Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/16/1997 01:48 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 16, 1997
1:48 P.M.
TAPE HFC 97-100, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97-100, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97-101, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 97-101, Side 2, #000 - 361.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to
order at 1:48 p.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative Davies Representative Martin
Representative Davis Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Grussendorf
ALSO PRESENT
Barbara Rudio, Kodiak State Parks Advisory Board; Roy Burkhart,
Mat-Su; June Burkhart, Mat-Su; Rick Powell, Board of Directors,
Anchorage; Randy Crosby, Anchorage; Cliff Eames, Alaska Center for
the Environment; Francisca Sherwood, Anchorage; Don Sherwood,
President, Alaska Boaters' Association; Bruce Knowles, Recreational
Rivers Advisory Board, Mat-Su; Ron Wilson, Mat-Su; Leonard Haire,
President, Mat-Su Boating Association; John Eng, Cornerstone
Construction; Randy Welker, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit
Division; Jack Kreinheder, Analyst, Office of Management and
Budget; Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law;
Jim Stratton, Director, Division of State Parks, Department of
Natural Resources; Tuckerman Babcock, Staff, Senator Green; Sue
Schrader, Alaska Environmental Lobby; Dick Bishop, Alaska Outdoor
Council; Tom Williams, Staff, Senator Sharp; Jerry Luckhaupt,
Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency.
SUMMARY
HB 146 "An Act relating to competency testing requirements for
secondary students; and providing for an effective date."
CSHB 146 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Education.
SB 35 "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."
HCS CSSB 35 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the
Department of Natural Resources; and with four zero
fiscal notes, two by the Department of Natural Resources,
and two by the Department of Fish and Game.
SB 136 "An Act relating to the state budget and to appropriation
bills."
HCS CSSB 136 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by
the Office of the Governor.
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to competency testing requirements for
secondary students; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault provided members with a revised fiscal note by
the House Finance Committee for the Department of Education (copy
on file). He observed that the House Finance Committee's note
reduced the contractual line from $472 to $400 thousand dollars.
He emphasized that test development costs range from $150 to $250
thousand dollars per subject area. He noted that the Department of
Education listed three subject areas; reading, language arts and
mathematics. He recalled that testimony by Mr. Popham during the
previous meeting, indicated that reading and language arts is one
testing area.
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHB 146 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
revised fiscal note. Representative Davies spoke against the
legislation. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 146 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of
Education.
SENATE BILL NO. 136
"An Act relating to the state budget and to appropriation
bills."
TOM WILLIAMS, STAFF, SENATOR SHARP testified in support of SB 136.
He explained that SB 136 was introduced to clarify current law,
making it explicit that the Governor must present all three of his
required budget bills on December 15 of each year. An operating
budget bill, a capital budget bill, and a mental health program
operating/capital budget bill would be submitted
Mr. Williams maintained that although current Alaska law requires
the Governor to submit his entire budget on December 15, over the
years the executive branch has delayed the release of a capital
budget until several weeks into the legislative session. He
asserted that delaying the release of the capital budget hinders
the public's ability to review the Governor's proposal and provide
input to the legislature. It also greatly reduces the time the
legislature has to consider the Governor's budget and complete its
work within a 120 day session.
Mr. Williams maintained that HCS CSSB 136 (FIN) promotes honest
budgeting. He asserted that piece-mealing the budget has led to
deceptive budget tactics. For example, on December 16, 1996,
Governor Knowles did not submit a capital budget bill but said his
cap on general fund spending for capital projects would be $100
million dollars. When the bill was finally submitted on
February 27, 1997, six weeks after the start of the legislative
session, it reflected general fund capital expenses of $113.3
million dollars. It also proposed spending a $16 million dollar
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) dividend
on capital projects instead of depositing the money into the
general fund as the Governor originally proposed. He observed that
these capital budget provisions, if adopted, would increase the
fiscal gap by $29.3 million.
