGVIK affirmed that. The way it is today, however, income
generated from the lease will accrue to the Mat-Su Borough.
Number 1237
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether that is the way it is today
or the way it would be if this legislation passed.
MS. ANGVIK responded that the legislation will not affect that
question. Rather, it will affect the ability of the borough to
own the land. The income is determined by the terms of the
lease, and the state has already put the Mat-Su Borough in the
position of managing the lease; therefore, the income generated
from the lease will accrue to the Mat-Su Borough today, with or
without this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Angvik who negotiated this lease
that allows the borough to have the income from state land.
Number 1309
MS. ANGVIK replied that they went through a public notice
process to assign the management of the lease to the Mat-Su
Borough, approximately three months ago.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if Ms. Angvik negotiated it herself.
MS. ANGVIK said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Ms. Angvik why she would negotiate
away state revenues and how she can do that.
Number 1366
MS. ANGVIK answered that the intention of the memorandum of
agreement between the state and the Mat-Su Borough was to
enhance the opportunity for the development of the ski area to
proceed. As a completely state-owned, state-operated project,
it allows local government to try to accrue additional resources
to help build the development. If the borough is the land
manager with access to local resources, they could enhance the
state land in a regional economic development effort.
Number 1433
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Ms. Angvik if this has been a cost savings
to the state. He commented that this has been going on for
years with another developer who didn't have the capitalization
and support.
MS. ANGVIK replied that it will save money in that they don't
have to focus as much energy on the Hatcher Pass development as
in the past. The real intention, however, was to provide the
borough with a capacity to assist in the development of the
project with other resources that are available to the borough
but not to the state.
Number 1497
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Like what?"
MS. ANGVIK stated her understanding that they have an economic
development fund and economic development program, which comes
from other sources that they were interested in exploring as an
underpinning for the project; they would be in a better position
to use those resources if they were the managers of the land.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked exactly how long this revenue
sharing without statutory authority will continue before the
funds revert to the state for state land.
MS. ANGVIK answered that the memorandum of agreement assigns the
state's interest in the lease to the Mat-Su Borough. There are
50 years left on the lease.
Number 1588
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked what statutory authority Ms. Angvik had
used for this. Noting that he'd never heard of it, he further
asked whether this is done all the time in Alaska.
MS. ANGVIK replied that the state has authority now to lease its
land, and to assign or dispose of the interest of its land,
under Title 38. Through a public process - including an
evaluation, a finding and a public notice - the state is able to
both sell and lease its lands and holdings to other entities,
including a borough.
Number 1654
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, "Under Title 38, do you also have
the right to convey a revenue stream from a lease to a local
government?"
MS. ANGVIK responded, "It is our interpretation of Title 38 that
the department has the ability to assign its interest in a
lease, and ... our interest in a lease also included the revenue
stream, as well ... as the management responsibility for the
lands."
Number 1671
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES requested that Ms. Angvik fax the legal
opinion giving her the right to convey state revenue. She added
that only the legislature has the right to appropriate.
Number 1717
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked how much the income is from the
lease.
MS. ANGVIK deferred to Rick Thompson, who had worked on the
development originally. She asked him to explain what the
income stream is anticipated to be from the Hatcher Pass lease
when the development actually occurs. She pointed out that no
income derives from the lease until it is developed.
Number 1768
RICK THOMPSON, Regional Manager, Southcentral Region Office,
Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources, spoke via
teleconference from Anchorage. He re-emphasized that there
currently is no income generated from the lease, as the income
stream begins when the development occurs onsite. The amount is
$95,000 annually, he said. When the gross revenues get to a
certain point, which he couldn't quote at the moment, the
revenue ratchets upward. It is a 55-year lease, with a little
more than 50 years left on it.
Number 1807
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if there are other examples of this
kind of arrangement.
MS. ANGVIK said she didn't know but would provide an answer
after checking records of other leases assigned by the state.
Number 1851
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired about a fiscal note from the DNR.
MS. ANGVIK replied that the cost would be for processing the
application from the municipal government, a service that the
DNR provides, and for conducting the public process and
determination of another municipal entitlement; the DNR has the
resources now to do that. The cost of surveys would be borne by
the municipality, as all municipal governments have the
responsibility to survey any lands provided to them through the
municipal entitlement program.
Number 1921
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if that is something the DNR normally does,
as part of its normal operating costs.
MS. ANGVIK replied, "Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have people on staff
who, as part of our operating budget, handle municipal
entitlements. When a municipality has requested that we
expedite the service, because they're desperate to have control
of the piece of land, we have asked municipal governments to
give us an expediting fee, which puts them to the front of the
line."
