H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments: transcript

So, thank you Mr. Vice Chair and Committee. Um, this, uh, bill HB 64 School and Institutional Trust Land Amendments is, has been a work in progress for most of the summer and fall. And, uh, I want to acknowledge Michelle McConkey, who is the Sitler director. She, she came to Richfield and we had a good meeting. And, um, uh, I appreciate the cooperation from Sitler. Um, what this bill, uh, really talks about is, maybe I could give you a little history, uh, back in, uh, well, in Garfield County over by Cannonville, if any of you know where that is. Uh, there was a proposed, uh, development that wanted to buy an area called Promise Rock. And Promise Rock, uh, has a lot of cultural and historical significant, uh, meaning to ghost clear back to the Native Americans. They, they got married there, they had their vows there, probably a few funerals there. And as the settlers come into that valley, uh, near Cannonville, they, they had weddings there and exchanged vows there. And people still go there because of the historical Promised Rock. Um, to get married, uh, renew their vows. It's really a beautiful, a beautiful spot. So the, the local folks, uh, did not want this huge development, uh, to, was proposed to sit a and we had a lot of discussion about how we could protect it. Right now, there's a lot of tourism development in the Garfield County area. Their schools have the highest, uh, non-English speaking, uh, population percentage wise in the state. And we just thought that, uh, Garfield County came to me and said, would you help us with this, um, work with tla? And so we did. And, uh, TLA agreed to what's in the bill that we, uh, if it's culturally or scientifically a significant site, that means a site structure or natural feature located on trust lands with archeological cultural, historical paleo. Yeah. That one or scientific significance approved and listed by, by the administration. And, uh, we, we negotiated how we could protect these throughout the state on Sitler lands. Uh, we decided, uh, 640 acres and each county could designate two, two cultural sites. And, uh, on Sitler Lance, this, uh, this seemed like a logical, um, agreement. It, it, it exempts mineral lands and a county government or body would have to submit a nomination to IFF for one of these cultural sites within 24 months after the, uh, county Governor Gordy body receives the director's notification. Uh, I guess with that Mr. Vice chair, I would, uh, ask Michelle if she would like to add anything to that and, and, uh, give you a little more background. Okay. Go ahead.

Thank you, Representative Albrecht. We've appreciated working with Representative Albrecht throughout this, um, process. I think we've landed in a really good spot, and I'll talk a little bit about why SIT l in favor of HB 64. This is really a collaboration tool. We try to work with local municipalities while of course, also, you know, respecting our mandate to make money for school kids and other beneficiaries. And we, but again, we, we try to work with local municipalities and counties. We don't always know areas that might be special to these, uh, local people, to the locals. We have a lot of knowledge of the areas, but we don't always know some of these things. And so this is an opportunity for us to have a framework so counties can let us know, they can talk to their constituents, let us know what are some special areas to them so that we can have that information. And then in the future, if, if an opportunity comes up, we know that that's something we really need to talk to people about and figure out if there are things we should do differently and have those conversations. So again, from SITA's perspective, we welcome the more information we have, the better decisions we can make. And so, again, this is a collaborative tool and we support this bill. Uh, I think, uh, you know, we, we all appreciate what SIT A has done with their trust fund and, and the money that they give to the schools. It's, it's amazing. Uh, they, they wrote a lot of checks to a lot of schools this year for a lot of money. And that I go back to the days of representative Mel Brown and his vision on sit list state lands and, and what that fund's grown to. It's just amazing. Um, so at times, like Michelle said there, she doesn't always know or nor does her people know a significant site for whatever reason it's outlined in the bill. And so this was a good compromise, I think, by sit to, to recognize the people in that area and, and their wishes. And, uh, I guess I'll conclude with that. Uh, it was discussed in our natural resource interim committee with a favorable rating. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you.

I I do have a, a quick question. So, uh, says you have to designate these no later than 24 months after the county legislator receives the notification. So, so that means they're gonna receive the notification rather soon. Once this is passed over, passed out, is there a reason to put a limit on it that maybe a county in the future, you know, five years down the road decides, well, this is a pretty significant spot that they couldn't do this?

Well, it could be, but this is, it was, this was a lot of negotiations, a lot of hard negotiations, and when this is where we landed, and I think if SLAs sends out a notice for a nomination of a sale, uh, this gives the county the opportunity to respond, uh, in deference to tla. I don't know that you'd want to go longer to that. I, I think it's good compromise.

Thank you, chair. Um, I just have a couple of questions. First of all, as a school teacher, nothing but love for our trust lands, and I appreciate it so much. Um, I, I recently saw the map of minerals only surface only. This would only apply to surface only, um, Sitler Holdings. Is that correct?

