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.