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if that should cover the cost of
transferring this, assuming the borough is willing to pay it.
MS. ANGVIK first said yes, then said she didn't know. "If it's
a regular, normal municipal entitlement, we have to ask to do
that," she added.
CO-CHAIR OGAN suggested saving that question for the borough
manager.
Number 1976
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired, regarding other land entitlements
or other boroughs in the state, if there have been expedition
requests that were acted upon. He noted that several boroughs,
including two in his district, have had outstanding entitlements
for years.
MS. ANGVIK replied that the legislature has authorized the DNR
to accept receipts if a municipal government has requested
expedited service; she believes they receive about $20-30,000 a
year as expediting fees, and three full-time people work on
municipal entitlements. There is no question that they are
behind in processing applications, she said, although many
boroughs are in the process of getting their entitlements.
Number 2049
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if one way to expedite entitlements
is through a bill.
MS. ANGVIK clarified that HB 227 doesn't do that. Rather, it
says they can select it, and then they stand in line, like
everybody else, while the DNR tries to process it. She stated,
"It's a two-step process. Step number one is, 'May we select
it?' Step number two is, 'Can we get in line with other
municipal governments, in order to apply for the ownership of -
or the transfer of - to a municipal government?'" She added
that it is a decision-making process and public process in which
the Northwest Arctic Borough and many other boroughs are
currently involved. In reply to a question by Representative
Barnes, Ms. Angvik said she had sent a fiscal note to Juneau.
CO-CHAIR OGAN reported that he had zeroed out the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that Co-Chair Ogan doesn't have
the authority to do that, but if the committee chooses to zero
it out, they can do so. She insisted on having a fiscal note.
Number 2147
MARTY RUTHERFORD, Deputy Commissioner, Anchorage Office,
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage, adding, "We had indicated that we thought that
there would be some costs associated with this conveyance. But
we also have felt, all along, that it's appropriate for the
borough be able to select this land, ... or to at least be
allowed to select it, so that we could go through the public
process to determine whether it's appropriate to convey it. But
we also know that it got a late start this year, so we felt that
we could probably handle the conveyance process with internal
staff; and, therefore, when we were notified that ... the bill
was at risk of not ... getting through this session, we agreed
that we would accept a zero fiscal note, so that it wouldn't
have to kill the bill until the next session."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES restated that if this bill will cost
anything, the DNR must put before this committee the proper
fiscal note. "And if this committee chooses to zero it out,
they may do so," she added, "but you don't have that right. The
law is clear on what happens with fiscal notes."
CO-CHAIR OGAN responded that the point had been made that the
Mat-Su Borough is willing to pick up the expense. He said he
would like to have that testimony on the record by the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said that is fine, but they still may not
make an agreement with Co-Chair Ogan about a zero fiscal note
that they had already prepared, without first placing it before
this committee and having a motion to adopt a zero fiscal note
in lieu of the original one.
Number 2251
CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked if there is a possibility that the state
could give land to municipalities and villages to develop,
instead of using revenue sharing and municipal assistance from
the general fund.
MS. ANGVIK replied that the municipal entitlement program is a
distribution of state lands to local governments. As for
whether it should substitute for cash municipal assistance, that
is a policy decision by the legislature. This bill, like many
others, is intended to provide municipal governments with the
ability to generate their own revenues from lands, she added.
It is clearly the intent that the settlement lands that
municipal governments would be able to select could generate an
income stream for them. Whether that happens depends on whether
those lands are actually developed. Ms. Angvik stated, "The
income stream from this particular lease, should this lease come
into fulfillment, will flow to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
because the state of Alaska has assigned its interest in the
lease to the municipal government."
Number 2354
MS. RUTHERFORD joined in, saying the municipal land entitlement
program has always had several purposes, primarily conveyance of
lands to municipalities for settlement purposes and as a basis
for development, so they could generate funds. Importantly, the
lease was assigned to the borough not simply to generate money
but so the borough can assist in encouraging development of the
Hatcher Pass area. Ms. Rutherford told members, "The state,
particularly DNR, is pretty limited in what resources we can
bring to bear, and what interest we can encourage. So, the
borough had indicated an interest and a willingness to commit
their resources towards the effort of developing the area, and
since ... it's been stated that ... developing the Hatcher Pass
area is in the state's best interest, it seemed to us to be an
appropriate step to take, because we did not have enough
resources to encourage that development all by ourselves."
Number 2431
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS followed up on Representative Barnes'
question by asking about the legality of assigning the lease
with Hatcher Pass Development Company to the Mat-Su Borough.
Noting the lack of documentation indicating whether the Hatcher
Pass Development Company is comfortable with this or endorses
it, he inquired about that, as well.
