Legislature(2023 - 2024)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/2023 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB77 | |
| Presentation(s): Housing Alaskans - a Public Private Partnership | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2023
1:41 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Forrest Dunbar, Chair
Senator Donald Olson, Vice Chair
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Senator Cathy Giessel
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to municipal property tax; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): HOUSING ALASKANS: - A PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 77
SHORT TITLE: MUNI PROP TAX EXEMPTION/TAX BLIGHTED PROP
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DUNBAR
02/22/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/23 (S) CRA
03/16/23 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
ALLIANA SALANGUIT, Staff
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for SB 77
on behalf of the sponsor.
MIKE ROBBINS, Executive Director
Anchorage Community Development Authority (ACDA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on SB 77.
BILL POPP, President
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on SB 77.
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on SB 77.
CHRIS SCHUTTE, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 77.
PRESTON SIMMONS, Chair
Housing Alaskans - Public Private Partnership (HAPPP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a slideshow on housing Alaskans.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:41:26 PM
CHAIR FORREST DUNBAR called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:41 p.m. Present
at the call to order were Senators Bjorkman, Giessel, Gray-
Jackson, Olson, and Chair Dunbar.
SB 77-MUNI PROP TAX EXEMPTION/TAX BLIGHTED PROP
1:42:34 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to municipal property tax; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR DUNBAR said this is the introductory hearing for SB 77.
The intention is to introduce the bill, followed by the
sectional analysis, invited testimony, committee discussion, and
public testimony.
1:43:39 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR, speaking as the sponsor, introduced SB 77, stating
the bill gives local governments two optional tools to
incentivize economic development. These apply mainly to
residential and commercial housing developments.
CHAIR DUNBAR said that the first tool provides a full property
tax abatement. Currently, local governments can only exempt the
amount above the local school requirement. He said SB 77 removes
this limit, allowing for a full property tax abatement. He
emphasized that it is important to note that this does not
impact the required contribution for schools. Local governments
still need to fund schools and will need to find alternative
funding sources. He said this may cause a short-term increase in
some property taxes but increases the property tax base over the
long term. In Anchorage, for example, a downtown property tax
abatement lasts about 12 years.
CHAIR DUNBAR said that the second tool gives local governments
the option to adopt an ordinance for implementing a "blight
tax." Blighted properties can reduce property tax collection by
decreasing the value of surrounding properties. He said they
also provide a public safety risk, becoming centers of criminal
activity. A "blight tax" increases the property tax on blighted
property until it is remediated, incentivizing owners to
remediate their properties.
CHAIR DUNBAR reiterated that SB 77 does not impose either of
these tools on localities; instead, it changes state law to
allow local governments to use these tools if they choose. Local
governments would adopt their own local ordinances before using
either tool, particularly in the case of blighted property. He
said that local governments must set out a framework defining a
blighted property.
CHAIR DUNBAR completed the introduction of the bill. He invited
Ms. Salanguit to present the sectional analysis for SB 77.
1:45:34 PM
ALLIANA SALANGUIT, Staff, Senator Forrest Dunbar, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis
for SB 77 on behalf of the sponsor.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Section 1: Amends AS 29.45.050 Optional exemptions and
exclusions to allow municipalities to completely
exempt property taxes for an economic development
property. Currently, only the amount above the school
district's local required contribution may be
exempted.
MS. SALANGUIT said that Section 1 does not remove the
municipality's obligation to fund the required local
contribution.
Section 2: Adds a new section AS 29.45.057 Levy of tax
on blighted property that allows municipalities to
adopt an ordinance establishing a blight tax. The
ordinance must include the following:
• Standards for determining if a property is
blighted;
• A procedure for designating a property as
blighted, notifying the property owner, and
providing the property owner an opportunity to
appeal;
A tax rate for the blighted property;
• Standards for remediating or redeveloping the
property so it will no longer be considered
blighted;
• A duration of time and reduced tax rate for
remediated properties.
