Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
02/16/2012 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR34 | |
| HB316 | |
| HJR34 | |
| HB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 316-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
1:50:18 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to military
facility zones in the state; relating to the development of
housing in military facility zones; relating to the financing of
projects in military facility zones; and providing for an
effective date."
1:50:33 PM
THOMAS STUDLER, staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska
State Legislature, introduced HB 316 on behalf of Representative
Thompson, sponsor. Mr. Studler said the bill gives statutory
authority to the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
(DMVA) to establish military facility zones within the state.
These zones are designated areas nearby military bases or
facilities where industrial or economic development will
directly enhance the military's ability to fulfill its mission.
Military facility zones are successfully employed in other
states as vehicles to obtain and administer funds for business
development specifically relating to military activities.
Funding for such zones in Alaska may be available from the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), or from federal New
Market Tax Credits. Federal, state, or local public or private
funding sources, credit, or guarantee programs can be made
available directly to municipalities and boroughs that are
working on specifically approved projects within a military
facility zone. Military facility zones create opportunities for
significant benefits to Alaska and to the nation. They will
enhance economic activity near military installations and
thereby facilitate economic growth and development in the state,
especially where local governments are working in close
partnership with their military counterparts. The zones promote
expansion of infrastructure to benefit both military and
civilian objectives, such as civil defense, homeland security,
and emergency response. They will enhance the nation's military
capabilities by helping bases operate more effectively and
efficiently. Finally, military facility zones in Alaska will
clearly demonstrate the state's continuing and substantive
support for the armed services, and help defend against the
negative impacts on Alaska's regional economies and military
communities that might occur should Congress choose to implement
the federal Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC).
1:53:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked for a clear definition of what
constitutes a military facility zone.
[Although not specifically stated, HB 316 was set aside and
taken up later in the meeting.]
HB 316-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON returned the committee's attention to HB 316.
1:56:35 PM
DALE NASH, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Aerospace
Corporation, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA),
informed the committee that Lockheed Martin is the largest
defense contractor in the U.S. and the world. He said HB 316
derived from working closely with Lockheed Martin in order to
improve the state's position with military customers and the
aerospace support industry. Several states have adopted similar
legislation to create economic facility zones in support of
military installations, so the state is in a position to help
facilitate a reduction in costs for the military, thus becoming
more competitive. When states partner with the military and its
industrial base - for example, with Lockheed - costs are kept
down for all. These zones are specific to the military and
should not be confused with other economic development zones.
He said the intent of the bill is to affect the area within a
reasonable driving distance from military installations; for
example, to enable the base to set up low-cost housing without
the burden of a large capital investment. Mr. Nash advised that
most military installations have a large industrial base nearby;
however, Alaska has few aerospace support companies. Nearby
support facilities allow contractors to resupply equipment
without shipping material long distances. He assured the
committee this would help the Kodiak Launch Complex grow in
support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) or the military. This approach can also be an effective
way to address the BRAC process because the military should
focus its concern on ships, planes, and troops, and not on
recreation centers, shopping, and more. Sharing these costs
with the military would help attract military expansion,
including the utilization of space on a base that may now be
idle. Finally, Mr. Nash pointed out that this is enabling
legislation effective statewide for all branches of the
military.
2:03:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked whether there are ways to make the
legislation "pay[ing] attention to exactly what this state is
like." She observed that Alaska has many small communities
spread over vast regions, and the position of the state -
relative to other states and nearby land masses - is critical to
security. She opined Alaska should be strengthening its borders
and "planning ahead" when locating military sites.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON held Representative Cissna's question for
Deputy Commissioner Pierre.
2:06:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether an economic zone or a
military facility zone could be established on a military base
or territory.
MR. NASH explained that other states have established "co-use"
on a base, but he said "I don't think the military base nor the
commander would want to come under the legislation of a military
effectiveness zone;" the intent is for the zone to be close. He
agreed the state has a strategic location, but cautioned that
its location alone will not guarantee Alaska will not turn into
a training outpost with a skeleton crew.
MR. NASH, in response to Representative Cissna, said the Kodiak
Launch Complex is located on Narrow Cape.
2:09:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA observed there are a number of other
places in the state that have a history of military bases.
MR. NASH agreed, but pointed out that HB 316 is trying to focus
on protecting the missions that the state now has. He referred
to the transfer of F-16s from Eielson Air Force Base in
Fairbanks to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage,
saying the focus now is to work with industry in support of a
military installation to bring expansion, or to protect existing
missions. He added that the legislation will allow the state
"to react with the local communities and boroughs ... if
opportunities arise; we do not want to have to wait for another
legislative cycle to begin the process."
2:11:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, co-sponsor of HB 316, had the following
testimony read by Co-Chair Thompson [original punctuation
provided, with some formatting changes]:
To Co-Chair Thompson and Members of the MLV Committee:
Though I can't be there today, I wanted to put on
record my strong support for HB 316, Military
Facilities Zones. I was pleased to work on this
legislation during the interim with Representatives
Thompson and Feige, and to see it come before our
committee. I see HB 316 as an important legislative
tool to strengthen the position of military facilities
in our state.
Alaska has 32 different military installations that
are critical elements in our state economy. There are
more than 24,000 active-duty, Guard and Reserve troops
serving in Alaska, with an annual payroll of more than
$1.5 billion. About 13 percent of the state economy
depends on the military, with the impact being
especially significant near the larger installations.
These bases are a significant part of our nation's
defense structure. They defend the nation's airspace
and outer space; rapidly deploy forces around the
world in times of crisis; support global logistics and
transportation functions; and provide training
opportunities that are unmatched elsewhere in the
world.
We've heard recent news that does not bode well for
Alaska's military bases. We've heard news of nearly
half-trillion dollars in defense budget cuts over the
next 10 years. We've heard of the possible loss of F-
16s from Eielson Air Force Base, and of HC-130s from
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. We've heard that
nearly 270 civilian jobs are being cut from these two
bases. And we've heard the Secretary of Defense raise
the prospect of another round in the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) process that could mean the further
diminution of the military's presence in Alaska.
HB 316 can provide a number of significant benefits to
our state and nation:
· It will provide a mechanism for bringing new
federal and state money to bear on the bases.
· It will help develop infrastructure that can
improve living conditions and economic prospects
for the communities surrounding military
facilities.
· It will help Alaska's bases become more efficient
and better able to effectively perform their
missions, strengthening the case against their
realignment or closure.
· It will provide a mechanism to fund expansion of
existing facilities to embrace new missions.
· It will help protect private - and public-sector
jobs.
· It will provide another positive demonstration of
Alaska's support for the military.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation;
please join me in supporting its passage.
Rep. Dan Saddler, Co-Chair, Military and Veterans
Affairs Committee
2:14:49 PM
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs, addressed questions that had been asked
previously. He clarified that the nearby community will apply
for the zone and will designate the size of the zone - up to an
area of 500 square miles. The area may overlap an existing
military facility, but will not have an impact on existing
businesses or other activities. The legislation enables the
community to develop the area near the military facility in
cooperation with partners such as Lockheed Martin, which are
direct contractors with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).
Other businesses, such as "payday lenders" cannot take advantage
of this legislation. For example, if Fairbanks North Star
Borough created a zone and a company that contracts with DOD
proposes a project in an area near Eielson Air Force Base or
Fort Wainwright, the company could qualify for development
opportunities such as low-interest loans from AHFC or AIDEA.
Mr. Pierre said DMVA feels it is critical to diversify the users
of the military installations in order to offset the high cost
of operating military installations in Alaska, maintain current
missions, expand to new missions, and build the economy.
2:17:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related that some of the residents of
Galena want to use facilities at the closed base for harvesting
willow, and asked whether this legislation would be relevant to
that issue.
2:18:30 PM
MR. PIERRE indicated no. House Bill 316 is relevant only to
existing, active military installations. In further response to
Representative Cissna, he said Fort Greely is a good example of
a community with an existing military infrastructure.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON asked whether the legislation could be
utilized at a new base.
MR. PIERRE said yes.
2:20:28 PM
JEFF TROAN, Vice President, Economic Development, Lockheed
Martin Corporation, said he has worked for Lockheed Martin for
30 years - 15 years in economic development. He generally works
on economic development agreements between Lockheed Martin and
states and localities, which lower the cost of business for his
company so it can pass the savings on to the military. The
zones create an optimum business climate that supports the
military mission and lowers the cost of goods and services
through enhanced relationships. He noted that in other states
the zones follow town planning and are usually out the main gate
of the military base and in the surrounding area where an
industrial park would be. Mr. Troan gave the example of a
military commander who wants to obtain an electronic warfare
mission but who has no facilities. A contractor could create
the infrastructure necessary to do the mission and share the
infrastructure with military personnel. To establish a zone on
the base, "enhanced-use leasing or modified enhanced-use
leasing" legislation is necessary and the base commander
segregates an unused portion of the base, leases it to a private
or public entity, and that area is redeveloped to support new
missions on the base but with private and public capital instead
of military construction funds. This happened at (Indisc.) near
Ogden, Utah.
2:25:09 PM
MR. NASH returned to Representative Cissna's question about
harvesting biofuel at the closed base in Galena. He advised
that the legislation could enable harvesting of biofuel in an
area near an active base.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON gave an example of a private company using a
military facility zone to finance the construction of a gas
pipeline to Eielson Air Force Base.
MR. NASH agreed this would be a "perfect candidate."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA opined the military zones - if they are
long-term - would be beneficial for local jobs.
2:28:05 PM
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER asked whether there are any differences in
law enforcement, fire and rescue, or taxes within the zone, once
the zone is designated.
CO-CHAIR THOMPSON advised the status would not change.
2:29:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 316, Version 27-LS1191\I,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 316 was
reported out of the House Special Committee on Military and
Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1-HJR034A- Bill.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 2- HJR 34 - USCG Icebreakers Arctic Base - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 3- HJR 34 - 12 01 11-LG Treadwell on Icebreakers.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 4- HJR 34 - 2010 USCG Auth Act - AMSA Section.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 5- HJR 34 - ANWTF Recs PP 14-21.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 2- HB 316 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 3-HB316 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 6- HJR 34 - Foreign Minister Amendment.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 4- HB316-Fiscal Note- DCCED-AIDEA-02-10-12.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 7- HJR 34 - Ltr from Lawson Brigham.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 8- HJR 34 Leg Coun-Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM SSTA 3/22/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 34 |
| 5- HB316-Fiscal Note-DMVA-MVA-CO-02-13-12.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 6- HB316-Fiscal Note-DOR-AHFC-02-10-12.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 1- HB0316 ver I- Bill.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| Saddler testimony HB 316.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| 9- CSHJR34 (MLV) ver. M.pdf |
HMLV 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 34 |