Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/09/2017 01:30 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' 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 | |
| HB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 4-MILITARY FACILITY ZONES
1:34:39 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to military facility zones."
1:35:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 4, stated the proposed legislation amends previous
statute regarding military facility zones. He referred to
[House Bill 223, 28th Alaska State Legislature, now AS 29.45.050
subsection (v)], which created the ability for municipalities to
request a designation of a military facility zone around a
military facility. He stated that HB 4 would fix flaws of
current statute. He explained that a military facility zone is
a designated area around a military facility which is sometimes
zoned for economic development. Military facility zones aim to
economically enhance the mission of the military or reduce the
cost of military being in the area. The zones are not
necessarily only for military use; zones might allow for the
private industry to build something advantageous to the
military. The statute allows for federal tax credits and low-
interest loans for military facility zones. He remarked:
To be designated a military facility zone, a
municipality or borough would have to request to the
adjutant general to be allowed to have this designated
area as a military facility zone. The way it is in
statute is that for the military facility zone to be
approved by the adjutant general, it would have to be
concurrent ... and so stated in the community's
comprehensive plan.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON explained that city and municipality
comprehensive plans are only redone about every 10 years - it's
a big process. Changing allowances within a comprehensive plan
might take a year to two. He noted that HB 4 would change the
existing statutory language to add compliance with a
municipality's "local zoning ordinances" as an alternative to
"comprehensive plan" for designating a military facility zone.
This would allow a project to move forward in a timelier manner
without delayed a year or two for a change in a comprehensive
plan. Long delays can jeopardize the completion of a project.
He noted that HB 4 would amend statutes so that a community or
municipality could more easily move forward with a military
facility zone to benefit the military and community with
economic development.
1:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for an example of what is
currently limited without the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON stated that some projects, which might
use federal tax credits or low-interest loans associated with a
military facility zone, are being considered. He noted that
Ketchikan has a naval range and could build a new dock, which
might keep the navy there. Kodiak needs to replace housing for
members of the U.S. Coast Guard stationed there; a private
contractor could build the housing with low-interest loans and
federal tax credits if the site was designated as a military
facility zone. He stated that U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan is
attempting to move a marine unit to the Anchorage area, and F-
35s are expected to come to Eielson [Air Force Base]. He noted
that these proposals are examples of what could be done under HB
4. The projects do not have to be built for the military, but
could be anything that would enhance and encourage the military
to stay in Alaska. He suggested that a bowling alley close to a
military facility would offer recreational opportunities. He
remarked, "They look at what is available for military that ...
are stationed at that base. Is it something ... that would help
keep them there?"
1:42:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that he is a cosponsor of HB 4. He
asked which potential military facility zones would have their
application processes sped up under HB 4.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON stated that he has received questioning
on the aforementioned projects, but no applications have been
submitted. He mentioned new investments at Eielson Air Force
Base, Clear Air Force [Station], and Fort Greely, which would
all necessitate new housing or infrastructure and could benefit
from this advantage. He stated that Fairbanks North Star
Borough is wanting to put in an application and is working on
its comprehensive plan, which is only redone every 10 years.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER re-emphasized that the Fairbanks North
Star Borough is interested in [submitting an application]. He
offered his opinion that the projects could be helped, and the
proposed legislation would facilitate economic development and
stabilize the state's economy.
1:44:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that the aforementioned projects
seem reasonable and HB 4 is a great way to support communities.
She acknowledged that comprehensive plans take a long time to
change, and she considered that a private developer might use
local zoning ordinances to bypass a comprehensive plan.
1:45:26 PM
JEFF STEPP, Special Assistant and Economic Development
Coordinator, Mayor's Office, Fairbanks North Star Borough,
testified in support of HB 4. He stated that the statutory
authority for the municipalities and Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) to create military facility zones was
established by the 27th Alaska State Legislature in 2012. In
2014, House Bill 223 gave authority for local governments to
seek up to ten years of full or partial property tax exemptions
for businesses in a military facility zone. He offered his
understanding that the intent of [House Bill 223] was to help
the Kodiak Coast Guard facilitate a big housing project; he
added that HB 4 aims to refine the statute. He remarked:
By design, [military facility] zones are designated
areas in close proximity to military installations,
where increased industrial activity, economic
development, workforce development or training, and
educational activities will directly enhance the
installation's ability to fulfill its mission.