Uh, you know, what, if, if this is a site that's designated for significant cultural significance, if there would be, um, certain kinds of activities we would court, we would go through this process. The language in there that talks about not having to be mineral is we essentially, um, and, you know, and, and the representative, I had a lot of conversations about this. I think we agreed, we're not looking for this to be the next version of the, of the Antiquities Act. We don't want this to be the State's Antiquities Act. So we wanted to make sure that this couldn't be used, for example, to shut down some, some mineral development that could be really helpful for the state, for the school kids. Mm-hmm. So that was why we added that language about, you know, something that's not, it's if it's a major mineral development piece of land mm-hmm. I'm, I'm sorry, min Yeah, no, I said that correctly. Mineral development. Mm-hmm. Uh, piece of land, that would be one that would be excluded.

Right. So just, just to clarify, um, in the, in the, in the bill, it says that a proposed culturally or scientifically significant site may not include lands containing deposits of, uh, mineral resources. Right? Yes. So does that exclude them all or are you saying that there are gonna be allowances made?

It it would be developable minerals. So it would be minerals that have some sort of, um, value in the marketplace that we could, that we would wanna lease or otherwise develop. Okay. I, I think it would be a, a, a negotiation. You say there's a rare mineral there that needs to be mm-hmm. Yeah. Be a negotiation.

Okay. Thank you. And then, do you mind if I ask one more chair? Yeah, go Ahead. Um, what if resources are discovered after the Fact?

Yes. Thank you. Uh, we, this certainly does not stop communication. There's not a two year, um, a two year term. And then after that, we don't want to talk to anybody. We just wanted some kind of framework. Uh, when you're trying to, to work through the process and get lists together and make sure we're having these communications, it just helps to have some parameters in place so we sort of know what we're talking about and make sure that that counties are prioritizing this. But this certainly doesn't stop us from having those conversations. And it also also add, there is also language, having the agency look through and evaluate these. And certainly if other things have happened in the meantime, we would, again, this is a collaboration tool. Yeah. So we want this information. So again, it's not shutting the door on future communication, it's just giving a framework so that we can have, um, a way to move forward and feel like we're getting a little finality. And it's not quite kind of just hanging on for years and years. But again, always wanna hear from counties if, if things happen in the meantime.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to say I wholeheartedly support the bill and I appreciate the sponsor working on it. I think there's, my, my family goes way back in Garfield County in particular. But this is a, a statewide issue. And I just think there's a few things more important than identifying and hanging onto these historical points of reference. They keep us oriented as a people, and they're healthy for people psychologically to know where we came from and to encounter these places, even if they're strangers to the area, to see a sign on the road is a meaningful, uh, connection to the past and to place. And I just, I don't know of much that I consider really more important in the long run. So thank you.

I, I jumped the gun there. Sorry, I was gonna make a motion, but I'll wait. Oh, okay.

Thank you, Mr. Vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Kim Christie. I'm actually the director of the Land Trust Protection Advocacy Office, which obviously is another leg of the trust system. I just wanted to make note that, uh, we also had the privilege of attending the meeting that, uh, representative Ulbrich referenced that was held down in Richfield. And I had the privilege of joining Director McConkey in this discussion along with other things that were taking place besides that meeting, really appreciate the sensitivity of the sponsor. As he pointed out, this is a delicate issue and it took a lot of time and discussion to really bring us to where we're at on it. I just thought it might be worth noting too. Other dimensions of the bill that I think strengthened this collaborative dimension that even go beyond what I think was been, has been referenced here, is that it talks about other avenues. Let's assume that we get a piece of property that is identified and qualifies for protection under at least the immediate watch of sla. It opens the door to other channels which are more common that we're used to, of course, in collaboration with the counties, such as exchange targets, perhaps to where it might be better suited to fall in the hands of administration by the federal government or a state entity such as Parks and Rec or, or, uh, maybe even DWR depending on the nature of the property. But, uh, those flexible dimensions are still, I think, part of the overall culture of how these decisions are rendered. I would mention one other thing too, that this isn't the only vehicle in which county commissions have the opportunity to communicate and do communicate with, with SIT a I know, for instance, there's a provision in the SIT a code that allows and invites what's referred to as the County Advisory Council to actually join and to give feedback at any time that they deem appropriate to before the sit a board. So those communication flows are also built into the overall current structure, but this is a complimentary dimension to it. And so we would like to lend our support as well and give, uh, um, representative Brook to shout out for, for navigating this. We support it. Thank you very much. Thanks.

