State Proposes 885 Free Acres for AIDEA at Port MacKenzie

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 on Sept. 16. The land is Tracts 10A and 13A of the Point MacKenzie Terminal Reserve. AIDEA would use it for rail-support and cargo logistics facilities. Public comment closes at 5 p.m. on Oct. 21.

The borough gave the state those same tracts three months earlier, for nothing. Under Ordinance Serial No. 26-066, adopted June 16, the assembly conveyed the land to the state without consideration. The borough enacted the ordinance notwithstanding borough code, and the staff memorandum states that step set aside public noticing and a Best Interest Finding, the written justification the code requires. The land and structures had been appraised in 2023 at $1,350,000 and $1,297,000.

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

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

The September Resolution

The assembly passed that resolution 7-0 on Sept. 15. It opposes AIDEA's application for roughly 19,935 acres of state land north of Houston, filed under case file ADL 234762. Its third operative clause encourages AIDEA and the state to prioritize Point MacKenzie and West Susitna for future industrial development. The stated reasoning is that the borough has already spent money at Point MacKenzie on port facilities, transportation infrastructure and industrial planning.

Assembly Member Ron Bernier sponsored the measure and moved it. The staff memorandum accompanying it carries no analysis and no fiscal note, stating only that the rationale appears in the resolution itself. The Sept. 15 minutes remain in draft, and the roll call and testimony list come from the per-item notes in the borough's legislative database.

The assembly accepted a $7.9 million federal grant for a barge ramp, awarded about $148,000 for a roof structure, reappropriated $125,000 for a master plan update, and requested $200,000 more from the Denali Commission. It accepted $75,000 from the state for West Susitna Parkway improvements and voted to supply the Alaska Railroad free earth materials as an in-kind match for the Point MacKenzie Rail Extension. It also paid $300,000 to remove the port's conveyor system.

The Houston application covers 19,935.83 acres. The Port MacKenzie proposal covers 885. Nothing in the state or borough records states that one substitutes for the other. The Houston file was received Dec. 10, 2025, and as of Sept. 18 remained at application received, with the file held at the commissioner's office.

Covenants Lifted, Development Still Undesigned

The parcels carried state agricultural covenants imposed under AS 38.05.321, and the borough's June conveyance was contingent on their removal. DNR's preliminary decision finds that when the borough conveyed the land back to the state, those covenants were extinguished by operation of law under the doctrine of merger of title, which ends a restriction when land returns to the party that imposed it. DNR declines to reimpose them, finding that covenants "would restrict future use of the land and undermine the public purpose development of these lands as proposed by AIDEA." The tracts would be redesignated Settlement-Commercial, a commercial classification, under an amendment to the Southeast Susitna Area Plan. 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. The decision says nothing about who lives in the houses. It does say the parcels were rented out as a secondary use and that the last lease expired Jan. 18, 2026.

DNR states that 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 AIDEA dividend it pays the state. A reverter under AS 38.05.810(g) would return the tracts to the state if AIDEA does not use them as intended, mirroring the five-year condition the borough attached in June.

AIDEA's development plan, filed with its application, states that the project has not entered design. There is no engineered site plan, rail alignment, building layout, utility plan, grading plan or drainage plan. Intended uses are rail staging, cargo laydown (ground for holding freight) and surge storage, rail maintenance and access roads, with no commitment to a single shipper or commodity.

Public Testimony Split on the Resolution

Public testimony on Sept. 15 did not track the siting argument. Fourteen people testified against transferring land to AIDEA. One, Steve Edwards, is recorded as supporting the resolution. David Eastman and Rochelle Evergreen told the assembly the resolution does not reflect the concerns of the community. Mike Alexander and Linda Spohn 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, ADL 234934, or shows that members knew of the pending proposal when they voted. Whether the resolution reached DNR as a comment on the Houston application before that comment period closed the same day 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 on the proposed conveyance and the area plan amendment are due to DNR by 5 p.m. Oct. 21, under case file ADL 234934.