MR. STEPP noted that currently, a military facility zone must be
consistent with the [comprehensive] plan of the municipality,
which might have broad land use designations and a wide variety
of goals and policies. The military facility zone designation
proposals are specific to locations, which are generally smaller
in scale than the broad categories of land uses listed in most
comprehensive plans. Comprehensive plans address a wide range
of land-use elements. Many Alaskan communities have outdated
comprehensive plans; the Fairbanks North Star Borough's
comprehensive plan was last updated in 2005. The process of
amending the comprehensive plan is lengthy, expensive, and
difficult. He offered his belief that the solution is to make
[land uses] more specific. Zoning is the regulatory tool that
identifies the appropriate uses of each specific parcel of land
that may be eligible for a military facility zone, and it is the
applicable process for obtaining a land-use permit.
1:49:01 PM
CHRISTINE NELSON, Director, Community Planning Department,
Fairbanks North Star Borough, testified in support of HB 4. She
stated that in 2014, the Fairbanks North Star Borough started
the process of applying for a military facility zone. She gave
an overview of the obstacles the borough faced for a proposed
joint unmanned vehicle technology research park and test site.
This was a joint venture between the University of Alaska
Fairbanks (UAF), the borough, and the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) for testing military applications of new technology and
civilian testing for unmanned vehicles. A site near Eielson Air
Force Base was identified, but the site was designated in the
comprehensive plan for agriculture and open space, which was not
consistent with the project. She stated that the zoning of the
site was general use, which is the designation of over 95
percent of the land area in the borough.
MS. NELSON explained that although the comprehensive plan was
updated 11-12 years ago, the comprehensive plan's land-use map
has not been updated since the 1990s. She stated that there is
not a codified process for updating the map; therefore updating
the map would involve developing a process, codifying it, and
then updating it. Zoning is more specific to parcels of land
and has specific processes - zoning permits or conditional use
permits - by which to evaluate any development project. In
answer to Representative Spohnholz's question, she stated that a
developer "getting a jump on a new comp plan" would still need
to meet the zoning requirements in effect at the time, even if
the comprehensive plan is narrower than the zoning regulations.
She detailed that there would be requirements, review, and
analysis attached to any proposal for compliance with the zoning
regulations.
1:52:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that inconsistencies between
the municipality's comprehensive plan and the local zoning
ordinances would be unlikely. She asked if there could be a
situation where [a proposal] could pass a local zoning
ordinance, but not pass the municipality's comprehensive plan.
MS. NELSON answered that it could happen. In the aforementioned
example, the general use zoning doesn't list many conditional
uses. If [a proposal] met the uses permitted in the zoning
designation, a zoning permit could be approved, even if it was
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. She remarked, "If the
... use was listed as a conditional use in ... whatever zone it
is, one of our criteria of a conditional use permit requires
consistency with the comprehensive plan." There is a window
with the [general use] zoning where a proposal could be
consistent with the zoning but not consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the intent of the sponsor is
to approve [a proposal] that is consistent with the zoning
regulations but not consistent with the comprehensive plan.
1:54:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON stated that this complicates the
process, but any zoning permits would have to go through the
municipality's legislative process to be approved. He noted
that HB 4 would keep with the intent [of current statute]. If
the zoning designation is general use and the proposal does
something similar, then it wouldn't violate the comprehensive
plan.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she was surprised that there
could be inconsistencies between the comprehensive plan and the
local zoning ordinance. She asked the sponsor if that is ok,
and what he would like to do.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON stated that HB 4 would make it possible
to move forward with a project. A project would be consistent
with the comprehensive plan if it is in a general use area. A
conditional use permit could be used until the comprehensive
plan is updated to comply with any addition outside of general
use.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that Representative Thompson's
comments seem to be inconsistent with prior testimony.
1:57:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated his concern that the proposed
legislation might abbreviate the public process; he commented
that HB 4 is meant to cut down on bureaucratic "song and dance."
He asked what the process is for the adjutant general to
designate an area as a military facility zone. He asked who
makes the request to the adjutant general and where public
involvement is in the process.
1:58:41 PM
MR. STEPP stated that a borough would submit the application to
the adjutant general, as laid out statute; the process for
applying for a military facility zone is completed by the
municipality or borough. He recalled the project previously
mentioned by Ms. Nelson, which was initiated by the Fairbanks
North Star Borough. In 2014, the comprehensive plan amendment
process for the project was very public. Any potential zoning
change in the borough involves an intensive, ambitious, and
coordinated outreach effort by the planning department. He
stated that the public is certainly engaged in the process.