CO-CHAIR OGAN replied that they simply haven't gotten to it.
Number 2491
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to AS 24.08.035, relating to
fiscal notes on bills. She again requested that Ms. Angvik
provide the proper fiscal note, including all the items in AS
24.08.035.
[Before the end of the meeting, a fiscal note prepared by Ms.
Angvik, dated May 7, 1999, was provided, in the amount of
$11,000.]
Number 2516
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked who the lessor is.
MS. ANGVIK specified that the lessor is the Mat-Su Borough, and
the original lessee is Hatcher Pass Development Company. "The
private interest that that represents is Davis Construction,"
she added.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked for confirmation that the
recipient of funds inherent to the lease is the lessor, the Mat-
Su Borough. He stated his understanding that the borough will
receive those funds based on a lease that leases state land,
which doesn't belong to the borough. He asked if that is the
crux of the matter.
MS. ANGVIK affirmed that the Mat-Su Borough is the lessor. She
said the crux of it, if she understood the question, is that the
state of Alaska owns this land and entered into a lease with
Hatcher Pass Development Corporation for the development of the
ski area. The state then assigned its interest to the Mat-Su
Borough, in an effort to encourage further development of the
lease areas. These events are not affected by the bill before
the committee, however.
Number 2679
GREG ROMACK, Hatcher Pass Development Corporation, Incorporated,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He reported that
the first phase of the resort development is estimated to cost
about $13 million. They currently have a loan sponsored by the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), as
well as private equity, "to take us to about $9 million of the
$13 million." They also have a couple of federal grants that
they believe are in place. Mr. Romack noted that there is a gap
of about $3 million for which they don't have financing, for
infrastructure-type items, which they are working on from
various sources. The first phase for the ski hill itself
includes a base lodge facility; two chair lifts to the top; and
all of the infrastructure such as snow-making facilities,
maintenance buildings, parking lots and night lighting.
MR. ROMACK concluded, "We are in favor of the bill that's in
front of you. From our perspective, it doesn't change anything.
The Hatcher Pass master plan covers the fact that there's no
development along that corridor that can be seen from the road.
This transfer will not impact that. We have no intentions of
developing the corridor, and the lease does not allow for it.
In the previous testimony, there was some question about the
$93,000 that goes go the Mat-Su Valley and the Mat-Su Borough.
And I'm not sure whether they're online, but I do know that one
of their intents was to leverage that $93,000, to help us close
the gap, because the heart of the matter is really that we're
four miles away from the closest piece of infrastructure, and
we're trying - through numerous plans - to cover those costs."
Number 2778
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Romack how much funding they
have from AIDEA.
MR. ROMACK replied that AIDEA has committed, in conjunction with
the National Bank of Alaska (NBA), to a $6 million loan.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES expressed her understanding that there is
$2 million in private-source money.
MR. ROMACK affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES noted that it is a $13 million project,
suggesting that the income will be greater than $93,000 once it
is a fully functioning facility. She suggested the $93,000
leverage would probably be used to float revenue bonds, defray
revenue bonds or something of that nature.
MR. ROMACK replied, "It is hard for me to speak for them, but I
believe that is their intent."
Number 2838
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the difference now is approximately
between what would be floated in revenue bonds by local
governments and AIDEA funding, and that private money invested
would only be about $2 million. She asked if that is correct.
MR. ROMACK affirmed that.
CO-CHAIR OGAN stated, "Private money - they're on the hook for
the money they borrow, as well. So, they're willing to put $2
million of their own money, to leverage the $6 million from
AIDEA and NBA. That makes them responsible for $8 million."
Number 2873
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied, "What's really on the hook here
for the AIDEA money - and would be literally on the hook for the
$93,000 worth of money that literally belongs to the state to
leverage for revenue bonds - would be state land, at this point
in time, that if they defaulted, we'd simply get back our state
land."
MR. ROMACK agreed that if they defaulted, they would be out of
the picture. However, there would be a developed ski resort,
which probably would have some value above the basic land
lease.
Number 2912
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, for a fully developed and
functioning ski resort on state land leased to the Mat-Su
Borough, what the income estimate is to the Mat-Su Borough each
year.
MR. ROMACK answered, "Our financial projections, based on
studies that have been previously done, is the revenue would
start out at $93,000 off the lease, and it would ratchet up,
over a ten-year period, to approximately $130,000 annually." He
indicated they hadn't projected past ten years.
TAPE 99-31, SIDE B
Number 2938 [Numbers run backwards because of tape machine]
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked, if the debts to AIDEA and to the
developers were paid off, what the income to the Mat-Su Borough
would be.
