Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/12/1996 08:09 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 1996
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 278
"An Act relating to the authority of the Department of Natural
Resources to allow credits against fees at state historical parks."
- MOVED SB 278 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 230(FIN)
"An Act relating to management of state land, water, and land and
water as part of a state park, recreational or special management
area, or preserve; relating to reports to the legislature
concerning prohibitions or restrictions of traditional means of
access for traditional recreational uses within a park,
recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to
Chilkat State Park; and relating to Denali State Park."
- MOVED CSSB 230(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 42 am
"An Act allowing a person to hold more than one entry permit for
certain fisheries and amending the definition of `unit of gear' for
purposes of the commercial fisheries limited entry program; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 548
"An Act authorizing, approving, and ratifying the amendment of
Northstar Unit oil and gas leases between the State of Alaska and
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First Public Hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 278
SHORT TITLE: CREDITS AGAINST FEES AT ST HISTORICAL PKS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2352 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2352 (S) RES, FIN
02/19/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/19/96 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/21/96 2488 (S) RES RPT 5DP
02/21/96 2488 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
03/08/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/14/96 2736 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 4NR
03/14/96 2736 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DNR)
03/18/96 (S) RLS AT 12:20 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/18/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/20/96 2807 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/20/96
03/20/96 2810 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/20/96 2810 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/20/96 2810 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 278
03/20/96 2810 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
03/20/96 2817 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/21/96 3233 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/21/96 3234 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/12/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 230
SHORT TITLE: MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PEARCE, Frank, Green, Halford, Leman,
Miller, R.Phillips Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Donley;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Kohring
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/96 2198 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/96 2198 (S) RESOURCES
01/31/96 2267 (S) COSPONSOR(S): DONLEY
02/09/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/09/96 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/12/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/12/96 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/13/96 2409 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
03/13/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/13/96 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/96 2735 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 1NR NEW TITLE
03/14/96 2736 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB (DNR)
03/22/96 2832 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DNR)
03/27/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/27/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/28/96 2940 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 3NR NEW TITLE
03/28/96 2941 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS (DNR)
03/29/96 (S) RLS AT 12:05 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/29/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/02/96 3014 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR & 1 OTHER REC 4/2
04/02/96 3023 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/02/96 3023 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/02/96 3024 (S) AM NO 1 MOVED BY RIEGER
04/02/96 3024 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y7 N13
04/02/96 3025 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
04/02/96 3025 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 230(FIN)
04/02/96 3025 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
04/02/96 3030 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/03/96 3616 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/03/96 3616 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/04/96 3646 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/12/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4906
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for SB 279.
BILL GARY, Superintendent
Southeast Area
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1796
Telephone: (907) 465-4563
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 279.
JIM STRATTON, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
3601 "C" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5921
Telephone: (907) 269-8701
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 279 and SB 230(FIN).
KEN ERICKSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Drue Pearce
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 111
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4993
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave sponsor statement for CSSB 230(FIN).
CLIFF EAMES
Alaska Center for the Environment
519 West Eighth, Number 201
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-3621
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 230(FIN).
DON SHERWOOD
Alaska Boating Association
1640 Brink Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 230(FIN).
ROY BURKHART, Member
Alaska Boating Association
Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 230(FIN).
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 Sixth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against CSSB 230(FIN).
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2688
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 230(FIN).
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-54, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:09 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Long, Williams, Austerman, Ogan and Green. Members
absent at the call to order were Barnes, Davies, Kott and Nicholia.
SB 278 - CREDITS AGAINST FEES AT ST HISTORICAL PKS
Number 051
The first order of business was SB 278, "An Act relating to the
authority of the Department of Natural Resources to allow credits
against fees at state historical parks."
JOE AMBROSE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robin Taylor, came
forward and read the sponsor statement in to the record:
"Senate Bill 278 was introduced to address concerns raised by the
Ketchikan Area State Parks Advisory Board and the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough Assembly.
"SB 278 would provide a mechanism by which the Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation could acquire two small parcels of land
adjacent to Totem Bight State Historical Park.
"The parcels are currently held by Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU)
as the site for a diesel generation plant. KPU plans to vacate the
property, which would then revert to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough.
"Senate Bill 278 would allow DNR to offer credits against fees paid
by commercial tour operators for payments made to a municipality
for the projects that will mitigate or alleviate access, congestion
and parking problems at historical parks. The Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation has indicated that use of this provision at
any state historical park other than Totem Bight is unlikely. In
any event, the authority would sunset on December 31, 2000. The
three year window is needed to avoid drawing too quickly against
the fees.
"Totem Bight is a 12.5 acre state park located north of the City of
Ketchikan. It had an estimated 160,000 visitors in 1995, about
half of them arriving on commercial tours. In 1977, it was
estimated that the park could handle between 636 and 744 people at
any one time. That actual use now exceeds 925 people at a time.
"The park only has seven parking spaces for buses and often there
are 21 busses parked in the lot, on the road shoulders and at a
nearby gift shop. Park staff is now advising independent travelers
and local park users to pay attention to the cruise ship schedule
and to avoid the park when the ships are in town.
"To mitigate the overcrowding and congestion, DNR is proposing that
the tour operators pay for acquisition of the borough-owned parcels
to provide additional parking space and additional attractions such
as trails and possibly a carving demonstration area.
"The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has
indicated an interest in developing a transportation enhancement
project along the road at Totem Bight if this land becomes
available.
"Totem Bight is a valuable asset. The state has invested more than
a million dollars in capital improvements to the facility over the
past ten years. By acquiring these two parcels we can spread out
the use area, enhance the park and mitigate the problems."
MR. AMBROSE said he would answer any questions committee members
may have.
Number 303
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS asked, "Do you have an O.K. of
acquisition? Do you have any price there?"
