Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/04/2004 01:42 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 345-CAMPSITE FEES: DISABLED VETERANS/SENIORS Number 2119 CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 345, "An Act relating to fees for state park developed campsites; and providing for an effective date." Number 2138 CAROLINE ALLEN, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 345 on behalf of Representative Fate, sponsor. She told the committee that HB 345 provides for Alaskan residents who are senior citizens or disabled veterans to obtain a camping permit for a non-urban campsite at a discounted price from a $100 annual fee to $10 annual fee. She said that this is a considerable savings [to them] because the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation has decided to do away with seasons passes, except for disabled veterans, and instead charge $20 per night per campsite. Ms. Allen explained that non-urban campsites are campsites that do not fall within or adjacent to an urban city. The developed campsites provide restrooms, picnic tables, cooking facilities, and approved water sources. She suggested that the bill provides an incentive for seniors and disabled veterans who are Alaskan residents to travel throughout the state. This bill will keep tourism dollars in the state, she added. Number 2260 JOE MATHIS, Owner, Montana Creek Campground, testified in opposition to HB 345. He told the members that he believes this bill is well intended, but is poor public policy. Noting that he operates one of the state campgrounds, he said the revenues that come from that campground go to provide services for state government. Mr. Mathis said if the intention of the legislature is to continue the idea of privatization of campgrounds, this bill provides no incentive for potential entrepreneurs. He told members that anyone considering [entering into this industry] would have to think about what other revenues the legislature would take away from them. Mr. Mathis summarized his comments by saying at a time when the state is trying to devise ways to bring in revenue to cover the revenue shortfalls, this is not good public policy and would be a disincentive for the privatization of campgrounds. Number 2348 MR. MATHIS said he believes this is encouraging an environment of entitlements. He said he is approaching the age of 60, and he does not feel like a senior citizen. He warned that this is a "slippery slope." Mr. Mathis said he sees no problem in providing disabled veterans with free camping; however, he sees the inclusion of senior citizens as a whole new class of entitlements for people who are not entitled to it. Number 2404 SHEILA LANKFORD, Owner, Montana Creek Campground, testified in opposition to HB 345. She said that as a business owner, she has a problem with state government competing with private enterprise. She explained that there is a state campground across the highway from their [campground], and although she currently leases the property, in the future if this bill passes, seniors will be able to drive across the road and camp for free. The current tourism boycott due to wolf control will adversely affect the private campground, and offering free camping alternatives will only compound the problem, she commented. MS. LANKFORD told members as an Alaskan, she truly cares about state parks, and the availability and maintenance of those parks. Declining revenues and a lack of funding have already impacted parks with closures and lack of maintenance. She said she sees no logic in providing free camping under these circumstances, because user fees are essential to offset limited funding for maintenance. Ms. Lankford said she believes state park closures and the lack of maintenance look terrible to tourists, and reflect badly on Alaska. Negative images are displayed instantly through chat rooms and are devastating to all campgrounds, she added. Number 2489 MS. LANKFORD told members that a 60-year old should no longer be considered a senior citizen. This bill is aimed at "baby- boomers" who are the largest segment of the population in the United States, she commented. Ms. Lankford pointed out that the baby-boomer [generation] is part of the wealthiest in the country, she said so why would the legislature consider giving them free camping [privileges]. Anyone who can afford to buy or rent a motor home does not need the incentive of free parking to go camping. There are few seniors who tent camp anymore, she added. In summary, Ms. Lankford quoted Dr. Phil in asking Representative Fate, "What were you thinking?" Number 2539 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO phrased his question in reference to Ms. Lankford's comment that a 60 year old is not a senior citizen, and he asked what age would she find appropriate to be a senior citizen. MS. LANKFORD responded that she believes that 75 years old would be appropriate. Number 2575 SCOTT REISLAND, Vice President, Alaska Campground Association; National Board of RV Parks; Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Travel Industry Association, testified in opposition to HB 345. He told members that he was born and raised in Alaska and currently owns two RV parks. The senior citizen of today is much different that those of the past, he commented. Seniors live longer, healthier lives and pursue a dynamic and active lifestyle, and the majority of senior citizens have a high level of disposable income, he said. Mr. Reisland said there have been a record-breaking number of motor homes sold in the last few years and baby-boomers are a large part of this. Number 2678 MR. REISLAND pointed out that the state campgrounds are in serious trouble. Budget constraints have severely impacted state parks to the point that parks are not adequately maintained or staffed, he said. Mr. Reisland told members that the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation have announced the increase in camping fees and the elimination of the commercial pass program. He said the division has turned to outsourcing through bid contracts of the day-to-day operations of many state parks. Prior contractors will be less willing to participate in this outsourcing program and it will be cost prohibitive if there is a lot of free camping, he suggested. Mr. Reisland said he believes HB 345 would work in direct opposition to state park efforts. Number 2734 MR. REISLAND told members that there has been a decrease in independent travelers to the state because Alaska is no longer as competitive as other destinations due to severely limited tourism marketing dollars. He said Alaska Campground Association members are preparing for another boycott [because of the new wolf control program]. The private campground sector has worked collaboratively with the state and federal parklands in an effort to eliminate unfair competition between the public and private sector camping facilities, he said. The bill will undermine much of the work the association has done with state and federal parks. It will limit user fees, reduce the state's ability to provide a quality camping experience, and will undermine a level playing field between private and public sector camping, he summarized. This is unfair government competition, he stated. He said he hopes members consider the Alaska Campground Association's views on this issue. Number 2829 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Reisland to comment on the age of baby boomers. He said he believes the leading edge of baby boomers is about 53 years of age. MR. REISLAND responded that is probably correct. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO responded that assuming that is correct, there are no baby boomers that are senior citizens. He said he would prefer not to mix the two [terms] since they are not equal. Number 2861 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said that she believes baby boomers were born in 1946 and 1947 and people 55 years of age and older are considered seniors. She asked what the definition of a senior citizen is. Number 2897 REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Mr. Reisland if he knows how many season passes were honored in the park last year. MR. REISLAND responded that he does not know that number. He told members that there are a lot of seniors who stay in private campgrounds because there is a marketing effort to attract them. REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked Mr. Reisland who would have that information. MR. REISLAND replied that the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation would have it. Number 2950 PETE PANARESE, Field Operations Manager, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, testified. He said last year, the Alaska state parks system sold approximately 1,700 camping passes to residents of the state and gave away 1,100 disabled veterans passes. CO-CHAIR MASEK turned attention to the number of people that use the campgrounds [tape ends midspeech]. TAPE 04-1, SIDE B Number 2985 CO-CHAIR MASEK continued by saying that last year, the state had some state parks that were closed one in the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") area and one in the Kenai area. Noting that there have been budget shortfalls, she said she wondered how the park service would be maintained and managed if there was going to be another revenue shortfall with this bill. She stated that she is reluctant to [put forth] her support for it until more details can be found out with regard to the fiscal impact and what it would do to the park system in FY 05. REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked Mr. Panarese if those were resident numbers. MR. PANARESE said last year, decals were only sold to Alaska residents. Several years ago, benefits for nonresidents of the state were stopped. He said only Alaskan residents and resident disabled veterans are eligible for the annual camping permit. REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if the parks could be opened back up by using the fees that Co-Chair Masek spoke of. MR. PANARESE said the state park system had experienced a bunch of reductions for the summer of 2003 that forced campground closures. The majority of those closed campgrounds in the valley and in the Northern area near Fairbanks were reopened through the use of private contractors. He said the division was successful in opening 9 of the 11 facilities that it had to close temporarily until contractors were found. Mr. Panarese remarked, "The testimony that I've heard is a testament to that." The state was successful in getting people to run its parks for it. He said this is one of the strategies being used to keep parks open and structure the budget for many years. This isn't a new strategy, he said. MR. PANARESE said it is working, the parks were opened with the existing fee program, which supported the 1,700 decals that were sold and the 1,100 passes issued to the state's disabled veterans. Offering his perspective, he said this is a legislative decision and he didn't believe the department had taken a position. Mr. Panarese remarked, "At least my bill analysis does not have that block filled in, we defer to you on that." He said it's particularly the support of the disabled veterans pass. However, he said the current package seems to be working and the privatization/partnership was a major factor in the department's decision to do away with the annual camping pass for state residents. Mr. Panarese stated that it wasn't an idle decision, it was looked at hard for many years, and this year the [department] had to make that move. It provides more accurate cost recovery for what is being done and a platform for which the [department] can continue privatizing, he said. Number 2817 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the money collected for passes and fees goes into the general fund or if it is kept by the [Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation]. MR. PANARESE said the legislation that allows fees to be charged requires that all money be deposited into the general fund, and the legislature, in its discretion, can "reappropriate" that back to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation for its use. He remarked, "We have been very fortunate that for much of our history of collecting fees, the legislature has seen fit to do that." REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the fees that are returned are an equal [amount] to those submitted or if it is more in line with what the legislature feels is appropriate and is not connected to the amount of money collected. MR. PANARESE explained that there is a dynamic in the situation of collecting fees. He remarked: We collect the majority of our fees during the very end of the fiscal year and the beginning of a new fiscal year. We routinely will ... deposit all of our funds into the general fund and have been reliably lapsing about $100,000 to $150,000, maybe even more of those funds that ... was not authorized for us to spend by the previous year's ... legislative budget decision. So we seem to run behind the curve for us to most efficiently use our budget because of the position of the fiscal year. Right in the middle of our busiest season. Number 2735 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN expressed concern about [how the fee would apply to] disabled veterans. Noting that there was not currently a fee for disabled veterans, he asked if this bill would raise the fee to $10 and bring in an additional $11,000 [in revenue]. He asked if there were 1,100 disabled passes given out during the prior year. Representative Lynn said he wonders how that compares to the amount of money that was spent to decorate the elevators in the Capitol building. He remarked, "I think we owe our disabled veterans." REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if