Mr. Williams observed that the Governor failed to provide a revised
budget summary reflecting the impact of his capital budget proposal
on his total spending plan for FY 98. He asserted that had the
Governor released his capital budget bill with the rest of his
budget bills and budget plan on December 15, the public would have
known that he was proposing to increase general fund spending.
Mr. William noted that, as the result of amendments adopted in the
Senate Finance Committee, HCS CSSB 136 (FIN):
* Conforms the general budget submission provisions of AS
37.07.020 to the requirements in AS 37.14.003(a) for a
separate mental health program bill;
* Requires each department to report to the legislature by
the 45th day of each regular session the amount of
current fiscal year appropriations that the department
expects to lapse into the general fund at the end of the
current fiscal year;
* Allows some information currently required to be included
in the capital appropriation bill to be provide as
supporting documentation;
* Requires the Governor to submit budget amendments by the
45th legislative day instead of the 60th; and
* Establishes a January 10 deadline for submission of
currently required performance reports to the
legislature.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that an incoming
governor would not have sufficient latitude to present a new
budget. Mr. Williams noted that an incoming governor could submit
the previous governor's budget and address changes through the
amendment process. He clarified that the governor would have 45
days from the first legislative day.
JACK KREINHEDER, ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR commented on SB 136. He observed that the Senate
amended section 4, page 2, line 18. This section would amend
current law dealing with grants to named recipients. He explained
that this provision dates back to 1982. He stated that Governor
Hammond was strongly opposed to named recipient grants. Governor
Hammond filed a lawsuit against the legislature challenging the
practice as unconstitutional. The original language in this
section was the result of an understanding that was reached in
1982. The understanding allowed grants to named recipients, but
provided an option for a request for proposals from other qualified
parties to provide the same services. The option has rarely been
used. The Administration's position is that it is appropriate to
retain the authority to seek other proposals. He noted that the
proposed amendment seems to relate to a situation that occurred in
the last fiscal year.
Mr. Kreinheder expressed concern with the capital budget deadline.
He noted that the new automatized budget system will help to meet
the earlier deadlines. He stated that the Administration intends
to produce the capital budget with the new automatized budget
system. The operating budget would not be done on the new system
until the following year. He stated that "there is only so much
time that can be devoted to the budget process, and this would,
necessarily, reduce some of the time that can be spent on the
operating budget."
Representative Martin questioned if section 4 would be restricted
to general funds. Mr. Kreinheder responded that the amendment
would cover other funds included in the grant to named recipients.
Representative Martin pointed out that federal funds require an
open bid process. A lot of federal funds prohibit named recipient
grants. He spoke against the appropriation of named recipient
grants.
Co-Chair Hanley stated that grants to a named recipient should go
to the recipient that the legislature designates. He stressed that
the grant should be reappropriated or utilized by the legislature
in the following session if the grantee cannot use the funds. He
did not think it should be up to the Governor to put out a request
for a proposal for other groups to provide the same services. He
maintained that it is a legislative prerogative to designate
funding.
Representative Martin asserted that there is greater scrutiny by
the public when there is an open bid process.
JIM BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW referred
to section 4. He agreed with remarks by Representative Martin. He
emphasized that the current arrangement was a negotiated compromise
between the Legislature and Governor Hammond to bring an extra
layer of protection required by the public purpose doctrine of the
Alaska State Constitution. He noted that designated grants must be
administered by the agencies in concert with the public purpose
doctrine of the Constitution. He emphasized that rare occasions
arise where it would be in the public interest that someone else
perform the grant. The statute originally stated that requests for
proposals "shall" be issued at the same time that the grant was
made. In every instance the Administration was required to issue
requests for proposals. "Shall" was changed to "may" with the
concurrence of the Governor. He observed that a grant that was
made in FY 97 was not carried forward by an agency. These actions
resulted in a complaint before the Personnel Board.
Mr. Baldwin discussed deadlines. He acknowledged that the
legislature has the power to specify deadlines that comply with the
120 day session. He stressed that the Governor's budget power is
separately maintained in the Alaska State Constitution. He noted
that new governor's are advised that these deadlines are directory,
not mandatory. He acknowledged that governors must work with the
legislature.
