Legislature(2019 - 2020)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/17/2020 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB152 | |
| SB55 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB150 | |
| SB47 | |
| SB30 | |
| HB122 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 122 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 150 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 17, 2020
9:12 a.m.
9:12:43 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Natasha von Imhof, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Pete Ecklund, Staff, Senator Bert Stedman; David Scott,
Staff, Senator Bert Stedman; Jane Conway, Staff, Senator
Cathy Giessel; Juli Lucky, Staff, Senator Natasha von
Imhof; Senator Gary Stevens, Sponsor; Tim Lamkin, Staff,
Senator Gary Stevens; Representative Sara Hannan, Sponsor.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Paul Layer, Vice President, Academics, Students and
Research, University of Alaska; Preston Kroes,
Superintendent, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources; Ricky Gease, Director,
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of
Natural Resources.
SUMMARY
SB 30 COLLEGE CREDIT FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
CSSB 30(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one forthcoming
indeterminate fiscal note from the University and
one new zero fiscal note from the Department of
Education and Early Development.
SB 47 PHYSICAL/OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY BD/PRACTICE
CSSB 47(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"no recommendation" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN
1(CED).
SB 55 TEMP. APPOINTMENTS TO COURT OF APPEALS
CSSB 55(2d JUD) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN
2(AJS).
SB 137 EXTEND BOARD OF PAROLE
SB 137 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN 1(COR).
SB 150 INTENSIVE MGMT SURCHARGE/REPEAL TERM DATE
SB 150 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN 1(DFG).
SB 152 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
SB 152 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 122 FUNTER BAY MARINE PARK: UNANGAN CEMETERY
HB 122 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 152
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date."
9:13:56 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the first hearing of SB 152 was
on February 27.
Co-Chair von Imhof made a motion. [The motion was redone
shortly after.]
9:14:53 AM
AT EASE
9:15:14 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman clarified that there had been an
inadvertent error and Co-Chair von Imhof would re-do the
motion.
Co-Chair von Imhof MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 152, Work Draft 31-GS2197\U (Bruce,
3/16/20).
Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED for discussion.
9:15:44 AM
PETE ECKLUND, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, informed that
the Committee Substitute (CS) being considered was the
governor's introduced version of the bill, re-drafted in
the style of the Legislative Legal Services and the
Legislative Finance Division, which was different than that
of the Department of Law. He furthered that some sections
of the bill were reordered but the bill was substantively
the same. He informed that the Senate was completing budget
subcommittee close-outs and the following Monday there
would be a forthcoming CS for the House version of the
operating budget. He qualified that for comparison
purposes, it was easier for the public to track changes if
the committee adopted the version being considered.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a review of eight items in the
bill that were worthy of attention.
Mr. Ecklund addressed a Summary of Changes document (copy
on file):
1. Title: Add "supplemental appropriations.
2. The lead-in language in section 1 on page 2 was
modified to the legislature's standard language that
appears in both HB 205 and HB 206 and that includes
the addition of this sentence, "A department-wide,
agency-wide, or branch-wide unallocated reduction set
out in this section may be allocated among the
appropriations made in this section to that
department, agency, or branch
3. Section 8 (page 50, starting line 21): Reorder
sections so that royalty deposits are first. Reword
section (c) so that the net amount to the general fund
is shown rather than the entire POMV draw.
4. Section 19(e) (page 57, line 7): Reword to simplify
since UA is the only named recipient. Because the
Governor did not include the appropriations for DOTPF
and AEA debt, the previous formatting with a list of
projects is unnecessary.
9:19:00 AM
Mr. Ecklund continued to address the changes in the CS:
5. Section 21(w) (page 65, line 10): Add fiscal year that
the revenue will be collected.
6. Section 22(l) (page 66, line 14): Add "unexpended and
unobligated" to clarify that existing fund obligations
are not affected by this appropriation.
7. Section 25(g) (page 71, line 18): Change 2020 to 2019
to correct error in Governor's bill.
