Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/11/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB1 | |
| SB90 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 11, 2011
1:34 p.m.
1:34:45 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker; Representative Kyle Johanson;
Representative Charisse Millet; Thomas Obermeyer, Staff,
Senator Bettye Davis, Sponsor; Les Morse, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development; Dana Owen, Staff, Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee; Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair, House
Resources Committee; Representative Bob Herron; Joseph
Balash, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Lindsay Wolter, Department of Law, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 106 COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
HB 106 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 1 BD OF ED. /EARLY DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL REPORT
CSSB 1(EDC) was REPORTED out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with attached
previously published fiscal note: FN1, EED.
SB 90 BOARD OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY SECRETARY
SB 90 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with attached previously
published fiscal note: FN1, CED.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1(EDC)
"An Act requiring the state Board of Education and
Early Development to provide an annual report to the
legislature."
1:34:54 PM
THOMAS OBERMEYER, STAFF, SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, SPONSOR,
summarized the legislation. The bill stipulated that the
Alaska State Board of Education present an annual report to
the legislature no later than the 30th day of each regular
session. The report was typically presented to the
legislature towards the later part of session.
1:36:20 PM
LES MORSE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND
EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT, offered that upon passage of
SB 1 the department would work with the board to ensure
that the report was delivered to the legislature.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSSB 1(EDC) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 1(EDC) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with attached previously published
fiscal note: FN1, EED.
1:37:54 PM
AT EASE
1:38:59 PM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 90
"An Act classifying and setting a monthly salary for
the executive secretary of the Board of Public
Accountancy."
1:38:59 PM
DANA OWEN, STAFF, SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE,
explained the legislation. He reported that the Alaska
Board of Public Accountancy was authorized to hire an
Executive Secretary position at a range 23 salary
established in HB 315 ("An Act relating to public
accounting; and providing for an effective date") during
the 26th legislative session. Subsequently, the Department
of Administration (DOA) classified the position at a lower
range based upon a position classification study. The board
was unable to hire the position at a range 23. He offered
that the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee introduced the
legislation to re-establish the range 23 salary in statute,
according to the intent of HB 315.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report SB 90 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
SB 90 was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with attached previously published
fiscal note: FN1, CED.
1:41:20 PM
AT EASE
1:49:23 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 106
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
coastal management program and relating to the
extension; relating to the review of activities of the
Alaska coastal management program; providing for an
effective date by amending the effective date of sec.
22, ch. 31, SLA 2005; and providing for an effective
date."
1:49:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE RESOURCES
COMMITTEE, provided a sectional analysis.
Section 1. Extends the date that the Alaska coastal
management program "is subject to termination" to the
first regular legislative session convening in January
2017.
Section 2. Establishes the Alaska Coastal Policy
Board (board).
Representative Feige explained the composition of the
Alaska Coastal Policy Board. He delineated that the board
consisted of nine members: five public members; four
commissioners from the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), and the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT). A deputy
commissioner may act in place of the commissioner. He
furthered that the governor would choose four public
members from different coastal regions from a list provided
by the region. The fifth member, chosen by the governor
must reside in the coastal zone.
1:52:05 PM
Representative Feige continued with the sectional analysis.
Section 3. Requires the Department of Natural
Resources (department) to prepare an annual report
summarizing the department's efforts to draft and
adopt regulations under AS 46.39 and AS 46.40. The
report must be posted on the department's website.
Section 4. Provides that the department may consult
and cooperate with the board.
Section 5. Provides how, and to whom, the department
must provide certain information. Requires the
department to annually solicit issues for discussion by
the board, summarize the board's discussion of these
issues, and, based on the discussions, make
recommendations to the commissioner of the department.
Representative Feige clarified that DNR's "duty was to
provide planning and consistency review data and
information of the governing body of the coastal resource
district or service area." He reported that the flow of
information from the department to the coastal districts
was lacking. The coastal districts were left out of the
information stream.
Section 6. Mandates that, if the department provides
funds to a coastal resource district or service area
(district) and the department provides a restriction
on how the funds may be used by the district, the
department must specify the law that authorizes the
restriction.