Co-Chair Hanley clarified that the same argument could be made for
the December 15th deadline that is already in statute. He stressed
that the capital budget should be submitted at the same time that
the operating budget is submitted. He noted that the legislation
clarifies that the legislature would like to have the capital
budget at the same time as the operating budget. He noted that
there is an amendment process. He maintained that the December
15th deadline would allow public input before the legislative
session starts. He asserted that the deadline will allow the
legislature to do a better job of considering the Governor's
amendments.
Representative Martin agreed with remarks by Co-Chair Hanley. He
stressed that the law is clear that a total budget will be issued
on December 15th each year. He disagreed with section 4. He
expressed concern with name designated grants. He maintained that
section 4 should be deleted.
Representative Grussendorf stressed that if the deadline is
maintained that late filed amendments should be considered. He
recalled that, in the past, legislators used discretionary money
for designated grants. He noted that grants have been misused. He
recommended that the amendment added by the Senate be removed from
section 4.
Co-Chair Hanley clarified that the House Finance Committee received
amendments from the Administration, which were considered by the
subcommittees. He stated some areas were not addressed until the
operating budget close-out.
Co-Chair Hanley asked when the complaint arose regarding the grant
that was awarded during the FY 97 legislative session. Mr. Baldwin
clarified that the complaint was filed during the past fall. Co-
Chair Hanley observed that members of the Administration indicated
that the grant would not be issued.
Representative Davies stressed that there is an administrative
process that must be concluded prior to the filing of charges. He
stressed that the statute was properly used in regards to the grant
issuance. He emphasized that there is a strong public interest in
maintaining the program. He recommended that section 4 be deleted.
Representative Martin observed that the Governor vetoed the grant
because federal requirements for open bidding were not met.
Co-Chair Therriault observed that the grant that was vetoed had
conflicting intent language.
JOHN ENG, CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION testified via the teleconference
network. He referred to an amendment by Representative Martin
(Amendment 2) to require competitive bids for contracts relating to
construction work authorized by the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities on highway projects performed by the Alaska
Railroad Corporation. He observed that any work associated with
railroad work is advertised along with the highway work. In recent
years this type of work has been given to the Alaska Railroad on a
cost plus bases. He maintained that the proposed amendment would
put it back into a competitive bid process. The amendment requires
sealed or competitive bids for the procurement of supplies,
professional services and construction work authorized by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. He spoke in
support of the amendment. He maintained that competitive bids are
cost effective.
Representative Martin MOVED to delete section 4. Representative
Mulder OBJECTED. Representative Martin asserted that section 4
would be an evasion on the separation of powers and a misuse of the
public faith. He expressed concern that federal funding requires
an open bid process.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-100, Side 2)
Representative Mulder spoke against the deletion of section 4. He
maintained that it is within the legislature's prerogative to
appropriate funds to an entity. He asserted that the Governor's
ability to put a designated grant to competitive bid circumvents
the legislative process.
Representative Davis noted that the statute requires that the
Governor award legislative grants unless they are not in the public
interest. He disagreed that the Governor circumvented the
legislative process. He observed that the Governor's authority to
issue a named recipient grant by competitive bid has only be
invoked once or twice.
Representative Martin asserted that there was an attempt to
legislate through the appropriation process. He stressed the need
for an open bid process. He maintained that this provision could
prevent the passage of a good bill.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of the deletion of
section 4.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to delete section 4.
IN FAVOR: Davies, Davis, Grussendorf, Kelly, Martin, Moses
OPPOSED: Foster, Kohring, Mulder, Hanley, Therriault
The MOTION PASSED (6-5).
Representative Martin provided members with Amendment 2 (copy on
file). He explained that the amendment would instruct the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to have an open
bid process for railroad crossings and roads that have a direct or
indirect relationship with the Alaska railroad.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) or the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation
(AADC) would be required to use the competitive bid process.