Mr. Chair, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. I'm on Fallon Owens is tourism computer. So I'm not Fallon Owens. My name's uh, Leland P*****k. I'm a Garfield County Commission Chairman. Well, you're supposed to tell us who it is. Uh, Leland. Good to see you, man. I just Barely seen That. Go, go Ahead. No, I'm not Fallon. Okay, soon change that story. Go ahead. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I need to thank Carl Albrecht for his Herculean effort. This wasn't an easy bill to work on. We had, uh, and, and Michelle, I want to thank you. You, you've bent over backwards to try to make all this work. And we did a lot of work. There was some tenses and candid conversations that, that people usually have with me, but that's all right. We're all friends, aren't we? Michelle and Carl Albrecht, we want to thank you. You have been a rural champion and this is evidence of what you do for rural Utah. I'm not even in Carl's districts, and you know, I am campaigning for you, by the way, because you are up for a reelection. But as far as the bill goes, I'll, I'll be very, uh, brief with this. Carl hit it on the head. He covered all the, the main points. Uh, it, it means a lot to this little community. I grew up in this community, this promise rock is sacred ground. And to us, we didn't even know it was on sit land. We just thought it was public land that we would be able to, to carry out these cultural significant activities and historic activities forever. And it is true, uh, people still go there and take their vows, and that's, that's a pretty sacred thing to a little area like Bryce Valley, Utah, which is one of the most scenic places in the world. And it was a wonderful place to grow up. So I, these areas need to be saved. We're not doing, we're not obstructing any mineral extraction, oil, gas, uh, coal. I'm pro all of that. Everybody that knows me knows that, that I am very, uh, aggressive when it comes to mineral extraction and gas and oil. So it doesn't affect any of that. Counties aren't gonna get out of, uh, hand here with two sections of land. It's just two sections of land. And I don't think it's gonna break the SITA's budget. But even at that, I think there's more important things in life than, you know, having to be driven only by money. I think you have to be driven a little bit by what you're doing it for and the culture and the customs and the heritage of these local areas. So you're not, once they change, you're never gonna get 'em back. That, that is a unique area. And once it changes, I'm sorry, it just doesn't go back. You, you, you lose your cultural significance and your heritage. So with that, I will end and I hope that, uh, this bill will be supported.

I'll, yes, I'll, thank you.

Representative Monson? Yeah, thank you. I would just, um, recommend that we pass out House Bill 64, uh, with a favorable recommendation.

Yeah, just briefly. I, I, Representative Brooks has done a lot of work on this. We've heard all the work that he's done. Um, and, and as a, a rural, uh, representative as well, I, I appreciate that work. And, and we're all in this together, in, in finding ways to, to protect and to, um, make sure that everything is well maintained and well, um, I guess organized. So I, I appreciate that and, and thank him for his efforts.

Thank you. Um, I want to thank Representative Monson, and this is his district, but he allowed me to, to run the bill. I go way back in Garfield County to my previous life. And so I knew the area, I knew the people, and, uh, I told Representative Monson that I would be running this bill and he was very considerate and allowed me to do that, and just wanted the, that to be on record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. Good to be with you again. Um, so this bill had its genesis this past summer had I was approached by Garfield County to work with them and sitler on a, uh, a rock called Promise Rock. It's, uh, underneath Bryce Canyon, between the communities of Tropic and Cannonville, Utah and Garfield County. And, uh, promised Rock goes back to early Indian settlements, native Americans, uh, where they made their vows. Uh, couples made their vows, they also had some burial grounds there. And, uh, through the settlement of, uh, that area, uh, there has been the same desire to go to Promise Rock and do your wedding vows or renew your vows. Um, it, it's quite a, uh, cultural significant site to the, to the people of Garfield County, particularly the a the people right there in the area. Um, Sitler had a piece of property there that they were going to, to sell. And, uh, I guess there was a lot of discussion between Sitler and Garfield County. And I realized that Sitler has a, a great mission and they do a lot for our schools on the sale of their settler property. Um, I know the schools in my area are, are very thankful for the, the money that they get from settler each year. And so I, I contacted, uh, director McConkey, and I said, can you come down to Richfield and, and meet with me and Garfield County, and let's see if we can work something out on this. And so she came down and, and we, we had a quite a discussion and, and worked back and forth after that. And, and we, we created a process for a, a county to nominate a culturally and scientifically significant site, uh, which might be located on TLA lands. Uh, it established the requirements for how to do that and required the director of SIT a to notify a county with trust lands of the opportunity to nominate these sites and approve a nomination, um, if the nomination meets the established requirements. And, and so we went through that and the good director sitting next to me come up with some language that we, we worked on, uh, defining what cultural and significant means. Um, you know, a, a site structure or natural feature located on Trus lands with archeological, cultural, historical paleontological or scientific significance. And then we, we defined how much and, uh, we limited that smallest area and necessary, uh, or 640 acres, uh, excluding, uh, lands that contain, uh, minerals that could be developed. Uh, the counties, uh, have to get back with Sitler within 24 months, uh, to nominate one of these sites. And, and as we went through the process, I know the Senate had some concerns, uh, about some of the, the areas that might be nominated throughout the whole state. And so I limited, I, I got an amendment, uh, which, uh, limited it to fourth, fifth, and sixth class counties, which are really probably where most of these sites would be located, uh, south of the Payson Dixon line in the Red Rock country. And, uh, so we, we passed that in the house. And, um, I, I would like the director to, you know, make some comments about how this come about and, and, uh, she's been great to work with. Solas been great to work with Mr. Chair, if I could have her do that.