Representative Feige explained that Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP) funding originated through the
federal government to DNR as pass through grants. The
department was responsible for monitoring that the money
was spent according to the federal guidelines. The
restrictions included lobbying and authoring legislation.
The coastal districts received the money as pass through
grants via DCCED. Some of the money had been
inappropriately used for consultants. The Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED)
reacted by disallowing use of the funds for any type of
consultant. The Resources Committee determined that a
blanket restriction for consulting was excessive and was
not the intent of the funding restrictions.
1:56:21 PM
Representative Feige continued with the sectional analysis.
Section 7. Provides that changes to a district
coastal management plan (plan) may not conflict with
statewide standards adopted by the department.
Section 8. Provides that a plan may not conflict with
statewide standards adopted by the department. Changes
what a plan must include and changes the requirements
for enforceable policies contained in a plan.
Section 9. Changes "the use of areas of the coast
that merit special attention" to "special management
areas," in a statutory section that directs the
department to adopt regulations establishing statewide
standards and district plan criteria for the Alaska
Coastal Management Program. (The bill repeals the
definition of "area which merits special attention"
(bill sec. 20) and provides a definition of "special
management area" (bill sec. 18)).
Representative Feige detailed that Section 9 retained the
DEC "carve-out." The section "was a sticking point for the
governor." The governor strongly favored the "carve out."
The exemption of DEC permitting from the ACMP consistency
review process allowed the review to stay on schedule. He
informed the committee that a consistency determination was
a pre-requisite for a DEC permit.
Section 10. Changes the process by which a plan is
reviewed and approved. Removes language that requires,
for the department to approve a plan, the plan to meet
statewide standards and district plan criteria and not
arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict or exclude uses
of state concern. The plan must still meet the
provisions of AS 46.40 (note that AS 46.40.030
requires a plan to meet district plan criteria and not
conflict with statewide standards adopted by the
department). Provides that if the department finds
that a plan is not approvable, or is approvable only
in part, the department shall submit the plan to the
board for review and recommendations. After the board
has reviewed the plan and submitted recommendations to
the department, the department shall enter findings,
and may, by order, require that a plan be amended or
that a district take other appropriate action.
Representative Feige underscored that DNR made the final
decision to approve a plan in total or in part.
Section 11. Establishes a process by which a person
affected by a decision of the department relating to
the review and approval of a plan may request the
commissioner of the department to reconsider the
decision.
Section 12. Changes the criteria by which the
department will evaluate a plan submitted by a
district for approval.
2:00:06 PM
Representative Feige read Page 10, lines 5-14 and lines 18-
21 (Section 12) from the legislation:
the department shall approve a district coastal
management plan submitted for review and approval if
the
(1) district coastal management plan
(A) meets the requirements of this chapter
and the district plan criteria adopted by
the department; and
(B) does not conflict with the statewide
standards adopted by the department; and
(2) enforceable policies of the district coastal
management plan
(A) do not duplicate, restate, incorporate by
reference, rephrase, or otherwise modify
or adopt state or federal statutes or
regulations;
(b) The enforceable policies in a district coastal
management plan submitted for review under this
section may establish new standards or
requirements that are within the authority of a
state or federal agency unless the state or
federal agency specifically objects.
He summarized that an enforceable policy cannot duplicate
an existing statute. The legislation removed the
requirement that the enforceable policy only applied within
a designated area. He noted that a contentious issue for
coastal districts was to define a "designated area"
specifically in regards to subsistence.
Section 13. Requires that the department must, in
regulations adopted by the department, (1) permit
certain persons to participate in a consistency review,
(2) provide certain persons materials relating to the
consistency review, (3) make notices relating to
proposed projects for which a consistency determination
is sought available through the department's internet
website.
Representative Feige added that Section 13 ensured that
information was thoroughly disseminated.
Section 14. Relabels "subsequent reviews" as
"elevations." Provides that elevations may only be
conducted by the commissioners of the departments of
environmental conservation, natural resources, and
fish and game, or certain deputies of these
commissioners. Provides how an elevation is completed.
