Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/23/1996 01:45 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 23, 1996
1:45 P.M.
TAPE HFC 96 - 132, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 132, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 133, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 96 - 133, Side 2, #000 - #250.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin
Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Brown Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Kohring
ALSO PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson; Deb Davidson, Staff, Senator John
Torgerson; Ken Erickson, Staff, Senator Drue Pearce; Jim
Stratton, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources; Brett Huber, Staff, Senator
Lydia Green; Sam S. Kito III, Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Kevin Ritchie, Alaska Municipal League, Alaska
Conference of Mayors, Juneau; Lamar Cotten, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
Bob Bartholomew, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit
Division, Department of Revenue; Eddie Grasser, Alaska
Outdoor Council, Juneau; June Burkhart, (Testified via
teleconference), Alaska Boating Association, Mat-Su; Tom
Nicolos, (Testified via teleconference), City Council, City
of Barrow, Barrow.
SUMMARY
SB 230 An Act providing that state land, water, and land
and water may not be classified so as to preclude
or restrict traditional means of access for
traditional recreational uses.
HCS CS SB 230 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal note by
the Department of Natural Resources dated 3/28/98.
1
SB 181 An Act relating to directional and informational
signs, displays, and devices and penalties for
violations related to outdoor advertising.
CS SSSB 181 (FIN) was reported out of Committee
with "no recommendation" and with a fiscal note
by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
SB 20 An Act establishing the Alaska municipal basic
services program, relating to certain programs of
state aid to municipalities and recipients in the
unorganized borough; and providing for an
effective date.
SB 20 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE BILL 230
"An Act providing that state land, water, and land and
water may not be classified so as to preclude or
restrict traditional means of access for traditional
recreational uses."
KEN ERICKSON, STAFF, SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, spoke in support
of SB 230. He noted that it had been introduced to protect
Alaskan's right to access state land and water for
recreational uses. In a time when the federal government
continues to restrict and prohibit Alaskan's access to many
areas of the State, the State government, needs to ensure
that decisions made to restrict access are made in a
responsible, fair and well represented process.
Alaskans are presently losing their right to traditional
recreational use on some state and park lands without
appropriate notification and justification. He cited that
citizens believe that the "public comment process" is not
being administered and that all user groups are not being
represented. Mr. Erickson suggested that non-restricted
areas of our State are being closed without proper oversight
by the Legislature.
Mr. Erickson recommended that SB 230 would provide a change
in the process, ensuring that all Alaskans have proper
representation by their elected officials, with restrictions
and prohibitions placed on traditional recreational activity
needing to be justified to the Legislature. He added that
some areas of Alaska may need to be restricted to partial
recreational activity, suggesting that these important
decisions be made at the legislative level.
2
Representative Mulder pointed out that the Chilkat State
Park would be increased by eleven acres. Mr. Erickson
agreed, pointing out that there are three parcels of land
involved, previously purchased by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and then transferred to the Parks Management
Division by using inter-agency land management agreements.
The federal funds used to purchase those eleven acres had
strings attached indicating that they would need to be
managed as if they were part of the Chilkat State Park.
In response to Representative Therriault's comment, Mr.
Erickson stated that Section #1 would add a list of duties
required by Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The
Department must annually submit a report to the Legislature
on each designation of incompatible use that would prohibit
or restrict a traditional means of access. The report must
state reasons for the restriction or prohibition, the
specific area affected, and the duration of the restriction
or prohibition. The section would further define
"traditional means of access" and "traditional recreational
activity".
Representative Brown referenced language on Page 3, Line 12,
"...where a popular pattern or use has developed;...". Mr.
Erickson stated that this language would incorporate uses
which have occurred traditionally.
JUNE BURKHART, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA
BOATING ASSOCIATION, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MAT-
SU, spoke in support of SB 230. She proceeded to provide
examples of problems resulting from concerns on lack of
restrictions. Ms. Burkhart added that the public hearing
process has not worked.