MR. AMBROSE said the department has indicated that they don't plan
to spend more than $150,000 of the fees on this acquisition. Jim
Stratton, Director, Division of Parks, has stated that the bill
carries a zero fiscal note and they anticipate that the total paid
to the state from commercial operators in the summer of 1995 will
not decrease this coming summer. Program receipts above the 1995
level is what they plan to use. In 1997, fees at the park will be
increased from the current $3 per person for commercial operators
to $4 per person. Mr. Ambrose said it won't impact current funding
as far a program receipts.
Number 553
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated he is very familiar with the issue
and doesn't have anything against it. He said his concern is that
the state of Alaska is in direct competition with this. Co-
Chairman Williams said, "As you know, Saxman has a tour and over
the last ten years we've put in a million dollars, ourselves, into
the project in Saxman along with the help of the state of Alaska.
Has your office given any thought to that? How we can make them
at least so they won't compete with each other?"
MR. AMBROSE said he recognizes the problem Co-Chairman Williams has
pointed out. There was some lobbying effort, on the part of the
tour operators, to try to discourage this increase. The idea is
they should be paying more. Mr. Ambrose said as he sees it, with
the increased volume of traffic coming through the community, we
really need to disburse them to both ends of the road.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he is very concerned about the
competition that the state of Alaska is in with the private sector.
He said, "A $125,000 this year, or whenever it is, it's just
helping traffic go that way. Saxman can't take all of the buses
right now, but they're sure not getting 160,000 people out there
and they can do that at least, I know. So I would hope that we can
work together to make sure that the state of Alaska is not in
competition or at least make them pay their fair share."
Number 599
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "How far apart are they - this location
and the park?"
MR. AMBROSE said about 15 miles.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if a package couldn't be involved that
would be advisable to show tourists both places.
MR. AMBROSE explained the decision as to where to take the people
on the buses is made by the tour operators and cruse ship
companies. He said price motivates them. Mr. Ambrose noted he
doesn't know what Saxman currently receives from tour operators.
Number 640
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had helped build up the Saxman tours
and they were charging approximately $35 per passenger. The state,
at that time, was charging $1.50. He said, "So our competition
there was - they look at Native experience. The tour operators do
say -- they don't push the Native experience here in Juneau as they
do in Ketchikan. In fact, Sealaska at one time was going to start
a Native experience here in Juneau and the tour companies told them
`You go and talk to Cape Fox Corporation and see how you can help
them with their tour. We can't talk to you about it.'"
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said when the tour operators aboard ship are
selling the tours they say, "This is what you get for a Native
experience out in the Totem Bight and this is what you get for $35
for a Native experience.' He said it's very difficult to compete
with that type of price difference. Co-Chairman Williams said
hopefully, we can work together to at least get them comparable.
Number 756
MR. AMBROSE said of the 160,000 visitors in 1995, 70,000 came from
the tour operators that pay this fee. There is no charge at the
park for walk-in traffic or local traffic. The only people that
pay are the commercial tours.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Co-Chairman Williams if the $35 includes
the bus transportation to and from Saxman.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it is made of up three areas. The tour
operators gets their cut of the $35, the ship gets their cut and
the city of Saxman gets their cut.
MR. AMBROSE said the fee that is currently $3 per person and is
going to $4 is not what the traveler pays. That is what the
company pays the state per person. He noted he doesn't know what
the overall fee is when a person gets off the ship and goes in that
direction. Mr. Ambrose said it is an entirely different experience
and if he were coming to Alaska for the first time on a cruse ship
and he had an option of what is offered at Saxman as compared to
what's offered at Totem Bight, Saxman is where he would go first.
He said he would probably want to see them both. He said he would
find out what the total price is that the operators charge for
those tours.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the time in port is a problem. He asked
if there is plenty of time, would they want to go.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated they have plenty of time.
Number 880
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG said, "I got a question on allowing credits
against fees. Isn't that something like getting (indisc.) in
funding."
MR. AMBROSE said he has been advised that it's not. He said the
department uses program receipts from this park and it is the only
one that generates this kind of revenue and has for years. Mr.
Ambrose said he believes there is a separate account that is set up
similar to what is done with the Alaska Marine Highway System. The
original proposal on this legislation was brought to Senator Taylor
by the Governor's legislative liaison.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked that the record reflect that Representative
Davies, Kott, Nicholia have jointed the meeting.
Number 933
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES questioned how these fees are different
than fees that are paid at any other park.
MR. AMBROSE explained the bill only applies to historical parks.
The only people who pay a fee at the park are people who come in on
a commercial tour. He said, "Basically, what they're trying to do
is - it's a circular way of acquiring this property. There are two
relatively small parcels, but will add tremendously to the
accessibility of the facility which is really over burdened right
now."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "My only concern I share with
Representative Williams is that I don't think the state should
supplement private parks. By the same token, I don't think they
should use public funds to compete with themselves. If there were
some way you could say that this is a taste and if you want the
whole meal, go to Saxman or something like that, I think that would
be great, but I know we can't do that as a state.
Number 1031
MR. AMBROSE explained he has lived in Ketchikan for almost 22 years
and has watched the evolution at Saxman. He said it is real asset
to the entire community. Mr. Ambrose said he thinks that we will
find out how comparable the rates are. He stated he believes there
is a legitimate concern throughout the community. Because of the
way Ketchikan is laid out with only one main drag, when you get
five of the huge ships in it becomes crowded. The tourists need to
be dispersed as widely as possible, but we also need to encourage
increased traffic to the Saxman experience.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if by making this a bus access or parking
area, would that blend in with what is currently there.
MR. AMBROSE said it would. He noted Ketchikan Public Utilities is,
by law, responsible for cleaning up anything that is there as far
as if there is any hazardous waste or anything else from the diesel
generation plant.
