Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/04/2025 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Village Public Safety Officers and Department Engagement with Communities | |
| SB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | SB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 50-MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: HOUSING
2:10:25 PM
CHAIR MERRICK reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 50 "An Act relating to the
comprehensive plans of first and second class boroughs."
2:10:43 PM
SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, District J, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, speaking as sponsor of SB 50, introduced
himself.
2:10:46 PM
HAHLEN BEHNKEN, Intern, Senator Forrest Dunbar, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, introduced himself.
2:10:53 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR spoke to the motivation behind SB 50, noting the
ongoing housing crisis in Alaska and the shortage of housing
construction. He said housing has become prohibitively expensive
in Anchorage and across the state. While there is no single
solution, SB 50 is intended as a positive step toward increasing
housing supply.
SENATOR DUNBAR stated that SB 50 amends AS 29.40.030(a), which
outlines elements for comprehensive plans in first and second
class boroughs and home rule municipalities. Current law lists
four elements: a statement of policies, goals, and standards; a
land use plan; a community facilities plan; and a transportation
plan. SB 50 adds a housing plan to the list. He said SB 50 would
not place current plans out of compliance or require communities
to affirmatively change their plans. The idea is that the next
time a community submits a comprehensive plan, it will include
the housing element. He noted that the Alaska Municipal League
(AML) does not oppose the bill.
2:12:57 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR referred to Section 1, page 1, lines 67, noting
that Legislative Legal Services deleted the phrase ", BUT IS NOT
LIMITED TO," because it was superfluous; in other words, "may
include" has the same effect as the deleted phrase. He said two
organizations, including AML, expressed concern that the deleted
phrase could be misinterpreted as a limitation. He stated that
he will seek to restore the language in a committee substitute
to ensure clarity.
2:14:11 PM
CHAIR MERRICK asked how often comprehensive plans are updated.
SENATOR DUNBAR responded that he did know and deferred to an
invited testifier, Ms. Brawley, who is a planner by trade.
2:14:35 PM
MR. BEHNKEN presented the following sectional analysis for
SB 50:
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
SB 50: MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: HOUSING
Section 1. AS 29.40.030(a): Adds a new subsection 5 to
AS 29.40.030(a) stating that a housing plan will now
be one of the components that may be included in a
comprehensive plan. It redesignates the former
subsection 5 as subsection 6. Removes redundant
language on line 6.
2:15:00 PM
CHAIR MERRICK announced invited testimony on SB 50.
2:15:19 PM
ANNA BRAWLEY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified by
invitation in support of SB 50. She said she is a member of the
Anchorage Assembly, but for purposes of this testimony is
speaking in a role related to housing policy and as a planning
professional. She gave the following testimony, as paraphrased:
I support Senate Bill 50 because it connects two
important roles for local government: taking action on
community needs, like housing, and engaging with the
community to create a vision and set clear goals to
achieve that vision. That is the essence of planning.
There is already a process in place in our statutes
for this function, it is known as a comprehensive
plan. Comprehensive plans are intended to be big-
picture, wide-ranging plans that cover a number of
topics. They give a 20-year roadmap for communities to
implement. They are both a process and a product, and
when done well, they build community consensus for who
they want to be, with practical strategies to get
there.
2:16:23 PM
MS. BRAWLEY continued her testimony on SB 50:
I will briefly answer a previously posed question
about updating a community plan. In statute, the cycle
of updating a community plan is about 20 years. Of
course, that is sometimes aspirational. For example,
my friends in Girdwood have been working to update
their plan, which was adopted in 1995. Now, in 2025,
the update is still in progress, not for lack of
trying. Sometimes it takes a while to get committee
consensus.
Planners can easily list off the big topics that are
in a typical comprehensive plan: land use,
transportation, infrastructure, economic development,
public lands and facilities, and other issues.
However, it is sometimes hard to see where housing, as
an issue, fits in. Is it a land use issue? An
infrastructure issue? A workforce issue? Often, it's
all of the above. It intersects with many topics, but
it is also a distinct and different topic on its own.
Given the challenges we face today across the state,
it deserves local attention and local solutions.
2:17:21 PM
MS. BRAWLEY continued her testimony on SB 50:
In my experience as a planning consultant, communities
updating their comprehensive plans should engage
residents to set direction, and manage pressing issues
and competing priorities. It is hard to give every
topic the attention it deserves. Elevating housing is
an important topic, distinct from these other topics.