JIM STRATTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), noted
that the Department supports Sections 1, 2, and 3, although,
voiced opposition to Sections 4 and 5. He stated that it
was the mission of Alaska State Parks to provide for a range
of recreational opportunities.
Mr. Stratton commented on Denali State Park as referenced by
Ms. Burkhart. When that legislation was passed in 1970, the
Division of State Park's was not given direction from the
Legislature on how to incorporate incompatible uses when
planning for the park. The Department went forward with the
generic park regulations and crafted a balance between
motorized and non-motorized use.
Mr. Stratton advised that the 1989 planning process for the
Denali State Park took two years to write. He emphasized
3
that the public was provided with a "more than adequate"
opportunity in creating a balance in park regulations. The
Department does not feel that many recreational users would
be displaced with the proposed closure. He emphasized that
the decision had been made through the public process. Mr.
Stratton stressed that hundreds of hours have been "put-in"
to achieve the compromise. He advised that it would be
"bad" business not to support the agreed result.
Mr. Stratton referenced the language on Page 7, Line 20,
(4), "...provide ample access for recreational mining",
suggesting that language was problematic. The current
definition of recreational mining would include a 6" suction
dredge. The Department does not feel that kind of
recreational mining is compatible with purposes of state
parks. Although, he added, recreational gold panning is
allowed in state parks. He requested that an amendment be
made which would change that language.
Representative Kelly interjected that 6" dredge should be
allowed.
Representative Martin MOVED a change to Page 7, Line 20, by
deleting "mining" and inserting "gold panning". Mr.
Erickson noted that Senator Pearce would not object to that
change. Representative Kelly OBJECTED emphasizing that
mining is a valid recreational activity.
Representative Brown asked what was involved with using a
six inch suction dredge and how much noise would it create.
Mr. Stratton stated that a six inch dredge was a mechanized
suction device which would suck gravel through a six inch
pipe. Co-Chair Foster interjected that size dredge was more
like a "toy". A permit would be needed if concerns were
voiced regarding the water quality.
Co-Chair Hanley inquired the current uses allowed for mining
in state parks. Mr. Stratton replied that state parks are
closed to mining although gold panning is allowed. He added
that there is no definition of recreational mining in
statute, although, there are regulations within other
divisions at DNR.
Committee members discussed the differences of
"recreational" mining. Co-Chair Foster noted that he could
support mining if done recreationally with a 2.5" dredge
pipe, including rockers and small slues boxes not over 4' in
length. He suggested that the noise would be minimal.
Representative Kelly asked if there was a pipe increment
between the 6" and the 2.5" hose. Co-Chair Foster stated
that a 4" hose would still need a motor vehicle to drag it
into the area.
4
Representative Brown proposed adding the language "non-
mechanized" to the intent. Representative Kelly supported
keeping language which would include the 2.5" mechanized
dredge pipe. He maintained that the Alaskan heritage is
based on mining, noting his frustration that mining is
continually being cut off.
Representative Navarre pointed out that mechanized mining
would be an expansion to what is currently allowed. Co-
Chair Hanley pointed out that the section being discussed
would only apply to the Denali State Park.
Representative Brown MOVED to AMEND the amendment to delete
"gold panning" and insert "non-mechanized". Representative
Kelly OBJECTED.
Representative Martin WITHDREW Amendment #1. Representative
Brown repeated the MOTION. Representative Kelly OBJECTED.
A roll call was taken on the MOTION to insert "non-
mechanized".
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Martin, Navarre,
Hanley, Foster.
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Mulder, Therriault.
Representative Parnell was not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-4).
EDDIE GRASSER, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL, JUNEAU, urged the
Committee's support of HB 230. The purpose of the Outdoor
Council is to protect public access to public resources,
suggesting that the proposed legislation would amply cover
those concerns.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-132, Side 2).
Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CS SB 230 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
HCS CS SB 230 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the
Department of Natural Resources dated 3/28/96.
SENATE BILL 181
"An Act relating to directional and informational
signs, displays, and devices and penalties for
violations related to outdoor advertising."
