03/02/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB47 | |
| HB4 | |
| HJR10 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 2017
8:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Parish, Co-Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dean Westlake
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Dan Saddler
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Talerico
Representative DeLena Johnson (alternate)
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 47
"An Act requiring certain municipalities with a population that
decreased by more than 25 percent between 2000 and 2010 that
participate in the defined benefit retirement plan of the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Alaska to contribute to the
system an amount calculated by applying a rate of 22 percent of
the total of all base salaries paid by the municipality to
employees of the municipality who are active members of the
system during a payroll period; authorizing the administrator of
the defined benefit retirement plan of the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Alaska to reduce the rate of interest
payable by certain municipalities that are delinquent in
transmitting employee and employer contributions to the
retirement plan; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 47 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 4
"An Act relating to military facility zones."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Urging the United States Congress to pass the Improved National
Monument Designation Process Act.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 47
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL PERS CONTRIBUTIONS/INTEREST
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FOSTER
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) CRA, FIN
02/28/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/02/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 4
SHORT TITLE: MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) THOMPSON
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) MLV, CRA
02/09/17 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/09/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/14/17 (H) MLV AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/14/17 (H) Moved CSHB 4(MLV) Out of Committee
02/14/17 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/15/17 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) NT 5DP
02/15/17 (H) DP: REINBOLD, RAUSCHER, SADDLER,
PARISH, TUCK
03/02/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 10
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT DECLARATION OF NATL. MONUMENTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/15/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/17 (H) CRA, RES
03/02/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 4, as prime sponsor.
BOB DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 4.
JEFF STEPP, Special Assistant
Mayor's Office
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 4.
CHRISTINE NELSON, Director
Planning Department
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
4.
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 10, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor.
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 10.
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historical Preservation Officer
Office of History & Archaeology Alaska Historical Commission
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 10.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:38 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN PARISH called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m.
Representatives Rauscher, Saddler, Drummond, Fansler, and Parish
were present at the call to order. Representative Westlake
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 47-MUNICIPAL PERS CONTRIBUTIONS/INTEREST
8:02:35 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 47, "An Act requiring certain municipalities
with a population that decreased by more than 25 percent between
2000 and 2010 that participate in the defined benefit retirement
plan of the Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska to
contribute to the system an amount calculated by applying a rate
of 22 percent of the total of all base salaries paid by the
municipality to employees of the municipality who are active
members of the system during a payroll period; authorizing the
administrator of the defined benefit retirement plan of the
Public Employees' Retirement System of Alaska to reduce the rate
of interest payable by certain municipalities that are
delinquent in transmitting employee and employer contributions
to the retirement plan; and providing for an effective date."
8:03:01 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER noted that at a previous hearing on HB 47,
Representative Saddler had suggested the proposed legislation
was too narrowly tailored and he would be considering whether to
offer an amendment. He asked Representative Saddler if he had
since worked with the bill sponsor on an amendment.
8:03:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered that he had not yet had the
opportunity to do so.
8:04:05 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to report HB 47 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that she had heard this
subject in bill form several times in the past, and she stated
her belief that HB 47 is a fair piece of legislation that deals
with an issue that could not have been foreseen by the
communities effected under HB 47.
8:04:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for confirmation that the proposed
legislation was not changed and would address just 2000-2010.
CO-CHAIR PARISH confirmed that the bill remains tightly focused.
8:05:18 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that there being no objection, HB 47
was reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee.
8:05:26 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:05 a.m. to 8:08 a.m.
HB 4-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
8:08:29 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to military facility
zones." [Before the committee was CSHB 4(MLV).]
8:09:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature,
presented HB 4, as prime sponsor. He said in 2012, House Bill
316 created military facility zones, which are "areas around a
municipality or city that are in close proximity to a military
facility." The military facility zones enable enhancement of a
military mission or lessen the expense involved in order for the
military to do its job. Further, military facility zones
encourage the military to stay in those areas. Representative
Thompson said CSHB 4(MLV) would allow someone who wants "to
build something or do something that will enhance that mission
for the military" in a military facility zone to be eligible for
a low-interest loan or for tax credits.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON said there has been a lot of interest
around the state for military facility zones. For example: the
naval range in Ketchikan needs a new dock; the military facility
in Kodiak needs new housing; and there is a lot of activity
going on at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage
and at [Eielson Air Force Base] and Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks
that could benefit under CSHB 4(MLV).