To qualify for the reduced tax rate, the property
owner must have a plan for remediating or redeveloping
the property submitted to and approved by the
municipality. They must also fulfill the terms of the
pan.
Municipalities may designate the tax revenue to be
used for community redevelopment purposes.
Primary residences are exempt from this section.
MS. SALANGUIT said that Sections 1 and 2 use "may" instead of
"shall" so the tools to incentivize economic development are
optional, not required.
Section 3: Provides for an immediate effective date
after enactment per AS 01.10.070(c).
1:47:37 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON sought clarification that, currently, the
exemption applies only to service areas.
CHAIR DUNBAR asked her to expound on "service areas."
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON sought verification that SB 77 proposes
exemptions for all service areas and school districts.
CHAIR DUNBAR replied yes, if localities decide to do that, they
would have the ability. He moved down the agenda to invited
testimony. He asked Mr. Robbins to put himself on the record and
begin his testimony.
1:48:51 PM
MIKE ROBBINS, Executive Director, Anchorage Community
Development Authority (ACDA), Anchorage, Alaska, provided
invited testimony on SB 77, stating this bill would stimulate
economic and housing development around the state. Many places
across the state suffer from serious housing shortages. Multiple
factors contribute to this, and while the state cannot affect
some, it can and should influence others. This is why SB 77 is
important. He said that one of the biggest challenges facing
builders is the gap between construction costs and the expected
returns for multi-family housing. SB 77 allows cities to offer a
full tax abatement to help bridge that gap. He stated that the
law already allows a 100 percent abatement for redevelopment of
deteriorated property, noting it seems equitable to offer the
same incentive for new construction.
MR. ROBBINS said the "blight tax" is a much-needed tool to
protect property values, clean up neighborhoods, and encourage
redevelopment. The blighted property section of SB 77 gives
cities the opportunity to enact a tax on blighted properties to
encourage neighborhood development.
MR. ROBBINS said this bill appears to have no financial
consequences to the state budget and should not negatively
affect education. As property taxes increase through
development, so will revenue for education funding. It is a
multiple win for multiple sectors of the economy, including
jobs, housing, tax creation, and construction. SB 77 makes
housing affordable for young people, which is one way to prevent
population decline in Alaska.
1:51:50 PM
BILL POPP, President and Chief Executive Office, Anchorage
Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), Anchorage, Alaska,
provided invited testimony on SB 77. He stated this bill would
provide the Municipality of Anchorage and other communities with
the ability to develop strategic initiatives to attract new
investments from outside Alaska through housing development.
Data shows that businesses prioritize stability and availability
of workforce when deciding to invest in an area. He said Alaska
is reaching a demographic tipping point; population trends
demonstrate a decline in the available workforce in the coming
decades. This will become a critical issue for businesses
seeking new investment opportunities nationwide. A key piece in
attracting and retaining workers is housing availability. SB 77
could be an important tool for multi-family development in
Anchorage, particularly for vertical construction, given the
diminishing availability of buildable land that does not require
significant redevelopment costs. He said AEDC hopes that the
legislature and the governor pass SB 77 into law so communities
can get to work developing their variations of this new
legislation.
1:54:15 PM
At ease.
1:54:32 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR reconvened the meeting and invited Mr. Andreassen
to share his perspective on SB 77.
1:54:47 PM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), Juneau, Alaska, provided invited testimony, stating that
fundamentally SB 77 is a "tools in the toolbox" bill. It gives
local governments the ability to do good things in their
communities related to community and economic development. AML
is supportive of both aspects of the bill:
- the abatement exemption, which AML recognizes increases
property values over time with increased early investment; and
- the blighted properties incentive program.
MR. ANDREASSEN commented on the blighted properties portion of
SB 77. He said blighted properties produce property tax
collections by devaluing neighboring properties. "Blight tax" is
shorthand for a tax incentive program that encourages community
redevelopment. It is not currently an option for municipalities
as no provisions in Alaska Statutes allow it. This legislation
aims to allow municipalities to levy an additional property tax
on blighted properties. He said that the bill helps communities
by encouraging property owners to redevelop their properties or
sell them to new owners who will. SB 77 enables vacant or
underutilized properties to be used for more productive purposes
and, ultimately, increases the value of the property and
surrounding properties with positive effects that reverberate
throughout the community. He said AML looks forward to
contributing its perspective throughout the legislative process
and supports SB 77 as currently drafted.
