Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB129 | |
| HB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2013
9:19 a.m.
9:19:38 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Balash, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources; Doniece Gott, Staff, Senate Finance Committee;
Josh Walton, Staff, Representative Mia Costello; Stacey
Schubert, Director, Governmental Relations and Public
Affairs, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Department of
Revenue;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Becky Cruse, Department of Law, Anchorage;
SUMMARY
HB 50 MULTI-UNIT HOUSING: COMMERCIAL USE
CSHB 50(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1(REV).
HB 76 UNEMPLOYMENT; ELEC. FILING OF LABOR INFO
HB 76 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 129 OIL & GAS EXPLORATION/DEVELOPMENT AREAS
HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 129(FIN)
"An Act relating to approval for oil and gas or gas
only exploration and development in a geographical
area; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the memos from Legislative Legal
and the Department of Law (DOL) responding to questions
previously raised by Senator Hoffman could be found in
member files(copy on file).
9:21:31 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that public testimony was CLOSED.
JOE BALASH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, stated that he had reviewed the legal memo,
written by Don Bullock from Legislative Legal; April 12,
2013. He disagreed that the findings in Section 1 were
unnecessary in regard to the legislation. He stated that
the findings in Section 1, and the substantive portion in
Section 2, would be a useful tool for Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) as it implemented the department's
obligations to review and approve additional steps of
exploration and development after the leasing stage. He
shared that when the REDOIL decision was handed down,
issues were raised that the department believed should be
addressed by the legislature, and that the bill was the
proper vehicle to do so. He offered that Section 1 provided
a way for the legislature to guide the department in how to
implement the findings of the REDOIL decision. He
understood that the DOL had filed a request for
reconsideration with the court, but there was no guarantee
that further clarification on some of the questions raised
by the conclusions. He shared that in the days after the
decision, DNR had received an appeal on a plan of
operations that cited the court case. He noted for the
committee that the Supreme Court decision had opened up
uncertainties that DNR hoped the legislature could speak
to.
9:25:54 AM
Senator Hoffman inquired if language could be written that
would make Section 2 clearer.
Mr. Balash responded that DNR was satisfied with the
language in the section. He wondered which part needed
clarification.
9:26:23 AM
Senator Hoffman asked whether Section 2 was written as
clear as it could be written.
Mr. Balash reiterated that the department was satisfied
with Section 2.
Senator Hoffman directed the committee to Page 2 of the
legal memo:
In conclusion, the findings in sec. 1 may be
unnecessary. If the language in the substantive law is
clear, the findings are unnecessary. The language in
the proposed amendment seems to be consistent with the
court's finding of a constitutional requirement to
consider cumulative impacts in all phases of a
project.
Senator Hoffman contended that the memo clearly stated that
the findings were unnecessary.
Mr. Balash explained that Section 2 was stand alone and had
not been driven by the REDOIL decision; however Section 1
was in response to the decision. He added that the findings
and the substantive sections were not linked, as was
generally the case. He stressed that the department wanted
to use the bill to define the parameters in which the
REDOIL decision would be implemented by the department.
9:28:20 AM
Senator Hoffman understood that the department would follow
the legal counsel of DOL and that the legislature would
follow the counsel of Legislative Legal. He pointed to the
last sentence of the second paragraph of the memo:
However, I suggest omitting the findings from the bill
under the guidance of the Manual of Legislative
Drafting.
The Manual of Legislative Drafting addresses
legislative findings at pages 14 - 15:
Although legislative findings relevant to the
need for a bill are presumably contained in the
record of committee hearings and debate on the
bill, there are some instances in which the
findings are deemed necessary and should be set
out in the bill and enacted as a part of the
bill. This may be particularly true if the bill
proposes to enact law that is likely to be
challenged on constitutional grounds. The
findings enacted as a part of that law may
provide justification for upholding the validity
of the law. The drafter should work closely with
the requester to ensure that the legislative
history of the bill, particularly the record of
the committee hearings, provides a basis for the
findings. In cases where the findings are not
necessary for placement in the bill text, the
drafter should work closely with the requestor to
prepare intent text that can be specifically
entered into the legislative history of the bill,
particularly the record of the committee
hearings.
Senator Hoffman offered that his first choice would be to
eliminate the findings and his second would be to consider
the amendment offered during public testimony from attorney
Lisa Weissler (copy on file).
9:29:57 AM
AT EASE
9:33:35 AM
RECONVENED
9:34:15 AM
BECKY CRUSE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), solicited questions from the committee.
9:34:46 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough explained that the committee was
considering two competing legal opinions on the topic of
including legislative intent in HB 129. She asked whether
the administration recommended that the findings remain in
the bill.
9:36:34 AM
Senator Hoffman restated his question whether the
substantive law in Section 2 was written clearly enough for
the findings to be removed from Section 1.
Ms. Cruse expressed confusion with the committee's
questioning.
9:37:56 AM
Mr. Balash interjected that, typically, the findings were
directly connected to the substantive law in the later
sections of the legislation. He reiterated that in the case
of HB 129, they were not. He furthered that the substantive
section of the bill stood independently and had been
requested prior to the REDOIL decision. He stated that the
bill provided a convenient mechanism for the legislature to
address how DNR should implement the courts findings. He
restated that the uncodified law in Section 1 was distinct
from the substantive action being taken in Section 2. He
furthered that ordinarily findings would accompany
substantive law, but not in the case of HB 129.