this includes state cabin rentals. MR. PANARESE said no. Number 2668 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said the operations of its state parks had been outsourced to private contractors. He asked what changing the fee structure would do to the contractual obligation that the state has. MR. PANARESE said he was not sure he could respond to the question stated that way. He asked Representative Guttenberg to restate the question. Number 2640 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said the economic relationship with the operators of the state parks is being changed by changing the fee structure. He asked what would happen to those contracts that the state has outsourced to operate its parks. Is the obligation broken, he asked. MR. PANARESE said he did not believe the obligation will be broken, rather it will just make it far more difficult for [the state] to obtain qualified private contractors to operate state campgrounds. He remarked: Cause when they pencil what their revenue will be to pay for the service they're providing, it's difficult for them to figure how much revenue they won't be able to collect. If a senior is in their state park campground, we could very well require them to honor the pass and that revenue goes away from them. ... The people that we had operating in our campgrounds the last summer, the new operators, were commenting quite regularly that this was a detriment to them and they were trying to improvise in the field such as saying to us, "... Why don't we allow the decal users to have a price break rather than free camping." ... We tried to reconcile that and came ... with the decision that ... it's probably best to not have that benefit available, that everybody pays the fees with the exception of the disabled veterans. That has been not a negotiable item. We require our private contractors to honor that group of people. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Panarese if he'd had any feedback concerning this bill about whether operations would be continued. He said the state's been successful in outsourcing these things to keep them open. He explained that he is worried that if something is changed, the [state] is going to lose the operations of the parks and they will close. MR. PANARESE said the private campground operators hadn't been in contact with him directly. Noting that a public notice had been issued, he said one of the things that was done earlier is [the division] stopped offering the annual camping pass to residents and the annual pass to RV [recreational vehicle] rental companies effective January 1, 2004. It reduced one of the major impediments for recruiting operators and outsourcing state campgrounds. He said the major impediment was honoring decals that were perhaps going to be "in their units for weeks at a time with no revenue coming to them." Mr. Panarese said he expects that if this legislation were to pass, [operators] would be concerned. Number 2494 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there was a charge to veterans for a replacement permit. MR. PANARESE said the state park system had to have a contingency for replacing all of its decals. He remarked: If a person comes in with a bit of the decal that they scraped ... off their window and sold the car, we'll give them another one for $10. If they give us a reasonable excuse as to why ... they need another decal and it's something of the nature that the vehicle was damaged, they replaced the window or something of that nature, we charge them $10 to replace it. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there was an increased fee for people to get a replacement decal. MR. PANARESE remarked: Currently, if a disabled veteran loses their fee or ... if a campground pass holder that was a resident lost it, ... we would replace it for $10. If they wanted to purchase an additional pass ... for a second vehicle or ... a third vehicle, and that is a situation that we've had to accommodate over the years, we would charge them half price for the second pass and then full price for the third pass. With the veterans we had to come up with a little bit different situation .... We would sell them a second pass for $50 and we issue the passes for two years and if they bought a third pass in the first year, we would sell it to them for $100. If they bought a third pass in the second year, we'd sell it them for $200, I believe .... REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why disabled veterans are charged more for the second and third pass and why [the cost] isn't always the same. She asked if this bill would change that. MR. PANARESE responded: The legislation that we have in AS 41.21.026 basically instructs us to issue a ... annual camping pass permit, and we've all ... assumed that was one. ... Each veteran would get a free pass. The second pass, we would sell to them at the same price we would sell it to everybody else. ... The regime I just mentioned is now no longer going to be in place because we no longer offer the camping pass. So we have got to go to work right away and amend our director's order and the information online - do the public notice that would put the word out widely that this is a change in the benefits. We no longer offer a camping pass, there's no need to sell the veterans or other recipients of this that's being considered by the bill, a second and third pass. We would issue them a pass free and thereafter we would want them to pay the nightly fee. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how many second and third passes had already been issued. MR. PANARESE said he didn't have that information. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested that it might not be a significant number. MR. PANARESE said that would be his estimate. Number 2296 REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked how many nonresidents ask for annual passes. MR. PANARESE replied: They haven't asked. It was an issue that was very demanding on us. When we ... eliminated that nonresident pass, we had great trepidation that it would affect our visitation and people would be very concerned about it, but we didn't get a lot of concern registered. I think I had eight calls and I had to write a few letters. REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said he could foresee this causing a real quagmire on the Kenai Peninsula, similar to what Representative Masek had mentioned about [the Matanuska-Susitna] Valley. He said a park closed on the [Kenai Peninsula] and he viewed this as being a mess. Number 2239 CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said it is her intention to hold the bill. She indicated the committee is waiting to receive more information and would need to do more work. She mentioned that several members had questions and concerns about the attached fiscal note. [HB 345 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|