2:00:43 PM
CHAIR TUCK drew attention to the list of considerations the
adjutant general shall consider on page 2, lines 12 to 18, of HB
4, which read as follows:
(9) any plans or financial commitments of
municipalities to improve the area;
(10) any plans or financial commitments of private
entities to improve the area;
(11) the municipality's participation in economic
development activities, including proposals for public
or private development;
(12) support from community or business organizations
in the area;
CHAIR TUCK stated his hope that the process would allow for
everyone's involvement. He commented that municipalities tend
to have the plans and financial commitments vetted.
2:01:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH noted that Mr. Stepp answered that the
borough makes the request. He asked if "borough" refers to the
borough planning commission, specifically. He again asked who
makes the request and who approves it.
2:01:47 PM
MS. NELSON responded that the borough administration would make
the request, but the planning commission and staff would be
actively involved in the community outreach, collecting
comments, and holding community meetings.
2:02:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated his belief that the intent of the
current statute - AS 26.30.020(c)(1) - is to ensure that
military facility zones comport with the local government's
expressed desire for how a piece of land should or should not be
developed. He stated that this can happen by means of a
comprehensive plan or zoning. The comprehensive plan standard
is too high and bars state and local governments from obtaining
the benefit offered by military facility zones. He offered his
opinion that HB 4 advances the fundamental goal of the statute,
and does so in a way that still reflects the local government's
expressed desire. He commented that the proposed legislation
provides an option of using either local zoning laws or a
comprehensive plan; HB 4 gives the local government discretion
to decide for itself if an application should follow zoning laws
or the higher standard of the comprehensive plan. He noted that
the bill is permissive, not directive, and he stated his
support.
2:03:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON stated that a municipality's application
for a military facility zone designation would have to come from
the governing body; the application must go the whole process
before being submitted.
2:04:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered details of a current discrepancy
between the Community of Sutton-Alpine's comprehensive plan and
the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough's comprehensive plan. He
noted that an individual applying for a change in the
[borough's] plan would have to submit an application and go
through the local public process. Afterwards, an assembly
member would represent his/her position before the assembly
could change the plan. He stated that a change in the plan
often goes along with a permit and may have provisions and
stipulations.
2:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that her concern - that
municipalities could vet and make a decision for themselves -
was clarified by the previous comments.
2:06:00 PM
CHAIR TUCK opened public testimony on HB 4.
2:06:16 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), stated that DMVA supports HB 4, which
would accomplish what was originally intended with military
facility zone legislation. It provides for a cost-effective and
viable means to assure that a military facility zone is what the
local community determines appropriate. The proposed
legislation also provides an effective way to move forward with
a proposal. He mentioned that doing a project at Joint Base
Elmendorf-Richardson would involve redoing a comprehensive plan
for a city the size of Rhode Island for a 10-acre site. This
would deny the agility and cost-effectiveness of a project's use
of a military facility zone. He stated that DMVA can only
accept a military facility zone application from a municipality
- not from a private party.
2:07:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for details and purpose of the 10-
acre project.
MR. DOEHL stated that he has nothing particular in mind,
although there are various needs for making parts, local
commerce, and residential development.
2:08:29 PM
CHAIR TUCK closed public testimony on HB 4.
2:08:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON stated that he's been in contact with
Lockheed Martin [Corporation], which is looking to build a
facility in the "Anchorage Bowl." He remarked that the proposed
legislation would be ideal for Lockheed Martin to put in a
facility to help the military with airplanes, which could be a
huge economic boom to the Anchorage area. He conveyed that the
bill would support the military, help its mission, and lower its
costs of repairs.
CHAIR TUCK asked if there has been any indication of the number
of jobs such a facility would provide.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON answered no. He stated that the
corporation was looking at putting the facility into an old
hangar near a terminal at Elmendorf. He mentioned that he
hasn't heard from the corporation in about two years.
CHAIR TUCK asked if the proposed facility would require a
military facility zone designation if it was on the current
military base.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON clarified that the location in question
is at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.
2:10:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER added that the location is now called
"Old Kulis."
2:10:35 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that HB 4 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB004 ver A 1.31.17.pdf |
HMLV 2/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sectional Analysis 1.31.17.pdf |
HMLV 2/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sponsor Statement 1.31.17.pdf |
HMLV 2/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Supporting Document-List of Military Projects in Fairbanks Area 1.31.17.pdf |
HMLV 2/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Fiscal Note MVA-COM 2.3.17.pdf |
HMLV 2/9/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 4 |