1:56:51 PM
SENATOR OLSON asked how much SB 77 will affect communities other
than Anchorage.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that this bill focuses on communities
with a property tax. It is self-limiting to some extent because
most local governments have a sales tax instead of a property
tax. More populated communities use property tax as the revenue
base, so SB 77 could benefit the majority of Alaskans in some
way. However, in terms of the total number of communities, the
bill affects a smaller footprint.
SENATOR OLSON sought verification that the bill applies mainly
to first-class cities.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that it is not necessarily attributable
to class, but yes, home rule, first-class, and unified are the
main local governments with property taxes. He commented that he
could not think of any second-class cities with property taxes.
CHAIR DUNBAR thanked Mr. Andreassen for his testimony and
permitted him to clarify a statement.
MR. ANDREASSEN clarified that second-class boroughs have a
property tax, but second-class cities do not have a property
tax.
1:59:00 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR opened public testimony on SB 77.
1:59:34 PM
CHRIS SCHUTTE, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
he is a private economic and development consultant based in
Anchorage, testifying in support of SB 77. The bill makes
critical statutory changes that empower local jurisdictions to
encourage new jobs, new local taxes, and long-term economic
benefits for their communities. He supports the property tax
abatement tools that create incentives and the property tax that
deals with blighted properties.
MR. SCHUTTE discussed the proposed tax abatement changes to AS
29.45.050(m). He explained that before 2017, property tax
abatement tools encouraging economic or community development
were limited and rarely used. Changes to the law improved
incrementally but did not fully achieve their aim. He said SB 77
is the right statutory fix. He thanked the sponsor for the bill.
2:02:38 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR closed public testimony and held SB 77 in
committee.
2:02:50 PM
At ease.
^PRESENTATION(S): HOUSING ALASKANS - A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP
PRESENTATION(S): HOUSING ALASKANS - A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
2:03:27 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR reconvened the meeting and invited Mr. Simmons to
put himself on the record and begin his presentation.
2:04:00 PM
PRESTON SIMMONS, Chair, Housing Alaskans - A Public Private
Partnership (HAPPP), Anchorage, Alaska, presented a slideshow on
housing Alaskans.
MR. SIMMONS reviewed slide 2:
Housing Alaskans: A Public Private Partnership (HAPPP)
• Formed in 2022 with funding from the State of Alaska and
a small grant from the Rasmuson Foundation
• Functions as a Housing Trust
• Does not compete with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
or other housing enterprises
• Works in collaboration with those other funding
sources
• Leverages and combines various funding streams in
order to make it easier for housing projects to
develop adequate capital more quickly and efficiently
• Governed by a Board of Directors from throughout Alaska,
half rural and Alaska Native representation
• Advisory committee of subject matter experts from across
Alaska advise Board of Directors of projects to consider
for funding from applications received
MR. SIMMONS reviewed slide 3, What is a Housing Trust:
• Used in 48 states and many municipalities to create
housing
• Considered a best practice
• Complements existing housing entities
• Leverages federal, state, and municipal resources with
philanthropic contributions
• Incentivize housing developers and providers with
operational and capital funding to help projects cross
the finish line
2:07:30 PM
MR. SIMMONS skipped to slide 5, Alaska Has Some Major Housing
Problems:
Alaska has a housing affordability problem. Every day
Alaskans working full-time are struggling to afford to
live in our State.
Alaska has a housing development problem. Construction
isn't keeping up with demand across large and small
communities, especially for multifamily housing for
working families.
Alaska has an aging housing stock problem. Over half
of the estimated need for housing over the next 10
years is for renovation of existing units, and our
existing stock is a barrier to attracting workers to
our State.
