S. Rept. 104-174 - THE SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN-ARIZONA SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1995, TO PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY, AND THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES104th Congress (1995-1996)
PDF(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)Tip?
Calendar No. 245
104th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 104-174
_______________________________________________________________________
THE SADDLEBACK MOUNTAIN-ARIZONA SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1995, TO PROVIDE FOR
THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN
COMMUNITY, AND THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
_______
November 17 (legislative day, November 16), 1995.--Ordered to be
printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1341]
The Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred the
bill (S. 1341) to provide for the transfer of certain lands to
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the City of
Scottsdale, Arizona; having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill
as amended do pass.
purpose
The purpose of S. 1341 is to approve an agreement to settle
a dispute between the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
(hereinafter the ``Community''), and the City of Scottsdale,
Arizona, over 701 acres of land known as the Saddleback
property. The property is currently held by the Resolution
Trust Corporation.
background
The Saddleback property is located in the eastern-most part
of Scottsdale, abuts 1.7 miles of the northern boundary of the
Salt River Indian Reservation, and is undeveloped. Its most
distinctive feature is Saddleback Mountain, a striking natural
landmark that rises abruptly from the desert floor to a height
of 900 feet. Due to its location, high conservation value and
other special features, the property's use and disposition are
of major importance both to the Community and the City.
A dispute arose after the Resolution Trust Corporation, in
its capacity as the receiver for the Sun State Savings & Loan
Association, acquired the Saddleback property in 1989 and
subsequently noticed it for sale. The Community submitted the
highest cash bid for the property, $6,500,000, conditioned upon
being able to develop the flat portion of the property. The
City, concerned about the direction that development of the
property by the Community might follow, sued the Resolution
Trust Corporation to acquire the property by eminent domain.
The Resolution Trust Corporation then rejected all auction sale
bids and determined to transfer the property to Scottsdale
through the eminent domain litigation. The Community thereupon
filed civil rights actions against the City and the Resolution
Trust Corporation, seeking damages.
Rather than pursue the litigation, the City, the Community
and the Resolution Trust Corporation sought to resolve their
dispute through negotiation. The result of their efforts is a
settlement agreement under which the Resolution Trust
Corporation will sell the property to Scottsdale and the
Community for a total of $6,500,000. The City will pay $636,000
to acquire approximately 98 acres for preservation and 27 acres
for future expansion of an important traffic artery, Shea
Boulevard. The Community will pay $5,864,000 to acquire 576
acres adjoining its reservation. The two lawsuits (NO. CIV 93-
2266-PHX-RCB and NO. CIV 93-2173-PHX-PGR), which are pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
will be dismissed.
The settlement agreement provides that 365 acres of the
property to be acquired by the Community, including Saddleback
Mountain, will be forever preserved in its natural state for
use only as a public park and recreation area. Except for a
limited number of sites that are of particular historical and
cultural significance to the Community, the public will have
free access to this area. Together with the preservation
property to be acquired by the City, it will be jointly managed
by the City and the Community. The remaining 211 acres to be
acquired by the Community will be subject to a detailed
development agreement with the City, as well as the limitations
and restrictions of current Community zoning laws.
A continuing disagreement in the settlement negotiations
concerned the City's ability to enforce the Community's
commitments regarding the use and development of the lands to
be added to the Tribe's reservation. Given that the Saddleback
property is located entirely within Scottsdale's city limits,
and that there is a high level of local interest and concern
regarding the future use of the property, the parties agreed to
seek Federal legislation to eliminate any legal ambiguity as to
the enforceability of the settlement agreement.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 1341 was introduced on October 19, 1995, by Senators
McCain and Kyl, and was referred to the Committee on Indian
Affairs. In the House, Representative J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
introduced a companion bill, H.R. 2490, which was referred to
the Committee on Resources. On October 26, 1995, the Committee
on Indian Affairs held a hearing on S. 1341, and received
testimony from witnesses representing the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community, the City of Scottsdale, and the
Administration. All witnesses expressed support for the
enactment of S. 1341.
committee recommendation and tabulation of vote
In an open business session on November 7th, 1995, the
Committee on Indian Affairs, by voice vote, ordered S. 1341
reported with an amendment offered by Senator McCain, with the
recommendation that the Senate do pass the bill as reported.
section-by-section analysis of S. 1341
Short title
Section 1 cites the Short Title as the ``Saddleback
Mountain-Arizona Settlement Act of 1995''.