8. Section 28 (page 72, line 8): Update references due to
reordering of sections.
9:19:58 AM
Co-Chair Stedman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The CS for SB 152 was
adopted.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the bill was conformed for
clarity, so that when the operating budget was put together
by members there would be a clear comparison for the
public.
9:20:51 AM
AT EASE
9:21:23 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that there would be public
testimony on the operating budget the following two days.
He set the bill aside for further review.
[Co-Chair Stedman handed the gavel to Co-Chair von Imhof]
9:22:05 AM
AT EASE
9:23:19 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 55
"An Act relating to judges of the court of appeals;
and providing for an effective date."
9:23:28 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She relayed
that the committee heard the bill on March 12 and had
reviewed the fiscal note. Her office had received no
amendments.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report CSSB 55(2d JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 55(2d JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously published
fiscal impact note: FN 2(AJS).
SENATE BILL NO. 137
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Parole; and providing for an effective date."
9:24:26 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She relayed
that the committee heard the bill on March 11, had heard
public testimony, and had reviewed the fiscal note. Her
office had received no amendments.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report SB 137 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 137 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN 1(COR).
SENATE BILL NO. 150
"An Act repealing the termination date for the
intensive management hunting license surcharge."
9:25:27 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She relayed
that the committee heard the bill on March 12, heard public
testimony, and had reviewed the fiscal note. Her office had
received no amendments. She understood that all questions
about the bill had been answered.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report SB 150 out of Committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 150 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN 1(DFG).
SENATE BILL NO. 47
"An Act relating to the State Physical Therapy and
Occupational Therapy Board; relating to the practice
of physical therapy; and relating to the practice of
occupational therapy."
9:26:28 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She relayed
that the committee heard the bill on February 24, 2020.
There had been concerns expressed at the meeting and
committee staff had worked with stakeholders on a proposed
solution. There was a Committee Substitute (CS) for the
committee's consideration.
DAVID SCOTT, STAFF, SENATOR BERT STEDMAN, discussed the
changes to the bill. He noted that the CS was version "G"
and read from an Explanation of Changes document (copy on
file):
Section 11 has been amended to remove
"Physiotherapist" from the penalty for falsely
claiming to be a physical therapist.
Specifically, on page 8, line 1 "Physiotherapist" is
removed.
The term physiotherapy is a broad term that
encompasses the scope of practice of different
healthcare professions. For instance, it is used by
chiropractors and can be found in the regulations for
the Board of Chiropractic Examiners: 12 AAC Chapter
16. To reduce confusion, "physiotherapist" is removed.
Mr. Scott informed that stakeholders had been a part of the
proposed changes to the bill, and there was no change to
the fiscal note.
9:28:14 AM
JANE CONWAY, STAFF, SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, discussed the
changes to the bill. She reiterated that the sponsor had
worked through a few different amendments to the bill, and
the one presented by Mr. Scott was the most satisfactory to
all parties. The sponsor felt that the CS was a good
compromise.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 47, Work Draft 31-LS0109\G (Fisher,
3/12/20). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:29:36 AM
AT EASE
9:30:01 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair von Imhof reiterated that the CS did not change
the fiscal impact of the bill.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report CSSB 47(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 47(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN 1(CED).
SENATE BILL NO. 30
"An Act establishing the middle college program for
public school students; and relating to the powers of
the University of Alaska."
9:30:48 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof relayed that the committee had heard the
bill on March 6. There was a CS and one amendment for the
committee's consideration.
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, SENATOR NATASHA VON IMHOF, discussed the
changes to the bill. She informed that proposed changes
were also discussed by the sponsor's office during the
initial presentation of the bill, and the CS was developed
by the sponsor for the consideration of the committee.
Ms. Lucky addressed an Explanation of Changes document
(copy on file):
Adds language to clarify that credits shall be
"applicable toward pursuit of a degree or certificate
at" the University of Alaska. [P2, Lines 18-19 and P4,
Line 23]
Replaces the requirement that all districts
participate in the program with language requiring the
University of Alaska to make the program available to
district s that have eligible students who want to
participate. [P2, Lines 20-22]
Ms. Lucky noted that the University had submitted an
indeterminate fiscal note and would be submitting a new
revised fiscal note as a result of the language changes.