MR. SIMMONS said that new development does not pencil out at
market affordable rates. Alaska has an aging housing stock. A
lot of housing in the state was built in the 70s and 80s and is
reaching 40 and 50 years of age. Over half the estimated need
for housing over the next ten years centers on the
rehabilitation of existing housing. The problem is expected to
worsen.
2:08:28 PM
MR. SIMMONS skipped to slide 8, stating Alaska's minimum wage is
$10.85. The salary needed to afford a one-bedroom unit is $18.66
per hour for one person working 40 hours per week.
MR. SIMMONS advanced to a bar graph on slide 9, Hourly Wage to
Afford Rent in Alaska. He said this slide is a breakdown of the
wages needed to afford a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom unit
correlated with job category and earnings. He noted that the
data is Alaska-based. The bar graph illustrates the type of
housing unit that individuals from each job category can afford.
It shows that many frontline workers cannot afford housing even
at a two-worker level.
2:09:16 PM
MR. SIMMONS advanced to the chart on slide 10 to explain why
analyzing housing needs by income is necessary. It informs
communities about what types of housing to construct and whether
housing is likely to pencil out in the current market. It
informs decisions about whether a policy change or investment is
needed to spur development.
MR. SIMMONS explained that the chart is divided into three
categories and based on a percentage of area median income
(AMI):
- Lower Income Households - Less than 80 percent AMI
$0-64,000 household income
- Middle Income Households - 80 to 120 percent AMI
$64,000-96,000 household income
- Higher Income Households - Greater than 120 percent AMI
$96,000+ household income
MR. SIMMONS said lower AMI households have more resources
available through grants and federal grants. SB 77 tax
incentives would help higher-income earners buy higher-end
housing. He said the state does not have a lot of programmatic
help for middle income households; there are no federal or state
subsidies. Middle income households are an area that may need
more emphasis to improve recruitment and retention of families.
2:10:22 PM
MR. SIMMONS reviewed the chart on slide 11 to describe
affordable home payments for various job categories:
Who We're Talking About
When We Talk About Affordability
Lower Income Households - 30 percent AMI
• Minimum wage $10.85/hr
• Single parent working as a waiter or hairdresser
• Affordable payment: up to $580/mo.
Middle Income Households - 80 to 120 percent AMI
80 PERCENT AMI:
• Single income household: commercial driver
• Double income household: personal care assistant
& a mail clerk
• Affordable payment: up to $1,600/mo.
120 PERCENT AMI:
• Single income household: marketing manager
• Double income household: medical assistant and a
construction worker
• Affordable payment: up to $2,400/mo.
Higher Income Households - 120 to 180 percent AMI
180 PERCENT AMI:
• Single income: Chemical engineer
• Double income: Police officer and wildlife
biologist
• Affordable payment: up to $3,850/mo.
MR. SIMMONS said that he was surprised by the earnings of
middle-income households in the state, stating he expected
middle incomes to be a lot larger. Another interesting fact is
that a multi-unit apartment building project takes about $2,300
per month in rent to pencil out. This rent amount falls between
the middle- and higher-income households, which means any
project built without a subsidy is not affordable for most
Alaskan workers.
2:11:36 PM
MR. SIMMONS read slide 12, emphasizing that working Alaskans
struggle to afford housing in this state. He said this is a
significant problem.
2:11:47 PM
MR. SIMMONS skipped to slide 14, stating that Alaska needs an
estimated 27,500 housing units across the income spectrum over
the next ten years. He broke these housing units into two
categories:
13,500
of these are existing units that need replacement or
renovation due to housing condition.
14,000
new units are needed, due to population growth* and
severe overcrowding.
*This model uses the mid-point of State projections.
Population projections vary greatly across the State,
from a forecasted decrease in Southeast to higher
expected growth in the Mat-Su.