Um, so looking motion, Senator Hinkins, Uh, thank, thank you Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that we adopt house Amendment one. Okay. In, uh, representative ALB brick's. Name for house Bill 64. Thank you. The motion is we adopt amendment one and representative ALB brick's. Name to house Bill, uh, 64.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. Um, TLA manages land throughout the state. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Senator Sandall. Michelle McConkey. I'm the Director of the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration. Uh, TLA manages land throughout the state, and we endeavor to work with local communities and to try to understand their needs. It brings a lot of money, of course, to school kids. The activities we do. It also brings economic development to a lot of these rural areas in Utah. And we have people, uh, we have field offices throughout the state, but we also have about 10,000 individual pieces of parcels of land that we manage. And we are in communities across the state, and we don't always know what we don't know. And really, we, we truly appreciate working with the sponsor. Representative Albrecht has been great. Um, we've landed at a good place. We feel what this would do is just give us a collaborative tool. It's an opportunity for trust lands, to get input directly from the communities to find out what pieces are important to them that we may not know. Uh, because you can't always know unless you've lived in the town for, for generations sometimes. And it gives us that information and it, and it lets us, um, again, collaborate and work closely with these communities so that when we're making plans and we're determining how we wanna move forward, that we have this information upfront. And that's, that's really what we, we want from this bill. And we're really grateful again, that the sponsor was willing to work with us. And Umsla absolutely supports this bill, and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, in the bill file, it, uh, it sets up a process whereby counties can nominate, come back, um, and then sit can kind of decide if you want to set those parcels off to the side or not. Um, I guess my concern and angst is because these are state lands that the state legislature probably should be the determining factor. I just wonder if the sponsor would maybe address, if he would be willing to do this on a one site basis where you, in the bill file, we would propose this site, kind of like we do a state park, even not, not at state park status, but some status that says the state legislature agrees to protect this site for cultural, uh, awareness, whatever, with also recognizing future mineral development rights or something like that. Would that, would that be something that we could look at?

I, I think that's a reasonable request. I, I like the state park process and, uh, I think Garfield County would be happy with that if, if some other county wanted to pursue it. Uh, I think tla, uh, somehow we've gotta let those other counties know. Uh, what do you, what's your thinking there, Senator? Well,

I, I would just suggest that, that by word of mouth, these things tend to spread quite, quite a bit. And if there is another spot that somebody thinks is historical, the, the legislature then could determine size and scope the, the smallest, smallest size area possible and, uh, and allow those discussions to come up here and, and be a, a bill file.

Well, I know there were some concerns in the Senate about that. And, um, and you know, I, I really did this as a favor for Garfield County. I don't represent Garfield County. It's be transparent here. And, and, uh, but they call on me a lot and so does Wayne County and Kane County. And, uh, I, I'm, I, I think Garfield County would be pleased with that process.

Uh, but I would like somehow maybe, maybe the director has some comments that she could make on how I would like to see it, uh, somewhat advertised maybe to those counties in the Red Rock country, because that's probably where most of these sites are that need to be culturally protected. Director you have A comment to that?

Yes. Uh, so first of all, thank you Senator Sandall. I mean, I'm, I'm certain this is understood, but we, there would have to be compensation fair market value compensation for the land to comply with, um, the Constitution. And I'm, I'm assuming that's what's intended, but just wanna make sure that that's, that's out there as well. And, um, I, I, again, I I think we would be open to that as long as it has a, you know, the, the school kids are, are compensated under fair market value as would, would be required. Um, and then as far as notification, I think it would be great. This actually what we had put together actually codifies a lot of the process we've been going through already, which is trying to meet with counties and find out what's important to them. So that's certainly still our intent, and we are, um, more than happy to, to put together some kind of notice and make sure it's going out to counties and just ask them directly for that information.

So, follow up. Yes. Thanks. So that brings up a second thought then under the bill file. The way it currently is, um, it does not have a fiscal note on it. It does not have any money transferring from the state over. How would that be different if this were just a one time this fits this program, we're not gonna take any rights away from Silla. Mm-hmm. Uh, I mean, in other words, it seems to me that this, this bill file should have a fiscal note on it if indeed the state has to compensate the way that we, we would, I'm, how's the difference working here?

So the way this bill is set up is it doesn't require sit a to, for example, put it in conservation. Again, it's a collaborative tool. So it gives us that information so that we can then make sure we're communicating with counties and talking through and figuring out what the next step is. I believe there's a section that talks about then once that happened, there would be communication with the counties to figure out if there would be some sort of conservation easement or a sale or, um, if development, if we wanna try to, you know, steer development in a slightly different direction. So it's intended more as, again, a collaborative sort of tool in encouraging that information free flow instead of specifically actually putting it on ice without going through a little bit more of a process.

Okay. Just, just one final comment. I guess my concern is, is that we have a, uh, state assets asset that the legislature is tasked with keeping track of really, ultimately. And, uh, what we're doing is seeding that decision to TLA over how far and wide we may allow this to go. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable with that. I'd rather see each of those decisions come to the legislature rather than, uh, seed that to, to TLA knowing now that, that there wouldn't have to be compensation by a particular county to come in and compensate that the, the sit system for anything. Anyway. That's, that's not a question, Mr. Chair.

That's just my comment. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I respond?

So, uh, I, I guess I don't oppose the one and done as long as Sitler notifies the other counties in fourth five and six, because I think they need to establish that relationship with counties on culturally significant sites or whatever it might be. But when you say there's no fiscal note, Garfield County has no money to buy this. This is No, that's what I'm saying. So that's what, this would be a one and done deal.

Well, under the same, oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. Un under the same format that we've got here. You could accomplish the same thing without a purchase or a lease or, uh, some other agreement in a one and done situation as is, as you would to the way this is set up that other counties can then just approach sit a and make additional agreements really without any legislature, any, any legislative buy-in to it.

Yes. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. I think we also have a Garfield County Commissioner online. I think it'd be appropriate to have him say a few words. Is commissioner, uh, Garfield County Commissioner? I, I mean, I know it's not fairly common, but he, he could weigh in on the discussion.

Yeah. Uh, thank you Representative Albrecht. Thank you. Michelle McConkey. I wanna mention how, uh, helpful they have been as Representative Albrecht has said, he's not our representative. And, and many of you in that, in the house in the Senate has been a good friend of Garfield County, including, uh, including Senator Sandall. Uh, of course Darren Owens is our senator and Kinins. That's, that's all I can see. But, uh, we want to thank you for, for all the help you've given us through the years. So this cultural site is really, uh, hit a sore spot with the community. There were like 600, well, I don't know, not quite 600 signatures against doing any, any type of development at this site, which in the Bryce Valley area, that's about 80% of the population really in that area. That's where I grew up. And we all knew Promise Rock when we were growing up as kids. Our ancestors had passed down information through generations of how culturally important and significant this site was. Because basically, I guess it dates back to the Native Americans used to take vows there. So when the pioneers settled the area in the late 18 hundreds, it started with the pioneers taking their wedding vows at this site. So, uh, having said that, that's the explanation why this is so significant to our culture in that area. But I understand how the mandate for, um, selling sit the land for the school trust kids, uh, the, the kids. I understand that component. This particular site really, I don't think you can build right on the rock. Uh, I'm not so sure that, uh, it's gonna affect the development overall down there. But Senator Sandall, can I ask you a question on this, uh, proposed amendment

I'm open for, I'm open for questions. Let's do that. Okay. Sorry about that.

Uh, so in your request, you would be requesting a fiscal note No.

To compensate Sitler? No, No. No. Okay. No. Alright.

He just wanted to know why the fiscal note was zero on this particular bill. Okay. Alright. That was all, that was my only question. No, I was just a little confused with the discussion.

Back to me. Back To you, sir. Uh, I'll conclude with, uh, the discussion that we've had. I think it's good. And I, I think this would be good for Garfield County, and I'm not obje objecting to a one and done on here. And, and, uh, I would just ask that Sitler continue to work with the other counties, uh, at least in fourth, fifth, and sixth Cass Counties, and notify them of what's been done. Uh, because that's where most of these significant sites are. Uh, and as you can tell by the commissioner's testimony, that it is pretty important to the locals. But I also realize the other side of it. And, uh, maybe Senator Sandall, you could, um, amend it. We could get a substitute for the Senate floor, if you consider that. Mm-hmm. Okay. I think, uh, chair Owens is the sponsor, so if you, I would ask that you work with him and do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kim Christie. I'm the Director of the Land Trust Protection and Advocacy Office, which, as you all know, is one of the legs of the trust system. You're well aware that sit a course as a trustee administers the land portfolio as Director McConkey just identified and, and represented cifo. On the other hand, the fund office administers the investment portfolio. My office is assigned to represent actually the 12 different beneficiaries that are associated with the trust to assure that their rights and interests are protected and recognized. We would like to, uh, go on record that, uh, in representing these beneficiaries, we support what Representative Albrecht has put forward in the bill in its current form. And again, we, like others have pointed out, we commend Representative Albrecht for his sensitivity in working with Director McConkey to navigate the recognition, of course, what the purpose of these trust lands is all about. Going clear back to the enabling Act, our Constitution statute, and even case law that speaks to the fact that, uh, these lands are intended to maximize utility, to provide financial support to the respective beneficiaries. In context to Senator Sandals comment about the consideration of maybe how you put this into a singular approach, we like the idea of what this bill does, creating options and a collaborative opportunity to attain information from all of the counties that would qualify now four, five, and six, as was just mentioned in the past. Um, and in the event, because of being options to be looked at rather than the singular strategy of sale or whatever, we think it's important to examine given circumstances of what the best outcome for a particular parcel might be, and rather than a foregone conclusion of sale. But if it was sale, for instance, it makes sense that that sale would ultimately change jurisdiction and oversight to the hands of state parks, as was mentioned, or possibly the county, or maybe even through a land exchange, for instance. It would put it into another party's hands. So it doesn't necessarily, on a long-term basis anyway, create conflict in terms of what the purpose of these assets are about. We think the flavor of the bill as it now stands and with the amendment, um, is a friendly approach to this delicate collaborative approach. CTLA has a really good history, I think, of working. And unfortunately, the circumstance it was described is a bit of an anomaly. But Sister SITA's history in working with counties through land exchanges, et cetera, identifying sensitive lands that need to be traded in these kind of capacities, very much alive and on the minds of how they administer these lands. But anyway, we again, want to thank the sponsor for this bill. We would encourage it to maintain in the context it's presented and, uh, again, we, and we submit our support to it. Much thank you much. And I would just like to add to that, you know, the state parks, that they don't actually have to be a state park. We actually have a, a monument designation so that it can be a lot smaller area and it also doesn't have to be under the jurisdiction where you have to have all the picnic tables and the, uh, restrooms and everything else with it. So we actually have that as a park to do that. And like, and as well as you said, we have a way to trade, uh, in and outta counties that is more productive. 'cause most of these places they're talking about, it's probably on some rock that's not developable or some ledges or something until we can, the county can trade that for other areas of, uh, other production Exactly. You know, up around the cities and stuff where they can use it for developing their homes and stuff like that. So there's, it doesn't have to be a fiscal note attached to it of that, because it could be traded for, uh, other properties that the other count the county has available or the state as well. So thank Mr. I think it's a straight idea to, okay.

Yeah. Senator Sandall, I'm gonna move that we, uh, favorably recommend from this committee, HB 64 as amended.

Okay. So, um, I, I appreciate the fact that we're trying to do something like this, but I do think that there, um, there is the debate still around whether the, the legislature is ultimately needs to be somewhat responsible or at least informed in the decision, um, on when we do this kind of thing. And the other question that came to my mind is how would a, uh, uh, some other de designation that we already have, give them the protection that they're looking for as in a state monument kind of designation, right? So I think we can explore that as we go through, uh, as we continue to look at this. Okay. Thanks.

House Bill 64 School and Institutional Trust, lands Amendments by Representative Albrecht. This bill was heard in Natural Resources, agriculture and Environment with a vote of 9 0 5