Ms. Lucky continued to address the proposed changes to the
bill:
Adds references to parents to AS 14.30.780 (d), which
requires districts to provide information about the
Alaska Middle College Program. [P3, Lines 3-5]
Clarifies that courses can be held at other alternate
locations, not just high schools. The requirements for
courses held in other locations did not change. [P3,
lines 22-23]
Allows a student to take up to 15 credits (increased
from 12) per semester. [P4, line 3]
Changes effective date to July 1, 2021.
Removes prohibition against students paying tuition
and other costs.
Other technical changes to clarify intent that don't
change the effect of the legislation.
Ms. Lucky reiterated that the changes would require a new
fiscal note, which would remain indeterminate. The fiscal
note from the Department of Education and Early Development
was a zero fiscal note and would still apply.
9:34:28 AM
Ms. Lucky addressed Conceptual Amendment 1 (copy on file):
INTENT OF AMENDMENT: Require, as part of the program
information provided to students and parents by the
school district, whether a failing grade on a course
offered through the Alaska Middle College Program will
appear on the student's official college transcript.
Suggested Language:
Page 3, line 16, following "program" Insert ",
including whether a failed course will appear on the
student's official college transcript"
Ms. Lucky explained that the issue had come up in previous
meetings regarding the middle college concept. There had
been concern that students would understand the
implications of failing a class in middle college, and the
amendment would ensure that the information be clear to
parents and students signing up for the program.
9:35:15 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the sponsor and his staff was
present to offer perspective on the CS and the amendment.
9:35:43 AM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS, SPONSOR, expressed his appreciation
to the committee. He thought the bill was extremely
important for the University and the students of Alaska.
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, remarked that the
CS was the result of a fair amount of work between the
University and school districts over the previous several
months. The CS was agreeable to the sponsor.
Mr. Lamkin addressed Conceptual Amendment 1. He did not
characterize the amendment as "unfriendly." He continued
that the statute as written was intended to be flexible and
create a model for the diverse demands and interests of the
state's school districts. The Memorandums of Agreement that
were in existence provided for academic counseling, and
involvement of teachers and parents for identifying the
rigors of college level work as well as the consequences of
failure. He thought the amendment could be unnecessary, but
it was not unfriendly.
Co-Chair von Imhof thought the amendment was trying to
clarify that when a person took a college class and
received a grade, the grade would be present on the
transcript and would follow a student throughout her or his
academic career. She thought it was important for the
information to be shared.
9:38:04 AM
Senator Stevens understood Co-Chair von Imhof's remarks. He
mentioned his own transcripts from college. He thought
there would be a lot of work for the students in the high
school before they would be allowed to take a college-level
course.
9:38:48 AM
Senator Bishop noted that Co-Chair von Imhof was the
sponsor of the amendment.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that the committee would adopt
the CS and then address the amendment.
Senator Bishop asked if Co-Chair von Imhof had authored the
amendment.
Co-Chair von Imhof stated that the amendment was not
authored by her personally.
Senator Bishop wanted to have clarity on the intent of the
amendment. He referenced Senator Stevens' comments about
his transcript, and thought students do better academic
work as time went on. He asked if the intent of the
amendment was to make clear that the college-level work
would be on a permanent transcript.
Co-Chair von Imhof said "yes." She suggested the committee
adopt the CS, and then have staff speak to the amendment in
greater detail.
9:40:23 AM
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SB 30, Work Draft 31-LS0052\E (Caouette,
3/4/20). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:40:48 AM
Ms. Lucky stated that the concept behind the amendment had
been brought up in previous hearings. She explained that
the amendment would add to the notification to parents
whether or not the course grade would go on a student's
permanent transcript. There had been a concern in previous
committees that high school students would not understand
the implications of a permanent transcript. There was
already a notification requirement in the bill. The
amendment did not require any change other than parental
notification that a course grade would or would not be on
the student's permanent transcript.
