Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/29/1995 01:14 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 1995
1:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Davis, Chairman
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HB 91: "An Act amending the area within designated marine park
units of the Alaska state park system, and adding marine
park units to the Alaska state park system."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 114
Juneau, Alaska 99801
TELEPHONE: (907) 465-3744
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HB 91
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4947
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
TED MERRELL, Retired Biologist
Auke Bay Laboratory
National Marine Fisheries Service
3240 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-7876
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
BILL GARY, Superintendent Southeast Area
Division of State Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4563
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
ALLEN WALKER, Consultant
Arctic Associates International
3437 Meander Way
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 91
CHRISTI HERREN, Member
Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board
427 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3097
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
GAIL BILLS, Member
Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board
536 Park Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-9566
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
NANCY WATERMAN, Member
Juneau Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 20993
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1426
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
SUE SCHRADER, Member
Juneau Area State Park Advisory Board
Juneau Kayak Club
10780 Mendenhall Loop Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
SANDY WILLIAMS, Member
Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board
P.O. Box 765
Douglas, Alaska 99824
Telephone: (907) 463-5114
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports HB 91
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 91
SHORT TITLE: MARINE PARKS ADDITIONS/CHANGES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROBINSON,Elton
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/17/95 52 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/17/95 52 (H) TRA, STA, RES, FIN
03/29/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-12, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Transportation Committee was called to order by Chairman
Gary Davis at 1:14 p.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representative Davis, Williams, MacLean, and Brice. Members absent
were Representatives James, Masek, and Sanders.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS stated there is a quorum present. He announced
the agenda was to hear testimony on HB 91. Chairman Davis
introduced Representative Caren Robinson, Prime sponsor of HB 91.
HB 91 - MARINE PARKS ADDITIONS/CHANGES
Number 013
REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON, Sponsor, introduced HB 91 and stated
it was heard before the legislature last year and passed the House,
but died in the Senate Rules Committee. She said Representative
Kim Elton, Co-sponsor, was present. She stated HB 91 was not
created by her or Representative Elton, but the community of
Juneau. The community had requested that it be brought before the
legislators in order to obtain the designation of the 13 islands in
the general areas as a state marine park. Representative Robinson
read the following Sponsor Statement into the record:
"HB 91 designates 13 islands in the Juneau area as a state
marine park. The islands included in this parcel are located
in Lynn Canal. The lands are currently held in public
domain; none are under private ownership. These lands have
been determined as unsuitable for real estate or resource
development.
"In 1977 the islands were nominated for selection by the city
and borough of Juneau for recreation purposes. In 1989 the
state selected the Channel Islands from the federal
government under the Alaska Statehood Act. Designation of
these lands requires legislative action. Both the city and
the state have identified protection of the islands as a
priority in the Juneau Coastal Management Plan. A previous
bill, introduced during the last legislative session, passed
the House only to die in the Senate Rules Committee.
"Establishing the islands as a state park would preserve the
quality of existing and future recreational use. All
existing lawful uses, including fishing, trapping and hunting
are preserved under statute. The boundaries of the park
would be at the 20-fathom line around each island. It is
essential to institute a management system to preserve the
existing recreational use and to accommodate future needs.
Only State Park management can consolidate water, intertidal
and upland uses into a single entity with adequate
enforcement authority to protect as well as provide for safe
use of these resources.
"Creation of the Juneau Channel Islands State Marine Park is
urgently needed and would be an outstanding addition to
Alaska state parks by providing an island complex unique to
the state park system.
"Thank you for your consideration. I urge your support of
House Bill 91."
Number 071
CHAIRMAN DAVIS thanked Representative Robinson.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said the committee should have a letter
from the Alaska Outdoor Council and a letter from the mining
industry with the original bill that passed the House last year.
She also called attention to a resolution the committee should have
from the Juneau Borough Assembly supporting HB 91.