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON said a problem had been pointed out to
him. He explained as follows:
The way that you have to become a military facility
zone is you have to apply to the adjutant general in
the state and he has to approve it, but there are
certain steps that have to be in place. One is that
the plan has to comply with the comprehensive plan of
the municipality. Comprehensive plans - a lot of
places - they are aren't up to date; they only redo
them about every 10 years; and to change a
comprehensive plan could take up to a year or more.
If somebody has something that they want to build or
something that will enhance this military mission - it
might not comply with the old comprehensive plan, and
to change it would be cumbersome.
8:12:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON indicated that an amendment adding "or
local ordinance" would "allow this to happen in [a] more
expeditious manner, as far as trying to get that." He mentioned
another amendment to the bill that proposes an immediate
effective date. A third change was to hold harmless the
adjutant general.
8:12:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if, from a local municipal
government's standpoint, a decision on zoning has any more or
less impact as compared to a decision in a comprehensive plan.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that sometimes it takes a long
period of time to change a comprehensive plan. He said zoning
must go through the community's assembly, which is a long
process involving more than one meeting and public hearings. He
concluded, "It's a process, but can be done in a month or so
instead of a year or longer."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that "zoning is no
less clear an expression of the local government's and the
people's will than a comprehensive plan change."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that's correct.
8:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE remarked that the proposed bill "looks
pretty good." He cited language in Section 1, on page 1, lines
7-8, which read:
consistent with the comprehensive plan of the
municipality or local zoning ordinances
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE commented that Kotzebue, in which he
lives, "belongs to the municipality," and he questioned whether
the language could be misinterpreted, such as, "Well, we're ...
the local zoning authority; we can do this."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that he does not see any issue
there, because the term "local zoning ordinances" is a common
one to use in a municipality or a borough, both of which have
local zoning ordinances that address property use inside their
designated areas.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE noted that there still is a military
base in Kotzebue. He said Kotzebue has both city and borough
planning commissions. He surmised that other communities with
the same composition of commissions may have worked out a way to
integrate. He suggested that changing the language on line 7 to
read something along the lines of "with the comprehensive plan
of the municipal local zoning ordinances" would "make it much
easier."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON said he had not been aware there were
any places in the state that had both borough and city zoning;
most places in the state are set up for the borough to control
the zoning.
8:16:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER mentioned that the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs had heavily vetted
HB 4 and had come up with [CSHB 4(MLV)], which he said does not
overstep or bring something into play that is not allowed in a
specified zones. He said he has served on comprehensive
planning boards in the past and is familiar with the lengthy
process that can take two to three years. He stated his support
of CSHB 4(MLV).
8:18:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the borough does not need to be
mentioned because it is covered under local ordinances.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered, "Yes, whoever the authority is
in that particular area around a military facility zone." He
noted that [under AS 26.30.020(a)(1)] a military facility zone
is considered to be within close proximity [to a facility]. He
offered his understanding that the federal government describes
a military facility zone as within 100 miles of a military
facility. He said, "It'd have to be an organized municipality
that applied for that." He questioned whether Delta, which he
said is not an organized city, would be able to make such an
application.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked, then, if it was not necessary to
add "borough" to line 7, on page 1. She said it sounds like
Representative Westlake has a comprehensive plan in the North
Slope Borough, as well as in the City of Barrow. She said she
was involved with the Anchorage Municipal Assembly with a 2020
Comprehensive Plan, which she indicated took ten years in the
making.
8:19:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that CSHB 4(MLV)
would not require a new zoning ordinance of any community; an
existing zoning ordinance would allow for creation of a military
facility zone.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered that if a municipality or city
wanted to change land use in order to build something that will
"enhance the military," it would need to change its zoning for
that area through a zoning ordinance.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested, "Or for an existing zoning
ordinance allowed for the planning and zoning board, for
example, to make that decision, without a new ordinance - that
would be sufficient."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER summarized that the proposed legislation
would not prevent a community that has a new or active
comprehensive plan or one with a regular updating cycling plan
from including an active military facility zone; CSHB 4(MLV)
would just "broaden the applicability of the military facility
zones."