Ms. Lucky continued to address the proposed amendment. She
explained that there would be a lot of counseling for
students participating in the program. The amendment would
provide the information before a student made the decision
to be part of the program. She continued that whether a
course appeared or not on a student's transcript would be
made clear in the MOU between the University and the school
districts.
9:43:14 AM
Senator Bishop thought the amendment came down to informing
students they were "in the big leagues."
Ms. Lucky agreed with Senator Bishop's remarks. She
furthered that students would learn the information
throughout the process of deciding to take the class, but
the additional written information proposed by the
amendment would not present a burden.
9:43:54 AM
Senator Wilson was not sure if the amendment was too
specific. He addressed number 6 on page 3 of the bill. He
thought the bill was broad enough. He discussed the
withdrawal option at universities. He was concerned the
amendment might be too prescriptive.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the University was online to
give testimony and could address the amendment.
9:44:58 AM
PAUL LAYER, VICE PRESIDENT, ACADEMICS, STUDENTS AND
RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (via teleconference),
relayed that the University of Alaska (UA) advised students
of consequences to a permanent record, as well as dates
such as a withdrawal date. He furthered that University
staff worked with counselors and teachers in the high
schools to ensure that students were aware of important
dates.
[Senator Olson entered the meeting 9:45:50]
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Mr. Layer could comment on the
proposed amendment.
Mr. Layer stated that UA did not object to the language in
the amendment. He reiterated that the UA already informed
students and parents of the information.
9:46:39 AM
Ms. Lucky added the clarification that the amendment would
not change any contract between the student and university,
nor the MOU between UA and the district. The amendment
would simply require that the information sent by the
district include the proposed language about transcripts.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that for parents that had never
been to college, the information may be new.
9:47:40 AM
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair von Imhof noted that the fiscal note for DEED was
still accurate, but the fiscal note from UA would need to
be revised.
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to report CSSB 30(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 30(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one forthcoming indeterminate
fiscal note from the University and one new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Education and Early
Development.
HOUSE BILL NO. 122 am
"An Act relating to the Funter Bay marine park unit of
the state park system; relating to protection of the
social and historical significance of the Unangax
cemetery located in Funter Bay and providing for the
amendment of the management plan for the Funter Bay
marine park unit; and providing for an effective
date."
9:49:03 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof read the title of the bill. She relayed
that the committee was hearing the bill for the first time.
9:49:33 AM
AT EASE
9:50:03 AM
RECONVENED
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, SPONSOR, addressed a
presentation entitled "HB 122 - FUNTER BAY MARINE PARK:
UNANGAN CEMETARY" (copy on file).
Representative Hannan showed slide 2, "HB 122 will":
? Provide protection of the Unangan Cemetery in Funter
Bay for future generations;
? Transfer cemetery site and surrounding area from
Division of Land Mining and Water (DNR) to the
Division of Parks and Recreation (DNR) - ;
? Transferred land will become part of, and continued
to be maintained by, as part of the Funter Bay Marine
Park.
9:51:05 AM
Representative Hannan turned to slide 3, which showed a map
of Juneau and the surrounding area. She explained that the
area of the park was located on the Mansfield Peninsula of
Admiralty Island, which by air was about 15 miles west. She
explained that the cemetary started with World War II. On
June 3 and 4 of 1942, the Japanese attacked the United
States Naval Base at Dutch Harbor. On June 7 and June 8,
the Japanese invaded Kiska, where U.S. Navy personnel were
captured. The Japanese also invaded Attu, and Native
residents were captured and retained until the end of the
war.
Representative Hannan continued to discuss the history of
the area. She cited that by June 12, the commanding general
for Alaska had issued orders to begin removing Alaskans,
starting with residents of St. Paul and St. George in the
Pribilof Islands. The military was ordered to burn
dwellings in advance of the enemy's movement. Villagers
were forced to evacuate on short notice. On June 16, 1942,
560 residents of St. Paul and St. George were evacuated by
ship. The villagers were taken across the Gulf of Alaska
and left at an abandoned cannery and mine site in Funter
Bay.