5
BRETT HUBER, STAFF, SENATOR LYDIA GREEN, testified in
support of SB 181. He stated that the bill would provide
for the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOTPF) a Tourist Oriented Directional Sign (TODS) program
in statute and allow the placement of TODS signs on private
property outside of the right-of-way. Codifying the program
would provide for a well planned and regulated system of
directional signing that would preserve the scenic beauty of
Alaska's roadways and benefit Alaska's visitors and the
business' that serve them.
He continued, the Department currently administers TODS as
an experimental program. Although, the program is
consistent with standards established by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, absence of statute authorizing the program has left
the public out of the process of promulgating regulation.
By placing TODS in statute, the Legislature will provide
firm legal footing for the program to continue. Mr. Huber
concluded, passage of SB 181 would provide long sought
assistance to Alaska businesses that are dependent on trade
with the traveling public. The bill would likewise enhance
the state's ability to be user-friendly to it's tourists and
promote a responsive visitor industry. SB 181 authorizes a
means for providing needed directional information while
preserving the unique beauty of Alaska's roadways. He urged
the Committee's support.
Representative Brown referenced Page 3, Section 4, asking
who would make the determination in the unzoned areas
whether they would be zoned commercial or industrial. Mr.
Huber replied that a specific definition does not exist at
this time. Zoning would become representative by the use
pattern of that area.
Representative Brown pointed out that the bill covers space
"outside" the right-of-way. She asked if the signs outside
the right-of-way had to be consistent with federal highway
standards. He replied that they would, noting that the
concern would not come under the guidelines for highway
right-of-way control but would be included under the outdoor
advertising control regulations.
Representative Brown asked the need to include private
property "monitoring" in the legislation. Mr. Huber
explained that congestion could exist on the right-of-way or
that a business site could border the highway. In response
to Representative Brown's query, Mr. Huber indicated it was
the intention of the Department to approve the specific
location on private property as well as on state lands.
6
Signage limitations exist in the program.
SAM KITO III, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (DOT&PF),
stated he did not know how many signs each business could
have. He understood that the legislation would provide for
new regulations to be drafted to address varying situations
-- inside and outside the right-of-way.
Representative Brown asked what the Department intended to
do to prevent a proliferation of signs. Mr. Huber responded
that it was the sponsors intent to provide the necessary
latitude to the Department to establish the regulations.
Representative Brown inquired if the legislation would work
in cooperation with local ordinances and zoning. Mr. Huber
replied that it was the intent of the legislation that it
not be more restrictive than provisions contained in AS 19.
The municipalities would have the ability to enact
ordinances which were more restrictive if need be.
Representative Brown disagreed with Section #5 of the
legislation which would lower the penalty from a misdemeanor
to a violation. Mr. Huber suggested that a misdemeanor
violation would not make the best use of jail time or
legislative funding. Although, Mr. Kito advised that
reducing the penalty would limit the Department's ability to
enforce illegal signs placed in the right-of-way. He
thought passage of the legislation would hamper the
Departments ability to implement it.
Representative Brown questioned if Section #5 would cover
political signs. Mr. Kito understood that separate
restrictions exists addressing political advertising. He
added that political signage would be expressly prohibited
in the right-of-way. Representative Brown proposed that the
Legislature would have a conflict of interest in lowering
the penalty.
Representative Therriault referenced Page 3, Section 4, and
the use of "shall" in relationship regarding the location of
sign placement. Mr. Huber responded that the Department
will establish criteria to be met in order that the
application be approved.
Representative Brown referenced the language on Lines 20-21,
Page 3, questioning how the Department would adopt
regulations which affect the "scenic" qualities of an area.
Mr. Huber stated that language had been added in the Senate
Finance Committee to address if whether the legislation
would remove current use of road travel. The Department can
use the quality of the scenery which exists in an area to
7
allow or disallow signage.
Representative Mulder commented on an earlier discussion
regarding penalty, misdemeanor versus a violation charge.