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON confirmed that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that he was a sponsor of another
bill that created the [military facility] zones; is a co-sponsor
of HB 4; and he thinks the proposed legislation is a great way
to "make this beneficial mechanism available to more communities
on a more expeditious basis."
8:21:31 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH opened public testimony on CSHB 4(MLV).
8:22:07 AM
BOB DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), testified that DMVA supports CSHB
4(MLV) as meeting the intent of the original legislation of 2012
that allowed military zones in Alaska. He said the department
believes that the proposed legislation would provide the
necessary flexibility to enable local jurisdictions "to go
forward." He emphasized that allowing military facility zones
where appropriate for local jurisdictions and the nearby
military bases is important toward maximizing the
competitiveness of bases nationwide.
8:22:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Doehl if he is familiar with
how other military zones are being used around the country.
MR. DOEHL answered that currently they are being used to enable
infrastructure or supply. He noted that in a week he would be
giving a presentation on the issue in Fairbanks, Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that most of the discussions about
investees have focused on the Interior or Ketchikan, Alaska. He
asked if there is any possibility for military facility zones to
be used within 50 to 100 miles of JBER.
MR. DOEHL answered that without judging a military facility zone
application from Anchorage or one of the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley jurisdictions, he thinks there is ample opportunity to
"look at options that make our bases more competitive." He
related that military bases in Alaska are challenged by the high
cost of transporting goods, housing, and energy - all of which
he said he thinks are potential projects that could reduce the
costs, where Alaska businesses could thrive from some federal
money coming in and, in the process, lower the operating costs
for the bases compared to bringing the goods and services in
from Outside.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER mentioned JBER and an effort that had
been made for Alaska to maintain a military presence in the face
of pressure to reduce "basing costs." He asked if military
facility zones would help JBER become more competitive and,
thus, more able to resist closure under the Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) process.
MR. DOEHL answered that in the event another BRAC is introduced
by Congress, a military facility zone could considerably enhance
competitiveness, which could keep JBER and other military bases
in Alaska open. He added, "And as long as we're sitting where
we are today with the military saying they have 22 percent
excess capacity, it's important that we maximize the
competitiveness of our bases."
8:26:48 AM
JEFF STEPP, Special Assistant, Mayor's Office, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, thanked the bill sponsor and the committee for
efforts to ensure that military facility zones are a viable
mechanism to generate economic development in military
communities throughout Alaska. He said he would like to echo
and affirm the remarks made by the bill sponsor and Mr. Dole.
He said Mayor Castle, of the Fairbanks North Star Borough
supports CSHB 4(MLV). He noted that a staff of the borough,
Christine Nelson, was available to talk about issues specific to
the borough's comprehensive plan and local zoning ordinance.
8:28:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the previous discussion
regarding municipalities and boroughs and asked if boroughs are
incorporated.
MR. STEPP said he does not know.
8:29:11 AM
CHRISTINE NELSON, Director, Planning Department, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, stated that while she could not parlay the status
of every borough, the interpretation of "municipality" in "the
original bill" did include the Fairbanks North Star Borough and
other designated boroughs, the incorporated status of which she
indicated she did not know. She said, "If there's an
unincorporated city that is not in a borough, [then] ... this
may not apply to them, but if it is in a recognized borough, it
would."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned if the bill sponsor would
want language to include boroughs. He asked the same question
of Mr. Doehl.
8:30:39 AM
MR. DOEHL stated that the department believes the current
language in CSHB 4(MLV) is "adequate for the purposes going
forward." He said the department believes that the local
jurisdictions "will sort out any jurisdictional issues before
they get to us." He reiterated that he does not see a potential
conflict that would require amending CSHB 4(MLV).
8:31:35 AM
MS. NELSON began her testimony by offering a brief example of
the reason the proposed legislation is necessary. She stated
that in 2014, the Fairbanks North Star Borough planned to apply
for a military facility zone to establish an unmanned vehicle
technical and research park. The site was near Eielson Air
Force Base and was intended to be a partnership cooperative
agreement between the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the
borough, and possibly the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Ms.
