Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/06/2018 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB155 | |
| HB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | 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."
10:05:57 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed attention to HB 131.
LAURA STIDOLPH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, stated
that Representative Wool was currently unavailable, and she
was working on behalf of the House Transportation
Committee.
Ms. Stidolph addressed the Sponsor Statement (copy on
file):
House Bill 131 would allow an increase of the maximum
relocation benefits available to a person or a
business displaced by federally-funded highway,
bridge, or facilities project. In 2012, Congress
relaxed the eligibility criteria and increased the
maximum reimbursement limits for states' 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 hadn't 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.
HB131 will also protect Alaska's approximately $700
million annual allocation of Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Aviation Administration
funding by bringing the State into compliance.
Having an equivalent state statute is one of the
requirements for a state to receive a delegated
authority to independently administer the federal
program. Additionally, being out of compliance, even
for a short period of time, jeopardizes our
relationship with our funding partners, putting our
entire program at risk.
Further, the bill would provide that a displaced
person or business in the state would be retroactively
eligible for an increased federal maximum benefit for
relocation expenses incurred after October 1, 2014.
10:09:06 AM
Ms. Stidolph discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on
file):
Section 1 amends AS 34.60.010 to clarify
applicability and intent, adopting and incorporating
by referencing the corresponding federal law's payment
amounts available to displaced persons. Clarifies that
federally assisted programs subject to relocation
assistance and real property acquisition practices
includes public construction and improvement projects.
Section 2 repeals and reenacts AS 34.60.040(c) to
clarify eligibility for displacement payments in
accordance with corresponding federal law, mirror
federal language, and increase the maximum fixed
payment in lieu of itemized reimbursements from
$20,000 to $40,000 for displaced parties.
Section 3 amends AS 34.60.040(d) payment amount in
accordance with corresponding federal law.
Section 4 amends AS 34.60.050(a) payment amount and
dwelling owned/occupied period for eligibility in
accordance with corresponding federal law.
Section 5 - amends AS 34.60.060 payment amounts in
accordance with corresponding federal law.
Section 6 amends uncodified law to establish
retroactive effective date of law to
October 1, 2014 in accordance with corresponding
federal law.
Section 7 provides for an immediate effective date.
10:10:32 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the administration was
supportive of the bill.
HEATHER FAIR, STATEWIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY CHIEF, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION and PUBLIC FACILITIES, JUNEAU, answered in
the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Bishop wondered whether the bill could lead to
increased payments to affected parties along the right-of-
way, from an acquisition standpoint.
Ms. Fair replied that it could lead to increased payments
to affected parties. She stated that the intent was to
bring the federal regulations into the present-day costs to
relocate a family. She remarked that the state match was
very small, and would come out of the appropriation. The
state match appropriation was approximately 10 percent of
the total federal appropriation, and was included in the
department's capital budget.
Senator von Imhof stressed that relocating was different
than compensating market value for the land loss.
Ms. Fair answered in the affirmative, and noted that market
value minimum was first paid for the acquisition of the
property for a project. Additionally, relocation assistance
was paid where applicable.
Senator von Imhof recalled that there was previously a
$20,000 maximum to relocate a farm, business, or family.
That number would be changed to $40,000, which was the
federal government's maximum.
Ms. Fair stated that there were different numbers available
for families versus businesses and farms. She agreed that
the numbers had increased, and in some cases the numbers
had been doubled.
Senator Micciche asked if the numbers provided were for
non-residential properties.
Ms. Fair agreed. She noted that the federal government had
not increased those amounts in over thirty years.
Senator Micciche queried the process of determining the
escalation number.
Ms. Fair replied that they used historical data of actual
relocations. She remarked that the numbers were still set
based on actual expenses.
10:15:25 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the fiscal note did not
reflect cost to the state, although the bill had
retroactive costs dating to 2014. She queried the
accumulated additional GF spend or federal spend would be
on those retroactive costs. She stressed that the date was
used, because that was the point of authorization.
Ms. Fair affirmed that the date was based on the
authorization from the federal government under the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP 21) Act. She
remarked that the federal regulations were not yet
finalized and updated, so those would have the retroactive
number. She noted that there were no estimated retroactive
payments owed for past payments. She stated that there was
only a small amount estimated for the upcoming four years.
Co-Chair MacKinnon estimated that there would be $100,000
given to property owners along rights-of-way.
Mr. Fair answered in the affirmative, and the number was
federal funds.
Senator von Imhof asked how the option would be
communicated to alert those that were affected since 2014.
Ms. Fair replied that the option was already communicated.
She stated that in order to exceed state maximums, there
was a complex progress process called the Housing of Last
Resort, with participation from the federal government.
Senator von Imhof wondered there were individuals who felt
they were uncompensated in 2016, and whether they would
know that the option was available.
Ms. Fair stated that there were no affected parties that
would qualify, because there were very few relocations.
Senator von Imhof surmised that the lookback was
immaterial, because there were no affected parties.
Ms. Fair replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Bishop addressed the fiscal note.
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that that the estimates would
be absorbed in the State Transportation Improvement Plan
(STIP).
Senator Micciche understood that there was estimate on
future costs in the upcoming four years in STIP.
Ms. Fair answered in the affirmative.
10:21:00 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed out that a similar bill had been
considered by the committee in a previous legislature. She
felt that it was troublesome to link with a federal
statute, because there was little control over what the
federal government would communicate.
Ms. Fair acknowledged Co-Chair MacKinnon's concern about
the link to the federal regulation. She noted that the
state was buffered from the risk, because of the large
federal percentage. She felt that it allowed for
flexibility in prioritizing projects.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there could be a fixed
number as opposed to an open statutory amount.
Ms. Fair replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon highlighted committee business.
HB 131 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB131 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 131 |
| HB131 Sponsor Statement .pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 131 |
| HB131 Supporting Documents-Rellocation Assistance Program Q&A.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
HB 131 |
| SB 155 CS v. D Explanation.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 155 |
| SB 155 CS work draft version D.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 155 |
| SB 155 Sectional Version D.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 155 |
| SB 155 AK Board AMC extension request - Bulletin 2017-02 Extension of Implementation Period.pdf |
SFIN 3/6/2018 9:00:00 AM |
SB 155 |