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.