Number 1150
BILL GARY, Superintendent, Southeast Area, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, said he would
be happy to answer any questions that he can. He noted Jim
Stratton, Director, was connected via teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked Mr. Gary if he could explain the
language in the bill that says, "mail out credits against fees due
to the department."
MR. GARY said his understanding is that the language would allow
the department to apply additional fees above the existing level of
$3 per person. He said they would enter into an acquisition
agreement and the borough would give them management authority over
the lands over an extended period of time so that the amount of
money they make would meet the whatever price is negotiated. That
price would be settled hopefully below $150,000, which is the
amount that the department estimates that they could make in about
three to four years of the additional fees. He noted the
additional fees that they have been trying to charge at Totem Bight
is a delicate balancing act. He said the department is very
sensitive to the idea of competing with Saxman. Mr. Gary said
since he has been with the department, his number one problem has
been trying to raise the fees. The tour companies, of course, want
to keep them down. He indicated that the department's position has
been that Saxman is a much different experience and they have been
trying to work with the cruse ship companies to describe that in
their information on the ships, which is where everything really
happens in sales. He said they have been pretty successful with
that. Mr. Gary referred to raising the price to $4 in 1997 and
said it is approaching what he feels is a comparable amount of
value for the service. He noted he doesn't know the actual dollar
value that Saxman receives per person.
Number 1308
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, "We've been talking about this issue for
quite some time and we keep getting the same answer saying, `We're
trying to get it up there,' then we put another million dollars
into the project and we're out at the other end of town struggling
just to keep it going. Can I get an answer from you? I mean
forget about what the tour companies are gunna do. You know they
can drop that portion and they have done that to us in Saxman and
we tried to charge em a dollar a head to come across our land and
they just dropped us and it took us five years to get em back to
us. So you know without -- lets say that we do something to make
you -- what can we do to make you at least get the prices
comparable?"
MR. GARY said, "All I can say is we have been make it comparable.
It has gotten better and the price that we receive is negotiated
and we try to get it up every year. And I think we've given them
the notice that in 97 it will go to $4. The indications I get from
talking to Saxman tour operators is that it is getting to parity in
the value received and the issue is really more the information
they get on board ships and so what I've been more concerned about
is how the information on board ship compares the two experiences
so that people can make a better choice. As far as figuring out
the pricing...."
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Gary when he thinks we'll get a
return on that million dollars. He said they just redid the whole
thing over the last year and a half. They rebuilt the house,
replaced a couple of the poles, built walkways, made different
trails and now we're going to make a bigger parking area. He again
asked Mr. Gary when he thinks we'll get return on the million
dollars.
Number 1490
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He referred to Co-Chairman Williams' question about
seeking a return on the investment in the parks and said he thinks
there is a fundamental difference between the purposes of Totem
Bight and the operation in Saxman. He said what we have in Totem
Bight is a state historical park and the main purpose of the park
is not to generate fees, but to provide information about the
original culture in the Ketchikan area. When we start looking at
parks solely as a way to get a return on investment, we're missing
the purposes for which the parks were established. He said that he
thinks that in order to maintain the Totem Bight facility for not
only the residents of Ketchikan and non-tour visitors, but also the
tour visitors, we need to generate some income from the commercial
operators to pay for that facility. The fundamental purposes,
other than the indigenous culture education of the two facilities,
are different and that is something we need to keep in mind.
Number 1555
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said this is not the first time that the problem
of competition between state owned facilities and private
facilities has come up. He asked Mr. Stratton if he feels that by
following what the bill would provide would increase competition or
detract from people wanting to go to the Saxman facility.
MR. STRATTON said he doesn't think so. He said he thinks that the
purpose of the bill is to free up the existing parking. The tour
operators will continue to go to Totem Bight filling up the parking
lot and the private parking adjacent to Totem Bight. The people
who are really getting squeezed out are the people in Ketchikan and
the independent travelers that aren't on a bus tour. They come by
Totem Bight and they can't find a place to park. The real winners
in the bill and with this acquisition are going to be the non-tour
visitors to the park because they are having a hard time getting in
there. He said Mr. Ambrose has indicated when he has visitors in
town and the cruse ships are in town, he doesn't even bother to
attempt to visit the area.
Number 1620
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked Representative Williams if his
point is that the state parks needs to raise their fees so they're
competitive.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he has been asking this for some time.
They're in direct competition with Saxman. He indicated this
discussion has happened almost every year for the last three years
and all he hears is "We're trying, we have to take care of the tour
companies, they're gunna be very upset with us." He said they have
raised the fee every year a little at a time and the argument is
that we can't raise it because we'll drive away the bus companies.
Co-Chairman Williams said you can bring so many buses into the
park. He said they tell the bus companies "These are how many
buses you'll have at this time, per hour." He said they can't take
22 buses at one time. Co-Chairman Williams said at Saxman, we've
had to build and expand that parking lot. They have taken their
ball field out of that area and put it into another area. He said
they have had to pay the state back for the ball field that they
received money for. Co-Chairman Williams stated he supports the
bill and would like to see it move, but he would like the
department to be a little bit more stronger in trying to be
competitive with what is being done out there.
Number 1738
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Representative Williams, what sort of
number -- do you have a feel for what sort of a magnitude of number
we'd need here if that were going to be case that they would
somewhat come to a parity?"
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated he didn't know exactly what the
number is. He referred to the $35 amount and explained the bus
company was getting an amount of money. The shipping company
received the biggest amount and then the bus company got their
amount and then we got whatever. He said we were always having to
negotiate.
Number 1798
MR. AMBROSE said what we need to find out is what the cruse line is
charging the passenger for that full package. He asked if the
overall package is $35.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it was five years ago.