Congressional findings
Section 2(a) enumerates Congressional Findings that:
(1) the Salt River Prima-Maricopa Indian Community
and the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, have a
longstanding interest in a 701-acre tract of land
within the City of Scottsdale, known as the Saddleback
Property, that lies within the boundaries of the City
and abuts the north boundary of the Salt River
Reservation;
(2) the Saddleback Property includes Saddleback
Mountain and scenic hilly terrain along the Shea
Boulevard corridor in Scottsdale that has significant
conservation value and is of historic and cultural
significance to the Community;
(3) in 1989, the Resolution Trust Corporation
acquired the Saddleback Property in its capacity as
receiver for the Sun City Savings and Loan Association;
(4) after the Saddleback Property was noticed for
sale by the Resolution Trust Corporation, a dispute
between the Salt River Community and Scottsdale arose
concerning the future ownership, use, and development
of the Saddleback Property;
(5) the Community and the City each filed litigation
with respect to that dispute, but in lieu of pursuing
litigation, the Community and the City negotiated a
Settlement Agreement that addresses their respective
concerns regarding the Saddleback Property and provides
for dismissal of the litigation;
(6) under the Settlement Agreement, subject to
detailed use and development agreements, the Community
will purchase a portion of the Saddleback Property and
the City will purchase the remaining portion of that
property; and
(7) the Community and the City agree that the
enactment of legislation by Congress to ratify the
Settlement Agreement is necessary for the Settlement
Agreement to become effective, and for the United
States to take into trust the property to be purchased
by the Community and make it part of the Reservation.
(b) sets forth the purposes of this Act to be:
(1) to approve and confirm the Settlement, Release,
and Property Conveyance Agreement executed by the City,
the Community, and the Resolution Trust Corporation;
(2) to ensure that the Settlement Agreement
(including the Development Agreement, the Use
Agreement, and all other associated ancillary
agreements and exhibits) is carried out and is fully
enforceable in accordance with its terms, including
judicial remedies and binding arbitration provisions;
(3) to provide for the taking into trust by the
United States of the portion of the Saddleback Property
purchased by the Community in order to make that
portion a part of the Reservation.
Definitions
Section 3 defines the terms ``City''; ``Community'';
``Dedication Property''; ``Development Agreement'';
``Development Property''; ``Mountain Property''; ``Preservation
Property''; ``Reservation''; ``Saddleback Property'';
``Secretary''; ``Settlement Agreement''; and, ``Use
Agreement''.
Approval of agreement
Section 4 states that the Settlement Agreement is approved
and ratified and shall be fully enforceable in accordance with
its terms and the provisions of this Act.
Transfer of properties
Section 5(a) provides that the Resolution Trust Corporation
shall transfer: (1) to the Secretary, the Mountain Property and
the Development Property purchased by the Community; and, (2)
to the City, the Preservation Property and the Dedication
Property purchased by the City, upon satisfaction of all
conditions of closing set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
(b) provides that the Mountain Property and the Development
Property transferred to the Community shall, subject to
sections 6 and 7, be held in trust by the United States for the
Community and become part of the Reservation.
(c) provides that, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the United States shall not be liable for any preexisting
conditions on the parcels of land to be transferred to the
United States in trust for the Community;
The language of this subsection (c) was requested by the
Administration and adopted by the Committee.
(d) provides that, upon satisfaction of all conditions of
closing set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Secretary
shall cause to have plats of survey depicting the Dedication,
Development, Mountain, and Preservation properties filed with
the office of the Maricopa County Recorder and the Titles and
Records Center of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Limitations on use and development
Section 6 provides that upon the satisfaction of all of the
conditions of closing set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
the properties to be transferred to the City and the Community
pursuant to section 5 shall be subject to the following
limitations:
(1) the Preservation Property shall be forever
preserved in its natural state for use only as a public
park or recreation area that shall be used, maintained,
and subject to section 4(C) of the Settlement
Agreement, except that, at the sole discretion of the
City, that portion of the Preservation Property known
as the Dedication Property may be used to widen,
reconfigure, repair or reengineer Shea Boulevard in
accordance with section 4(D) of the Settlement
Agreement.