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he would be happy to provide that
information, but indicated he would like to pass the bill out
that day.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES wondered how they were going to do that
when they needed more information.
CO-CHAIR OGAN called an at-ease at 2:47 p.m. and called the
meeting back to order at 2:48 p.m.
Number 2882
MIKE SCOTT, Manager, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, testified via
teleconference. He said the bill would give the borough the
right to select the remaining 939 acres in the lease area. They
have already submitted their request to select the balance of
the lease area. The borough would still have to go through the
Title 38 process once they are granted the opportunity to go
through the process of selection and then conveyance. In 1986,
the legislature did contemplate that these lands could be
selected, and rightfully so, under the municipal entitlement
program.
MR. SCOTT listed the people available to testify: Ron Swenson,
Director, Mat-Su Community Development; Darcie Salmon, Mat-Su
Mayor; Jim Turner, Mat-Su Assemblyman; and there may be other
assembly members at the Legislative Information Office (LIO)
available to testify. Also they have Kelly Huber, President,
Mat-Su RC&D, Ted Smith, Title Land Director and retired parks
director for the state of Alaska; Al Jorgensen; Janet Kinkaid
(ph), Valley Hotel and Vice President of the Mat-Su Visitor's
Convention Bureau; Edna DeVries, former state Senator; and Sarah
Palin, Mayor of Wasilla, all of whom support this legislation.
This is also an opportunity for the borough to be more self-
sufficient, Mr. Scott stated, to create 126 jobs and do
something to help their economy as they see layoffs from the oil
industry.
Number 2795
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that the original fiscal note was $15,000.
He asked Mr. Scott if the borough is willing to step up to the
plate to cover the cost of the transfer.
MR. SCOTT answered that they will stipulate to costs rightfully
borne by them. The DNR recognized, prior to the borough's
selection of the other acreage, that it may have been difficult
to assist in getting this development together, because there is
absolutely no infrastructure to help support a development like
this up at Hatcher Pass. The borough is not only stepping up to
the plate in the that area but in the bigger picture, in making
this development happen not only for the valley, but also for
the economy of the state.
Number 2731
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked how much of the entitlement for the
Mat-Su Borough they have not received from the state.
MR. SCOTT deferred to Ron Swenson.
Number 2685
RON SWENSON, Director, Community Development, Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. He
said the Mat-Su Borough currently has an outstanding entitlement
of about 10,000 acres.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Mr. Swenson how many acres this
transfer would add.
MR. SWENSON said about 3,000 to 3,500 acres.
MR. SCOTT added that it would be for the entire lease area,
including the 939 acres of public use area.
Number 2653
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether, for the entitlement coming,
this would, then, take the amount and make it that much less.
MR. SCOTT affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if through this legislation they are
conveying what the state owes in entitlement to a municipality.
Number 2621
MR. SCOTT answered no, this legislation does not convey it; it
simply allows the borough the opportunity to select it under its
municipal entitlement. Then the conveyance must still adhere to
the Title 38 process, which would follow this threshold that
they would need to cross in order to engage in that process.
There is a two-stage process.
Number 2600
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if they would simply be selecting it
and then authorizing its usage.
MR. SCOTT indicated that is true provided the state of Alaska,
in its Title 38 process, deems it in the best interest for the
state. They have endeavored to do that in a memorandum of
agreement signed jointly with the borough, he said, and the
borough has stipulated that they would follow the Hatcher Pass
Management Plan, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Scott what the Mat-Su Borough
plans to do with $900,000 appropriated out of the general fund
to the Mat-Su Borough for construction of public infrastructure
of Hatcher Pass.
MR. SCOTT answered that they had briefed the House Special
Committee on Economic Development and Tourism about a month ago,
saying the $900,000 would be part of a total of about $5 million
in public financing for items like water, sewer, parking and
utilities.
Number 2529
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked if this $900,000 is just a down
payment on $5 million.
MR. SCOTT said they contemplate that this is their only
legislative appropriation request. He indicated that a
stipulation in the memorandum of agreement says the borough
would invest in a revenue stream, invest the funds into the
project, and use the revenue stream off of this lease in order
to generate some revenue. There are federal grants available to
the local governments that they are putting together in a total
package. They don't anticipate requesting any other special
appropriation from the legislature, he concluded.
Number 2481
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said her understanding is that they hope
to use the $96,000 to float revenue bonds, with which they hope
to leverage the federal government for additional funds, and all
they would be asking from the state now is the $900,000. She
asked: If at some future time they aren't able to get the
grants from the federal government, would the borough be back
before the legislature asking for those additional funds?
Number 2452
MR. SCOTT answered that he would not anticipate that, given the
time frame of phase one. They would hope to start this fall.