MR. AMBROSE said if it is going to take an increase in the fee at
Totem Bight to bring them into comparable levels, he is sure
Senator Taylor will do everything he can to influence the division
to do that. He said he agrees with Co-Chairman Williams in that we
constantly hear from cruse lines that "If you do this, then we are
going to pull out," and yet traffic seems to increase every year.
He said as a region, we're starting to realize that while one
community doesn't dare put on a head tax, if we did it as a region
he doesn't think they'll all turn around and head for the
Mediterranean.
Number 1854
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Co-Chairman Williams indicated that a fairly
large amount of that $35 stays with the shipping company or the
tour company. That sounds like they would want to then advertise
or make available the knowledge that there is this trip to Saxman.
He asked if $3 or $4 versus $35 is what scares people off.
MR. AMBROSE said he doesn't believe that the cruse lines are
charging their passengers $3 for the Totem Bight trip. It is
probably $25 or $30 to get on the bus to go out there. That is
what the operator pays the state. He said we need to find out how
they're similar.
Number 1895
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said if we're going to do an apples and
apples comparison, there has to be a comparison between what the
underlying value and what the experience is. If one is simply the
ability to walk among some totem poles and the other is an active
demonstration of things -- if one is a big production and the other
is just a passive walk through a small park, those are different
experiences and they ought to have a different value.
Number 1936
REPRESENTATIVE LONG referred to his earlier question regarding
credits against fees and said it was mentioned that the Division of
Parks collects fees for parks. He asked what is done with the
fees. He said it sounds like the division has the ability to use
the fees they collect.
MR. STRATTON said they currently collect approximately $2 million
in fees. That is within the division's program receipt
authorization within the operating budget. Currently, the fees
they collect are authorized to go back into park authorizations for
the most part, system wide.
Number 1985
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this is essentially a funding
mechanism for capital improvements. He said he never really got a
clear answer on the question of allowing credits against fees due
to mitigate or alleviate access. He asked if they are going to
take the money that is being collected and build new parking
spaces.
MR. STRATTON said that is essentially what it is. It is a funding
mechanism for a land acquisition so that federal highway monies can
be used to make a parking lot improvement.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there is any reason why we don't get
a capital appropriation through the normal capital appropriation
process.
MR. STRATTON said the Division of Parks hasn't been successful in
recent years in securing very much of the capital budget. The
capital budget they do get is focused primarily on deferred
maintenance and park repairs. Mr. Stratton explained, "The
situation at Totem Bight is a little different in that what we're
seeing the fees coming from the operators that would go into this
funding mechanism really as a mitigation payment for displacing the
parking, you know, the independent traveler and the Ketchikan
resident. We're looking at this as a mitigation fee, you know,
more so than a straight capital acquisition. So that's
fundamentally what it is.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the bill has a House Finance Committee
referral.
MR. AMBROSE responded that there was a Resources and Finance
referral. He explained this same discussion was brought up in a
Senate Finance Committee meeting. He explained he has a tendency
to agree with the co-chair of Senate Finance in that while there is
a zero fiscal note, he isn't really sure that is the way it should
be done. There obviously is going to be an expenditure of money
that would be coming to the state through this circular and the
state ends up with an asset. The end result is the state owns this
property, but he doesn't know that a zero fiscal note is truly
reflective. He referred to the explanation of "We're going to be
spending from the increased fee," and said there is still money
changing hands somewhere. Mr. Ambrose stated he doesn't know how
accurate a zero fiscal note is.
Number 2117
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Well on that point, clearly what this
would be is equivalent to the other cases we've had of designated
program receipts where a program receipt comes in but it is
restricted to a particular purpose and it ought to be, you know, in
the same sense as the North Star pipeline permitting fees that come
in from BP (British Petroleum) for that particular purpose. These
fees came in -- you know are coming in for a particular purpose and
we really do need, I think, to have -- we don't have in our
bookkeeping system, right now, an adequate way to deal with
designated program receipts. And this is another example of that
problem and if we had, then we could showed it because these kinds
of receipts do have a zero impact on the fiscal gap. They don't
increase or decrease (indisc.), but they are expenditures of funds
and ought to be accounted for. So we need to have a mechanism, we
don't and that's the dilemma. Having said that, I had one specific
question with respect to the fees and I want for Director Stratton
-- does -- you indicated the overall fees, I just wondered if you
have broken out and do you know if they fees that you collect at
Totem Bight cover the operations there?"
MR. STRATTON informed the committee members that the fees do cover
the operations there.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Stratton if he would describe it as
kind of a break even thing or a small positive cash flow.
MR. STRATTON said it is a positive cash flow. The fees that they
are able to generate at Totem Bight fund most of the Ketchikan park
operation which includes a couple of other facilities. He noted
Mr. Gary might know what the specific numbers are. Mr. Stratton
said he knows that they more than pay for Totem Bight with the
fees.
Number 2201
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it seems to him that there are lots
of state parks around this state, some are historical and some are
not, that charge fees to use the parks. The objective behind these
parks was to put something together that people could use at a
price that they could afford and when you get into commercial
operators using them, he can understand that you'd want to raise
the price a little bit because they're making a profit. He said,
"If you continue to raise the fees on these parks, do you want to
just turn them over to a private sector or do you want to continue
to have the state operating them, and I think that's basically what
the problem that Representative Williams is having is that on one
end of the road you've got a commercial operator and the other end
you've got the state and maybe the state should be a commercial
operator and be competing with the other one. I don't know which
one was put in first so that would raise a little bit of question
on the till. I mean if the state park has been there all along and
now Saxman has come along and is trying to compete with them then
I think Saxman has got the problem because if they're trying to
compete... I don't know but the pressure being put on the state
parks to raise their fees - raise their fees to be, you know,
competitive with the private sector, I think there is a little bit
of fallacy there."
Number 2260
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said as he understand the problem, if they went
private then you'd have a problem with the walk-ins from Ketchikan
that aren't associated with this tour business who would go free.
