Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/13/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB30 | |
| HB90 HOUSE BILL NO. 90 | |
| HB6 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 6
"An Act establishing the Jonesville Public Use Area."
3:10:36 PM
DARRELL BREESE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER,
explained the legislation. He reported that the area was
north of Sutton and was historically a coal mining area
from 1919 to 1977. The bill would establish the 11
thousand-acre Jonesville Public Use Area and maintain its
popular recreational opportunities for Alaskans. The bill
would protect, maintain, enhance, and perpetuate the
present use of the area for year-round public recreation,
migratory waterfowl nesting areas and habitats for fish and
wildlife, and other uses. He noted that along with the
popular uses negative activities were happening in the
unmanaged area. Burning cars, illegal activity, and gunfire
causing stray bullets were reoccurring events. He shared
that a death had taken place in the area in the prior year.
The people of the Sutton Community Council coined the
phrase "Mad Max Theater" to describe the activities in the
area. The Sutton Community Council and the Chickaloon Tribe
had worked to remove thousands of pounds of garbage and
abandoned vehicles from the area. The groups had worked to
develop a compromise for the land use by creating the
Public Use Area (PUA). The area would allow for all the
proper uses of the area that included hiking, biking,
camping, ATV use, etc. He noted that a petition was
included in the committee member's packets ["A Petition
Regarding Jonesville\Slipper Lake Area" (copy on file)].
The goal was to move forward to create a safe recreation
area.
Representative Wilson wondered why an agreement could not
be made between the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and Mat-Su. Mr. Breese deferred the question to the
department.
3:15:06 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND AND
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), replied that by establishing an area
merely through an agreement the department would not be
able to adopt regulations for enforcement. The legislation
authorized DNR to adopt and enforce restrictions that
curtailed undesirable activities.
Representative Wilson referred to the DNR fiscal note, FN 4
(DNR). She read from the analysis:
The department would need to develop the management
plan with existing staff resources.
Representative Wilson noted that the analysis further
stated that was unlikely to happen due to costs. She
understood that the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough
would undertake the obligation. The fiscal notes were zero,
consequently, DNR lacked funding for writing the management
plan and regulations, enforcement, or policing. She
wondered what the current benefits of the bill was without
funding attached. She surmised that the Borough could write
the management plan. Mr. Goodrum answered the department
would work closely with other local partners to enlist
help. He indicated that DNR had the ability to develop
plans, but the current workload and queue of projects ahead
of Jonesville PUA was long.
Representative Wilson requested more information regarding
the Knik River Public Use Area. She cited the fiscal note
analysis stating that enforcement regulation would be
similar to the Knik River PUA. She believed that the Mat-Su
did not want a lot of government regulation. Mr. Breese
answered that the Knik River PUA was in the Mat-Su Borough
and the regulations would be similar. He related that the
community would be accepting of similar regulations. He
reiterated that it was necessary to establish the PUA to
begin work on the management plan.
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to a document [unknown] in the bill
packet that referred to the ability of the Commissioner of
DNR to appoint one of the department's employees or other
individual as a Peace Officer for the PUA. He asked what
was envisioned as the work of the Peace Officer. Mr.
Goodrum answered that DNR had a rigorous training program
for its employees that resulted in a Peace Officer
certification. Many Peace Officers were operating in the
Knik River PUA. In addition, state troopers had the
authority to enforce DNR regulations. Co-Chair Seaton
remarked that currently the Department of Revenue (DOR) and
Department of Public Safety (DPS) entered into a joint
agreement and transferred authority to 8 DOR enforcement
officers to carry firearms. He asked whether DNR program
was similar. Mr. Goodrum replied that the department had
certain park rangers who were able to carry weapons. He was
not aware of public use area peace officers carrying
weapons. He reported that the peace officers were trained
to interact with and educate the public regarding the
regulations. Co-Chair Seaton requested a memo from the
department about its intentions related to firearms and
peace officers for the PUA.
3:23:20 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the first paragraph of
DNR's fiscal note analysis that mentioned the long queue of
other projects ahead of the Jonesville PUA. He asked for
clarification. He wanted the legislation to accomplish
something. Mr. Goodrum answered that the challenge was the
amount of work and the number of current staff. He
explained that the reason the fiscal note was zero was that
the project was far off in the queue. He reiterated that
DNR was looking for other local partners to help with
development with the plan.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether nothing will happen until
2023. Mr. Goodrum replied in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki looked at the fiscal notes from the
establishment of the Knik River PUA in 2006. He noted the
initial cost of roughly $400 thousand. He believed that
costs would be associated with the development of
Jonesville PUA. He wondered about the cost of enforcement
related to Knik River Public Use Area and observed that the
fiscal note cited a Reimbursable Services Agreement (RSA)
for enforcement. Mr. Goodrum answered that in the FY 17
budget, $125,000 had been allocated to the troopers for
enforcement.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the difference
between a PUA and multi-use recreational area. Mr. Goodrum
replied that a PUA allowed DNR to establish enforcement for
the area. A multi-use area was general state land.
Co-Chair Seaton noted that Representatives George Rauscher
and Geran Tarr had joined the audience.
Representative Guttenberg asked whether a trooper or law
enforcement officer was required and who paid for it. Mr.
Goodrum replied that due to enforcement regulations and
associated bail fees for PUA areas, and resources available
to compensate state troopers, the troopers enforced PUAs.
He added that on general state land it was less likely to
obtain trooper support due to the size of the state.
3:29:48 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that for years he had
tried to establish a recreational area. He reported that he
was unable to dissuade the State Parks to back off on
providing an armed officer, even though the public did not
want one.
Representative Wilson inquired whether the Mat-Su and DNR
could enter into an agreement granting Mat-Su the
responsibility for developing the management plan to
eliminate DNR's funding needs.
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, SPONSOR, answered that the
Mat-Su Borough strongly supported the bill. He referred to
a letter from the Mat-Su Borough planning department (copy
on file) that strongly supported development of the PUA. He
related that the bill development lasted for over one year
and involved the borough, public, and all user groups. The
borough was thoroughly committed to the project through its
completion. He reiterated that the process required that a
PUA was established to develop the plan, however DNR did
not have to write the plan; only approve it.
Co-Chair Seaton noted that public testimony would remain
open.
HB 6 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.