9:52:37 AM
Representative Hannan looked at slide 6, which showed a map
of Southeast Alaska from Prince of Wales Island to Juneau.
She detailed that there were additional voyages from other
villages and a total of six relocation camps. The camp at
Funter Bay had the highest death rate. The cannery had not
been operational for a decade before the residents were
left there and was not intended for year-round occupation.
She discussed the deplorable conditions with limited access
to fresh water, medicine, and food. She continued that
there were technically two camps in Funter Bay that shared
one cemetery.
9:53:23 AM
Representative Hannan reviewed slide 5, which showed a
photograph of a grave and a photograph of building ruins:
Old Bunk House used for housing (above).
Head stone of 18 month old child that died at camp
(left).
Representative Hannan discussed slide 6, which also showed
a map of the area. She explained that there were 30 known
grave sites in the cemetery, but it was understood there
were many unmarked graves. She explained that the issue was
78 years in the making, and people whose families were
buried there had been asking for the protection of the land
for decades.
9:54:51 AM
Representative Hannan explained that other relocation camps
in Southeast Alaska were located closer to communities. The
Killisnoo property near Angoon also had a cemetery, which
was on private land. She explained that concerns had been
escalated when seven years previously, access to the
Killisnoo cemetery had been truncated by the new property
owners. Families of relatives buried in Funter Bay asked
for protections in order to continue to visit gravesites in
Funter Bay.
Representative Hannan showed slide 4, which showed the
state park that was created by former Senator Frank Zharoff
in 1983. The land was a marine park that included tidelands
and uplands, but was mostly the protected waterways. She
pointed out the delineation on the map, and identified the
cemetery. She explained that the transfer would incorporate
the remainder of the state parcel that existed as an island
between the two parklands that existed.
9:55:45 AM
Senator Wilson asked if the bill would close off the area
in question, or if the intent was for cultural protection
and upkeep of the area.
Representative Hannan explained that the bill did not close
off the area, nor was there intent to develop. The bill
would prevent development and the sale for mining purposes.
She explained that there was currently no development at
the state park, and most people that visited stayed aboard
vessels. She described that the parcel with the cemetery
was a dark and dreary swampy lowland and was not typically
used for hunting or foraging. The lands were not well
maintained, and the families seeking the protection desired
the land and public access be secured.
9:57:18 AM
Senator Olson asked the sponsor how the bill would affect
owners of private property in Funter Bay.
Representative Hannan specified that the bill would not
change any private property land holdings nor did it
restrict access. The parcel was adjacent to the property
that was formerly the cannery. She thought the property was
owned by Reed Stoops, who had submitted a letter of support
for the bill. There were about six landowners in front of
the cemetery, and the other large stretch of private
property was on the opposite side of the bay where the old
mine was. Private property rights and access would not be
changed by the park expansion, and the properties were not
in the parcel.
9:58:23 AM
Senator Olson asked if any of the adjacent private land
owners had voiced any objection to the bill.
Representative Hannan answered in the negative.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if the private landowners were
free to develop the land surrounding the cemetery in any
way that was desired.
Representative Hannan answered in the affirmative.
9:58:42 AM
Co-Chair Stedman observed two islands on the map on slide 4
that looked as if they were colored yellow for inclusion in
the park expansion. He also asked if there were proposed
changes to submerged lands.
Representative Hannan deferred the question to the Division
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
Senator Olson had a question about private ownership. He
thought there were conditions existing when private
ownership was given.
9:59:44 AM
Co-Chair Stedman repeated his question regarding the
islands shown on the map on slide 4 - one island in the
back of the bay and a smaller island to the west. He asked
why the islands would be included in the park designation.