RANDY WELKER, LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION
clarified that the Alaska Railroad Corporation receives funding
from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
perform work at crossings. The concern is that the railroad is
doing most of the work themselves. The amendment would require
that the work be contracted out. He observed that there would be
no dollar limitation. The railroad would be required to contract
all work of that nature.
Co-Chair Hanley questioned if competitive sealed bids should be
required on all work.
Representative Davis stressed that the amendment micro-manages the
railroad. He expressed faith that the railroad would issue a
competitive bid if the work could be done cheaper by another
source.
Representative Martin noted that the amendment would only affect
funding from the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. He emphasized that it is a cost plus situation with no
oversight.
Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities has spent millions of dollars in Anchorage
without going out to contract. He noted that the railroad would be
asked to do something that the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities does not have to do.
Representative Davies questioned why the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities could not put the work out to
bid. Mr. Welker clarified that the work would be performed on
railroad property. He emphasized that the railroad oversees the
work to assure that the work is done for the safety of the train.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment 2.
IN FAVOR: Kohring, Martin
OPPOSED: Davis, Davies, Foster, Grussendorf, Kelly, Mulder,
Hanley, Therriault
Representative Moses was absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
Co-Chair Hanley MOVED to report HCS CSSB 136 (FIN) out of Committee
with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 136 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Office of the
Governor.
SENATE BILL NO. 35
"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."
TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, STAFF, LYDA GREEN spoke in support of SB 35. He
explained that the legislation would place the final decision to
permanently restrict or prohibit access to State Parks or land not
covered by statute in the hands of elected officials. The
legislation would pertain to recreational activities including
aviation boating, mushing, skiing, snow shoeing and pack animal or
all terrain vehicle use. The Department would be allowed to
temporarily close access for reasons of public safety. He
observed that similar legislation (SB 230) passed in the last
legislative session and was vetoed by the Governor. He emphasized
that there should be legislative approval before access to public
lands can be denied. He maintained that user groups and individual
Alaskans are fearful about permanent restrictions to recreational
areas managed by the Division of Parks. He noted that the Division
of Parks has been granted authority to restrict incompatible uses
on legislatively designated parks that are over 640 acres. There
is no authorization from the legislature for restriction of public
access on lands managed as part of the park that are under 640
acres. He noted that the Department has questioned if the use of
"specifically" in section 2 would require that recreational access
restrictions on legislatively designated park lands would have to
go before the legislature for approval. He clarified that the
sponsor and legislative legal counsel do not interpret the use of
"specifically" to amend existing authorization for closure that the
statutes allow the Division of Parks. The Department of Law
suggested that the language would prohibit management of
administratively acquired parcels of land. He argued that the
Division of Parks would be able to manage administratively acquired
parcels of land that are under 640 acres. He reiterated that the
Division of Parks would be prohibited from arbitrarily restricting
access to parcels that are under 640 acres, unless the legislature
gives them authority.
Mr. Babcock discussed questions of liability. He noted that the
Department of Natural Resources stated in a memorandum dated
3/24/97 that:
In discussions with the Department of Law, it came to our
attention that this method of dealing with closures for public
safety reasons potentially removes the state's discretionary
function immunity and opens opportunities for litigation.
He observed that a memorandum dated 4/15/97 from John C. Baker to
Jim Stratton stated:
As we have discussed previously, this may raise the issue of
the applicability of the state's discretionary function
immunity from tort claims, as the bill would remove the
Division's discretion to implement seasonal closures based on
public safety concerns. If you wish, this issue can be
analyzed further in consultation with the attorneys of the
Department of Law's special litigation and tort section.
Mr. Babcock concluded that the Department of Natural Resources had
not consulted with the Department of Law at this point. He
observed that legislative legal counsel concurs that the issue of
liability could be raised. He maintained that the Division's
ability to post warning signs would protect the State's
discretionary function to protect public safety. He concluded that
the issue is not a strong concern.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr. Babcock
noted that the Moose Creek wayside was closed without a public
hearing or public process. The rationale for the closure was that
there were students who were vandalizing the park. He noted that
other parks have been closed due to a lack of funding.
