Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Sale Pine Tree Station topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University faces legislative pushback over Pine Tree Station sale; deed restrictions and congressional waiver cited
Summary
University of Arkansas officials said they are negotiating amendments and short-term management arrangements for the Pine Tree Research Station sale while seeking to avoid breaching an existing contract; lawmakers pressed that deed restrictions and two recent state laws bar a sale without a congressional waiver.
University witnesses told the committee they are working to resolve a contract and management plan for the Pine Tree Research Station in St. Francis County while negotiating with Arkansas Game and Fish and other stakeholders.
Mark Cochran, vice president for agriculture, said the university had an existing sales contract and executed an amendment with the prospective buyer to delay a closing to give the state time to assemble funds, with a target milestone around June 30. Cochran said the university is negotiating a short-term agreement to preserve current hunting permits and to allow more time to revise management plans consistent with recently passed legislation.
Lawmakers pushed back strongly. Senator Caldwell and others said the land's deed includes a restriction that would require a congressional waiver for any sale, and they quoted statements from U.S. Senator John Boozman’s office indicating a waiver would not be brought forward. Members noted that two bills passed by the General Assembly earlier in the session were intended to prevent the transfer and that the university's continued contract activity risked circumventing legislative intent.
University general counsel Joanne Maxey said the university recognizes the laws and the deed restriction and described efforts to "untangle" the contract so the buyer would not retain enforceable rights; the university said it is trying to negotiate a resolution that protects university and state interests and avoids litigation where possible. Members warned that continuing to include a named buyer as a contractual party could strengthen the buyer's position and complicate legislative intent.