Nelson explained that although the existing general use zoning
would have allowed for the park, the comprehensive plan
designation was for an agricultural and open space and would
have required an extensive and costly amendment process. She
added that while the borough's comprehensive plan was updated in
2006, the actual map with the land use designation was from
1990. She said the project died in progress because of the
necessity for that change.
MS. NELSON related that comprehensive plans cover general,
broad-based land use. Conversely, zoning is parcel specific and
tailored to "exact needs of the land area in those locations."
She stated that allowing a community to use either the local
zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan gives the community
more flexibility to determine compliance and greater opportunity
to establish a military facility zone, "thus supporting the
military mission and bringing jobs and economic development both
to the community and the state in general."
8:33:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND again directed attention to the language
on page 1, [beginning on] line 7 [through line 8], which read as
follows:
the comprehensive plan of the municipality or local
zoning ordinances
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that "or local zoning ordinances"
was proposed language. She asked Ms. Nelson if the Fairbanks
North Star Borough would be covered under the word
"municipality" or if following "municipality" the words "or
borough" should be added.
MS. NELSON stated that the borough's attorneys have interpreted
"municipality" as inclusive of the borough, and she offered her
assumption that the state's attorneys have the same
interpretation. She reiterated that the borough had planned to
apply "under this ... previous version of this bill." She said
if a city is not incorporated or in a recognized borough, then
it would not have a comprehensive plan or a local zoning
ordinance; therefore, "this would be comprehensive to those
communities that have those tools in which to plan land use."
MS. NELSON, in response to a question from Representative
Drummond, confirmed that [Eielson Air Force Base and Fort
Wainwright] are within the boundaries of the Fairbanks North
Star Borough. She said the borough does not regulate land use
on those bases, but does regulate land use all around them. She
noted that Fort Wainwright is also partially in the City of
Fairbanks, as well. She related that the Fairbanks North Star
Borough is the local planning authority for the entire borough,
including the few incorporated cities, and it has both a local
zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan that cover "all around
those bases," and the military facility zones would be located
somewhere near either of the bases should the borough choose to
apply in the future.
8:36:16 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 4(MLV).
8:36:59 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that CSHB 4(MLV) was held over.
HJR 10-LIMIT DECLARATION OF NATL. MONUMENTS
8:37:06 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Urging the United States
Congress to pass the Improved National Monument Designation
Process Act.
8:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor, presented HJR 10. He
stated that the proposed joint resolution would express the
Alaska State Legislature's support for Senate Bill 33, sponsored
United States Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan and
called the "Improved National Monument Designation Process Act."
The Act would amend the Antiquities Act to require the President
of the United States to obtain congressional approval, certify
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), and receive notice that the legislature [of the state
that would be affected] has enacted legislation approving the
designation of any new monument. Currently the President can
declare national monuments without these checks and balances and
has done so repeatedly in past history. He stated that passage
of Senate Bill 33 would ensure participation of the American
public, Congress, and local governments. He urged passage of
HJR 10.
8:40:20 AM
REPRESENTAIVE SADDLER expressed appreciation for HJR 10. He
asked the sponsor if he had come across any evidence that
previous administrations had considered the standard of ["the
smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of
the objects to be protected"]. He opined that there has been a
broad interpretation of the authority granted under the
Antiquities Act.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred to his staff.
8:41:08 AM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor of HJR 10, stated that there has been no interpretation
of what "the smallest area" is. He said the most recent [past]
administration added 440,000 square miles to a monument on the
Atoll Islands, which are northwest of the Hawaiian Islands. He
questioned whether that was the smallest possible area.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the bill sponsor was aware of
the response of other states to U.S. Senate Bill 33 -
particularly the Western states.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred again to his staff.
8:42:21 AM
MR. BREESE pointed to a press release from U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski's office included in the committee packet and noted
that 27 U.S. Senators had signed on in support of U.S. Senate
Bill 33, and they are listed as being from the following states:
Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, West Virginia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Idaho, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Iowa, Nevada,
Wisconsin, Kansas, South Dakota, Florida, Alabama, and North
Carolina.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that on pages 5 and 6 of the
aforementioned press release, it reads that President Obama had
designated 555 million acres - an area five times the size of
California - as onshore national monuments, and that is well in
excess of twice the entire acreage designated by all previous
Presidents who had access to [the Antiquities Act]. He
concluded, "So, obviously I'm going to support this."