Coming back to request more money is not their intention at this
point.
Number 2404
MR. SCOTT clarified that when he was referring to phase one -
the $13.3 million that Mr. Romack referred to - the state has,
through the federal funds in the state transportation approval
plan program, the funds to pave the road from Milepost 7 to
Milepost 14, and to do some scenic overlooks, for example, which
are not directly related to the development of the project.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how much of that above the $900,000
is for the road.
MR. SCOTT specified that the amount for the road is about $2
million, which is federal funds, and the borough has contributed
$250,000 in matching funds. He indicated the state Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation plans to take it up to Independence
Mine for a variety of scenic waysides.
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that this has been on the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for a number of years.
MR. SCOTT agreed. The development will benefit from that, he
said, but so will the Independence Mine and the other activity
outside of the ski area that people use on a regular basis.
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted for the record that that area is heavily
used now as a recreation area.
Number 2274
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that to get federal money they
have to put state money with it. She asked how much state money
is required and where that project is on the STIP now.
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he believes that project on the STIP is going
to be done this year.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked how much state money is in the
budget this year.
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he wasn't sure.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked him to get that information.
MR. SCOTT noted that it isn't directly related to this project.
This is just one piece in the overall Hatcher Pass area, he
said; the borough stepped up and contributed, and many other
areas and businesses outside of that area benefit from that
road.
Number 2198
JIM TURNER, Assembly Member, Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO. He indicated
this project and the economic development of Hatcher Pass are
top priorities. The basic infrastructure would support the ski
project itself, and it would help support development of a
visitor attraction at Independence Mine State Historic Park.
They agree that the combination of these developments could lead
to a new major tourism development in Southcentral Alaska for
people going north, he said. As part of the strategic plan, the
borough has determined what support there is for projects like
this. Throughout the years the ski area development has enjoyed
widespread support in the Mat-Su Borough, and it is evident
today.
MR. TURNER commented that this legislation merely authorizes the
state to transfer the land to the borough if they request it.
He has been involved in this process since it started in the
early 1980s. The Hatcher Pass Management Plan envisioned,
authorized and governed, to a great extent, what has happened in
the process of developing the ski area. The special public use
district was overlaid somewhat into the public process. Through
the memorandum of agreement with the state - and through the
intentions the borough has expressed in their willingness to
include the language in this bill - they will continue to see
that the Hatcher Pass Management Plan still applies and will be
in effect on this piece of property, Mr. Turner said. The fact
that this land will be transferred to the borough from the state
will not change the ability of the state or the DNR to enforce
the conditions through civil action or through complaint-driven
action of the Hatcher Pass Management Plan.
Number 2005
KATHY WELLS testified via teleconference from the Mat-Su LIO in
opposition to SB 227, noting that she was an original
participant in the Hatcher Pass Management Plan. She is
strongly opposed to this bill because it will "de-designate"
public use area lands. The DNR has said this public use area
land is not normally available for entitlement selections by
local governments, she said, asking the reason for doing it now.
Specifically, the 939 acres along the Little Susitna River road
corridor were set aside as public use area lands, she told
members, for protection and use by all the public, not just the
Mat-Su Borough. The DNR and the Mat-Su Borough have been
discussing this land conveyance without public process, which is
why they are hearing from people.
MS. WELLS noted that the DNR has said there will be a public
process after the conveyance. She asked: Why not have it
before the conveyance? She further asked what that process will
be. Ms. Wells said the Mat-Su Borough has stated that they will
adopt provisions from the Hatcher Pass Management Plan. There
is no guarantee of that, however, as it is not in the language
of HB 227 right now. These provisions will need to be
documented and be placed in HB 227, as well as in the land
patent transfer.
MS. WELLS pointed out that provisions currently in place are
being enforced and managed by the Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation. However, the division was unaware of this transfer
of public use area lands. When these lands are conveyed to the
borough, the division will no longer be able to enforce these
provisions, she said. She asked: After the Mat-Su Borough has
given these lands, who will enforce the Hatcher Pass Management
Plan?
MS. WELLS said the DNR has stated that if the provisions are not
met, they can take the public use area lands back again. She
asked who will do this, how it will be done, how long it will
take, and if they can do this after the borough has the land
patent. The state legislature is considered the public process
at this point, she noted, and it is difficult for the public to
take part in this. She believes that the DNR has violated the
public's trust by conveying these lands without public process.
She reminded members that the Mat-Su Borough can go forth with
the development of a ski area, as designated within the Hatcher
Pass Management Plan, without taking ownership of a valuable
resource of the state, owned by all Alaskans.