Number 085
CHAIRMAN DAVIS indicated there was a bill that passed the
legislature dealing with similar issues on the Kenai River within
his district. This was a local issue and had a key benefit to the
local area. He looked at the issues presented in HB 91 as a local
issue and suggested they should be presented as such. He said the
issue has statewide impact as well.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked if the islands are within the
boundaries of the city and borough of Juneau, and if there has been
any discussion of the state deeding them over to the city and
borough and letting Juneau do with it as they will?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON explained there is a representative from
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) present to answer
appropriate questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON, Co-sponsor of HB 91, explained he grew up
in the local area and fished off of the islands. He stated as he
got older he became further a field. He continued to explain he
would start fishing on Coghlan Island and worked his way further
out. He also has hunted on some of the islands. He said the
reason he was flattered to be asked to co-sponsor HB 91 because it
presents an opportunity for other young children in our community
to do what he had done. It provides an opportunity for people to
use these islands the same way he has used them. He appreciated
the committee's point of view of it being a community issue. He
noted the sponsor was very careful to ensure that they were
speaking on behalf of the community. He added they had many
individuals and groups approach them with concerns on the future of
the islands. He stated he hopes this time we make it over that
final threshold.
Number 147
TED MERRELL, Retired Fishery Biologist, Auke Bay Laboratory,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and resident of Juneau
for over 38 years, said he supported HB 91. He added he was a
member of the Juneau Area Parks Citizen Advisory Board (JAPCAB),
but was here to testify on behalf of himself. He explained his
wife and three children came to the area in 1956. One of the first
things they did was to buy a 14-foot skiff and a five horsepower
Johnson outboard motor so they could access some of the islands
around Auke Bay such as Coghlan, Suedla and Battleship Island,
where they often went for picnics, clam digging and camping. He
stated he now has a bigger boat and still continues to visit all
the islands and enjoys to fish around them every year. He
explained when he first came to the area some 30 years ago he would
go out on a nice weekend and have his pick of beaches and have them
all to himself for the entire weekend. Over the years because of
the growing population, island recreation has become more popular.
He noted most of the beaches are utilized by people having parties.
The beaches are reaching a saturated level with the heavy use they
have been receiving in recent times. There are growing problems
with liter, human waste and several tons of rust. He noted two
years ago on Coghlan Island someone left their camp fire burning,
the fire got into the undergrowth and destroyed several large
trees. He remarked this was becoming more of a problem and urged
the committee to pass HB 91. He emphasized his concern for a basic
management program to be put into effect to ensure the islands are
not spoiled by overuse. Mr. Merrell requested the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resource to
devise the best possible mechanism for instituting some kind of
basic management system for the parks.
BILL GARY, Southeast Area Superintendent, Department of Parks &
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, indicated he
was in attendance to answer questions the committee might have over
the course of this hearing. He said the department's position is
in support of this legislation.
Number 209
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked Mr. Gary if he was familiar with the brochure
(Proposal) presented to the committee. He also asked if the
department agrees with some of the presentations that are stated in
this brochure. (indisc.) is in agreement with, but in the long
term management (indisc.). Chairman Davis noted that commercial
use is probably one of the key concerns that people might have. He
asked Mr. Gary to describe the commercial uses he might see
envisioned or approved under a plan. He asked if this plan might
designate specific commercial uses.
Number 235
MR. GARY felt that this refers to the framework within state parks
of being able to do these things in a way that the Division of Land
is not able to. This states that they may need to be addressed,
because they are predicting more and more use coming over the
horizon. It does not suggest that this is what we are going to do,
it merely states the possibilities. He made reference to some
commercial permitted guiding companies that are currently applying
to the Division of Land for a transfer of their permits that they
had last summer, because now it is state land and previously it was
forest service land. The Division of Land will have to address the
issues of whether they should have overnight facilities or just day
use facilitates and related concerns. He said they are not used to
handling those kinds of details. He stated they usually go to him
for advice. He said he would advise them; however, they don't have
that regulatory framework and experience that the Division of Parks
& Outdoor Recreation has.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS called attention to the sponsor statement and the
mentioned of the 20 fathom depth line. He saw these issues getting
into Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) authority although
maybe just on a legal basis and not on a practical basis.