Representative Davies questioned if Mr. Babcock thought that access
should be restricted to protect public safety. Mr. Babcock
acknowledged that public safety should be considered. He estimated
that other legislation would detailed the steps the Department of
Natural Resources would follow to restrict access to small parks.
Co-Chair Therriault asked for clarification of the legal
description on pages 5 - 7. Mr. Babcock noted that the section
deals with federal land that has been transferred to the State.
The land is currently managed as part of Chilkat State Park, but is
not designated as part of the park.
Representative Grussendorf questioned the impetus for the
legislation. Co-Chair Therriault thought that the issue began over
snow mobile access into Denali State Park. Representative
Grussendorf stressed that problems should be addressed
individually.
Mr. Babcock emphasized that the purpose of the legislation is to
prevent public access of lands from being closed by the
Administration without legislative authorization.
Representative Kohring spoke in support of the legislation. He
noted complaints by his constituents regarding closures.
Representative Kelly spoke in support of the legislation. He
stated that his support of the legislation was based on the
proposed closure of the Denali State Park during the past winter.
Representative Davies pointed out that the park was not closed as
the result of public input received by the Division.
Representative Kelly responded that the park was kept open due to
the political not the public process.
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, DIVISION OF ALASKA LEGAL
SERVICES discussed the use of "specifically" on page 4, line 1. He
suggested that "specifically" be deleted. He stated that the
remaining language would allow the Department to use each of its
separate authorities. He noted that the intent was not to exclude
the right of the Department to use the specific authority granted
for each one of the legislatively designated parks to designate
incompatible uses.
Mr. Luckhaupt did not think that the legislation would increase the
State's liability. He emphasized that it is difficult to predict
what the State's tort liability will be in any particular area.
The State's discretionary function exemption, contained in AS
09.50.250, provides that the State has not waived it's sovereign
immunity in regards to discretionary functions of state employees.
He did not accept the conclusion that, since the legislature is
making the policy decisions, that the Department's position is
purely administerial and therefore subject to liability if someone
becomes injured in a park that they were unable to close. He
argued that the State has not waived its sovereign immunity.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-101, Side 1)
Mr. Luckhaupt stressed that it is impossible to determine if the
State will be liable. He emphasized that it is a difficult
question to determine.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that if the Department is precluded from
closing a park, they are not precluded from posting warning signs.
Mr. Luckhaupt added that the State will not be liable unless it is
found to be negligent. If the State places warnings for any
dangerous conditions that exist it would not be negligent.
Representative Davies noted that the University of Alaska posted
warning signs on a hill used for sledding. The University of
Alaska was found partially liable for a death that occurred on the
hill. He stressed that even if the State is not liable it is still
not good public policy to "tie the hands" of a state agency from
doing the right thing.
In response to a question by Representative Davis, Mr Luckhaupt
clarified that the State does not waive its sovereign immunity
except in specific situations. One of the situations in which
state sovereignty is waived is when state employees are not
exercising discretion in performance of functions. He observed
that the State cannot be sued on the policy making level. The
cause of the injury would have to be due to the negligence of a
state official. He pointed out that the State is not automatically
liable just because sovereignty is waived. A finding of negligence
is still needed. He concluded that the State must attempt to
prevent injuries. The attempt to prevent injuries does not have to
occur through a closure or restriction of access.
JIM STRATTON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES reviewed the history of the legislation. He observed
that the legislation is the result of a proposal by the Division of
Parks to restrict aircraft landings on Blair Lake, which is
adjacent to Denali State Park. Blair Lake was an administrative
addition to the designated Denali State Park. Public testimony
convinced the Division that the closure should not occur. The
proposal was withdrawn.
Mr. Stratton discussed section 1, line 5, page 3. He observed that
the same language was in SB 230. This provision requires that the
Division provide the legislature with a report of all the closures
that have been proposed or made for any reason. The legislature
could take action against specific closures if there is
disagreement. The Division supports this provision. The Division
objects to the addition of section 2(e) on page 4.