(2) the Dedication Property shall be used to widen,
reconfigure, repair or reengineer Shea Boulevard and
136th Street, in accordance with sections 4(D) and 7 of
the Settlement Agreement.
(3) the Mountain Property shall be forever preserved
in its natural state for use only as a public park or
recreation area that shall be used, maintained, and
subject to the restrictions set forth in section 5(C)
of the Settlement Agreement.
(4) the Development Property shall be used and
developed for the economic benefit of the Community in
accordance with the provisions of the Settlement
Agreement and the Development Agreement.
Amendments to the settlement agreement
Section 7 provides that no amendment made to the Settlement
Agreement (including any deviation from an approved plan
described in section 9(B) of the Settlement Agreement) shall
become effective unless the amendment is made in accordance
with the applicable requirements relating to the form and
approval of the amendment under sections 9(B) and 34 of the
Settlement Agreement and is consistent with the provisions of
this Act.
Section 9(B) of the Settlement Agreement provides that
neither the City nor the Community may deviate from any
requirement of the Settlement Agreement or the Development
Agreement or the Use Agreement without the prior written
consent of the other party. Section 34 provides that the
Settlement Agreement shall not be altered or amended except by
a writing signed by all parties to the Settlement Agreement.
cost and budgetary considerations
The analysis of the Congressional Budget Office on the
costs of S. 1341 follows:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, November 16, 1995.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed S. 1341, the Saddleback Mountain-Arizona Settlement
Act of 1995, as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs on November 7, 1995. S. 1341 would ratify a
settlement agreement that would transfer 701 acres from the
Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community (to be held in trust by the
Department of the Interior) and the city of Scottsdale,
Arizona. Under the settlement agreement, the Salt River
Community and the city of Scottsdale have agreed to pay the RTC
a total of $6.5 million, which would be offsetting collections
to the federal government. We estimate that enacting S. 1341
would increase federal collections by $6.5 million in fiscal
year 1996, but that such collections would be offset by a loss
of a similar amount some time over the next several years.
Based on information from the RTC, CBO expects that the
land would not be sold in the near term in the absence of the
bill. We cannot predict the timing or price of such a sale
under current law, but we expect that the land would be sold
eventually even without this legislation. Hence, CBO estimates
that enacting S. 1341 would increase offsetting collections to
the RTC by $6.5 million in fiscal year 1996, thus reducing RTC
outlays by that amount, but over time, there would be no
significant net budgetary impact.
The receipts obtained in 1996 would constitute proceeds
from a non-routine asset sale. As a result, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply to the bill. Under the 1996 budget
resolution, proceeds from asset sales are counted in the budget
totals for purposes of Congressional scoring. Under the
Balanced Budget Act, however, proceeds from asset sales are not
counted in determining compliance with pay-as-you-go
requirements.
In addition to authorizing the transfer of land, S. 1341
also would clarify limitations on the use of the lands. For
example, the city of Scottsdale would be permitted to extend
and repair certain streets on its land, and part of the
property transferred to the Salt River Community would be held
forever as park or recreation lands. Other than the payments
from the Salt River Community and the city of Scottsdale to the
RTC, S. 1341 would not significantly affect the budgets of
state or local governments.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel
Robertson.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
regulatory impact statement
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires each report accompanying a bill to evaluate the
regulatory and paperwork impact that would be incurred in
carrying out the bill. The Committee believes that S. 1341, as
amended, will have minimal regulatory or paperwork impact.
executive communications
The Department of the Interior testified on S. 1341 at the
Committee hearing on October 26, 1995. A copy of that testimony
follows:
Statement of Terrance Virden, Acting Director, Office of Trust
Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My
name is Terry Virden, Acting Director, Office of Trust
Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is my pleasure
to come before you today to present the Department of the
Interior's views on S. 1341, a bill ``To provide for the
transfer of certain lands to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community and the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, and for
other purposes.''