Representative Feige explained that a contested consistency
review was termed an "elevation." Previously, the
commissioner of DNR was responsible for adjudicating the
dispute; coastal districts felt that process was unfair.
2:04:11 PM
Representative Feige continued his sectional presentation.
Section 15. Changes "subsequent review" to "elevation"
to conform the section with changes in terminology made
in sec. 14 of the bill.
Representative Feige remarked that Section 14 suspended the
90 day limit while the consistency review was under
elevation. The elevation period was limited to 45 days.
Section 16. Adds the commissioners of the departments
of environmental conservation, natural resources, and
fish and game, or certain deputies of these
commissioners, to the list of entities that are
"reviewing entit[ies]" for the purposes of the
consistency review and determination process for
certain projects.
Section 17. Changes language in a statutory section
relating to the approval of plans in a coastal
resource service area, requires that a new material
submitted by a city or village may not conflict with
statewide standards adopted by the department. Under
current law, new material submitted by a village or
city must "meet[ ] the statewide standards."
Section 18. Establishes definitions for "elevation"
and "special management area."
Section 19. Repeals the statutory section creating
the board. (The repeal is contingent on the repeal of
the entire coastal management program (see bill sec.
25)).
Representative Feige commented that Section 19 provided a
sunset for the board.
Section 20. Repeals the definition of "area which
merits special attention."
Representative Feige remarked that the repealed definition
was replaced with "special management areas."
Section 21. Provides, in uncodified law, how and when
the initial members of the board shall be appointed.
Provides that board reviews of coastal resource
management plans (see bill sec. 10) will be delayed
until all members have been appointed.
Section 22. Provides, if the bill does not become law
before July 1, 2011, that when the bill becomes law,
the bill's provisions will be retroactive in effect to
July 1, 2011, and the provisions that constitute the
Alaska Coastal Management Program that have been
repealed will be revived.
Section 23. Provides that the provision establishing
the board (see bill sec. 2) will be repealed (see bill
sec. 19) if the provisions that constitute the Alaska
Coastal Management Program are repealed through the
operation of secs. 1 - 13 and 18, ch. 31, SLA 2005)
Section 24. Changes the date (from July 1, 2011 to
July 1, 2017) in uncodified law that the provisions
that constitute the Alaska Coastal Management Program
will be repealed under secs. 1 - 13 and 18, ch. 31,
SLA 2005.
Section 25. Provides an effective date for sec. 19 of
the bill.
Section 26. Provides, except as provided in sec. 25,
an immediate effective date for the bill.
2:06:33 PM
Co-Chair Thomas wondered whether the administration's
concerns with the Resources Committee version of the
legislation were under discussion. Representative Feige
reported that the governor's staff and the coastal
districts were engaged in an "active" conversation. He
believed that the differences in the program's organization
were not substantial. The administration and industry had
followed the Resources Committee process.
Representative Neuman cited Section 18 page 14, which
defined a "special management area." He wondered if a
special management area could require a subsistence
priority. Representative Feige commented that the
definition of a special management area in the bill was
broad. He thought that the governor wanted the definition
narrowed.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, referred to the comments made by
the attorney general about the label "special management
area." He relayed that the attorney general sought to avoid
any unintended consequences and wanted assurances that the
label would change and conform to language under the
Department of Law (DOL). He opined that the attorney
general was not worried about subsistence by itself. He
answered that if the definition of special management area
"fit within the policy it could cover subsistence." He
believed the section that dealt with "designated areas" was
extremely important. The coastal district had to designate
a subsistence area even if subsistence use in the area was
not established at the time. The situation precluded the
district from commenting on subsistence use in areas not
designated as subsistence on any ACMP project in the
future.
2:11:20 PM
Representative Herron argued that removal of "designated
areas" from ACMP was the most important piece of the
legislation.
Representative Feige interjected that at the same time the
standards defining an enforceable policy were tightened up.
Representative Neuman restated concerns about opening up
the ability to designate areas for a subsistence priority.
He referred to the language in the bill that defined
special management areas as "areas of unique historical
significance, cultural value, essential habitat, or
recreational value or opportunity." He asked if the intent
of the legislation was to open up subsistence areas.
