SB 96-UNIVERSITY LAND GRANT/STATE FOREST  CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 96 to be up for consideration again. SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 96(RES), version G, as the working draft. There were no objections and it was so ordered. SENATOR SEEKINS moved to adopt the letter of intent. 3:43:28 PM SENATOR GUESS objected for discussion purposes. She asked what would happen if a not-for-profit wants to buy the land to develop it, because it seems like the letter of intent is for them to not receive the land. SENATOR SEEKINS replied that the intent is that the land is not for conservation purposes; it's for development. SENATOR GUESS asked if that means if the university can get more money for the land, but it's for conservation, it still has to sell it for development. SENATOR SEEKINS replied that would be the practical result and he thought that would be a reasonable handicap. SENATOR GUESS asked what if the land in question couldn't be developed for some reason. SENATOR SEEKINS replied that he didn't think the lands were selected because they are useless. Therefore, they should be used for development. 3:49:23 PM CHAIR WAGONER added that the real meat of the letter of intent is in the next to the last paragraph where the university agrees that the parcel at Coldfoot will not be used to establish a business in direct competition with the one already there. 3:50:56 PM SENATOR ELTON said that some people have testified that land held for conservation purposes does have a strong economic component; it attracts people to lodges in the area. He is worried that this language would preclude that kind of consideration to be made by the university. SENATOR SEEKINS said he understands that concern, but if the land is put into conservation, that lodge owner is precluding anyone else from ever coming in to compete in what could be a two-lodge area. He didn't think that type of situation should be precluded. 3:52:44 PM SENATOR STEDMAN said that remote cabin sites are the highest and best use for a majority of the Southeast parcels, not large scale industrialized logging that might be conducive on other parcels. Most of the land has been held in private hands previous to statehood. He wanted it made clear to the University that the intent is to have land go to individuals. 3:54:10 PM SENATOR ELTON responded that he appreciates the discussion, but again pointed out that there could be an economic benefit to an existing landowner or a new business owner for not developing the land. Not allowing transferred land to be used for conservation purposes could preclude a neighboring lodge owner from purchasing it to keep it in its natural state to enhance or protect his business. 3:54:54 PM CHAIR WAGONER replied that's the reason he favors this letter. If we start taking lands that are meant to be transferred to the University of Alaska or any other area to be developed and all of a sudden we not only take them out of the realm of developable land, but if we put them into 501(c)(3)s or some other tax exempt organization, we then take the ability - if there's boroughs organized - we take the ability of the borough to have that land on the local tax roles to be part of their tax base, too. That's one of the things that I'm more concerned about - especially in some of the areas in Southeastern than any other area. Because that land should always remain on the borough tax roles. I think we've taken enough land out of the private sector and put it in the public sector. I happen to have a lot of land in the Kenai Peninsula Borough that that has happened to just recently and they wanted to have a lot more.... 3:56:16 PM SENATOR ELTON said he understands that argument, but an existing lodge would pay taxes on the land even if it is being held in a conservation state. 3:56:52 PM SENATOR GUESS asked if the university pays taxes on the land it owns. CHAIR WAGONER answered no, but he's concerned about who it transfers its lands to. SENATOR GUESS maintained her objection to adopting the letter of intent. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Elton and Guess voted nay; Senators Seekins, Dyson, Stedman and Chair Wagoner voted yea; and the letter of intent was adopted. 3:58:11 PM SENATOR STEDMAN offered Amendment 1. AMENDMENT 1 OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR STEDMAN TO: CSSB 96(RES), version "G" Page 7, line 30: Delete "JU.LM.1001, Lena Creek", and insert "HA.CH.1001, Haines-Chilkoot" Page 8, following line 9: Insert: (p) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the state land identified in this subsection and described in the document entitled "University of Alaska Land Grant List 2005," dated January 12, 2005, may not be conveyed to the University of Alaska under this section if the land is included in a borough formed before July 1, 2009, that includes Wrangell or Petersburg. If such a borough is not formed before July 1, 2009, the following land shall be conveyed to the University of Alaska on July 1, 2009; or if land within the following parcels is not selected by a borough before January 1, 2013, the following land shall be conveyed to the University of Alaska on June 30, 2013: (1) Parcel Number SD.1001, Beecher Pass; (2) Parcel Number SD.1001, Favor Peak; (3) Parcel Number CS.TL.1001, Three Lake Road; (4) Parcel Number SD.1001, Read Island; (5) Parcel Number SD.1001, Whitney Island; (6) Parcel Number CS.EW.1001, Earl West Cove; (7) Parcel Number CS.OV.1001, Olive Cove; (8) Parcel Number SD.1001, Thoms Place; SENATOR STEDMAN said there is very little private or state property in Southeast Alaska; it's mostly in the middle of a federal forest. This amendment gives the communities an opportunity to possibly pick up the parcels if they organize. It is not as far-reaching as he would like as far as the amount of parcels are concerned and he is concerned over the public process, which he thought needed work with the university. It's nice to go to the communities that are affected and hold public hearings. 