S. 1341, if enacted, would resolve a dispute between the
City of Scottsdale, Arizona, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community. The bill would approve and ratify a
Settlement, Release and Property Conveyance Agreement (which
includes a Development Agreement and a Land Use Agreement) for
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the City of
Scottsdale, Arizona, and the Resolution Trust Corporation. It
also ensures that the Settlement Agreement is carried out and
fully enforceable by its terms, including judicial remedies and
binding arbitration provisions.
The bill resolves conflicts and resulting lawsuits between
the City and the Community, and provides for land transfers
from the Resolution Trust Corporation to both parties. The City
of Scottsdale and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
have spent many months in negotiations and have agreed on the
use of the property.
The 701-acre parcel of land is within the City of
Scottsdale and is contiguous to the north boundary of the Sale
River Indian Reservation. The Resolution Trust Corporation
acquired the Saddleback property in 1989, as receiver for the
failed Sun States Savings and Loan Association. In October of
1993, the city filed a condemnation action in an attempt to
block a transfer of the property to the Community through an
advertised sale conducted by the Resolution Trust Corporation.
The condemnation action was brought because the city had
certain use restrictions which could be enforced against the
Community if the property were acquired in trust status, and
concern that the Community's acquisition of the property would
limit the City's right to control traffic in the northeast part
of the city.
In response to the city's condemnation suit and the
Resolution Trust Corporation's failure to transfer the property
to the tribe (as the high bidder), the tribe filed a civil
rights action in Federal District Court. As previously
indicated, the parties to the two suits have now negotiated
settlement agreements with the understanding that special
legislation is needed to authorize the negotiated land
transfers and confirm the agreed-upon land use restrictions.
The BIA generally supports reservation expansions to
include lands which are contiguous to existing reservation
boundaries, when local officials have been consulted about
potential jurisdictional conflicts and an attempt has been made
to address their concerns. S. 1341 would approve and ratify a
Settlement Agreement which is dated September 11, 1995, but was
executed on various other dates on behalf of the Resolution
Trust Corporation, the City, and the Community.
The Settlement Agreement provides for the transfer of
approximately 125 acres to the City of Scottsdale, Arizona. The
Settlement Agreement also provides for the transfer of
approximately 576 acres to the Community in trust status, with
365 acres of ``mountain property'' to be preserved largely in
its natural state for the general public. The Community would
have exclusive use of specifically-identified ``special
cultural land'' within the ``mountain property,'' and it would
be free to develop the 211-acre ``development property'' in
accordance with specific use restrictions which have been set
forth in a separate Development Agreement. Among other things,
the Development Agreement would prohibit any future use which
obstructs existing drainages or facilitates any gambling
activities which would not be legal within the City of
Scottsdale.
The Settlement Agreement would also provide for the
transfer of certain water rights from the Resolution Trust
Corporation, and the transfer of a roadway within the
``development property'' from the City. Both transfers are to
be made to the ``United States in trust for the Community'' by
quitclaim deed. The City and the Community are paying fair
market value for their respective shares of the property.
While we strongly support the enactment of S. 1341, we
recommend existing Section 5(b) be amended by adding:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States
shall not incur any liability for conditions, existing prior to
the transfer, on the parcels of land to be transferred to the
United States in trust for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community.''
Consistent with our support for cooperative agreements in
land acquisition and reservation expansion cases, we support
the enactment of S. 1341. We believe that the Settlement will
achieve an equitable resolution of the ongoing litigation,
provide a basis for future economic development on the Salt
River Indian Reservation. It will require only a limited
expenditure of federal funds for the completion of the land
transfers and no additional federal funds for the management of
the land to be acquired on behalf of the Community. Further, we
commend the City and the Community for their cooperative
efforts--as government to government--to achieve this
settlement.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
changes in existing law
In compliance with subsection 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that
enactment of S. 1341, as amended, will make no change in any
existing law.