8:43:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the bill sponsor if U.S. Senate
Bill 33 requires every state to provide a resolution in support.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that the
answer is no; however, he deferred to his staff for further
comment.
8:44:07 AM
MR. BREESE said U.S. Senate Bill 33 does not require a
resolution of support, but does call for congressional approval
and approval from the state that would be affected. If a
President wanted to designate a monument in Alaska, for example,
under U.S. Senate Bill 33, he/she would have to get a letter
from the governor of Alaska stating that the Alaska State
Legislature approves the designation. If a monument was being
proposed in a marine environment, the President would need the
approval of all states within 100 miles of the marine area.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for confirmation that HJR 10 was
not required.
MR. BREESE confirmed that is correct. He said HJR 10 is
basically a letter of support for U.S. Senate Bill 33. In
response to a follow-up question, he said he was not aware of
any other states providing similar resolutions; however, he said
he would investigate and get back to Representative Drummond
with an answer.
8:45:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the intent of HJR 10 was
not to be an approval of "whatever designation comes up," but
rather to be a simple expression of the legislature's support
for future legislatures to be able "to have their say on future
designations."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER confirmed that is correct.
8:46:29 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if the sponsor considered the requirement
under U.S. Senate Bill 33 that the governor of each state
deliver a letter reflecting his/her state's legislative approval
as a "bug" or a "feature."
MR. BREESE answered, "You could look at it as a bug." He said
he doesn't know if the governor would have a problem saying the
legislature "approved this."
8:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the impact of designations of
National Monuments in Alaska has been.
8:48:42 AM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), offered his understanding that to date there have been
four national monuments created in Alaska: [Admiralty Island
National Monument, Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve, Cape
Krusenstern National Monument, and Misty Fiords National
Monument Wilderness]. He said all four were designated by
President Jimmy Carter by proclamation. He stated that once an
area has been designated as a national monument, it has an extra
layer of protection where uses are further limited in those
areas.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER indicated that he was looking at a list of 11
areas in Alaska and questioned why Mr. Fogels had listed only
four.
MR. FOGELS explained he had named only those areas designated as
national monuments. He suggested state archeologist, Judy
Bittner, could offer further details regarding the specific
designations that exist under the Antiquities Act. He stated
that the current [Alaska] administration supports HJR 10. He
continued:
Fundamentally our position is that the designation of
any additional national monuments in Alaska is counter
to the minimal "no-more" clauses of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act and therefore
should ultimately be authorized by the U.S. Congress
with the input of the State of Alaska.
8:51:08 AM
MR. BREESE explained to Co-Chair Fansler that currently there
are four national monuments in Alaska. He said there is a list
in the committee packet of the national monuments that have been
declared under the Antiquities Act. A majority of those names
on the list were subsequently made into National Parks by
Congress. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Fansler, he offered his understanding that it
takes Congress to make a National Park, followed by the approval
of the President.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said a national monument has been clearly
defined as something different from a National Park, and he
suggested that "you're diluting what a national monument is
through this resolution" by "making it follow the exact same
path that a National Park would follow."
MR. BREESE responded that he does not believe that to be the
case. He said, "What you're doing is you're extending the
public process and ... limiting the powers that the Presidents
... [have]." He said the Antiquities Act was an important Act
to pass at the time, because many Native and tribal sites were
being raided by people "looking to make a quick buck stealing
some of the artifacts," for example. The Act gave the President
the ability to act quickly to protect and preserve national
monuments. He said that was 111 years ago, and there are
improvements and protections in place that he indicated has
resulted in less prevalence in the raiding of Native sites by
"grave robbers." Although it still happens, he opined the need
for such national declarations is not as it was before, and the
process that can be followed through to Congress is "a better
public process" involving more than just the President saying,
"I think my backyard should be a national monument." He said
that happened in Wyoming, when Franklin Roosevelt was offered
land by John D. Rockefeller back in the 1940s; Congress denied
making it part of the Grand Teton National Park, so President
Roosevelt declared it a national monument. Following that,
Congress passed a law requiring any further declarations of
national monuments in Wyoming be approved by Congress.