He suggested that it was easier to file a violation than to
take a person to court. He continued, voicing concern with
the number of signs being applied for and posted. Mr. Kito
pointed out that existing TODS policy restricts intersection
posting to a maximum of four, with a size of 90" x 18".
Representative Mulder asked the criteria used to distinguish
between the applicants and the eligible positions. Mr. Kito
stated that it would be first come, first served. Mr. Huber
corrected, reading from the TODS policy guideline manual,
".....not more than three signs should be installed on any
sign panel and not more than two sign panels could be
installed at any intersection".
Representative Kohring noted support for the legislation.
He stated that it would be an enhancement to the tourism
industry, although, suggested that the fiscal note was too
high. Mr. Kito explained the components of the fiscal note
which would allocate $10 thousand dollars to establish the
regulations, the remainder would cover the departmental
costs to adequately maintain the system. Discussion
followed regarding the fiscal note.
Representative Mulder referenced Page 3, Line 7. He thought
that including "shall" would suggest that there could be an
inherent conflict and lawsuit through exclusion of vendors
who want to have a sign. He MOVED changing "shall" to
"may". Mr. Huber stated that changing "shall" to "may"
would be permissive language in determining if the
Department instituted the program. Representative Mulder
pointed out that the TODS program had already been
initiated. Mr. Kito explained that a pilot program is in
place. He stressed that regulations have not been
established to formalized that program policy. With the
changed language, Line 6 has already established a "tourist
oriented directional sign program".
(Tape Change, HFC 96-133, Side 1).
Representative Therriault suggested changing the language
would make the entire program discretionary. Mr. Huber
added, changing "shall" to "may" would include the direction
outside of the right-of-way. It is the sponsor's intent
that the area outside of the right-of-way be included.
Representative Mulder MOVED to WITHDRAW the MOTION to change
the language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn.
Representative Martin MOVED to report CS SS SB 181 (FIN) out
8
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS SS SB 181 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendations" and with a fiscal note by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
SENATE BILL 20
"An Act establishing the Alaska municipal basic
services program, relating to certain programs of state
aid to municipalities and recipients in the unorganized
borough; and providing for an effective date."
DEB DAVIDSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, testified in
support of the proposed legislation. She stated that SB 20
would change the name of the Revenue Sharing program to
"Priority Revenue Sharing for Municipal Services", and would
change the Municipal Assistant Fund to the Safe Communities
Fund. The change would require that payments from the Safe
Communities Fund be used for specific prioritized purposes.
The intent of the changes would more accurately reflect the
purposes for which payments received are used. The programs
appear to be a type of "slush fund" for communities and the
change in name and requirements would help dispel that
notion.
Ms. Davidson concluded, the date of payment has been changed
so that communities receive entitlement from both Priority
Revenue Sharing and the Safe Communities Fund on July 31st
of each year. Previously, payments from revenue sharing
were made on July 31st and municipal assistance payments
were made on February 1st.
Representative Martin spoke against the fiscal note. Ms.
Davidson discussed the fiscal note and the amount that the
general fund would lose from moving the date. Part of the
reason for the earlier payment would combine the two
programs. By raising the minimum entitlement for each
community from $25 thousand dollars to $40 thousand dollars
would remove some funding from the larger communities.
Those communities were willing to make that shift
recognizing that the smaller communities require those funds
to remain solvent. Ms. Davidson added that the sponsor felt
that the lose of interest was worth the agreement from the
large municipalities to contribute to the small communities.
Those payments would be made on July 31st, at the beginning
of the State fiscal year. Currently, revenue sharing is
also paid on July 31st. Municipal assistance is currently
9
paid in February and the appropriation for that payment is
made the prior year. It would be up to the municipalities
to invest that money to earn the interest. The State would
not be giving them the extra money in interest.
Representative Kelly asked the intent of Section 10. Ms.
Davidson replied that Section 10 would address the base
amount account. When the municipal assistance program
began, it was enacted so that the State would have the gross
receipts business tax. Municipalities received a portion of
money back from that tax. That tax was then repealed in
1978. The program was written so that those municipalities
who had received money in 1978, would receive the same
amount every year as established their first year.