4:01:34 PM SENATOR ELTON proposed Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 on page 8, line 3, under subsection (n) to add "(8) MF1002, Idaho Inlet; (9) MF1001 Mite Cove; and (10) Pelican." SENATOR SEEKINS objected for discussion. SENATOR STEDMAN said he wanted to know if it was permanent removal or removal of a time certain to be included into a borough. He would accept it as a friendly amendment if it was similar to the purpose of the original amendment. SENATOR SEEKINS said his objection is based on his reading of the bill; that the amendment would accomplish a permanent withdrawal of those lands. SENATOR ELTON said that Senator Seekins' statement is correct. It adds it to the previously excluded list and does not include language under subsection (p), which is specific to the Wrangell Petersburg area. He said there has been discussion of borough formation in this area and those parcels equal more than 99 percent of the state land that would be available to that borough. He had no idea where borough boundaries would be. SENATOR SEEKINS recalled that Mr. Johnson's (SRES 4/11/05) testimony emphasized that he wanted a specific date for boroughs to be formed so that lands could be left for them to choose from. I am very much in favor of allowing that land selection process to be there, but I think there needs to be some kind of a date in time where either they're faced with those lands being transferred because they don't want to form a borough or they come back to the legislature to extend that period of time to be able to protect those lands if they do intend on forming a borough of some kind. 4:06:12 PM SENATOR ELTON commented that lands can remain available for borough selection only if they remain with DNR. The difficulty in this instance is that you have several different entities like Elfin Cove, Pelican, Gustavus and Hoonah. He suggested that any deadline would guarantee that they will come back at a later date because, "I think that between now and then, it's going to be very, very difficult to get these entities together to try and figure out the governance systems that they might want." SENATOR SEEKINS said he wouldn't mind them coming back at a later date and if there had been some movement toward creating a borough, he would be very sympathetic to extending those deadlines. 4:08:17 PM SENATOR GUESS asked what happens if someone wants to form a borough with this land without Wrangell or Petersburg. Are we giving leverage to Wrangell and Petersburg in discussing borough formation by saying that the land has to be in a borough form that includes Wrangell or Petersburg? SENATOR STEDMAN replied that they are included in one borough under the planned boroughs, but they may decide to create two separate boroughs. Earl West Cove, Olive Cove and Thoms Place would be in the Wrangell area and Favor Peak, Beecher Pass and Three Lake Road would be in the other. The amendment language intends to clarify that those properties can be selected if one or two boroughs are created. If none are created, that's fine, too. 4:10:31 PM SENATOR SEEKINS said he thought Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 permanently removes Mite Cove, Idaho Inlet and Pelican from the list to transfer to the University of Alaska. 4:11:38 PM SENATOR STEDMAN said he opposed Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, "Because if the amendment to the amendment goes forward, I've got a whole list I'd like to add to it." He thought adding a new paragraph, (q), that would address those parcels would be a better way of dealing with it. 4:12:34 PM SENATOR SEEKINS called the question on Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Stedman, Seekins, Dyson, and Chair Wagoner voted nay; Senators Elton and Guess voted yea; and Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed. 4:13:20 PM SENATOR ELTON moved conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 that would provide that those three parcels be protected with the same deadlines and in the same way as the parcels listed in (p). 4:14:08 PM SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the conceptual amendment would give Pelican, Idaho Inlet and Mite Cove the same opportunity to form a borough before January 1, 2013. 4:14:58 PM SENATOR BEN STEVENS joined the committee. 4:14:44 PM SENATOR ELTON replied that such a borough would have to be formed before July 1, 2009. If not, those parcels would then be transferred to the university prior to June 30, 2013. 4:15:19 PM There were no objections to conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 and it was adopted. SENATOR GUESS clarified that in the new section (q) the borough does not have to include Petersburg and Wrangell. SENATOR STEDMAN replied that was correct. CHAIR WAGONER announced that the committee had Amendment 1 amended in front of it. 4:16:22 PM SENATOR GUESS asked what parcel was replacing Lena Creek. CHAIR WAGONER replied Haines-Chilkoot. SENATOR GUESS asked if that had been on the list before or is it a new parcel. SENATOR STEDMAN answered that it was on the list before and was removed. TIM BARRY, staff to Senator Stedman, added that Representative Thomas requested that the parcel be put back. It's in his district. 4:16:55 PM CHAIR WAGONER asked what the difference in acreage is between the two parcels. MR. BARRY replied the Lena Creek parcel is 610 acres and the Haines-Chilkoot parcel is 60 acres. SENATOR SEEKINS asked what the amendment does. MR. BARRY replied that the Lena Creek parcel had been excluded from the transfer list, but it will now be included. The Haines parcel will be excluded. 4:18:06 PM CHAIR WAGONER announced that there were no further objections or questions on Amendment 1 amended; and it was therefore adopted. 4:18:41 PM SENATOR ELTON said he had another amendment, but wouldn't offer it at this time. 4:19:00 PM CHAIR WAGONER asked if the University or DNR had any further discussion. There was none offered. 4:19:13 PM SENATOR SEEKINS moved CSSB 96(RES), version G, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. SENATOR ELTON objected. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Dyson, Guess, Seekins, Stedman and Chair Wagoner voted yea; Senator Elton voted nay; and CSSB 96(RES) moved from committee.