Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/12/1996 08:09 AM RES
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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.