Mr. Stratton referred to section 2(d). He noted that this section
states that the Division cannot administratively expand
legislatively designated parks without legislative approval. The
Division is not concerned with this section.
Mr. Stratton noted that the Division is concerned with section
2(e). He maintained that this section makes the legislature the
first in line to work with the public on all types of closures. He
explained that proposals for permanent closures are the result of
a public process. Other temporary closures are primarily the
result of public safety concerns. He observed that the Division
has been making these types of closures for 25 years without
difficulty. He stressed that wildlife/human conflicts often result
in closures of less than 90 days. He pointed out that in Denali
State Park bears harvesting salmon at Troublesome Creek results in
annual closures of 6 to 7 weeks. He observed that the Division
would be required to obtain legislative approval to close this
trail after the first year. He stressed that a sign that states,
"Trail is Closed - Bear Activity" will have a different impact than
one that states, "Bear Activity - Travel at Your Own Risk." He
maintained that in the case of a mauling, where the bear is still
at large, that he would be negligent if he only placed warning
signs. He emphasized the difference between closures for public
safety and closures regarding motorized/non-motorized use. He
added that closures occur during construction or from damage due to
natural disasters. Facilities are also closed due to budget cuts.
He urged that "for the reasons of public safety or as otherwise
provided in this chapter" be added to section 2(e). He expressed
concern that unpredictable closures will be difficult. He
maintained that the addition of the suggested language would negate
the liability issue.
Mr. Stratton noted that the Department supports section 3.
In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Mr. Stratton
discussed the Pillars facility in Kenai and the Cooper Landing boat
ramp. He noted that section 2(e) would pertain to these
facilities. The cost of operating these facilities is $8 to $9
thousand dollars each. He stated that the Department has discussed
allowing a private vendor to operate the Cooper Landing facility.
He emphasized that the dock and one outhouse will remain open at
the Pillars despite budget reductions. He noted that operation of
the two new outhouses is in question.
Representative Mulder observed that the facilities are federally
funded. He questioned if the Department can keep the facilities
closed after utilizing federal funding. Mr. Stratton reiterated
that if the funding level suggested by the House is adopted, that
the Department would look to contract operations at Cooper Landing.
He suggested that the outhouses would be closed and the boat ramp
kept open at the Pillars. He noted that the expense is in
maintaining the outhouses and making sure that the facilities are
not vandalized.
Representative Mulder expressed frustration that the Division of
Parks has employed selective management without consideration of
use and means. He noted public frustration in the lack of access.
Mr. Stratton stressed that the Division is attempting to increase
access. He noted that program receipts derived from operation of
park facilities are caught up in the budget cutting exercise.
Representative Mulder noted that privatization opportunities exists
in a number of facilities. He emphasized that privatization may
not fall under the program receipt problem.
Representative Martin spoke in support of allowing an exemption for
public safety.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the Division has had to
absorb the cost of new parks.
BARBARA RUDIO, CHAIRMAN, KODIAK STATE PARK ADVISORY BOARD testified
via the teleconference network. She expressed concern with the
legislation. She maintained that in the 12 years she has lived in
Kodiak that closures have not been on a whim or in an arbitrary
manner. She acknowledged that closures have occurred in response
to public safety concerns and funding reductions. She suggested
that individual problems be addressed and that the Committee "not
pass a bill that will handicap the Department throughout the
State."
ROY BURKHART, ALASKA BOATING ASSOCIATION, MAT-SU testified via the
teleconference network. He testified in support of the
legislation. He pointed out that there are more restrictions to
motorize use than to non-motorized use. He expressed concern that
a public safety exemption could be used against motorized users of
the parks.
JUNE BURKHART, MAT-SU testified via the teleconference network.
She spoke in support of the legislation. She spoke in support of
motorized use of state parks. She pointed out that some
handicapped park users are dependant on motor vehicles to visit
wilderness areas.