It encourages communities to make housing a local
planning priority. Some communities have updated their
plans recently and taken on housing. One example is my
former client, the City of Valdez. Valdez engaged in a
comprehensive plan update that identified housing as a
top priority. The city used current data to inform
their next steps and their plans, and built community
support for those plans. I was not involved in
creating their plan. However, I was proud to help
support an implementation project and public process
for that key priority to update the city's zoning code
to help meet future housing demand. We should commend
communities like Valdez for their planning and
commitment to action, and encourage all communities to
take up the topic of housing and build support for
local solutions to their housing issues.
2:18:30 PM
MS. BRAWLEY continued her testimony on SB 50:
It is also important to emphasize that SB 50
encourages, not mandates, how communities engage in
housing work or planning. Comprehensive plans are
required, but what they look like and what directions
the communities choose to pursue are left to the local
level. It can look like:
- creating a whole new plan, which is what Girdwood
did;
- updating data and demographic trends to match
current conditions;
- an additional plan that is adopted as part of the
comprehensive plan,
- re-prioritizing the strategy of an existing plan to
indicate where the local government wants to focus
efforts.
SB 50 is not a mandate but a positive call for local
planning, and local action on housing. I encourage the
committee to support this bill.
2:19:35 PM
CLAIRE LUBKE, Economic Justice Lead, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG), Anchorage, Alaska, testified by
invitation in support of SB 50 and offered the following
statement, as paraphrased:
AKPIRG is the only nonprofit consumer advocacy and
research organization in Alaska. We work across five
issue areas: language access, energy democracy,
broadband equity, good government, and economic
justice. At AKPIRG, we strive to point out where
powerful or monied interests are overrepresented in
decisions that impact everybody. Very few things
impact as many people as housing. I'm sure each of you
on this committee recognizes that the rising cost of
housing and housing development are burdening
communities across Alaska.
In the case of housing, it's not a private entity that
has failed the public interest. Rather, we're
experiencing a lack of leadership and a lack of
process.
2:20:39 PM
MS. LUBKE continued her testimony on SB 50:
Over the last year and a half, AKPIRG has worked
closely with abundant housing advocates in Anchorage.
To us, "abundant housing" means safe and financially
attainable housing options for people across the
socioeconomic spectrum. It means reasonable housing
options for people of different lifestyles and life
phases, including single adults, intergenerational
households, families, empty-nesters, elders who want
to age in place, and so on - all of the members of our
communities.
In Anchorage, abundant housing advocates have rallied
around removing barriers to multifamily housing
development, including the simplification of
residential zoning. In our experience working
alongside these advocates, it became apparent that
housing needs and priorities can get lost in other
aspects of the comprehensive plan.
2:21:32 PM
MS. LUBKE continued her testimony on SB 50:
AKPIRG supports SB 50 because it invites communities
to create a strategy that specifically addresses
housing. This, in turn, makes it easier for the public
to engage with their vision for the community and
helps prevent public dialogue from becoming mired in
piecemeal land use decisions.
Barriers and solutions to abundant housing will vary
from community to community, which is why local
engagement is so important. SB 50 is a step in the
right direction for developing leadership and public
engagement around one of the most pressing issues
across Alaska. Thank you again for considering my
testimony today, and I ask for your support on Senate
Bill 50.
2:22:25 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR offered a closing statement, stating he spoke
with the Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA) about
SB 50 and Title 29. The division is in the initial discussion
stages of a wide-ranging Title 29 rewrite. DCRA has relatively
limited staff, so it will take a number of years for the rewrite
to actually happen. He informed that DCRA has not expressed
opposition to the bill. He said SB 50 is one small specific
piece that has urgency, that is to say, housing is an urgent
issue for constituents statewide. He expressed appreciation to
the committee for hearing the bill.
[SB 50 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 50 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 50 |
| SB50 Fiscal Note-DCCED-DCRA-01-31-25.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 50 |
| 2025.02.03 DPS VPSOs and Department Engagement with Communities Presentation.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
DPS Presentation |
| 2025.02.03 DPS Handout VPSOs.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
DPS Handout |
| SB 50 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from HAPPP.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from Richelle Johnson UA CED.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
SB 50 |
| SCRA DPS Follow-Up 2-4-25.pdf |
SCRA 2/4/2025 1:30:00 PM |
DPS Presentation |