Under the current program, that is the amount paid. The
remainder of the fund appropriation was then paid to all the
municipalities on a per capita basis. The result was that
as appropriations to the fund decreased through the years,
individual municipalities would then deal with varying
percentage reductions. She added, the total dollar amount
would be reduced although the distribution of that would be
proportional among the communities.
In response to Representative Therriault's question, Ms.
Davidson explained that smaller communities are currently
having difficulty in maintaining their operating budget and
the services that they are required to provide. That being
the reason to increase the minimum entitlement for smaller
communities from $25 thousand dollars to $40 thousand
dollars. Representative Therriault questioned the State's
benefit. Ms. Davidson clarified that the municipalities
rely on the State to the extend that they receive funds
through the Municipal Assistance Program. Should they
dissolve, the responsibility of those services would return
to the State. Representative Martin questioned if "safe"
communities had been defined.
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON noted that there was no specific
definition for that. He added that any group could qualify
under "safe" community if they receive revenue sharing.
Representative Martin reiterated his concern with the
increased costs to the State. Senator Torgerson responded
that he did not agree with the fiscal note as submitted by
the Department. He pointed out moving the payment date back
to July should create a surplus to the State rather than an
expenditure.
Representative Grussendorf responded to Representative
Martin's concern regarding a safe community. He explained
that criteria for a safe community would include the ability
to respond to the need for hospital beds, police and fire
protection. He emphasized that would be the same criteria
10
used by the Municipal Assistance Program.
TOM NICOLOS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CITY COUNCIL,
CITY OF BARROW, BARROW, spoke in support of the proposed
legislation. He urged the Committee's passage of the bill.
KEVIN RITCHIE, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ALASKA CONFERENCE OF
MAYORS, JUNEAU, noted that the proposed legislation is the
highest priority of the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and
the Alaska Conference of Mayors. All communities have
reached consensus on the bill after two years work.
Mr. Ritchie commented that the current plan would not
increase the appropriation, although, it would be allocated
differently. The program is looking at a $4.5 million
dollar reduction in funding. He suggested that the
legislation would require more accountability from each
community especially for basic services.
In response to Representative Therriault's comments, Mr.
Ritchie stated that the majority of communities do provide
public safety, stressing that public safety is the top
priority of most communities. Programs have been
significantly cut over the years, restricting services to a
minimum in many communities. Mr. Ritchie stated that there
are 160 communities in the State.
(Tape Change, HFC 96-133, Side 2).
Mr. Ritchie listed public safety services offered by the
communities.
* Police
* Fire
* Water/sewer
* Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
He added, the concept addresses public safety as well as
health issues. Mr. Ritchie stressed that the bill would
work with the established budget caps. The roads program
will strengthen the relationship with the State and would be
used as part of the long-range fiscal planning.
LAMAR COTTEN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (DCRA), stated that the Department does
support the concept of SB 20 which would eliminate the "hold
harmless" clause, placing the poorer communities at a
disadvantage.
Mr. Cotton suggested that the $40 thousand dollar allocation
would amount to a combination of municipal assistance and
11
revenue sharing. Those communities are the smallest and
have the least ability to raise revenue in their areas. He
stressed that it was the Administration's position that a
corporation exist at the local level to provide these
essential services. Small communities get nothing for free,
paying either through taxes or user fees.
Mr. Cotten advised, that the Administration questions the
date, recommending that checks be issued in October or
November.
BOB BARTHOLOMEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCOME AND EXCISE AUDIT
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, pointed out that the
Administration does support the bill, although, would like
to see the fiscal note reduced, resulting in a loss of
interest income in the amount of $130 thousand per month.
Secondly, he added, the impact would be substantial in as
much as July and August are the largest financial out-lays
to the State. The Administration would request that the
delivery date be changed to October or November, which would
move the date forward two to three months. That change
would keep the State from experiencing a cash flow problem.
SB 20 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 P.M.
12
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|