2:12:25 PM
MR. SIMMONS advanced to a map on slide 15, which showed the
breakdown of housing needs by community:
27,500 units are needed (new and rehab) across the
State over the next 10 years. The need varies by
community:
Kotzebue: 150 units
Bethel: 500 units
Kenai Peninsula Borough: 1,500 units
Sitka: 300 units
Mat-Su: 7,000 units
Anchorage: 7,000 units
While the total forecasted need is the same in
Anchorage and the Mat-Su, the housing need looks
different:
Mat-Su: 6,000 new units; 1,000 rehab
Anchorage: 2,300 new units; 4,700 rehab
MR. SIMMONS said that the lack of housing is a statewide
problem; workers are unable to relocate due to the
unavailability of housing.
2:12:57 PM
MR. SIMMONS advanced to slide 16, Breakdown of Total Units (New
and Rehab) Needed by Income. This slide indicates:
- 48 percent of units are needed in the lower-income range;
- 21 percent of units are needed in the middle-income range; and
- 31 percent of units are needed in the higher-income range.
MR. SIMMONS explained why the state should invest in upper-
income housing. Middle- and higher-income wage earners whose
income increases over time should move into more expensive
housing to free up middle- and lower-income housing units. As it
is, higher-income earners stay put because of a lack of upper-
end units. He said the legislature needs to consider this and
understand how housing flow works within the state.
2:14:07 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked if the operational and capital
funding referenced in slide 3 comes from grants or loans.
MR. SIMMONS answered that it could be both. Housing trusts
nationwide use various tools, from direct grants to lower-
interest loans to working on policies and procedures. There are
a variety of methods. The advisory council experts will choose
which tools are best. He expressed his belief that it will not
be any one tool.
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON asked how many members are on the board.
MR. SIMMONS replied that the board has 12 members. He said the
board represents a broad spectrum of Alaskans, such as members
of Alaska Native corporations and developers.
2:15:59 PM
MR. SIMMONS skipped to a chart on slide 19, which indicates
Alaska's housing stock is aging as development has slowed. He
said development is not keeping pace with demand. It is not a
good place to invest, and there has been a precipitous statewide
drop in housing permits in the last few years. For these
reasons, the tax advantages proposed in SB 77 and the
establishment of revenue sources are important.
MR. SIMMONS advanced to the pie chart on slide 20 to discuss
factors that drive housing development costs:
Hard costs, 74 percent
Materials, systems, labor
Financing and operating reserves, 6 percent
Land and acquisition, 12 percent
Soft costs, 8 percent
Design, permitting, entitlement, appraisal, etc.
MR. SIMMONS said that HAPPP has communicated with the Anchorage
Economic Council, the governor, and 15 legislators over the last
few weeks to discuss ideas on lowering costs. HAPPP can help
facilitate these ideas.
2:17:27 PM
MR. SIMMONS advanced to slide 21. A chart on the slide compared
the cost of construction in Anchorage to the Lower 48. The cost
to build in Alaska is generally 25 to over 50 percent higher
than the Lower 48. He summarized the data on slide 21:
Hard Costs Account for 70 Percent Plus of Cost, Are
Often Fixed and Are High in Alaska
Hard costs in Anchorage can be $210+ per sq ft, with
total development cost at $280+ per sq ft for a 35-
unit stick-built rental project with an elevator that
is surface parked. (pre-COVID)
Our Bethel example shows $303 per sq ft for hard
costs, and $360 per sq ft total for a 4 plex that is
wood construction with shared onsite water and sewer.
(pre-COVID; recent numbers show $850/sq ft)
This is compared with $120 per sq ft in hard costs in
the lower 48 for stick built multifamily rental (pre-
COVID)
2:17:54 PM
MR. SIMMONS summarized slide 22, which illustrates the gap
between development costs and rents the housing market can bear.
The slide shows that new housing often does not pencil out.
Development costs run about $2,000 to $3,000 per unit for a
rental project to pencil out, which is substantially higher than
the median $1,500 rent in Bethel, $1,339 in Anchorage, and
$1,279 statewide.