Number 1859
KEVIN KEELER testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He is
a valley landowner, with two and a quarter acres and a cabin
one-half mile from the proposed transfer boundary. He is very
opposed to HB 227 because it is part of a much larger 4,600-acre
transfer of land to the Mat-Su Borough from the state, which has
virtually had no public notice or involvement. One document
issued by the DNR, a preliminary finding of the transfer of
lease, states that the purpose of this land is that the Mat-Su
Borough will have adequate collateral to obtain revenue bonds to
fund the construction of the ski area. This means that the Mat-
Su Borough could obtain title to these lands and invest some of
it, Mr. Keeler said, perhaps in the development of the ski area.
If the ski area goes belly up, however, they will have to turn
that land over to whomever they got the money from for the
development.
MR. KEELER indicated it is totally inappropriate for public
lands - both within the public use area and on the south, close
to Government Peak - to be transferred from state lands.
Regarding the transfer of lease, there was one tiny legal notice
in the back of a newspaper, he pointed out, and no one responded
to it. Basically, no one knew about it at all, including the
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, which was cut out of
that process. To his knowledge, originally the understanding
was that the DNR would receive funds from ski area revenues for
recreation facility maintenance along the road, enforcement and
so forth. Since they have been cut out of that lease by the
Division of Land, however, they are no longer able to receive
any of those future funding streams. In effect, there was an
impact on the state's revenue streams by cutting the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation out of the transfer of the lease
agreement.
MR. KEELER referred to documents indicating the Mat-Su Borough
and the DNR didn't want any of the conservation conditions to
travel with the title of the land. He said only 150 acres out
of the 4,600 proposed for transfer would be developed for resort
homes, roads garages and common areas. There is supposed to be
a "moose greenbelt" leading from tract A to tract B, from the
2,000 foot level, a quarter-mile downhill, he pointed out; this
is co-located with the transfer of public use lands that the
Mat-Su Borough is trying to have "undesignated" with HB 227. He
doesn't believe it is appropriate to go forward because the
lease with the borough can revert to the state after three
years, if the ski area is not successful. He suggested that HB
227 be tabled.
Number 1671
NANCY MICHAELSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
noting that she resides at the base of Hatcher Pass. She said
the area of Hatcher Pass being contemplated has done a lot for
her, so she is there to speak up for it. She strongly opposes
HB 227. Ski resort development aside, it is not necessary or
desirable to prostitute the acreage along the road to Mat-Su
Borough economic development, she said. The right thing to do
is to protect the integrity and atmosphere of the Hatcher Pass
area as much as possible around the ski resort development. She
pointed out that under Section 1, Findings of Fact, the second
sentence talks about the land contained within the development
lease, and that it was authorized for development purposes in
the management plan. That development authorization was
approved in the context of its being a state public use plan,
she said. That is different from what this would be, and she
trusts that the committee can make that distinction.
MS. MICHAELSON urged the committee not to pass this bill, which
promises the blight of Mat-Su Borough's sprawl in her back yard,
including condominiums, roads, mini-malls and fast-food joints.
To have that in an area where her family sits to watch the
harlequin ducks bob up and down on the Little Susitna River, and
where they frequently have picnics, is scary to her. She
pointed out that what is good for borough bureaucracy, and the
tax-paying residents financially, is not what is best for the
public of Alaska. This bill removes public use lands from the
public, and in this case, it is not in the public's best
interest.
Number 1521
GARY MICHAELSON testified in opposition to HB 227 via
teleconference from Palmer, noting that he is a resident of the
Mat-Su area. He mentioned Mr. Turner's statement that the title
doesn't make any modifications, and that they're going to stick
with the land use plan. However, he said, this is an Act
modifying DNR's power to control and manage that land. Mr.
Michaelson further stated:
If you've been to Hatcher Pass, it's a very small area
and it needs to be managed in a cohesive way - it's
not just one little valley here, one little valley
there. It's a very, very compact area. And the other
point is, it needs to be cohesively by one body -
whether we like DNR or not. This is really what needs
to be done.
The other aspect is, this selected land that is
outlined here, this is a key corridor place. Sure,
this would make it easier for the borough to manage
this land - their lease land - but it would also
transfer the power of management of that land, that
key corridor area, to them. It is not only important
to the valley as a whole, but also to the quality of
the Hatcher Pass/Little Susitna River; this is a key
area, a buffer area, between the development area of
the ski area and the river.
If we lose control, as it says in the title of this
bill - if the DNR, the state of Alaska loses control
of this buffer corridor between development and the
Little Susitna River - we all know how important those
(indisc.) areas - fishery recreation, water supply
downstream - we lose that, then we've lost integrity
of the area. We might as well divide it all up and
parcel it out, and I don't think that's what the state
of Alaska's best interest is. And I don't think that
the borough at this point ... intends to do this, but
as we see what's happened in other areas, ...
development pressures come, ... and the people are
very land-based and real estate-based in the valley.