MR. BREESE stated that in the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), Congress added the "no-more clause"
for Alaska that required congressional approval for any further
national monuments to be designated in the state. Supporting
[U.S. Senate Bill 33] would extend that to the other states. He
emphasized, "We're not speaking in favor or opposed to any
specific monument or creating a monument, just ... [in favor of
having] a fair public process and having the checks and balances
that this country was founded on."
8:55:29 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said [the theft of Native American artifacts]
still occurs, and "this was a mechanism to prevent that." He
asked if there is a better way to tailor "this" rather than
having to work through Congress, a state, and the President. He
said typically the U.S. does not have a unified President and
Congress, which he indicated could result in "a great problem
with grave robbery if we did need to move with speed."
MR. BREESE suggested that would be a question to take up with
Congress. He said the bill sponsor is putting forth a joint
resolution that would express the Alaska State Legislature's
support of the provisions in U.S. Senate Bill 33.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER remarked that Congress does not listen to him.
8:56:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked Mr. Fogel if the concern was that
the designation of lands as national monuments could result in
the stifling of development.
8:57:40 AM
MR. FOGEL answered yes. He said ANILCA already set aside "a
huge swath of Alaska for conservation" and "the deal was cut
that that should be it." Currently a President can designate
additional monuments in Alaska without the blessing of Congress,
and that could prevent development on federal lands in Alaska
someday.
8:58:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to the concerns expressed by
Co-Chair Fansler, said a state legislature and chief executive
can quickly pass legislation when there is a consensus and need
for it. He said he thinks one of the differences between the
time in which the Antiquities Act was passed and today is that
there now exists the National Park Service and Alaska has
resources such as a state archeologist and others that are
dedicated to the task of "identifying, inventorying, and
advocating for protection of antiquities"; therefore, the need
for a President to take action has been obviated by the state's
current ability "to identify these antiquities." He opined that
it is clear that federal authorities are overreaching their
ability, and having the consensus and review of states that
would be affected by the designation of a national monument is
entirely appropriate. He said the question of federal
designation of land and assertion of protection is a much
broader issue than the Antiquities Act. He said authorities can
go through the formal process of creating national parks,
forests, and protections, which as ANILCA. Further, he said
there have been creations of "quasi-legitimate areas of
ecological concern" and "marine areas of climate concern." He
stated there can be assertions that an area needs to be
considered for evaluation for wilderness, which can create
decades of de facto wilderness management. He said he thinks
HJR 10 and the U.S. Senate Bill 33, which it seeks to support,
is "an appropriate and narrow limitation of ... a runaway power
that's been, to my opinion, abused by the federal
administration."
9:00:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER indicated he thinks it is important for
Congress to see support from other states. He said obviously
Alaska has seen already the need for legislation such as U.S.
Senate Bill 33, because of "the no-more Act." He stated his
belief that the intent of the U.S. Senators in introducing their
bill is to help all the states be able to control what they
would like to see happen.
9:02:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to hear from state's historic
preservation officer, Judy Bittner, regarding her history in the
state and her perspective on the need of the proposed joint
resolution and the action of the U.S. Senate.
9:02:44 AM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historical Preservation Officer,
Office of History & Archaeology Alaska Historical Commission,
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), stated that within Alaska there are about 50
historic landmarks that have been designated under the
Antiquities Act. She deferred to Mr. Fogel to answer any
questions regarding HJR 10 and U.S. Senate Bill 33.
9:03:58 AM
MR. FOGELS reiterated that the current administration [of the
State of Alaska] supports HJR 10. He said ANILCA has several
"no-more" clauses, and he reemphasized that the designation by
the President of more monuments is counter to that and "should
ultimately be blessed by Congress with the state's input."
9:05:14 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 10.
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that HJR 10 was held over.
9:05:47 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB004 ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sponsor Statement ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sectional Analysis ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Fiscal Note DMVA-CO 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Explanation of Changes ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HJR 10 sponsor statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Antiquities Act 1906.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Congressional Research Antiquities Act.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Support - RDC.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 responses to Questions 3-2-2017.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |