Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2016 08:30 AM 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 | |
| HB259 | |
| HB188 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 259 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 259
"An Act relating to relocation assistance for
federally assisted projects and programs; and
providing for an effective date."
8:50:17 AM
MARK LUIKEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES, explained that the purpose of the bill
was to bring Alaska statutes into compliance with federal
law. He continued that when right-of-ways were acquired for
public transportation purposes federal law required the
department to compensate property owners for the value of
the property and to provide relocation benefits to
displaced families, businesses, and farms. Under the
federal initiative known as MAP 21 [Moving Ahead for
Progress], the previous federal transportation bill passed
in 2012, the state's funding partners had made it easier to
qualify and increase the maximum relocation assistance
available to the affected parties. Benefits paid to Alaska
families and businesses related to the program were
eligible for federal reimbursement. He thanked the
committee for hearing the bill and considering its passage.
He was happy to respond to any questions.
Co-Chair Neuman asked why the state needed the bill since
the state could already accept federal funds without
legislative approval.
8:51:53 AM
HEATHER FAIR, RIGHT-OF-WAY CHIEF, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, asked Co-Chair Neuman
to elaborate on his question.
Co-Chair Neuman restated his question. Ms. Fair confirmed
that the state already had authorization to accept federal
funding. However, the current statutes limited- the
department's ability to pay the funding to families, farms,
and businesses. There was a statutory limit that did not
currently comply with the new federal maximums. The bill
would bring the state into compliance with the new federal
maximums.
8:52:56 AM
Co-Chair Neuman asked Ms. Fair to explain further. He had
worked with the commissioner on expansions within the
state. He asked her to provide sideboards including the
previous limit and the current limit. Ms. Fair explained
that the limits had been raised under the MAP 21 bill for
federal highways. Under previous legislation by congress,
business reestablishment payments were only limited to
$10,000. They were now $20,000 under federal limits. Fixed
payments in lieu of actually moving and reestablishment
used to be only $20,000 and was now $40,000. The perimeters
around replacement housing for home owners used to include
having to live in your home 180 days and now was only 90
days. The limit used to be $22,500 and now it was $31,000.
The final increase was replacement housing for tenants that
were not owners. She explained that being a 90 day tenant
used to be $5250 and was now $7200.
8:54:18 AM
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that the state was required to
assist people that had been displaced because of eminent
domain. Commissioner Luiken responded in the affirmative.
He emphasized that it was purely the relocation assistance
piece of the process - to help people when they were
moving.
8:54:53 AM
Representative Wilson asked if it was all federal funding
or if there was state funding as well. Ms. Fair responded
that there was a portion of state funding that could be
applicable. The state's share was roughly 9 percent. It was
a small amount relative to the total cost of relocation.
The federal government's share was about 91 percent.
8:55:34 AM
Representative Wilson asked her for the definition of
"reasonable" noted in the language of the bill. Ms. Fair
replied that there were definitions in the federal
regulations to which they were being referred to in the
bill under Section 1.
8:55:59 AM
Representative Munoz asked how the department dealt with
businesses that had a loss of business due to a
transportation project. She wondered if there was a
reimbursement policy to deal with the issue. Ms. Fair
reported that the state did not compensate for business
losses, but it did compensate for relocation and for
reestablishment of a business under federal law.
Representative Kawasaki asked if similar legislation in
other states had eased eminent domain takings. He asked if
that was the purpose of the legislation.
Ms. Fair stated that it was specific to relocations apart
from the acquisitions. In general, congress' purpose was to
help assist families for relocation and businesses for
reestablishment. Any type of relocation could be disruptive
and congress recognized that prices had gone up, costs to
relocate had increased, and it was time to adjust the
amounts available to eligible parties.
Representative Kawasaki suggested that it was a substantive
policy call when discussing eminent domain and federal road
projects which he wanted the committee to be aware of.
8:57:56 AM
Representative Guttenberg relayed being involved with a
project in his district. The right-of-way had been on
private property. The department had been willing to move a
building or a septic system. He asked if there was an
example of a building needing to be moved or a similar
situation. He wondered about the qualifications. Ms. Fair
replied that the bill assisted with some qualifications
which allowed an easier pathway by reducing the number of
days that a person had to be a homeowner or tenant from 180
to 90 days. As far as relocating a building or a septic
system, that fell under the category of acquisition which
the bill did not address. Relocation meant moving to
another site.
8:59:52 AM
Representative Gattis asked about farms. She wondered why
farms were mentioned independent of businesses. She asked
about the distinction for farming.
Ms. Fair suggested that in federal law there was a
distinction for farming. The law was referred to in the new
legislation. She admitted that she was also a fellow
farmer.
Representative Gattis thought it was important to recognize
issues that accompanied a right-of-way on a farm. It was
possible that with a right-of-way farming could potentially
not be possible on either side or crossing could be
impeded. There had been certain situations that came up
around these issues. She wondered if such issues were the
reason for farming having a distinction over other
businesses.
Ms. Fair stated that the federal government made the
distinction because of the reasons Representative Gattis
had brought up. The bill did not address the specific
issues mentioned, only the relocation of a farm, for
example.
9:01:35 AM
Representative Gattis thought it was a lengthier
conversation. She suggested that some of the same issues
could apply to any business.
9:02:05 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to know historic numbers of
people that had been displaced by federally assisted
programs and the associated costs.
Ms. Fair stated that the effective date was in October
2014. There was just a hand full of people and businesses
that had increased eligibility. The state's share of the
costs were estimated to be $12,000 in retroactive payments.
Through a design process the state tried to minimize
relocations as best as possible understanding how
disruptive they could be.
9:03:04 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted a firm number.
Ms. Fair stated that there were about a dozen people that
qualified for additional money under the statute since the
effective date.
9:03:35 AM
Representative Kawasaki referenced Section 3 regarding
business and moving expenses but not acquisitions, he
wondered if there had been any relocations resulting from
various right-of-way acquisitions in the Fairbanks area. He
asked if there were examples of a business having to move.
He provided an example of a veterinary clinic on the corner
of a Fairbanks intersection that had to be moved. He
wondered if his example was one where moving expenses were
compensated above the $10,000 cap.
Ms. Fair responded that the veterinarian clinic was an
example where the state assisted in relocation. It was
prior to October 2014. However, it would be an example
where they would be eligible for more in relocation but not
acquisition. Acquisition was always market value or
greater.
9:04:51 AM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
9:05:06 AM
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
9:05:11 AM
AT EASE
9:06:46 AM
RECONVENED
Commissioner Luiken reemphasized that the purpose of the
bill was to bring the state into compliance with federal
law so that the state was able to pay Alaska residents what
they would be due in additional relocation benefits.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 259 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note(s). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 259 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published zero fiscal
note: FN1 (DOT).
9:07:49 AM
AT EASE
9:10:22 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 188 NEW FN DOR T&T 4-6-16.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 188 |
| HB 188 CS WORKDRAFT FIN vG.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2016 8:30:00 AM |
HB 188 |