Number 265
MR. GARY explained the overall statute for state marine parks
specifically states that we do not have any control over ADF&G
matters in this area. The boundary is a suggestion that came out
of a Senate Resources Committee meeting rather than going to an
(indisc.) description which is the jagged line that follows nothing
real. Most fisherman have fathometers and would know better with
a fathometer than anything else where they were in relation to some
landmark.
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN inquired as to why only part of
Shelter Island was being designated.
MR. GARY explained the balance of the island is actually still in
federal ownership, that being the U.S. Forest Service. There is
some state land in the southern tip that has already been disposed
of. He indicated the only disposable and buildable land has
already been sold off.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked who was it sold to.
MR. GARY indicated he could not remember if it was through a
lottery system or some other sale, but it was disposed of through
a normal disposal program of the state.
Number 312
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked "along those lines are those people
represented here today..." He added with a state park next to you
there is so many restrictions and wondered how this would affect
....
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE interjected and asked if the proposed state
park lands would be next to the federal parks.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON thought they would prefer to be adjacent to
a federal park because they don't get to develop it.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS interjected and noted it would probably be hard to
speak for someone who is not here as to what they would prefer. He
added it was a good point and that would be the key question. He
asked Mr. Gary if he could address some of these issues.
MR. GARY referred to a map of the Channel Islands and explained the
federal ownership was basically everything lapsed down to a line
that designated the boundaries, which consisted of a mile and a
half of forest service land still there before they would come to
any kind of park designation. He indicated there were some
developments on parts of the coast of Shelter Island but he was not
aware of any conflicts regarding this.
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to the zero fiscal note that
accompanies HB 91 and inquired as to how the Department of Natural
Resources plans to manage the parks.
Number 315
MR. GARY explained their first intent was to try and find a good
education system. He felt it would cost under $1,000. It would be
realistic to say that there really is no additional money to this.
He added they will attempt to put signs in the heavily used areas
and on the boat launch areas. He would then educate people and
have a system of volunteer groups go out and do a lot of the work
themselves. He mentioned the Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation has the personnel and a skiff which is more than the
Division of Land has. He said they do have an existing marine park
on Shelter Island. The department goes to the island a couple
times a year to pick up litter. He said this spring the department
is organizing a "Trails Day" event to help clean up Portland
Island. He predicted there will be some cost, but felt confident
that the cost would not be so much as to warrant a red flag of a
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated the committee will be hearing
testimony from the Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board (JASPAB).
She mentioned they do have programs to help bring volunteers
together and have done this in the past. She added they plan to
continue providing this service.
ALLEN WALKER, Private Consultant, Arctic Associates International,
and retired Coast Guard Officer, stated he was speaking on behalf
of himself. He stated he considered himself to be pro-development
while maintaining an environmental sensitivity and a long range
view towards sustainable development. He said over the past three
decades he has lived around and observed numerous coastal areas
through out the U.S., including many of the Alaska coastal regions.
He indicated that Alaska possessed some of the more unique
ecosystems found anywhere in the world. He noted HB 91 would help
preserve a small portion of one of those ecosystems. HB 91 would
also provide for the use and enjoyment by current residents and
visitors, while helping to ensure that future generations have the
same opportunity. There is a current trend in many areas of the
U.S. to restore wetlands, green space and localized ecosystems to
predevelopment status. He indicated that is a difficult,
time-consuming and costly process and is being undertaken by
nongovernmental organizations, corporations and municipalities.
Much of this is done through litigation, forcing these issues. HB
91 would be one preemptive step to avoid attempts at costly and
sometimes futile restoration efforts in the future. As Juneau
continues to grow, pressure to develop the islands proposed in HB
91 will increase. He continued to explain even though we have
heard testimony that there is no real estate or commercial use
feasible for the islands, pressures continue to grow for
privatization. If the islands were transferred to private
ownership or development for commercial purposes, they would
essentially be locked up and rendered inaccessible for many of
Juneau's citizens.
