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.