Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/06/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB47 | |
| HB131 | |
| HB127 | |
| HB141 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 141 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to relocation assistance for
federally assisted public construction and improvement
projects and programs; and providing for an effective
date."
2:13:17 PM
LAURA STIDOLPH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, read from
a prepared statement:
In front of you is House Bill 131 "Federal Relocation
Assistance Programs/Projects" which will bring Alaska
into compliance with Federal law concerning
reimbursement for relocation expenses incurred by
individuals or businesses that were displaced due to a
federally-funded highway, bridge, or facilities
project. Alaskans deserve to be fairly compensated in
these circumstances. HB131 will also protect Alaska's
500+ million dollar annual allocation of Federal
Highway Administration funding by bringing the state
into compliance.
In 2012, Congress relaxed the eligibility criteria and
increased the maximum reimbursement limits for State's
relocation assistance payment programs when they
passed their transportation authorization and funding
bill, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act, aka MAP-21. Prior to MAP-21, the payment
rates had not been changed for 30 years.
These changes went into effect October 1, 2014.
Unfortunately, Alaska Statute continues to reflect the
more stringent eligibility criteria and the smaller
maximum reimbursement limits.
th
During the second half of the 29 Alaska Legislature,
this inconsistency between state and federal law was
nearly fixed. Language similar to HB 131 was proposed
and passed the House unanimously. It passed through
the Senate State Affairs and Senate Finance. However,
the bill was held in Senate Rules and never calendared
for a Senate floor vote.
HB 131 assures Alaskans that their Legislature wants
them to be compensated the same as a resident of any
other state.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill on
behalf of the House Transportation Committee. Heather
Fair, the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities' Statewide Right-of-Way Chief, is here to
answer any questions you may have.
· Property acquisition and therefore the
subsequent displacement of individuals and
relocation of their homes/businesses is the
exception, not the norm. Our engineers work
hard to design projects in a manner such that
we do not encroach upon private property.
· Relocation assistance payments are
reimbursements for actual, documented
relocation expenditures. If a party does not
have the means to relocate themselves up front,
there is a hardship program that will help with
the cost.
· The new payment amounts created in federal law
are maximums;
· The payments we do make are a mix of
approximately 91% federal funding and 9% state
funding.
2:15:42 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether the federal government
also compensated for the lost property. Ms. Stidolph
indicated that the bill only dealt with relocation costs.
Representative Wilson asked whether the federal government
addressed property loss under another component of the
program. Ms. Stidolph deferred to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) for the answer.
2:17:02 PM
HEATHER FAIR, CHIEF OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, asked for clarification of the question.
Representative Wilson asked whether the federal government
had a program that paid fair market value for displaced
property owners. Ms. Fair answered in the affirmative. She
indicated that the federal government placed the guidelines
in the "Uniform Act." She noted that MAP-21 updated the
Uniform Act specific to relocation. The department met
federal requirements via state statute to compensate for
acquisition of property separate from relocation.
Representative Wilson asked whether the state was currently
in compliance with federal acquisition regulations. Ms.
Fair responded in the affirmative.
2:18:21 PM
Vice-Chair Gara commented that the cost of the relocation
compensation was absorbed when the legislature funded
capital projects. He asked whether the higher compensation
rate warranted an indeterminate fiscal note. Ms. Fair
replied that the state contributed roughly 9 percent to the
federal government's 91 percent contribution on federal
projects. She shared that the department tried to minimize
impacts on Alaskan families, businesses, and farms when
designing projects. The department had run some numbers on
known projects and determined that the state's share
equaled about $12 thousand.
Representative Pruitt noticed that the fiscal note was
retroactive to 2014. He wondered about the fiscal aspect of
the retroactivity. Ms. Fair answered that the state's
contribution was less than a "few thousand dollars" in
retroactive payments. She was uncertain whether the state
had paid the recipients or if the money was set aside.
Since the state was currently out of compliance with MAP-
21, the state was not able to make the payments and comply
with state law at the same time.
Representative Ortiz wondered to what extent the
legislation remedied a potential problem in the future. He
asked whether a significant amount of people in the past
had access to relocation benefits. Ms. Fair responded that
the bill affected less than 12 people.
Vice-Chair Gara asked whether the bill increased the number
of people eligible for compensation. Ms. Fair responded
that the legislation increased eligibility because the
federal government "relaxed" the requirements. However,
currently the eligibility in Alaska did not increase.
2:22:09 PM
Representative Wilson surmised that the state would owe
more money for the retroactive payments, even if the amount
was small. Ms. Fair responded that she was correct.
However, she reiterated that she was uncertain whether the
retroactive payments were made because, so few people were
affected.
Representative Kawasaki wanted to challenge the zero fiscal
note. He referred to the document in the members files
titled "DOT&PF's Proposed Bill for Relocation Assistance
Program Compliance" (copy on file). He mentioned several of
the increases listed in the document that included:
Increases maximum reestablishment expense payment
from $10,000 to $25,000
Increases maximum amount of the fixed payment for
nonresidential moves from $20,000 to $40,000
Increases maximum purchase price differential for
homeowners from $22,500 to $31,000
Representative Kawasaki thought that the increases "seemed
like a lot." He recognized that the state's share was
roughly 9 percent but thought the amount could add up for
future projects. He asked her to speak to the potential
cost increases of projects in the future. He thought
recipients would request the highest level of
reimbursement. Ms. Fair responded that the reimbursements
were based on actual expenses. She agreed that if a project
DOT was unable to redesign had high impacts, it was
possible that the state's 9 percent share could be costly.
She determined that it was impossible to know regarding
projects that were 3 to 5 years away from construction. She
stressed that the department always endeavored to minimize
impacts.
2:24:49 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster requested that amendments be submitted by
Monday at 5:00 pm.
HB 131 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.