If it goes commercial then these people will probably be charged as
well.
Number 2271
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, "What I'm driving at, Mr. Chairman,
is that this discussion that we're having of whether the fee should
be raised on this state park to be competitive with the private
sector is I don't think it necessarily should be the argument that
we should be having at this table. I think the argument that we
should be having at this table then is whether that state park
should be turned over to concession to be competitive. If that's
the kind of discussion we want to get into (indisc.) state parks
with the private sector."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he thinks that is a side issue. He said the
issue is whether or not we should allow this expansion, and in
order to do that - to pay that back we're going to have to increase
fees.
Number 2297
MR. AMBROSE said he thinks he left the wrong impression. The
decision to increase the fee to $4 next year was made quite awhile
ago and preceded the bill by quite a ways. This bill is not what
is driving the increase. The increase has been something that
Representative Williams has been calling to the attention of the
division for quite awhile. The increase would more than adequately
cover acquisition of the property over this period of time. He
noted the bill is not driving the increase.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said his point is that the committee spent
45 minutes talking about competition when actually it is separate
issue other than the fact Co-Chairman Williams wants to get the
point across.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said if we enhance or make available more parking
space for more buses, does that than work a hardship for a private
corporation? In that case, the state is supplementing itself to be
in competition. He said he isn't so sure we want to do that.
MR. AMBROSE said that is a totally different discussion from what
the bill is about.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "No because that competition would drive
whether we want to enhance that park. If we don't want to enhance
it then this bill is dead and we have not encouraged a further
competition of private industry. Is that a wrong statement?"
MR. AMBROSE said they're going out there now despite the fact that
we don't have parking. This will get them off the shoulders of the
road. He said he believes Representative Davies is correct. We
need to compare what is being offered to the traveling public.
Number 2401
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS made a motion to move SB 278 out of committee
with individual recommendations.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection. Hearing none,
SB 278 was moved out of the House Resources Committee.
SB 230 - MANAGEMENT OF PARKS & RECREATIONAL AREAS
Number 2423
The next order of business to come before the House Resources
Committee members was CSSB 230(FIN), "An Act relating to management
of state land, water, and land and water as part of a state park,
recreational or special management area, or preserve; relating to
reports to the legislature concerning prohibitions or restrictions
of traditional means of access for traditional recreational uses
within a park, recreational or special management area, or
preserve; relating to Chilkat State Park; and relating to Denali
State Park."
KEN ERICKSON, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator Drue
Pearce, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to give the sponsor
statement. He said in the committee files, there is a sponsor
statement and a sectional analysis. Mr. Erickson read the sponsor
statement into the record:
"Senate Bill 230 was 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, we the state government, need to
ensure that decisions to restrict access on land we control are
made in a responsible, fair and well represented process.
"Alaskans are presently losing their right to traditional
recreational use on some state land and park land without
appropriate notification and justification. Citizens believe that
the public comment process is not being fairly administered and all
user groups are not being represented. In some instances, the
management and authority to restrict and prohibit uses on state
land are being transferred from the Division....
TAPE 96-54, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. ERICKSON continued reading the sponsor statement, "...of Lands
to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Non-restricted
areas of our state are being closed without proper oversight by the
legislature.
"Decisions to deny access for recreational use, because of its
importance, have always been made by our legislature and not
bureaucrats. The Constitution of the State of Alaska recognizes
the importance of land closures and mandates that all closures over
640 acres must be legislatively designated. We must continue to
recognize the importance of land closures and make necessary
changes in the current process for restrictions and prohibitions in
areas less than 640 the acres.
"A change in this process, SB 230 in its current form or other
language that achieves this intent, would ensure that all Alaskans
would have proper representation by their elected officials and
restrictions and prohibitions on traditional recreational activity
would need to be justified to the legislature. Many areas of
Alaska may need to be restricted to some or all recreational
activity, but these important decisions need to be made at the
legislative level, where the people have better access."
MR. ERICKSON said that a few weeks ago, the committee heard HB 447
which is very similar in intent; however, the two bills has since
diverged in their approach to this problem and they do stand alone.
He said he would answer questions.
Number 059
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Erickson if he would be prepared to
explain to the committee the difference between SB 230 and HB 447.
MR. ERICKSON responded that HB 447 takes its approach in Title 38,
whereas SB 230 takes its approach in Title 41. He said he believes
Title 38 deals with how the department handles just their general
land issues whereas Title 31 deals with park land issues.
Number 089
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES said although these may deal with two
separate sections of the statutes, she personally would have to
oppose SB 230 because the other bill has already been passed, which
is in the Senate and they could amend it. She said the House has
already transmitted a bill and the House bill should be the
vehicle.
Number 110
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated the committee amended HB 447 because of
its potential for crossing other land uses. There primarily was a
safety issue, if they were to cross lands that might be available
for mining or other activities, it could create a problem with the
public. He asked if the SB 230 provides that same sort of
protection so that the owner of the lease, while they may have
access, they could actually direct people how to get around this
from a safety standpoint.
MR. ERICKSON said SB 230 specifically deals with park lands and
doesn't really deal with private property.
CO-CHAIRMAN asked Mr. Erickson if he is only talking about access
to park land.
MR. ERICKSON answered in the affirmative.
Number 155
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said when HB 447 was before the committee,
the members did discuss incorporating Title 41 into it and the
sponsor, at that time, didn't want to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she believes the other bill deals with
everything that is in the Senate bill except for the addition of
the Chilkat State Park and the Denali State Park. She said, "It
seems to me that the title of this bill, being what it is, that if
we stripped out everything out of it except that portion which
deals strictly with the parks - the Chilkat State Park, etc., this
bill goes far beyond parks. It goes to state parks, recreational
or special management areas or preserves. It incorporates the
House bill. It may be the Senate President's bill, but that's just
too bad because I just think this is an injustice to the House one
(indisc.)."