MR. SIMMONS concluded that affordable housing across the income
spectrum is key to a healthy and vibrant Alaska. HAPPP plans to
work alongside others to make a difference in this area. He
thanked committee members for their support.
2:18:44 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL commented that this is a great idea and good
organization. She agreed that the cost of materials is a
deterrent to new housing construction but pointed out that the
state's economic and political instability are also factors. She
explained that in 1986, Alaska was having a boom, and people
were building everywhere. The market changed when the oil market
crashed. People threw their keys in their homes and walked away
from their mortgages. Alaska had a lot of buildings. This is the
type of economy Alaska has, and it contributes to the state's
housing challenges. She applauded the efforts of HAPPP and looks
forward to seeing the group's impact on Alaska.
MR. SIMMONS thanked her and said that it is by working together
that Alaska will get this solved.
2:19:49 PM
CHAIR DUNBAR asked Mr. Simmons to expound on funding for the
housing trust, how much funding exists, and how much might be
needed to make it sustainable.
MR. SIMMONS replied that HAPPP received a $1 million legislative
appropriation in 2022 and a small grant. HAPPP requested $50
million from the governor and will do a like ask from the
federal government. The idea is to spend those dollars on
projects as quickly as possible.
MR. SIMMONS said a sustainable funding source is needed. He
suggested a revenue supplement derived from short-term rentals.
He explained that a lot of affordable housing inventory has been
turned over to short-term rentals in tourist communities. He
said the state can impose a fee or tax on those short-term
rentals, which would be paid outside of Alaska. He said it is
important to have a sustainable funding source that is not
subject to appropriation changes from year to year. A short-term
rental tax is just one idea of many.
MR. SIMMONS said that Alaska needs housing for workers
considering the infrastructure bill, the Willow Project, other
economic development projects, and the rise in tourism. These
will be multi-year projects, as will the rural housing rehab
projects.
2:21:37 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON commented that Anchorage is a little more
than 1900 square miles, and most of it is trees. She advised
that HAPPP keep in mind that some organizations love trees and
to plan accordingly.
MR. SIMMONS thanked Senator Gray-Jackson for that comment,
stating that a previous presenter suggested building vertical
for higher-density construction. He replied that he was aware of
this issue.
2:22:44 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN wondered if HAPPP has developed a strategic
plan that identifies choke points and how to alleviate them for
housing opportunities.
MR. SIMMONS replied that HAPPP is relatively new and the board
was just set up. The board is in the process of deciding where
it will focus its projects. The board and advisory council
members represent a broad cross-section of Alaska. He said that
the organization would address those choke points.
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked for some examples of choke points that
HAPPP has identified.
MR. SIMMONS answered that HAPPP is in the process of figuring
that out.
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if HAPPP is interested in incentivizing
developers by providing access to land or if the focus is
primarily on building actual housing units.
MR. SIMMONS replied that HAPPP would look at any opportunities.
He said HAPPP would consider facilitating that process through
grants or in partnership with other housing authorities.
2:25:42 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN commented that connecting utility structures
and roads to isolated land could eliminate a lot of choke points
and open up land opportunities for construction.
2:27:00 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Dunbar adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 2:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1. SB 77 - Sponsor Statement vers. A.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2023 8:00:00 AM SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 77 |
| 2. SB 77 vers. A.PDF |
HCRA 4/13/2023 8:00:00 AM SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 77 |
| 3. SB 77 - Sectional Analysis vers. A.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2023 8:00:00 AM SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 77 |
| 4. SB 77 - LOS through 3.14.2023.pdf |
SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 77 |
| 5. SB 77 - Supporting Doc.; Agnew Beck Memo.pdf |
HCRA 4/13/2023 8:00:00 AM SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 77 |
| 6. SB 77 - FN; DCCED-DCRA.pdf |
SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 77 |
| Housing Alaskans Presentation, SCRA, 3.16.2023 - PDF.pdf |
SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Alaskas Housing Challenges - HAPP, 3.16.23.pdf |
SCRA 3/16/2023 1:30:00 PM |