Mat-Su asks AIDEA to build at Point MacKenzie, not on 20,000 acres near Houston

The State of Alaska proposed giving the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority about 885 acres at Port MacKenzie at no cost — one day after the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly voted to steer AIDEA toward that area and away from Houston.

The Department of Natural Resources published the preliminary decision Sept. 16. AIDEA would use the two tracts for rail-support and cargo logistics. Public comment closes at 5 pm Oct. 21.

The borough gave the state those same tracts three months earlier, also for nothing.

How the land moved

On June 16 the assembly conveyed the tracts to the state without consideration. It did so notwithstanding borough code, and the staff memorandum states that step set aside public noticing and a Best Interest Finding — the written justification the code otherwise requires. The land and structures had been appraised in 2023 at $1,350,000 and $1,297,000.

The same memorandum records that the state sought the land after AIDEA and the Alaska Railroad each filed notices of interest. AIDEA applied for the tracts on June 24, eight days after the conveyance.

Assembly members Dee McKee and Stephanie Nowers voted against the June transfer. Both voted for the September resolution.

How the resolution came to exist

The assembly had already adopted a letter on the Houston question two weeks earlier. A reconsideration — the motion that reopens a vote already taken — was filed the next day, holding that letter and giving the deputy mayor time to write a resolution instead, Mayor Edna DeVries said in her post-meeting video update.

The resolution passed 7-0 on Sept. 15. It opposes AIDEA's pending application for state land north of Houston and encourages AIDEA and the state to prioritize Point MacKenzie and the West Susitna corridor instead. Assembly Member Ron Bernier, who sponsored it, said the point was to make clear the borough supports AIDEA and DNR — at Point MacKenzie.

The stated reasoning is that the borough has already spent heavily at Point MacKenzie on port facilities, transportation infrastructure and industrial planning, and its recent appropriations bear that out, including a $7.9 million federal barge ramp grant and free earth materials supplied to the Alaska Railroad for the rail extension. The West Susitna Access Project, a proposed 78.5-mile road from near Alexander Creek to the Whiskey Bravo airstrip and mineral camp, is not a new ask either: the state appropriated $8.5 million to AIDEA for predevelopment work in fiscal 2022.

The staff memorandum accompanying the resolution carries no analysis and no fiscal note.

Two parcels, two sets of terms

The Houston proposal is far larger. DNR issued a preliminary decision to convey roughly 19,950 acres of state forestry and habitat land about two miles north of Houston to AIDEA at no cost, for a multi-use industrial and energy development district. It would reclassify about 15,100 acres as settlement land, and lists among its expected effects the loss of public access to state land and reduced access to trails.

It also waives the state's reversionary interest — its right to take the land back. The Port MacKenzie decision does the opposite, attaching a reverter that would return those tracts if AIDEA doesn't use them as intended.

Public comment on the Houston proposal was set to close Aug. 19, then extended to Sept. 14 — the day before the assembly voted. DNR has yet to issue a final decision.

Nothing in the state or borough records states that one parcel substitutes for the other.

Covenants lifted, development undesigned

The Port MacKenzie parcels carried state agricultural covenants, and the borough's June conveyance was contingent on their removal. DNR's preliminary decision finds the covenants were extinguished automatically when the land returned to the state that imposed them — the doctrine of merger of title. DNR declines to reimpose them, finding they "would restrict future use of the land and undermine the public purpose development of these lands as proposed by AIDEA."

The decision records that the land grew hay, that cultivation has dwindled, and that multiple residences, farm and commercial buildings and a water well stand on it. It says nothing about who lives in the houses. It notes the parcels were rented as a secondary use and that the last lease expired Jan. 18.

DNR argues a no-cost conveyance improves the project's rate of return and reduces risk for private investment, and that the state can recover its contribution through lease revenues, profit distributions and the dividend AIDEA pays the state.

What AIDEA would build is not yet determined. Its development plan states the project has not entered design — no engineered site plan, no rail alignment, no building layout, no utility, grading or drainage plan. Intended uses are rail staging, cargo laydown and surge storage, rail maintenance and access roads, with no commitment to any single shipper or commodity.

What the record doesn't show

Public testimony on Sept. 15 did not track the siting argument. Fourteen people testified against transferring land to AIDEA at all. One is recorded as supporting the resolution. Two told the assembly it does not reflect community concerns; two others backed an industrial park at Point MacKenzie. The minutes summarize each position in a clause and quote no one.

Nothing in the borough record mentions the Port MacKenzie case file or shows that members knew of the pending state proposal when they voted. Whether the resolution reached DNR as a comment on the Houston application before that comment period closed the day before is not established in the records reviewed. No official from the borough, DNR or AIDEA is quoted in any of the documents.

The Port MacKenzie decision is preliminary. Written comments are due to DNR by 5 pm Oct. 21.