BRUCE KNOWLES, RECREATIONAL RIVERS ADVISORY BOARD, WASILLA
testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of
the legislation. He noted that he was appointed to the
Recreational Rivers Council Advisory Board. He maintained that
Department would not adopt suggestions by the Board in regards to
motorized use.
RON WILSON, MAT-SU testified via the teleconference network. He
spoke in support of the legislation. He spoke in support of
motorized use of the state park system. He maintained that a few
people are dictating park use without "any reason at all."
LEONARD HAIRE, PRESIDENT, MAT-SU CHAPTER BOATING ASSOCIATION
testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of
the legislation and motorized use of state parks.
RICK POWELL, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA BOATER'S ASSOCIATION
testified via the teleconference network. He spoke in support of
the legislation. He maintained that the Department ignored public
comments regarding the Recreational Rivers Plan.
RANDY CROSBY, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference network.
He spoke in support of the legislation. He pointed to problems
with snow mobile and air craft closures. He maintained that
closures have come in a swift and confusing manner.
CLIFF EAMES, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT testified via the
teleconference network. He noted that the Center has 4,000
members. He spoke in opposition to the legislation. He did not
object to the reporting requirement. He maintained that the
Department should have broad discretion for closures. He stated
that the issue is whether Alaska parks will be available for the
enjoyment of all Alaskans or just motorized recreationists. He
asserted that all users should share the burdens created by greatly
increased use of more accessible public lands. He maintained that
quiet recreation has been pushed out of areas where conflicts have
become too great. He stated that property owners can no longer
enjoy their property due to increased noise levels.
(Tape Change, HFC 97-101, Side 2)
FRANCISCO SHERWOOD, ANCHORAGE testified via the teleconference
network. She spoke in support of the legislation. She stressed
that fair and equal access is guaranteed to all citizens of the
State.
DON SHERWOOD, PRESIDENT, ALASKA BOATING ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE
testified via the teleconference network. He testified in support
of SB 35. He maintained that traditional uses are being closed out
of state land, waterways and park systems. He emphasized that the
legislation would require justification to remove any user group
from state parks land or waterways.
SUE SCHRADER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBY
expressed concerns regarding the interpretation of liability and
public safety closures. She maintained that the legislation is not
going to resolve the conflict between motorized and non-motorized
use. She stressed that the issue will become more heated as
closures are brought before the legislature for approval. She
asserted that the communities and the Department can handle the
conflict.
DICK BISHOP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL spoke in
support of SB 35. He noted that there are approximately 10,000
members in the Council. He noted that 60 percent of Alaska is
federal land that carries a priority for non-consumptive uses. He
concluded that only 15 to 20 percent of Alaska is reasonably
accessible to most of the people of the State. He maintained that
it is important that state policy, as set by the legislature, be
permissive and not restrictive. He stated that it is impractical
for the public to attend all of the public hearings. He suggested
that the legislature should set public policy.
Representative Davies acknowledged that the state park system needs
to be accessible to the majority of Alaskans. He stated that the
concerns of users who want quiet recreation should also be
addressed.
In response to a question by Representative Davies, Mr. Bishop
agreed that it would not be unreasonable to have some areas that
are restricted to motorized use. He added that it is unreasonable
to assume that most of the state recreational areas have all the
options within them. He stressed that multiple use areas that
include motorized use can be successful.
Representative Davis MOVED to adopt Amendment 1 (copy on file).
Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the amendment would provide that "except
for reasons which create an immediate threat to public safety, or
as otherwise provided in this chapter the department may not close
or restrict..."
Mr. Babcock noted that Senator Green did not object to the
amendment. He observed that the intent is to narrowly define
public safety and to prevent closures for budgetary reasons without
legislative approval.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Representative Kohring MOVED to report CSSB 35 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 35 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "no
recommendation" and with a fiscal impact note by the Department of
Natural Resources; and with four zero fiscal notes, two by the
Department of Natural Resources, and two by the Department of Fish
and Game.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|