MR. WALKER explained these islands are nearby and are a reasonably
accessible resource for many who have not been able to purchase
their own remote property or afford the necessary infrastructure
cross to access remote public lands. He continued the islands,
tidelands and surrounding submerged lands proposed in HB 91, are
arguably best used for such recreational purposes. He felt the
establishment of this park would support future development of
other more viable residential and commercial areas throughout the
borough of Juneau. He presented an example of the golf course area
located on North Douglas Island that is presently owned by the
Goldbelt Native Corporation and the city/borough. He believed by
having a viable marine park for recreational purposes and
maintaining that ecosystem increases and enhances the viability of
future use of those lands. He concluded by stating assurances
should be maintained in HB 91, to work closely with all concerned
Native organizations, to properly research and survey these areas
for any historical or cultural significance prior to any
development efforts. He added proper identification and
preservation of such sites is essential and would enhance the
park's value for future generations. An example of the demand for
such a policy in the bill would be the recent find of the ancient
fish weirs and other culturally significant material found in the
Mendenhall River basin. He explained they were found in an area
where no one really expected them to be and they have cultural
significance to the people. He felt that every effort should be
made to identify these areas before the construction of trails.
Leaving these islands unattended for the public to access could
possibly destroy potential historical sites. Mr. Walker stated he
fully supported HB 91 and urged the committee to do the same.
Number 364
CHAIRMAN DAVIS acknowledged he had similar concerns and considers
himself pro-development as well. He commended Mr. Walker on his
comments on the enjoyment that people get from visiting these
islands and if there were private areas, this would definitely
restrict the enjoyment of most people. It would provide for
minimizing that opportunity for enjoyment. Chairman Davis made
reference to AS 41.21.302, Section (g) which states the
requirements and regulations that address any historical and
cultural basis or values.
CHRISTI HERREN, Member, Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board,
said she would like to let others talk about how appropriate the
area is for a state marine park. She asked to address how the park
proposal is unique to others and why it is in the state's best
interest to have the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation manage
these lands. She reiterated Representative Robinson's comments on
the fact the lands went through an extensive selection process from
the federal government to the state government and throughout that
selections process each one of these islands were selected based on
its community recreation values. She explained there were two
categories that the islands could be designated under: One was for
community expansion; and the other for community recreation. She
noted the islands were all selected for community recreation. She
explained the selections were all supported by the public and the
city/borough of Juneau (CBJ). This past December a management
authority was granted to the state to manage these lands. She
stated the Department of Natural Resources in December 1993,
produced a management plan for all state lands in the Juneau area.
The process involved local, state and federal agencies as well as
the general public. She indicated it took a couple of years
through this process to determine the best use of these lands. Ms.
Herren emphasized these islands were recognized for their
outstanding recreational values. Each of these islands was
designated by that plan to be managed for its recreational values.
The Department of Natural Resources has determined that these are
recreational lands, they are state lands and will be managed by the
department in one form or another. She said this decision has the
support of the public and the local municipality. She felt the
question of concern should address the issues of which state agency
would be better equipped to manage these state recreational lands,
the most efficient and economic way possible. She stated the
JASPAB feels the State Parks Division is the logical choice for
that. She explained the Southeast Region of the Division of Land
has indicated in conversation with her that they do not have the
personnel with the expertise nor the equipment necessary or the
time to manage these lands. She added they do not have much of a
recreational land base in Southeast. The Division of Land does have
more recreational lands up north and are equipped with the people
qualified to deal with these issues. They are contracting out the
management of the small area of land they currently have in
Southeast Alaska. She noted they are not really in the
recreational land management business in Southeast Alaska. She
said they indicated that they would probably leave it as is and
only respond to life and safety hazards that may occur.
MS. HERREN commented that this did not seem like good land
stewardship, but in order for them to respond to any life and
safety hazards that might occur out there, they would more than
likely be dependent on state park personnel to take them out there
with state park equipment. She noted this seemed to be a
duplication of effort with more people involved than would be
necessary. If the Division of Park & Outdoor Recreation was not
able to take them out in their boat with their personnel, they
would probably have to contract out, which also does not seem like
a wise use of state money. She continued if some illegal activity
was occurring on these islands, the Division of Land could only
pursue those activities through the civil action process. This is
a lengthy process that can take several years of notifying these
people and posting appropriate notification. She felt the time
could be better used by the Division of Land personnel for more
important (indisc.) permitting actions. The Division of Parks &
Outdoor Recreation has criminal authority, which allows them to
take care of some of the illegal activities in a more timely
manner. This also would be a more efficient use of the state's
money.
MS. HERREN added if there was work that was necessary on these
islands, it is likely the Division of Land would have to contract
out that work since they do not have the personnel, the tools or
equipment. The Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation could
accomplish the tasks with existing personnel or get volunteers to
help. The Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation has an impressive
volunteer program which has developed over the years. They have
had the support of crews from other countries, as well as from all
over the U.S. She added they have used them extensively and have
gotten a lot done for not very much money. The Division of Land
does have a volunteer program as well in Southeast Alaska. To the
best of her knowledge they have not had any volunteer work done for
them. She said ultimately it makes the most sense to have the
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation manage these lands. They
are a very lean enterprising and resourceful agency, which has been
able to manage their lands efficiently, even with declining
budgets. The Division of Land is not that interested in managing
these recreational lands and would only manage them on a crisis
basis. She felt it would be better land stewardship to have the
agency who is qualified and interested manage these parks. She
hoped that the committee would agree and support HB 91.
GAIL BILLS, Member, Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board, and a
20-year resident of the area, asked the committee to consider the
following: If the committee votes against this park proposal, are
they doing so because they have a better plan. She explained in
the six years that she has been a member of the JASPAB, she has
never heard or seen any alternative plan. The marine park idea is
what the Department of Natural Resources has recommended. It is
what the JASPAB recommends, the city and borough of Juneau Parks
and Recreation Board and the Juneau Assembly Mayor. She reiterated
her question of, if not a park then what. Can the committee tell
the people in Juneau, who have been enjoying the islands freely for
recreation and subsistence for many decades, what they envisioned
for these islands if they choose to assign them to the Division of
Land instead of the Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation. She
added if the committee chooses to vote no, then please present your
vision of the future for the Channel Islands because the people of
Juneau deserve to know.
Number 493
NANCY WATERMAN, Member, Juneau Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee (JP&RAC), has lived in Juneau since 1969. She indicated
when she moved to Juneau the population was about 13,000. The
ferry terminal was on South Franklin Street, the airport was
considerably smaller than it is today, the Prince George and
Princess Pat of the Pacific and Orient (P&O) Steamship company were
the only cruise ships that called in Juneau carrying approximately
300 passengers each. They did not sell shore excursions. She said
the effects of the local population and traveling public are
considerably different now than they were then. She indicated the
committee has heard the reasons for a management system for the
Channel Islands state marine parks and will not repeat those
points, but will encourage passage of HB 91 for the reasons that we
need a management system for the Channel Islands. She added she
brings with her the unanimous endorsement from the JP&RAC for HB
91. Ms. Waterman indicated she did know someone who owned private
property on Shelter Island and believed they used it as a
recreational cabin. She felt they would not object to having a
state park as their neighbor.
Number 510
SUE SCHRADER, Member, Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board; and
Member, Juneau Kayak Club, stated she has paddled to probably
everyone of the islands. She called attention to the fact that the
majority of these islands are small and not suitable for resource
development. Many of the islands contain significant wetlands that
would probably discourage any type of development. She also
indicated the majority of the islands are an easy paddle even by
kayak, and even easier if you have a motorboat. The islands are
within a few hours from the road system of Juneau, making for high
potential usage. She added in respect to the comment regarding the
islands being used by the locals, the past four summers she has met
a surprising number of kayakers from out of town, many from
Anchorage, as well as out of state. She felt as the sport of
kayaking increases, Juneau's reputation will increase as a premiere
area for kayaking. She concluded by saying there is great
potential for more than local use.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS remarked it would be an energetic kayaker to come
all the way from Anchorage. He then introduced Sandy Williams.
SANDY WILLIAMS, Member, Juneau Area State Parks Advisory Board,
stated he has lived in the Juneau area for 35 years. He has also
paddled extensively to the Channel Islands with his family who grew
up in Juneau. He mentioned in the early days he had only a 12-foot
boat, but was able to visit most of the islands. As a result of
that, he enjoyed recreating among the islands. As time went on, he
acquired a larger boat and ventured out further. He interpreted HB
91 not as a lock-up bill as he has heard reference to, but as a
program that will enhance the quality of life for the citizens of
Juneau. He noted as the community grows there will be an
increasing need for additional recreational opportunities. HB 91
does not lock up the land but actually provides the opportunity for
future growth in Juneau. He referred to the comment made earlier
regarding volunteer labor and did not see where this particular
bill would need a fiscal note. He added the JASPAB does a lot of
work in our state parks with the support of volunteer labor. For
example, a few years ago the Burgess State Park was formed and a
cabin within this park was built using volunteer labor. He added
they were in the process currently of soliciting funds for a second
cabin locally. In August they plan to start construction of that
cabin which will also be done with volunteer labor. He said what
we need is the management tool to oversee these kinds of activities
so we can accomplish these tasks in a reasonable manner.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated the volunteer efforts are encouraging.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the cabin they are proposing to build and
said by the time they have it built, it will probably be a $50,000
addition to Burgess State Park. This will be done through
volunteer contributions in the community as well as volunteer
labor. He added it was not a small issue and the Director of the
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation has made a significant
effort in soliciting volunteer labor so they can manage the state
park resources adequately. He concluded by stating he did not see
how we would be able to accomplish the tasks at hand.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS introduced Amy Skillaned.
AMY SKILLANED said she would pass on testifying in the interest of
letting the committee vote on this quickly.
Number 570
CHAIRMAN DAVIS expressed his concern to Mr. Gary regarding some
questions on whether or not the areas should be privatized. If
there is any opportunity for privatization of the lands, what areas
would be included remotely relating to developable land, excluding
wetland areas or rocky terrain areas.
MR. GARY said he would have a hard time responding to that question
because some of the people he has talked with who are in the real
estate business have looked at this for its potential. Currently,
the market for recreational lots is not that strong in Juneau.
There is a strong market for buildable housing lots, but obviously
it is very difficult to develop these islands for water, sewer and
power. There is no economical way to get power to these islands.
He added the topography of the islands consists of steep grades.
The smaller islands are so small and rocky that it would be
difficult to build on.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked for confirmation that there are no prime
building sites that Mr. Gary is aware of located on any of these
islands.
MR. GARY stated if there had been, there were opportunities before
they were selected for a state marine park. When it was forest
service land much of the area was explored and a lot of
recreational permits were obtained on lands around Juneau, but
these islands for one reason or another did not have a lot of that
recreational permitting. He continued to explain when the
recreational permits were valid and the state selected the land,
they received a preference right for ownership. This process
occurred previously and was available, but there were no such lots
or permits established.
Number 599
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if the private lands were put up on a bid
basis or by lottery. He asked what was the response to those and
were they all claimed in the lottery.
MR. GARY said he did not know the details on that issue. He
indicated he did not know how it was established. He suggested to
Chairman Davis that Ms. Herren might be better suited to address
those issues.
MS. HERREN believed that all the lands did go initially, but many
were forfeited because people could not afford to build on them.
Number 618
CHAIRMAN DAVIS commented to Mr. Gary regarding the fiscal note that
one of the key areas of this is, under the regulations there will
be a management plan adopted. He commented since it does not
indicate when the plan is to be adopted, then this could be side
step as far as the cost of implementing a plan. He explained the
Soldotna/Kenai area is currently attempting to change some
legislation since regulation is a big question nowadays regarding
expense and control of legislative intent. The borough is looking
at implementing a plan and then bringing it back to the department
for approval. It appears with the efforts and the groups that are
formed, this would also be a sensible and cost effective method
with regards to the fiscal note. He asked if a dollar amount was
incorporated in the management plan.
MR. GARY stated no. It only recommends that a plan be done before
any development occurs. He explained they did not have the urgency
to execute a plan.
REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN made a motion to move HB 91 out of
the House Transportation Committee with individual recommendations
and zero fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there was objection. Hearing none, HB 91
was passed out of the House Transportation Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Transportation Committee Chairman Davis adjourned the meeting at
2:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|