SENATE BILL 250 "An Act relating to the University of Alaska and to assets of the University of Alaska; authorizing the University of Alaska to select additional state public domain land, designating that land as `university trust land,' and describing the principles applicable to the land's management; and defining the net income from the University of Alaska's endowment trust fund as `university receipts' subject to prior legislative appropriation." ALLISON GORDON, STAFF, SENATOR STEVE FRANK, noted that SB 250 would allow the University of Alaska to select 350 thousand acres of unencumbered land from the State of Alaska. In this era of declining State funds, endowing the University with additional lands will allow them to develop those lands to produce income for university programs. Under the Congressional Morrill Act of 1862, each state was entitled to receive a grant for public lands, the income from which would provide the financial base of operation for at least one college or university. The University of Alaska received about 112 thousand acres of land, less than any other western public land state and less than the national average entitlement by over 300 thousand acres. Some universities have received one million acres. She concluded that an additional grant of land would bring Alaska up to the level of other western states and would follow through with the original purpose of land grant colleges. WENDY REDMAN, VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, stated that the University of Alaska is called a "Land Grant University". She pointed out changes made in the bill from last year. The largest change removed the portion of the bill which specified which lands were available, and giving the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) responsibility for making that determination. The University is willing to concede with what DNR determines is in the "best interest" of the State. 5 A section has been added which would provide the same protection for the University that the State has for the proprietary information to the lands issue. Policy that currently applies to the State is included. Another section addresses the administrative foreclosure on the lands. Ms. Redman added that the Board of Regents are trying to determine alternative sources of revenue. Over the last decade, the University has decreased from a 70% to 40% dependency on general fund revenues. The majority of the financial shift has been to the students. She emphasized the need to generate additional money each year for the University and thought that it could be accommodated through the land use grant. Ms. Redman continued, DNR does not have the resources available to adequately manage state land. The University is looking for 1/10th of 1%. Last year, the University received 350 million acres of land. Representative Therriault asked if the bills language was consistent with the language used last year. Ms. Redman responded that the income from the receipts would be classified as program receipts. Ms. Redman addressed the amendment as distributed by Representative Therriault. She stated that the amendment was drafted in response to issues by the mining community. The changes delete the "selection" when used with conveyance of land rights. The intent of the bill is that land not be tied up in any way, until the Legislature takes action to give the lands to the University through the appropriation process. SARA HANNAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY (AEL), JUNEAU, voiced strong opposition to SB 250. She stated that the University of Alaska's land grant obligation is fulfilled. The State of Alaska has no additional land obligation to the University, and has monetarily supported the University since Statehood. The University has no higher right to State resources than any other agency. Ms. Hannan continued, in a time when we cannot fully fund our public schools, it is inappropriate to give resources worth millions of dollars to the University. All Alaskans currently have access to share the opportunity to the use of State lands. Putting 350 thousand acres of State owned land into the "private" ownership of the University preempts equal access. "Customary and traditional use" of the land, like fishing, hunting, camping, trapping and hiking will only be protected until the University development plans conflict with it. 6 Ms. Hannan concluded that fracturing the ownership platter of Alaska lands would not be in the State's best interest. If the lands should be developed by the State, then the State should lease them. Giving away valuable resource lands, without a plan for future Alaska's land management is short sighted. DAN RITZMAN, NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER, FAIRBANKS, stated that the Northern Center is opposed to SB 250 noting that the bill would remove 350 thousand acres of public land from public control. SB 250 exempts the selected lands from public oversight and State land planning requirements. The University claims to be concerned about public input into it's land management although their recent history does not demonstrate this. He added that the University tried to fast-track the bill right past the public. SB 250 had only one hearing in the Senate, which was not tele-conferenced. Mr. Ritzman noted that the Northern Center believes that SB 250 is a "dangerous" bill for public lands. It would negate years of good faith public participation in state land use planning, that resulted in decisions to retain most lands for fish and wildlife habitat, public recreation, and a host of other purposes. The University's draft financial management plan indicates that they would like to dispose of much of their land holdings for cash that can be invested. Mr. Ritzman noted that SB 250 fails to address the issue of contiguity of land ownership. There is no provision in the bill to prevent our land from being fragmented further, which will lead to development conflicts with existing uses on neighboring public and private land. He concluded that the bill would violate the dedicated fund prohibition in the State constitution. In addition, the University does not have any more right to a land entitlement than the public safety providers or the secondary school system. Representative Therriault referenced Page 10, Section 9, which speaks to the management and disposition of University trust lands, with policy to provide for public notice, plans and seeking of public comments. He disagreed that the public was being excluded. (Tape Change, HFC 96-113, Side 2). Representative Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Representative Brown OBJECTED in order to read the amendment. Amendment #1 was HELD with the MOTION pending. Representative Mulder requested that staff from Department of Natural Resources DNR) be present for the next hearing of SB 250 was heard. 7 SB 250 was HELD for further discussion.