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, HB 64 was one of the tougher bills I negotiated and worked on, uh, for a long time. Uh, with all due respect to Representative Monson, this is in his area, but he allowed me to run the bill because I had been working on it, uh, with Garfield County. So many of you know that sit a, the school and institutional trust lands as like a four, $4 billion trust, and they give a lot of money back to the schools every year, and we appreciate that and they've managed it well. Uh, and occasionally they put a piece of property up for sale where they have not consulted with the counties or the local cities close by that parcel. And, and that was the case here. I don't know if any of you're familiar in Garfield County, but as you drive past Bryce Canyon and you go down and you come to the three little towns of Tropic Cannonville and Henrieville next to Cannonville, which probably population of one 50, maybe two 50, I don't know, there's a geologic structure called Promise Rock. And Promise Rock is a very cultural, historical sensitive site to the natives. Even the Native Indians who used to use that as a, uh, burial site, as a site to take their wedding vows. And, uh, people still use it today. People go there to get married, renew their vows, and, uh, it has a lot of cultural and historical significance. The locals gathered a petition and said, we don't want this sold for a development. The Garfield County School District has the highest second language percentage, uh, of kids with second language learning because of all the, uh, tourist traps down there, Bryce Canyon and so forth in Tropic and ic. And the locals just did not want this. So we contacted tla, we sat down starting about, uh, April or May or June, we negotiated several meetings and we come up with this bill. So what the bill does is it creates a process for a county to nominate a cultural or scientifically significant site located on school and institutional trust lands for, for potential preservation. So what we ended up with is, uh, TLA will notify each county in the state if they have culturally significant sites with, uh, archeological, cultural, historical or paleontological, however you say that, um, values, then they will allow the counties two years to nominate those sites. Probably not every county has one of these sites, but certainly in rural Utah, southern Utah where all the red rocks are, some of those counties do. And I'll try to speak loud, it sounds like there's a party going on outside. Uh, so that's the basis of the bill. Uh, the site cannot exceed 640 acres or include any minerals that would bring revenues to the trust fund. Um, and, and the counties, uh, would have, like I said, two years to nominate these cultural sites. It took a lot of negotiations with Sitler and the county, but we did come to an understanding and an agreement. And that's the bill. Mr. Speaker, happy to answer any questions.

It's a good bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

um, a county of the fourth, fifth or sixth class. And, uh, this came about in discussion with the, uh, interim natural Resources Environment committee. And, um, sit, CTLA doesn't know what is on every square foot of all of their property, and they only know what they know. So they were, um, in, in part helping with the language on this bill. What it does, uh, allows a qualified county to, um, nominate a piece of property that might have, uh, uh, nominated for, to hold archeological cultural, historical paleontological or scientific value. And one in particular, the, the, the place in, um, in Garfield County is over the years, the Native Americans, uh, who've lived there for generations and, and pioneers have come to this location. It's called Promise Rock. And where many have taken vows and, uh, and repro made remade vows over the years, and it's a little, uh, cultural significant spot. Um, so what the county would do is nominate this as being, um, a piece of property that they could potentially purchase or lease from tla, um, in consultation with tla, but the county would nominate it and leave it, uh, the decision up to the director of Sitler. And if they did qualify, the director did their research and found that, that this bit within, uh, their, their, um, guidelines to manage their sitler property, they could work with the county to make sure that they, uh, were able to purchase that land or, or make use of it so that there was benefit for the schoolchildren. That's what the bill does and the purpose of it is this one location and, uh, in Garfield County. With that, I would be open to questions,

Yes. Um, so the, um, there was amendments made to it that, um, would make the bill really just, uh, to this one area instead of opening up to the entire, uh, to counties of all fourth, fifth, and sixth class. So it's meant to, um, address this one promise rock area. Okay. It does set up that transparent pathway. I appreciate the question. So that others could follow if they wanted, but they would have to go through this similar process one at a time. Okay.

Thank you. Will sponsor yield to a question?

Okay. Is there any criteria for the director to make a decision or is it solely in the director's purview to make the decision however the director wants to?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. Uh, it, there is criteria. Um, it, it can't just be, uh, just a, a simple nomination and the criteria would need to follow and go back to the beneficiaries who, uh, the board with the trust lands then and, and receive approval that it fits within the scope, such as may purchase price or leasing. Um, that those, those, uh, qualifications are met.

I'm try, I was looking for those, I'm looking for those standards in the bill and I was trying to find through 'em, 'cause I remember this being a, a question that we had. Um, my, I think we're looking at lines one 11 shall approve a rejection nomination no later than a hundred. So it has a timeline there. Um, that is there an appeals process? I'm just trying to figure out, we're, we're putting a direct, we're putting the director of SIT a in a sticky legislative situation. Um, and I'm always a little bit hesitant about putting the director of SA into a sticky legislative session or situation. Um, department heads, uh, do well in a, in a lot of situations, but it's always a difficult when they're, you know, if this is denied, uh, for whatever reason. Do you feel like this is gonna put the director in a tough political position?

