Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/03/2001 03:55 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 96-ACQUIRING JESSE LEE HOME
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER explained that HB 96 would establish a
task force within the Department of Natural Resources to look at
the site and structure of the Jesse Lee Home in Seward to determine
what can be saved and what the proper management structure should
be to protect both the site and facility.
This home in Seward was built in 1925 as a children's facility and
played a critical role in serving health care and educational needs
of Alaska's orphaned children. A number of the children who grew up
in the home went on to distinguish themselves in a wide variety of
fields. The most notable is Benny Benson Jr. who designed Alaska's
State flag while living at the home. The flag was first officially
raised there on July 9, 1927.
A private party purchased the site and facility in 1964 and the
Kenai Peninsula Borough has recently foreclosed upon it and intends
to deed the property to the City of Seward. The task force should
be able to recommend what should be done with the structure and
will hopefully recommend that the City of Seward take over
management and receive grant donations from private entities to
develop the site and provide a state cultural and historical site.
The House Finance Committee did not adopt the fiscal note for some
reason but there is a $65,000 fiscal note that is matched. He then
read the following e-mail from Jim Stratton, Director of Parks:
In 2001 the capital budget here appropriated federal
funds to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation for
the National Historic Preservation Fund and Federal
Grants Program, $640,000. The office of history and
archeology administers this grant program, which is made
available to local governments and non-profits as well as
the state for restoration and preservation projects like
the Jesse Lee Home. All grants from this program must be
matched 50-50. With the $35,000 general fund matching
fund request in our fiscal note for HB 96, we'll be able
to secure, through a match, an additional $35,000 for our
existing 2001 grant program. We had set aside a portion
of the total 2001 National Historic Preservation Fund in
the federal grants program for state opportunities for
this one.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is willing to work with
the program and provide the match for the general fund of $35,000.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said language in the bill said DNR should
determine the costs and set up some options. He referred to a
letter in his bill packet that said a commission would determine
the costs and set up options and wondered whether the commission
concept had been abandoned.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said there was no commission established.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked why the date for recommendations to be sent
to the governor was set for November 1, 2002.
JIM STRATTON, Director of the Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation responded that if the commission could be established
and the process completed prior to the 2002 deadline they would.
However, he did not see that there could be a full archeological
review of the structure and a full round of discussions with the
community completed by the end of this year and ready for the next
legislative session so he asked for a year's extension. The
department would like to have the conclusions and move on as
quickly as possible.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said Senator Phillips' question came from
section 2, which reads, "The Department of Natural Resources shall
determine the costs and procedures" and it doesn't talk about the
formation of a commission. He asked whether that was still the
intent.
MR. STRATTON said yes, their intent is to establish a commission.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said the sponsor said no commission.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said to Mr. Stratton, "I thought we'd
talked about just establishing a committee to hire an architect to
take a look at this facility. A committee of interested persons and
someone from the department and the architect would actually tell
us the valuation of the site and then we'd make recommendations."
MR. STRATTON said they were both talking about the same thing; the
terminology is just mixed up. A committee would be established to
hire the architect who will make recommendations about what can and
cannot be done with the structure itself. In terms of
recommendations of what to do with the property, the committee
would work with DNR to make those determinations. DNR would not
work independently; they want to work with the committee
Representative Lancaster mentioned.
SENATOR PHILLIPS questioned that it would take 18 months. He also
wanted to know whether the building would be restored to its 1926
condition.
MR. STRATTON wasn't sure the building could be restored or if the
amount of money it would take to restore it would be worth the
investment. That's the investigation that needs to be done. He
thought it could be done in less than 18 months but not in six.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said there was a study of the building
done in 1999 and the condition was marginal. It was not a complete
study though so there is need for further investigation. The goal
is to restore the building if that is possible and money is
available.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked why there is a movement toward the state
owning and being responsible for maintenance and ongoing operation,
rather than the state participating in helping the local government
to renovate the facility and then having the local government
responsible for coming up with the operational plan and operating
it.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER thought it was because the borough was the
automatic entity to receive the property through the foreclosure
process. Since the city did not have sufficient funds for the
evaluation process, Mr. Stratton thought DNR could help in the
evaluation process.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was money in the capital budget or
they could pass a separate appropriation bill they could have come
up with money to underwrite the effort but not to assume control of
the property in perpetuity. He asked whether that was necessary at
this point.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER didn't know that it was necessary or even
the goal. The committee and the DNR commissioner would decide who
should control and manage it in the future. This is a first step.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT pointed out that section 2 says, "The
Department of Natural Resources shall determine the costs and
procedures necessary for the state to acquire,".