PRESTON KROES, SUPERINTENDENT, DIVISION OF PARKS AND
OUTDOOR RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), explained that although the yellow shaded
area on the map showed a peninsula that only became an
island at an extremely high tide. The pensinsula was all
that remained of the Division of Mining, Land, and Water
(DMLW) property. The division had determined that it would
relinquish all of the parcel instead of just keeping the
two small islands, which would have become a management
challenge.
Co-Chair Stedman asked why the state did not consider
selling the islands.
Mr. Kroes thought the question would be better addressed by
DMLW. The parcel was currently managed for recreation, and
was designated to be managed as the adjacent parklands were
managed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how many parcels were virtually in
holdings in the proposed park expansion.
Ms. Kroes stated that private land was excluded from the
parcel. There were six to eight landowners nearby, many of
whom had spoken in support of the bill in previous
hearings. The parcels would remain in status quo with
regard to lease or ownership.
10:03:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the islands to the west. He
asked if the islands were already in the park.
Mr. Kroes answered in the affirmative. He mentioned the
Kitten Islands. He mentioned there was two smaller islands
within the bay that were currently part of the state marine
park.
10:03:38 AM
Senator Wielechowski understood that the Division of Parks
and Outdoor Recreation supported the bill.
Mr. Kroes stated that the division supported the bill. He
had been approached by the group Friends of Admiralty
Island, which included decedents of people that had been
interned in Funter Bay. The group wanted to maintain access
for descendants in the future. He stated that the division
and stakeholders supported the bill.
10:04:40 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof asked about allowable use of the private
land parcels around the proposed park, per comments by
Senator Olson.
Mr. Kroes restated that the parcels were staying as-is,
were not included in the land exchange, and with current
ownership conditions remaining intact. He did not know how
many separate parcels there were but there was no impact to
the parcels.
10:05:46 AM
RICKY GEASE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), testified that Alaska State Parks
supported the bill. The agency had been working with many
organizations and individuals to find a better way to
manage and protect the historical and cultural resources.
He explained that currently the DMLW land was managed for
recreation and not for mineral or timber resources. There
parks division had an inter-agency land management
agreement with the DLWD to manage the lands for recreation
as units of the park. He thought it was important to
remember that while most of the area where there were
graves there were markers, there was most likely also
adjacent areas with unmarked graves, and the bill would
protect the area in perpetuity.
Mr. Gease continued his testimony. He stated it had been
his and the agencies privilege to coordinate and work with
a diverse group of interested parties. The department
supported protection for the cemetery, and in recognition
of the hardship imposed on the people from St. George and
St. Paul in Funter Bay during World War II. He thought the
land would be easier to manage under one agency within the
Department of Natural Resources.
Co-Chair von Imhof asked if Mr. Gease had any further
comments on the bill.
Mr. Gease thought all the topics had been covered. He
remarked that the two previous hearings on the bill there
had been direct descendants from St. Paul and St. George
present, including elders that travelled to attend. He
emphasized that there was great support for the bill to
ensure protection of the cemetery area.
10:08:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman did not think there was any interest in
hindering the cemetery. He was appalled that an individual
in Angoon was prohibiting access to a cemetery. He pondered
that the individual was not from the area. He noted that
much of Southeast was a park, and there was very little
private or state land within the Tongass National Forest.
He was concerned with over-restricting development and also
with losing cultural and heritage sites. He thought there
was not a lot of cultural sites that were not known. He
supported protecting the cemetery. His only concern was
about the island and wondered why it was not up for sale.
He wanted to suggest that the committee review the access
issue to the cemetery near Angoon.
10:11:03 AM
Co-Chair von Imhof OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair von Imhof CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Stedman reviewed FN 2 from the Department of
Natural Resources, OMB Component 3001. He relayed that it
was a zero fiscal note. He commented that the note should
have been negative, because money was left on the table by
not selling the island.
Co-Chair von Imhof set the bill aside. She asked members to
contact her office with any concerns or amendments.
HB 122 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair von Imhof was unsure about the schedule for the
afternoon meeting. The following day the committee would
hear public testimony on the operating and capital budgets.
ADJOURNMENT
10:12:48 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m.