Representative Feige stated that the legislation was not
intended to set aside specific priority subsistence areas.
The removal of the designated areas allowed the enforceable
policy to apply to the entire coastal district. He reminded
the committee that enforceable policies cannot supersede
state or federal government authority. The removal of
designated areas was a compromise to allow enforceable
policies pertaining to subsistence to apply across the
entire district. Otherwise, it was difficult for the
districts to define subsistence areas.
2:15:34 PM
Representative Neuman announced that he had asked for an
opinion from the attorney general on the subsistence issue
and how it related to access.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out three places in the
bill with the language "not in conflict" or "not
inconsistent" with statewide standards. He queried how that
conflicted with developing local enforceable policies that
must conform to statewide criteria. Representative Herron
was not sure. He thought that the bill accomplished that by
the deletion on section 7, Page 6, line 6 of "statewide
standards" and including "changes to." Recent discussions
with the attorney general suggested different changes were
necessary. He suggested that new language could be crafted
into a new CS.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to Section 2 related to
composition of the board. She asked whether the drafter's
intent was to include industry on the statewide seat for
public board members. Representative Feige answered that it
was not the specific intent but the language left open the
possibility for an industry seat on the board.
Vice-chair Fairclough queried compromises made to coastal
communities and the interaction of decisions of a board
with limited representation in juxtaposition with access by
leaseholders to coastal resources. She thought that all
Native Corporations benefited from coastal resources and
had rights under ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act] to access them. She wondered how to achieve meaningful
evaluation to ensure the resources benefited all state
interests and not just coastal communities.
2:19:52 PM
Representative Feige repeated that the board was appointed
by the governor and was also comprised of commissioners
that worked in the interest of the governor. Representative
Herron asked for clarification of the question. Vice-chair
Fairclough stated that she was speaking to the underlying
interests of all Alaskans and all Native Corporations
interests outside of coastal communities. She wanted to
mitigate negative environment actions inside of coastal
communities, but the rest of the state also had a vested
interest in resources located there. She asserted that the
public sector could outvote the administration on the
board, which she had not seen on other boards.
2:22:23 PM
Representative Feige reminded her that the board made
recommendations and was not involved in the consistency
review process. He discussed the ACMP process. He likened
the ACMP process to having a "front side" and a "back
side." The "front side" characterized the role of the
coastal districts and the board. The coastal districts
created plans and established rules for resource
development. The "back side" represented the role of the
state. The state's interests were represented during the
consistency and elevated review processes. Disputes were
adjudicated by the commissioners who represented the
state's interest.
Representative Herron reiterated that all nine members were
the governor's appointees. He reported that after the
Resources Committee version was completed discussion
continued with the administration about the composition of
the fifth board member; industry was chosen by consensus.
He claimed that the board's role was to "help" develop a
coastal plan without involvement in the review process. He
noted that his constituents wanted an additional role, such
as reviewing the regulations. He identified that the goal
of CS HB 106 (RES) was to strengthen the role of the policy
board which was balanced by not having veto power. He
viewed the board as a team player. He supported the board's
involvement in the regulatory review process.
Representative Edgmon understood that the policy board
acted in an advisory capacity. The binding authority was
held by DNR. He believed DNR held the significant
authoritative role and that the policy board was purely
advisory.
2:26:55 PM
Representative Feige agreed. He reiterated his two sided
analogy: one side that represented the coastal communities
establishing plans and rules and, the other side that
embodied the state's role in the review process. He
referred to past frustrations by the coastal communities
due to lack of participation. He believed the ACMP
structure kept the process "predictable."
Representative Edgmon asked what the coastal district
boundaries were. Representative Herron answered that the
boundaries were related to the tides. He exemplified that
Bethel was in its own coastal district. The districts
formed a "ribbon" along the coast. He emphasized that the
districts did not reach inland.
2:30:09 PM
Representative Costello directed attention to Page 10,
lines 18 - 21. She read the language:
(b) The enforceable policies in a district coastal
management plan submitted for review under this
section may establish new standards or
requirements that are within the authority of a
state or federal agency unless the state or
federal agency specifically objects.