And I don't think this is necessarily in the best
interest for our public land.
Number 1315
DARCIE SALMON, Mayor, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, testified in
support of HB 227 via teleconference from Palmer. He stated:
It's curious to me that for many years this project
has been before the public eye; and when a group
called "Mat-Suey" had it, there was no real intent to
develop that property. Clearly, they were in line
waiting for the Olympics to come, and when they did
not come, "Mat-Suey" left with that. The next
individual to step in was a man named Fred Rogers
(ph); he, again, was not financially capable of taking
this project forward but had ... the control of that
lease for a considerable period of time. And it took
the Mat-Su Borough a considerable period of time to
wrest control of that.
And finally, today, we have this lease in the hands of
a very capable developer, with a well-documented track
record, willing to go forward. The lenders are in
place. We've got grants that are being worked on as
we speak. It's the only capital project that
actually, at this point, puts people to work in the
state of Alaska - not only the 154 to build it, but
the 126 to maintain and run it after the fact. ...
While nothing was being done, nothing was being said.
... Clearly, the opponents suggest that the one form
of government, that being the state, seems to care
more about this land than another form of government,
which would be the borough, and that the one would be
a better steward of the land than the other. I
suggest to you that - being that it is in boroughs'
district, and the state as vast as it is - that I'm
sure the state cares deeply about this land and about
the people who live there, but not more than the
borough ... and the care and concern at a local level.
[It] is my firm belief, philosophically, that at a
local level we're in a better place and a better way
to understand what's happening on a consistent, daily
basis. And the transfer of this 939 acres is an
integral piece to the long-term development of the
entire project, which gives control to a singular
entity, and in that respect backs up the bureaucratic
red tape and delays - which we have, Lord knows,
already suffered years and years and years of, as a
result of individuals who had control of these lands
and had no intent to do anything with them.
The benefit of this property and the benefit of this
project is clearly for the Mat-Su Borough, but not
only for the people of this borough. This is the one
project which actually and truly benefits the state of
Alaska, in a way which brings tourism and recognition
at an international level, as well as to the state
level; and it would be a great benefit to the borough
and the expanded future enjoyment of the entire
constituency of the state of Alaska once it's up and
running, and eventually to the international world
marketplace.
I wholeheartedly urge your acceptance and willingness
to push this bill forward and grant the Mat-Su Borough
the ability to choose this land. And then, of course,
we will follow every intent of the Hatcher Pass
development codes, and whatever DNR and the state sets
before us. But we need this to move our project
forward, and I urge your willingness to do so.
Number 1072
DORI McDANNOLD, Valley Alaska Center for the Environment,
testified in opposition to HB 227, via teleconference from
Palmer:
I'm here because I have a lot of concerns, ... and I
would like to reiterate the points specifically made
by Kevin Keeler and Kathy Wells. ... Some of the
concerns I have, have to do with the public process.
I believe that it's absolutely backwards: consider
"de-designating" lands, and then through legislative
action, and then taking a public process at DNR to see
if that's appropriate. That just seems absolutely
backward to me.
The other concern I have is that, with what's standing
right now, I don't believe that the bill is written
strongly enough, and I would like to request legal
consultation at the state, for certain that this bill
states very legally and correctly that if the lands
... were to be transferred to the Mat-Su Borough, that
in fact there would be written on the patent, clear
and clean, that they would be following the Hatcher
Pass Management Plan. I don't feel comfortable saying
that this bill does this, and I would like to see
that, if this were to go forward, that an amendment
for the title be put in place and that it actually
states ... that the borough would be legally bound,
both under title and under patent, to the Hatcher Pass
Management Plan, as amended. ...
I believe that there is no sufficient reason that I
have heard of yet that would warrant the "de-
designation" of this land and transfer of title. The
borough says they would like to have it for control,
and there has been no good reason to me to take lands
from a public use area, where it is well-managed under
a plan, and transfer it to the borough. ... As they
stated, it's an integral part, but it's not clear to
me why it's so integral, that it's in the borough's
hands. They say that for financial reasons it may
make it easier, which I understand, but I still don't
think that that warrants the transfer.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Ms. McDannold to summarize her statements
because there one more person was scheduled to testify.
MS. McDANNOLD concluded, "I continue to oppose this bill [HB]
227. I think that the borough should not be able to select it
at this point in time, and that there are a lot of concerns with
that transfer regarding the borough's ability to enforce; the
borough shows no ability to enforce other plans that exist
within the borough, and for that reason alone that makes this
bill null and void."