9:39:39 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that the administration was
trying to lay out, for future court action that the
legislature agreed with the legislative findings that
supported the implementation of Section 2 when talking
about Alaska's maximum use, consistent with the public
interest. She offered that the legislative findings sent a
message from the legislature to the courts.
Mr. Balash replied that the voice of the legislature was
embodied in Section 1. He acknowledged that the department
would be undergoing a regulation process associated with
Section 2, and that the decisions would be consistent with
the legislative findings in Section 1.
9:41:59 AM
Senator Hoffman reiterated that the department could
clarify the language in Section 2. He stressed that the
argument could be made that the language in Section 2 was
not clear.
9:43:18 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough agreed that if Section 2 could stand
alone, then it should. She countered that the court
continued to argue with the legislature's authority to
determine what the maximum benefit for the people of Alaska
was. She thought that the question remained whether to go
with the court or follow the findings of Legislative Legal.
9:45:41 AM
Senator Hoffman understood that Legislative Legal and DOL
were at odds concerning the question. He said that if the
committee wanted to ignore the recommendation of
Legislative Legal then the responsibility for any
consequences rested with the legislature.
9:46:49 AM
AT EASE
9:48:53 AM
RECONVENED
HB 129 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:49:27 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried whether the April 12, 2013
legal memo from Donald Bullock, Legislative Counsel,
Division of Legal and Research Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency was in member files and available to the
public.
DONIECE GOTT, STAFF, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, replied in
the affirmative.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 50(FIN)
"An Act authorizing the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation to allow certain commercial uses in a
multi-unit residential housing development owned or
financed by the corporation and limiting the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board's issuance of certain licenses
to premises in the residential housing development."
9:50:49 AM
JOSH WALTON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIA COSTELLO, introduced
HB 50. He stated that the bill spoke to the national trend
towards multi-use, multi-unit residential housing. He
related that the bill would give the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC) the ability to participate in financing
and owning properties that had an authorized commercial use
space connected to the multi-use property. This would give
AHFC the ability to participate in the residential real
estate market and expanded opportunity for commercial real
estate. He relayed that because the mandate for AHFC was
residential housing, several sideboards had been
incorporated into the legislation in an attempt to keep the
focus on the residential market. He explained that
particular types of businesses would be excluded per the
sideboards: adult entertainment establishments, liquor
stores, bars, substance abuse treatment centers, and
businesses selling primarily cigarette and tobacco
products. He specified that not all establishments with
licenses to serve alcohol would be prohibited; restaurants,
for example, would be allowed.
9:54:44 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered if the legislation stemmed from
AHFC wanting to incorporate businesses into and already
planned housing development.
Mr. Walton referred questions about specific projects to
AHFC.
9:55:25 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if AHFC was attempting to
purchase Inlet Towers, which had a restaurant on the first
floor of the building, for affordable housing.
Mr. Walton understood that that was correct.
9:56:21 AM
STACEY SCHUBERT, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, commented that the bill was the most
important piece of legislation to the corporation this
session. She stated that as an independent state agency.
AHFC had worked with the private sector to lead the way in
quality construction, including energy efficiency and
providing home mortgage loans to qualified Alaskan's. She
relayed that the bill would allow AHFC to proceed with
commercial space and that there were existing in-state
interest in AHFC financing commercial/residential projects.
She responded to the question about Inlet Towers. She said
that AHFC had already financed the project. She explained
that there was a restaurant on the ground floor with market
rate apartments above. She shared that questions about
whether the property was operating within the terms of the
loan agreement had arisen and were being investigated. She
urged committee support for the legislation.
9:58:34 AM
Senator Dunleavy understood that under the legislation AHFC
could establish different project models in the future that
would be specific to the needs of building residents.
Ms. Schubert replied in the affirmative.
9:59:18 AM
Co-Chair Meyer queried whether the legislation was in
compliance with Title 21.
Ms. Schubert replied no, she added that AHFC worked very
closely with community on land use issues.
9:59:42 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the federal loan
guarantee had any stipulations concerning the proximity of
the sale of alcohol.
Ms. Schubert responded that the intent of the corporation
was to have developers request money directly from AHFC,
any concerns about the restriction of federal funds based
on the projects merits would be discussed.
10:01:33 AM
Senator Hoffman noted that the sponsor statement spoke to
addressing affordable housing and the statewide housing
shortage. He wondered what the interest rates under the
legislation were when compared to existing rates that could
be refinanced.
Ms. Schubert responded that the interest rates on multi-
family projects were established weekly by the corporation.
She stated that the taxable loan amount for over $1 million
the current week was 6.375 percent. She said that the
advantage to a developer who may want to refinance with
AHFC was that the projects no longer had to pencil out
independently.
10:03:38 AM
Co-Chair Meyer OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:04:14 AM
Senator Dunleavy noted that there were certain parts of the
state where land was expensive and that the legislation
could be useful in using a single building for multiple
uses, therefore reducing cost for all parties involved.
10:04:47 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT HB 50 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 50(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1(REV).
10:05:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 a.m.