Yes. I appreciate the question. Um, according to the director, no. Um, this language was actually drafted by, so they, um, came forth to help in, in creating this and um, her, in her, the current director's words said, we don't know what we don't know. So we're happy to, uh, look at these options and see there isn't a appeal process. But back to earlier, it, it is up to the director's sole discretion that they could reject or, um, approve if it was not approved. There is the county could appeal and say we have more information we could share and that might influence decision, but it is up to the director.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to thank you. I was trying to find the, uh, the appeals process. It doesn't look like there's an appeal above the director though. It looks like if there's an issue, uh, the director provides them notice on one 17, uh, for, you know, of rejecting and it gives the counties the opportunity to cure. Uh, and then, you know, maintaining a list. I'm just trying to see where is, if there is an appeal, where does that appeal go to? Is it still to the director? Sorry, I'm just curious. Senator

Owens it, it it is, that's what, um, okay. That, that is what the appeal is. Then the, the, um, county or the legislative body of the county could. Okay. Yeah. That's the appeal process. Okay.

Awesome. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Uh, um, where it talks about scientifically significant sites, um, can you gimme an idea of what that would mean?

Um, so say for instance, uh, out on Setler property, someone discovered a, a pal paleontological, uh, new find. That would be scientifically, um, something that I think the state would want to preserve or the county might discover that and could nominate that. Okay.

Um, I have two other questions. Go

the first is related to the ownership. If a, if a site is nominated, does the ownership transfer to the nominating group or does it stay with ctla

Senator Owens That, uh, it does not, unless that's the agreement and there's a, um, purchase agreement that's made that it would, uh, change hands just as if it were, um, uh, developer. Yeah, that's the only time that it would change hands. It could also be a lease. Um, so there's a few ways that this could be set aside and preserved.

Okay. Then the last question, Senator Brammer is related to Senator. Yeah, the last question is related to maintenance. Uh, if there is a site that's getting, you know, a good amount more foot traffic or something like that, which I, I expect some of the culturally significant ones may, uh, especially once it's nominated, those may create a, a lot of foot traffic who would be ultimately responsible for the costs of maintenance and any facilities that may be needed related to a culturally Significant site.

Yeah. Thank, thank you. I I appreciate the question. Um, in the discussion that I was able to sit in on this, this site actually would be in Garfield County would nominate it, but right now it would be an extension of a state park. Um, the state parks director is interested in this becoming another recreational opportunity around promise rock, and that's not in the bill yet, but I would expect that a substitute is coming that would designate as such, if that helps.

Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Thank you Mr. President Pro tem. Um, I, I think this is a great bill. You know, frequently we move into different areas and we kind of are, um, not sure how it's gonna work out and I think there's some appetite for us to see where this goes and make, uh, um, adjustments accordingly. I mean, when you think about culturally significant or scientifically significant, that's important for our culture. And then when you think about what a great job Sitler has done to increase the amount of money that are going to our schools, I think this is right. Aligned with the great work that they've been doing to, you know, educate our students, give us those resources as a, a benefit, and then also providing some kind of conduit for when we do come across these situations. So I think this is a great bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President Pro Temp. Uh, this is, uh, something that the counties have to, uh, apply for and it came to the sit because of Garfield County. It was a, a certain area down there and most of this in the Red Rock country where there's, uh, archeology, uh, as well as, uh, petroglyphs and, uh, and so the people are being locked out of these places, uh, and not being able to, I mean, it doesn't really do any good to have these places there if you can't visit 'em. And so the county takes pretty much, they're the ones that have to petition it and they take responsibility for that area. And as Sony counties of the fourth, fifth and class, fourth, fifth, and sixth class counties that are involved in this. And, uh, anyway, I I I, they sitler come and testified that they're in support of it and they have a board of directors that has, doesn't just fall directly on the director herself or herself and, uh, whoever it may be, they have a board that could also take part at the blame for this if that was to go sour on 'em. But, uh, in most cases, the counties already decided, uh, they have the access and the roads on the RS 2, 4, 7, 7 roads. And so we just wanna make sure that they're kept open for people to enjoy These archeological sites

Thank you. In summation. I have a strange, uh, motion. Um, I'll speak to that, uh, the, uh, move that we circled the bill and, um, the questions are amazing and I'm pouring my guts out here for this bill for my county 'cause I love this county. Uh, but the, the and the house, the, the house sponsor of the bill didn't inform the Senate floor sponsor that this has actually already been agreed to. Now there's gonna be a purchase of it and it's all done. We don't need the bill. So motion to circle.

Thank you Mr. President Proti, move to, um, remove the enacting clause and give this to strike the enacting clause and give this bill a ride.

Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Mr. President Prote. May I have a personal privilege? Uh, granted, Uh, I'd like to thank the, uh, highway patrolman up in the, uh, gallery. His name is Roger and he keeps all the people