Number 814
GARVAN BUCARIA testified via teleconference from Palmer. He
stated:
I particularly commend Representative Barnes for
inquiry as to economics of this proposed development.
I would like to see a schematic display of the
funding, indebtedness and payback projections prior to
approval of this bill. I, at this point, feel that a
public hearing would be in order to provide an
opportunity for the public at large to hear the
details as background for more participation. This is
a a very important area ... in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, and from what my experience is, I do not see
the economic ability of the borough to enforce
conservation concerns that may result, especially as a
development enlarges.
I seriously worry that there is a potential - should
there be a failure of the contractor down the line or
failure of the owner down the line - for the holders
of indebtedness to take over ownership of this
currently owned state land. That option should be
abrogated by any legal means in the development of the
contract of the lease.
The area represents the upper headwaters of the Little
Susitna River drainage, recognized as an important
anadramous fish stream. The potential for
contamination of the headwaters of this system seem
very great, especially with overdevelopment. There is
the question also as to volume and availability of
water supplies in this mountainous region. We must
ensure that the quality of the water and volume of the
water feeding the Little Susitna [River] is not lost.
It seems logical that it's healthy to have a major
buffer between the ski area and the proposed access
area and the stream. In summary, I remain open-minded
relative to this option, but I am very fearful that
the loss of public recreation area and the control and
long-term status of this land may be threatened
without careful scrutiny and condition.
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he would entertain a motion to move HB 227.
He acknowledged receipt during the meeting of the DNR's fiscal
note prepared that day.
Number 0557
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES objected. She said she does not believe
the fiscal note is accurate because it does not reflect the loss
of state revenues. She reiterated that the Mat-Su Borough would
garner at least $93,000 a year to back up revenue bonds, and the
fiscal note should reflect that.
CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that there wasn't yet a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked what the public process has been
to the development and proposals in general.
Number 0469
CO-CHAIR OGAN noted that the proposal has been on the table for
a number of years, and that this is the third attempt. He
assured Representative Whitaker that there is broad public
support for this project. He said the process doesn't convey
land; it simply allows the DNR to go through a public process.
He concluded, "We amended the bill to make sure that that public
process is addressed in the bill, so that there would be
opportunity ... for the public to testify .... This is a public
process."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked about other committees of
referral.
CO-CHAIR OGAN replied that he intends to make a motion that the
committee zero-out the fiscal note, because the Mat-Su Borough
has testified that they will pay the costs. He pointed out that
if HB 227 receives a positive fiscal note, it will be referred
to the House Finance Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said Representative Barnes has a
legitimate concern with regard to the fiscal note. He indicated
the desire to ensure that the question is answered in a
reasonable manner.
CO-CHAIR OGAN said he would be happy to meet with Representative
Barnes.
Number 0231
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that she doesn't think Co-Chair
Ogan can convince her that HB 227 does not have a fiscal impact
on the state and that this is not an improper fiscal note. It
doesn't show the loss to the state, she said, and it must do so,
clearly, from the statute. She said she has been here all these
years, and the only public process this has gone through relates
directly to the procedures under DNR; it has absolutely nothing
to do with transfer of land to the Mat-Su Borough, in any shape,
form or fashion. Other than the little bit of testimony today,
there is absolutely no public process as it relates to the
transfer of this land, she concluded.
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said for purposes of debate, he would
move to report HB 227 {Version D, 1-LS0949\D, Kurtz, 5/6/99],
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 0085
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES objected.
CO-CHAIR OGAN asked Representative Whitaker if he had additional
comments.
Number 0079
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER indicated he is an advocate of this
particular project. He noted the apparent need for it and that
it has been discussed for many years. However, he has real
concerns with the process. He said he understands the concern
about moving HB 227 quickly, as well as the concerns of those
who are trying to develop this property throughout the Mat-Su
Borough.
TAPE 99-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired about the urgency of this.
CO-CHAIR OGAN pointed out that other than homes and retail
businesses, the Matanuska-Susitna area has no private-sector
industrial development; they need to expand their tax base and
economy.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS suggested waiting to get some answers
before voting.
CO-CHAIR OGAN responded, "If we wait, it's simply not going to
happen this year. And they're ready to go on the ground next
fall."
Number 0347
CO-CHAIR OGAN requested a roll call vote. Voting to move the
proposed committee substitute for HB 227, Version D [1-LS0949\D,
Kurtz, 5/6/99], from committee were Representatives Whitaker,
Harris, Masek and Ogan. Voting against it were Representatives
Joule, Morgan, Kapsner, Barnes and Sanders. Therefore, HB 227
failed to move out of committee by a vote of 4-5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|