Representative Costello interpreted that the language
granted enforceable policies the weight of law unless the
state or federal government objected. She asked what would
happen if the enforceable policy became law and a future
legislature wanted to change the law. She discerned that
legislative authority was being granted to the ACMP to
write laws. Representative Herron believed that creating
enforceable policies was the reason for the ACMP. He
reasoned that an enforceable policy could be revised if any
future objection arose.
Representative Costello commented that the state was
granted powers by the federal government under the program.
She wondered whether it was in the state's authority to
consequently grant coastal districts the ability to create
laws. Representative Herron believed that the federal
government did grant the state the authority to empower the
ACMP. He noted that federal authority could override the
state at any time. He restated that coastal community input
was the reason the ACMP existed.
2:34:45 PM
Representative Costello questioned the original purpose of
the program. Representative Herron provided an analogy for
the ACMP. He believed the essence of the program was to
allow the coastal district to identify what was most
important. The local districts concerns were limited by
lacking veto power in matters of statewide importance. He
felt it struck a balance between local and statewide
interests. He divulged that no one wanted the federal
government to run coastal zone management.
Representative Feige explained that enforceable policies
would apply only to the boundaries of the coastal district.
The purpose of lines 18 - 21 was to provide the state and
federal agencies the authority to manage that area by
granting them the final authority, while enabling the
coastal district to present a desired enforceable policy.
Vice-chair Fairclough referenced the attorney general's
discussion of the retroactivity issue in regards to the
bill. She asked the sponsors whether they had comments on
the issue.
Representative Edgmon relayed that the coastal zone
management program was created by congress in 1972. He
discussed the program's development. The legislation was
enacted in recognition of the sensitive balance of
protection and development in managing the coastal zones.
The assumption was that it was necessary to grant higher
authority to local entities to achieve balanced management.
Alaska chose to implement the program in the late 1970s. He
concurred with Representative Herron in the belief that if
enforceable provisions were not inherent in the program,
what was the reason for it. He added that the federal
government recognized that the state should have
enforcement authority granted under them.
Vice-chair Fairclough surmised that an urban example was
characterized by service areas. She exemplified the Eagle
River/Chugiak park service area where the community,
exercising local control decided to pay for all park
projects up front. The community rejected the practice of
carrying debt inside of the service area. The community
chose to manage its service area differently than
Anchorage. She qualified that service areas worked within
the confines of state and municipal law.
2:41:23 PM
Representative Neuman wondered how much discussion
regarding the DEC "carve out" ensued in the House Resource
Committee. Representative Feige responded that modest
discussions had occurred related to the DEC "carve out."
The governor strongly advocated retention of the "carve
out." The committee ascertained that the DEC permitting
timeline took much longer (up to one year) than the ACMP
consistency review process (35-50 days) and that DEC
permitting should remain separate.
Representative Neuman asked for an explanation of the DEC
"carve out." Representative Herron wanted the
administration to answer the question. He characterized the
"carve out" debate as very "vigorous." He relayed that Mr.
Balash and the Commissioner of DEC were both very emphatic
that the "carve out" would remain in statute. He did not
anticipate that the DEC "carve out" would change in a House
Finance Committee version of the bill. He appreciated the
administration's huge effort in the process.
2:44:51 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to Page 3, line 17 of the
legislation. She wondered about the transition of board
members between new governors provided in Alaska Statute
39.05.080.
LINDSAY WOLTER, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), stated that she would respond after
examination of the statute.
Vice-chair Fairclough referenced concerns related to the 45
day timeline for a consistency review elevation.
2:47:16 PM
JOSEPH BALASH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, addressed Section 14 that defined the process of
a consistency determination elevation. He summarized the
process. The applicant or coastal district may contest a
consistency determination through an elevation carried out
by the resource commissioners. He noted that presently the
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management (DCOM) was the
reviewing entity and the commissioner of DNR conducted
elevation determinations. In the current version the three
resource commissioners would issue a written order
completed within 45 days and signed by at least two
commissioners. The department wanted clarification on the
repercussions in the case of an impasse between all of the
commissioners after 45 days. He noted considerable
discussion on the issue during the committee process. The
administration believed that the proposed elevation process
lacked consistency. Representative Herron related that the
administration wanted to eliminate the 45 day limit. He
believed an uncertain time limit lacked predictability. He
proposed more dialogue on the issue.