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said he didn't know that there was any
goal for the state to acquire and own the property. The committee
needs to determine who can best manage the facilities.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he wasn't interested in the state paying
the city to take on the responsibility and wanted to know what
Representative Lancaster had in mind as far as that was concerned.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER didn't think anyone had that in mind. They
would like to get the department's recommendation about how it
should be managed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked Mr. Stratton whether he envisioned the
state taking ownership of the property.
MR. STRATTON said no, he would like to facilitate the discussion
and figure out what to do with the property and set up the
management scheme. He is very interested in the City of Seward
retaining ownership.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there was any reason for the bill
being written so that the state was responsible for acquiring,
developing and managing the property.
MR. STRATTON said, from his perspective, there was no reason for it
to be written that way.
SENATOR DAVIS asked whether anyone had a copy of the 1997 study
that indicated the building was marginal. She asked for an
interpretation of "marginal."
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER said he would make a copy available. He
used the term "marginal" because it was more a walk through rather
than a complete and professional evaluation.
SENATOR DAVIS asked the question because she had received several
personal opinion messages (POMs) stating that a study had been done
by the City of Seward.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCASTER responded an independent party who was
thinking of purchasing the home from the previous owner had the
study done.
RAY GILLESPE testified that he was representing himself and his
family. He was born and raised in Seward and is familiar with the
history of the Jesse Lee Home. He went to school with the orphans
and his wife's mother grew up in the orphanage when it was in
Unalaska. She then became one of the house parents when the home
was moved to Seward and she raised her family there.
The facility has historical significance and he hopes a plan is
developed to preserve it.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether he had interest in the state
acquiring the facility since that is the way the bill is written.
MR. GILLESPE said he was familiar with a number of individuals who
are interested in preserving the site and none of them think it's a
foregone conclusion that the state will own and operate the
facility. That could be explored but he didn't believe the state
would obligate itself to purchase the facility if it passed the
legislation. He suggested the wording could be changed prior to
moving the bill.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he would be more comfortable if the
wording said the state would assist the City of Seward in
developing a plan. If the local government can't handle the project
without state involvement that's a future decision but he doesn't
want to obligate the state from the beginning.
MR. GILLESPIE said that wording is closer to the community
expectations.
TIM ROGERS, Alaska Children's Services Board Member, testified in
support of the efforts to renovate the Jessie Lee campus. They are
willing to work with DNR, the City of Seward and any other parties
to facilitate the project.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said HB 96 would be set aside. An amendment
would be drafted during the meeting break so the legislation could
be considered for final action that day.
HB 96-ACQUIRING JESSE LEE HOME
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT called the meeting back to order at 6:45 p.m.
Present were Senators Davis, Phillips and Chairman Therriault.
He explained that the original bill as it come to the committee,
presupposed that the state would acquire the home and develop it
for historic value. The redrafting does not presuppose that the
state would purchase the home. It does ask for the state to be
involved in the assessment of how the home can be preserved,
developed and managed in the future.
Page 2, section 2(b) is not needed because it asks for options if
the state did not purchase. It is unneeded because there is no
longer any presupposition the state will purchase the home.
He noted the presence of staff for the prime sponsor.
HELEN DONOHUE, staff to Representative Lancaster, said they have
reviewed the changes to the bill and have no objections.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions or other amendments. There
were none.
He noted the fiscal note from DNR dated April 1, 2001.
He asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS moved CS CSHB 96(STA) and fiscal note from committee
with individual recommendations. There were no objections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|