MR. ERICKSON said the two bills could stand on their own and they
would compliment each other. He asked if it would help the
committee if he reviewed the sectional analysis.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if he would review the sectional analysis.
Number 236
MR. ERICKSON explained Section 1 adds a list to the duties of the
Department of Natural Resources. The department must annually
submit a report to the legislature on each designation of an
incompatible use that prohibits or restricts a traditional means of
access. The report must state the reasons for the restriction or
prohibition, the specific area affected and the duration of the
restriction or prohibition.
MR. ERICKSON said Section 2 adds a further section to the list of
duties required by the Department of Natural Resources. The
department may not manage as special purpose park land those areas
not inside park boundaries as designated by the legislature.
MR. ERICKSON referred to Section 3 and said it adds slightly under
11 acres of land to Chilkat State Park. He said Jim Stratton,
Director of Parks, could perhaps speak more directly to this. Mr.
Erickson said the reason for including this section is that his
predecessors had these lands transferred to the park using an
interagency land management agreement (ILMA) and the lands were
originally purchased with federal funds that had strings attached
which said this land has to managed as it were Chilkat State Park
land. Mr. Erickson said SB 230 says that he has to manage that
land under a slightly less restrictive management scheme, and if
that's the case, then he has to replace the 11 acres with similar
land. He would have to do that at 1996 land prices. One solution
to the problem is just add these 11 acres to Chilkat State Park.
Number 322
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Mr. Stratton he had a problem with that as
far as how that will actually take place if the budget is set
before this bill becomes effective.
JIM STRATTON, Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources, said they are comfortable with
that part of the bill.
MR. ERICKSON explained Section 4 adds a section to the statute
establishing Denali State Park specifying what constitutes an
incompatible use.
MR. ERICKSON referred to Section 5 and said it specifies that past
regulations, and regulations being currently promulgated,
concerning Denali State Park take effect only if they are
consistent with the provisions of this act.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said, "This bill was introduced two weeks
before this bill was introduced and it looks like to me what
happened here somebody took the House bill and took a little
different approach to it and stuck in the expansion of Chilkat
State Park and some other clarifying language as it relates to
Denali and I have a real problem with this. And I think -- and
what I'd like to see happen is this bill held in the committee
until we resolve how this bill is going to be handled in the other
body."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has a tendency to agree with
Representative Barnes. He noted he is thinking very seriously
about a subcommittee because he would like that completely
resolved. He said we're going through two different sections of
statute, but he doesn't want there to be a conflict.
Number 442
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understands the motivations in
Section 3. He said he doesn't really understand the motivations in
Section 2.
MR. ERICKSON explained the department transfers lands to park unit
and manages those units as if they were park lands under the more
restrictive classifications of the statutes that designates those
park land, they there has been no legislative review of that
transfer. Essentially, the argument is, "Do we expand park lands
without undergoing legislative review?"
MR. ERICKSON said as the legislature has established each park, the
legislature has gone through and designated what they consider to
be a traditional and compatible use of that park land; however,
Denali State Park in its original authorizing statute just lists
the land that makes up the park. It does not talk about what is a
traditional use in state land. He referred to the question of "Is
there an event of sparking this," and said yes. The park's
director recently instituted some restrictions on Blair Lake and
Kasoogie (Sp.?) Ridge and Denali State Park says you cannot allow
float planes to land on that particular lake. He noted he believes
the park's director also restricted some landings on Kasoogie
Ridge. Mr. Erickson said that is a traditional means of access for
the guide industry to conduct their hunts and other recreational
activities. That traditional use existed far before Denali State
Park was even made a state park.
Number 578
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN informed the committee there are a number
of different things in the Senate bill than what is in the House
bill. He said he distinctly remembers Representative Masek said
that she did not want Title 41 involved in ANILCA. In that
essence, there are two separate bills.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is a good point.
Number 606
MR. STRATTON said the reporting requirement in Section 1 is
something that the department worked with the bill sponsor on. He
said that is something that the department thinks is reasonable.
It is important to point out that a vast majority of the
restrictions that they make on traditional recreational access are
made for public safety reasons and not for other reasons. It would
be reporting on those lands that would be transferred to them under
the revised Title 38 rules that are in HB 447. Mr. Stratton
referred to Section 2 and said the impetus for this section has to
do with Blair Lake. He said, "We have, in reality, only added
acreage to legislatively designated parks that expand the
boundaries in two instances, one being Chilkat State Park and
that's the reason that we have Section 3 in this bill is to take
care of that problem as Ken described earlier. And The other is at
Denali with the addition of Blair Lank to the park through the ILMA
process about a year and a half ago. We do propose a float plan
closure on Blair Lake. I have withdrawn that from the regulation
package because I perceived a public safety concern that I had
there last fall has diminished, so that particular restriction is
no longer proposed. We do still propose an aircraft closure on
Curry and Kasoogie Ridge, which really gets to the part of this
bill that Parks is opposed to and that is Section 4, which changes
the purposes for Denali State Park, from our perspective, after 26
years of citizen driven management and that this new purpose for
the park allows for preference for motorized access. Now Ken was
correct in describing the legislation that created Denali in the
first place. It did not identify incompatible uses where the
legislature established the park, and when the legislature does not
identify compatible uses that need to be accommodated in the park
planning, we move ahead and try and try and find that balance
between competing park uses and, in this case, motorized and non-
motorized uses within the park boundaries through the park planning
process. There have been two plans done for Denali State Park, one
in 1975 and another one in 1989. The most recent master plan in
1989, it took us two years to develop this plan. We had three
rounds of public meetings. Meetings were held in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Palmer and Talkeetna. We had three opportunities for
people to provide written comments. We had ten public meetings
over that two year period with the Mat-Su Parks Citizens Advisory
Committee to discuss the plan and all of those meetings were
advertised in the newspaper and opened to the public, and it's that
citizen process - all of those meetings, all of that written
comment - all of that public discussion, you know lacking any
direction from the legislature, we crafted a balance between
motorized and non-motorized use within the park and it was put
forth in the Denali master plan in 1989. That master plan, after
all of this public involvement, recommended some areas of the park
be closed to motorized access including aircraft landing and snow
machines. The area is (indisc.) Curry and Kasoogie Ridge. It's
about 30 percent of the total park acreage. Now Parks does not
like the propose regulations until we need them - until the use is
to the point where we're beginning to see conflicts between, you
know, different competing recreational uses. We feel that point is
being reached in Denali State Park. The public has been pushing
State Parks to implement the regulations - to implement the 1989
management plan. The Mat-Su Advisory Board has been pushing it -
other members of the public. So when we released the regulation
package last fall, it understandably so prompted an outcry to those
who were opposed to any motorized closures, and we feel that the
closures proposed in the Denali State Park Management Plan were
done with the benefit of a full and open public discussion,
involvement of citizens from across the spectrum of Alaska users
and it's unfair to those hundreds of Alaskans that have spent
thousands of hours crafting this compromise in Denali State Park
between motorized and non-motorized uses to have the legislature at
this stage of the game and change the ground rules. Now we
understand that -- in my discussions with the bill sponsor that the
proposed closures that we currently exist in - the master plan,
would not be considered ample or reasonable assets. So we would
have to go back in -- while the bill does allow for some closures,
but the amount of closure that we have proposed in the 89 master
plan would not be compatible with this new language. We'd have to
go in and redo the management plan because, given to historic
involvement of any recreational user groups in this discussion and
the intensity of the debate - changing this balance is not
something that we can do without a lot of public discussion and
that's why there is $105,000 fiscal note attached to this bill
because we're going to have to go back out with these new, if this
passes, with these new directions and guidelines from the
legislature, trying to explain to these people who have been
working our Denali plan for the last 15 - 20 years why the rules
were changed and then under this new framework, move ahead and try
and try craft a new balance between motorized and non-motorized
use. That is not something that easily done. As I know the
members of the committee are well aware, and I certainly am as the
director of State Parks, Alaskans feel very strongly about how
their parks are managed and anytime you propose any kind of an
opening of an area or a closure of an area, you're going to bring
people out on all sides of the discussion."
Number 915
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he noticed the current fiscal note predates
the committee substitute. He asked that with the committee
substitute is the fiscal note of $105,000 still applicable.
MR. STRATTON indicated it is still applicable.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked him if sees any conflicts between SB 230
and HB 447.
MR. STRATTON said he doesn't see any conflicts between the two
bills.
Number 945
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it doesn't bother her that they would
have to go back out for more public comment. She said she had read
too many articles as to how portions of the public have been
treated not only in that park, but after public hearings. It's
appalling.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said he has heard similar comments from some of
his constituents and non-constituents.
Number 968
CLIFF EAMES, Alaska Center for the Environment, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He said his organization had
testified on HB 447 and submitted a letter regarding that bill
which is also applicable to SB 230. Mr. Eames said they agree with
Mr. Erickson in that the intent of the two bills is similar. Both
of them are a reaction to the attempt by the Division of Parks,
which they believe was long overdue, to treat all recreational
users in Denali State Park fairly instead of the present situation
which favors motorized use. The bills are an attempt to detour
both the Division of Lands and State Parks from trying to achieve
this balance. He said the Alaska Center for the Environment
believes, both as a practical matter and because of the chilling
effect, that we're going to continue with this situation where non-
motorized users are slighted and motorized or noisy use are
favored. Mr. Eames said they don't think that's fair and they hope
that the legislature does not intend to treat one segment of Alaska
recreation users unfairly. He said he would note that the
legislature will provide a balance of opportunities for visitors,
so it's motorized noisy opportunity and quiet non-motorized
opportunities. Mr. Eames said it is ironic that motorized uses are
considered to be traditional uses. The non-motorized uses are far
more traditional than the motorized used. Mr. Eames referred to SB
230 in comparison to HB 447 and said the Senate version is more
onerous.
Number 1103
DON SHERWOOD, Alaska Boating Association, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He noted he is on the Governor's
Advisory Board for the Susitna Basin Rec Rivers Management Plan.
He said he supports SB 230. The reconvene is that they don't feel
that the State Parks administration is doing fairly to all users,
traditional and/or the old timers (indisc.) He asked, "What is the
history of the historical means in paragraph (b). Also, is it
grandfathered in to paragraph (a) what traditional means. Mr.
Sherwood questioned where the study is on safety and danger in
these areas. He said there isn't one. Mr. Sherwood continued to
discuss the public process. He referred to the $105,000 fiscal
note and said he thinks it should be defunded at this time. He
thanked the committee for listening to his testimony.
Number 1194
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Sherwood if he thinks there are any
circumstances where provisions should be made for quiet use of
land.
MR. SHERWOOD said, "Yes, there is up in the upper part of the
rivers when the rivers go down after we hunt in there early in the
spring. Now I can't take my grandchildren in, thanks to the
restriction, to bear hunt. As the river falls, it restricts the
uses of these upper rivers. Just nature takes care of its own and
it's quiet at that time."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to snow machine access and said
suppose there are four watersheds in a park and asked Mr. Sherwood
if he would supports perhaps closing one of them to motorized
access.
MR. SHERWOOD said he can't see a reason for it. He said he doesn't
see any walkers in there during the winter.
Number 1250
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said she would like to withdraw her
objections to SB 230(FIN) now that she has had further discussions
and better understands that HB 447, sponsored by Representative
Masek, will stand on its own.
Number 1270
ROY BURKHART, Member, Alaska Boating Association, testified via
teleconference from Mat-Su in favor of CSSB 230(FIN). He said,
"I've had a number of experiences dealing with Parks and Rec, both
as a representative of the Boating Association and also as a
resident on Nancy Lake, which is involved in the Nancy Lake
recreation area. When - I think it was Mr. Stratton talked about
compromise, the only thing that I could ask, I would ask Cliff
Eames about compromise. I would ask the Parks and DNR how many
areas in Alaska are in the state parks where if you do not have a
motorized transportation - you're prohibited from entering because
the conflict between the user groups are people that on motorized
transportation or recreation vehicles and non-motorized? Now we
continually have what are referred to as noisy motorized and I
would like to ask how many of the areas are the southeast non-
motorized restricted from golf. They can go anywhere we can and
then when it gets too crowed, they want (indisc.), but they don't
have many areas where they're not allowed to go. On the (indisc.)
River management plan finally we were able to get em to go to a
compromise on the Little Susitna River where one week is float only
and the next week is motorized and that's a compromise, but not the
definition that they get. And I would ask you to support Senate
bill 230 or some type of restrictions to where the Administration
does not have the power to shut us out of our own wilderness. I'm
also a disabled Veteran and if I can't have motorized access, I
can't go. That's all I've got. Thank you."
Number 1406
SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby, came
forward to give her testimony. She said she has been working on SB
230, both in the Senate and the House, and also HB 447. Ms. Hannan
said both of the bills came out of a management proposal that is
not in place. The regulations that spurred this controversy in
Denali State Park started with a proposed closure at Blair Lakes.
She said what both of those bills do is put more burden on the
legislature to do more management. Because there was great outcry
from some public members that this proposed management decision
wasn't good, the response has been that the legislature should
assume more management. Ms. Hannan said she would assert that
that's the wrong burden and that management of agency
responsibilities coming back to the legislature increases the
legislature's workload. She said she thinks that the extensive
process the agencies are asked to go through to do their management
is something we want to make sure that they do. Ms. Hannan said
she believes there are many other ways for the legislators to carry
their point to them if they don't agree with the management such as
their budget process. The legislature's political influence in
agency management is clear and direct. She said she doesn't think
it requires statutory change. It requires open flowing
communication. Ms. Hannan said that Representative Williams could
certainly speak to the fact that he hasn't been satisfied with
state park management in his areas, but going to a statutory remedy
is a very dramatic step, she believes, in a direction that burdens
the legislature. She said she doesn't think that it is efficient
for government to do that. Ms. Hannan said, "I believe it is fully
the responsibility of the legislature to communicate with agencies
if you believe that they're not carrying out your intent or that
you're changing the intent because of things they've carried out in
the wrong way."
MS. HANNAN said, "With that aside, I (indisc.) speak strictly to
Denali State Park remembering that these statues don't just cover
Denali State Park, they cover all state parks. When the
legislature has designated state park land, it is because you've
said that those park lands have some special value or high use or
something to that effect. When Denali State Park was created 26
years ago I think it was with a clear vision that Mount McKinley
and Denali National Park were a choice piece of Alaska for the
growth of future tourism and that we needed to reserve some area
around there because we knew that the national park was not going
to, forever, accommodate the increasing demand for tourism and
growth in Alaska. And as tourism expands in Alaska and Alaska
grows, every acre of land will have more users and more conflicts
over use and those use development questions are complicate to
resolve. If you've served on you local government you know the
most complicated use developments is what my neighbor is gunna do
adjacent to my land - does he get to build a fence or not? How
high does that fence get to go and what does it get to look like?
And when you expand those kind of management decisions to state
parks and kinds of uses, I think it's an extensive process. I
believe that the public process related to these new regulations in
Denali State Park is important and it's important to go forward
with them. Regulations can be changed and I believe that
legislative oversight and direction and communication would
probably result in the quickest amount of change. Director
Stratton spoke to the fact that even before those regulations have
gone into place, he has heard clearly from the legislature and from
you constituents that their proposed closure on Blair Lakes, which
was not in place last year and is not in place, has been repealed
from being proposed. Maybe it took a sledge hammer to get his
attention, but he heard it and it's not part of the proposed
regulation package. I believe that that's the appropriate process.
I don't think that changing the statutes that govern these parks
and changing the statutes that direct Denali State Park is an
appropriate place for the legislature to go. I think it's going to
burden you down and I think it's going to bring the conflicts that
are going to expand and increase in Alaska as management of land
increases in conflicting use. Here to the table, I mean you're
gunna spend months and months and months making decisions that
should be made by our agencies. I believe that if you don't agree
with those decisions being made by the agencies, there are other
mechanisms besides statutory change to effect those. I'd asked you
keep 230 here in committee and let the regulations regarding Denali
State Park go forward.
Number 1689
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said what Ms. Hannan has said is idealistic.
She said, "I've beaten agencies over the head since 1979 and the
only time they ever listened is when you change the statutes and
I'll guarantee you they'll try to find a way to get around the
statutes too. Unfortunately, that happens to be the case."
Number 1727
DAVID STANCLIFF, Legislative Assistant to Representative Beverly
Masek, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to testify. He said
he has closely followed both SB 230 and HB 447. He said he would
like the committee members to know that he supports what Senator
Pearce is trying to do specifically with the ILMA authority and
specifically with prohibition of access in parks where there needs
to be more of a balance. He said he doesn't see this bill in any
way, shape or form bumping Representative Masek's bill off the
calendar. They kind of complete a broad picture. He thanked the
committee.
Number 1774
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES moved and asked unanimous consent to move
CSSB 230(FIN), out of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Austerman, Barnes,
Kott, Ogan, Williams and Green voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Davies, Long and Nicholia. So CSSB 230(FIN) was
moved out of the House Resources Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 9:31 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|