Vice-chair Fairclough queried what would happen if an
elevation process ended in an impasse. She asked whether he
had a compromise solution. Representative Herron relayed
that the attorney general would offer compromise language.
He hoped that the language would provide consistency.
2:52:13 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whether the present consistency
review process dictated timelines. Mr. Balash explained
that presently a 30-day or 50-day consistency review
process was utilized depending on the type of review. The
applicant or coastal district may elevate a consistency
review determination by DCOM to the DNR commissioner. The
commissioner had 45 days to review the determination. He
added that once an elevation was requested the clock
stopped on the original consistency review and began again
after the elevation was completed. He felt that elevating a
determination to three commissioners was problematic.
Representative Doogan asked what would happen if HB 106 was
not adopted. Mr. Balash informed the committee that the
program was voluntary. The Coastal Zone Management Act, the
federal authorizing statute, would be repealed and Alaska's
participation would come to an end. A federal agency would
become the reviewing entity, and take the place of DCOM.
The state would be left out of certain permitting decisions
affecting the coastal zone.
2:56:04 PM
Representative Doogan wondered who would control the
coastal zones. Mr. Balash remarked that "the permitting
processes would go on without the consistency review
process at the front end of the permitting regime."
Representative Herron added that the federal government
would take over. He recommended reading a letter to the
Resources Committee by the mayor of Anchorage, which he
thought was remarkable. Representative Doogan noted that
any action or inaction would have impacts. He wanted to
know what they were in case an agreement on ACMP was not
reached.
Co-Chair Thomas believed that if the bill was not passed
the coastal zone management staff would be laid off. He
commented that $3.6 million in savings would occur.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed out that outcome could cost
the state much more if the federal government gained
control.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for clarification of the DEC
carve-out.
2:59:35 PM
Mr. Balash cited that the DEC "carve out" was found in the
Alaska Statute 4640.040b. He detailed that the subsection
listed the statutory authority of DEC. Subsection 040b
stated that DEC authorities were the exclusive regulations
for the ACMP. The issuance of a permit by DEC automatically
constituted consistency. He added that certain DEC permits
had complicated and drawn-out timelines. The ACMP
consistency review timelines do not match up with DEC in
most cases. He continued that some requirement for air and
water standards were under federal clean water and air
regulations. The "carve out" ensured local standards were
kept in compliance with federal regulations.
Vice-chair Fairclough CLOSED public testimony.
3:03:06 PM
AT EASE
3:03:15 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Joule offered that the discussion on ACMP
was lacking for five years. He felt confident that an
agreement was within reach. He advocated maintaining the
ACMP.
Representative Edgmon opined that if the program was
crafted right the ACMP would enable and not disable
resource development. He thought the ACMP could unite local
districts to form a buffer against "interventionists" that
held up progress in courts. He believed the ACMP process
supported statewide interests.
3:07:33 PM
Representative Feige agreed. He opined that a well-defined,
organized, and enforceable coastal management plan for all
coastal districts added certainty to go forward with
coastal projects. The certainty increased the potential for
more coastal resource projects in the future.
Representative Herron acknowledged that the bill was not
perfect. He relayed what the attorney general wanted to
accomplish in a new CS. The attorney general wanted
protection against entities that endeavored to "take down
responsible resource development" through litigation. He
agreed the legislation provided an opportunity to forge a
responsible coastal policy.
HB 106 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:10:49 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 90 2010 Fiscal Note HB 315.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 315 SB 90 |
| SB 90 DOA Determination on Range and Step.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Enabling bill HB 315.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 315 SB 90 |
| SB 90 Board of Accountancy Background Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Alaska Society of CPA Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Sponsor Statement HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| HB106 CAP & Brune-RDC testimony.pdf |
HFIN 4/11/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |