Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/03/1998 01:16 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 28 - REPEAL COASTAL ZONE MGMT PROGRAM CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was House Bill No. 28, "An Act repealing the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, and making conforming amendments because of those repeals." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained the committee would be taking up CSHB 28(RES), version 0-LS0189\B, Glover, 2/20/98, and called on the sponsor, Representative Gene Therriault. Number 0140 REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 28, explained because of concern last week in regards to the short period of time for looking at scaling back the boundaries of the coastal zones, there is an amendment (Amendment 1) that would double the time from 180 days to 1 year. It reads as follows: TO: CSHB 28(RES), Draft Version "B" Page 4, line 19: Delete "180 days" Insert "one year" REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT further stated he hopes that the amendment would help to alleviate some of the fiscal impact that would be driven by the shortness in the length of time. He would expect, whatever version is passed out of the House Resources committee, that the agencies would have an opportunity to draft new fiscal notes to be considered in the House Finance committee before taking any action. Number 0265 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS stated he is still concerned about Representative Therriault's views on the upper rivers and how the fish would be taken care of. The proposed committee substitute would take away a lot of protections of the fisheries. He asked Representative Therriault to reassure him that the fishing industry would not be hurt. Number 0318 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT replied it is important to keep in mind that since the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) went into being, other state statutes have grown up that offer protection - the Forest Practices Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Title 46. The bill would not diminish any of the permit requirements before an agency issues an individual permit. Number 0365 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated he could see where the Forest Practices Act would protect the fish streams in Southeast, but what about the Northwest region, for example. He wondered how the other acts would protect the other regions. Number 0396 REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT agreed up north it would not be a forest type of activity. It would probably be a permit for water discharge of a river's bank requiring a water permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), for example. The proposed committee substitute would not impact that permitting process within the agency and the right of the public to provide meaningful input on that independent permitting process. Number 0460 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS replied he still does not see how it would be protected. Number 0508 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained the committee members have a packet of fiscal notes provided by a number of different agencies. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON entertained a motion to adopt Amendment 1. Number 0573 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so adopted. Number 0638 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called on Diane Mayer from the Division of Governmental Coordination (Juneau) to explain the fiscal notes. Number 0701 DIANE MAYER, Director, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) (Juneau), Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, stated the division's primary responsibility is to implement Alaska's Coastal Management Program. She called on Gabrielle LaRoche also from the division to explain the fiscal notes. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced, for the record, that Representatives Nicholia and Barnes joined the meeting some time ago. Representative Joule has also joined the meeting via teleconference. Number 0781 GABRIELLE LaROCHE, Coastal Program, Division of Governmental Coordination (Juneau), Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, explained the division tried to break the issue down into tasks. The first task deals with the cumulative effect of the bill - re-approval from the federal government and the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The development of an EIS would require three-quarters of her time and other senior staff over a two-year period. It would also require hiring two full-time temporary employees to help keep the office functioning while the others were engaged in the re-approval of the program. It would also include travel to Washington, D.C. for negotiations. The travel figure would drop in the out-years because once the EIS is prepared the division would be in a negotiation mode and the additional temporary personnel would not be needed to offset the existing work line. MS. LaROCHE further stated the big deal would be the boundaries. The division normally has about four plans in various stages of approval. It takes about two years to get a plan through. Although, if things run exactly on time it could be accomplished in 180 days, but local governments usually drive the schedule by working with consultants. It takes about 20 weeks, .38 of a full- time employee's time, negotiating agreements, discussing various stages with the interagencies, responding to comments from the district, consolidating state comments, and etc. In-order-to accomplish all that in 180 days, it would take .74 of a full-time employee's time, the reason for the additional full-time temporary personnel. MS. LaROCHE stated the amendment, unfortunately, would not help the division very much because it would still need to bring on temporary personnel. In addition, the biggest item in the fiscal note is money going to the districts for consultants, mapping, printing, distribution, and mailing. It would not change at all with the amendment. Number 1046 MS. LaROCHE explained the agencies that submitted a zero fiscal note thought the money would come from federal grant dollars through a reimbursable service agreement. The agencies thought they would get the additional money from DGC to do the work, therefore, they did not reflect a figure in the "Personal Services" line item. It has been explained to them, however, that there would not be any more federal money available and that it would have to come from the general fund. Number 1114 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Ms. LaRoche whether the zero fiscal note from the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, for example, was because the agency assumed that the money would come from the federal program and not the general fund. Number 1134 MS. LaROCHE replied there would continue to be federal funding for the program, but there would not be any additional federal money. A certain portion of the work could be absorbed with existing federal funds and that is reflected in the division's fiscal note. A small portion could be absorbed by money going to the agencies, but there would not be any additional federal funding to support this type of work. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he assumes the fiscal notes will be corrected and forthcoming. They will be a major concern for the House Finance committee. Number 1203 MS. MAYER explained the division has been in contact with the agencies as recently as yesterday in regards to the discrepancy, and yes he could expect to see revisions. Number 1229 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated the committee has now heard from the prime sponsor; the public along the coast line; and the director of the division, Diane Mayer. He wondered at this point how the committee members felt in terms of proceeding forward. Number 1269 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked Ms. Mayer, in terms of reducing the size of the boundaries, what type of fiscal impact would there be to the districts. Number 1303 MS. MAYER replied it would mean initially working with the local communities, and state agencies, as well as internally with the DGC for mapping and revisions. The revisions would have to be reviewed with the agencies and approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council then forwarded to the state's federal funding agency for approval. It would be the division's key focus for the next year, after approval of the amendment and the proposed committee substitute. It would cost local communities in the neighborhood of $700,000. The division would also need to hire additional staff to support the planning efforts and to work with state agencies to come up with their corollary personnel needs. "What we would have are coastal districts with amended boundaries and in the out-years, having made the amendments and having done that effort, I think, there would be very little effect one way or another. The result in terms of subsequent project reviews. The affect it would have on the development community would be--there would be a minimal change. They would essentially be....Because coastal districts can make an argument for reviewing projects under the coastal program, if they think that project could affect their coastal districts. The boundary change that they will make will be a reduction in the boundary, but they will still argue those areas are still of high interest to them and they would like to any project reviews under the same administrative system. So, the net effect of making the change is questionable. I think it is probably minimal." The division is concerned that it would spend a lot of time and effort making the changes when the long-term effect on developers would be minimal. In addition, it would detract program resources from meeting the goals that were identified during a recent assessment of the ACMP. In other words, the cost for shrinking the boundaries would exceed the benefits. Number 1490 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA wondered the real reason for introducing the bill. It does not make sense when there is a management plan in place and working. It does not make sense to reduce the boundaries and to put the additional cost on the municipalities, communities in the zones, the state, and the federal monies coming into the state. Number 1532 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked Co-Chairman Hudson what is his latitude with regards to motions, objections, and voting in terms of him participating via teleconference. He wondered whether he could object to a motion and vote on the objection. Number 1581 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied legally he could not vote, but he could object to any activity for the record. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE stated he is opposed to HB 28 because the current coastal zones were set up to be pro-development and pro- community involvement. They are working because of development, access to the resources, and the local communities (indisc.-- coughing). He hoped that the House Resources committee would hang on to the bill. Number 1668 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS wondered whether the committee has heard from the mining community. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied there is testimony on record from a number of different developmental entities. It is important to recognize that the House Resources committee has engaged in a good give-and-take through the questioning of professional witnesses. From a policy point of view, the committee members have been presented with a good expression of what it is confronted with. The next question is the fiscal implication to the legislature and the communities, but it is under the purview of the next committee of referral - House Finance. Number 1743 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS stated he is concerned because a large percentage of the coastal communities object to the bill. The House Resources committee should be looking at their concerns and how it can make them feel a little bit more comfortable. He wondered whether the committee has done that yet. Number 1771 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied the record is very well established in terms of how the coastal communities feel, including his own community. "If you don't like the bill, there's an expression as to where you can indicate that it should not pass." CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he is not convinced that any further subcommittee work would alter, appreciably, the intentions of the bill. He entertained a motion to move it out of the committee. Number 1805 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES made a motion to move the proposed committee substitute for HB 28, version 0-LS0189\B, Glover, 2/20/98, as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. Number 1814 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Barnes, Dyson, Green, Masek, Williams, Ogan, and Hudson voted in favor of moving the bill. Representatives Joule (for the record) and Nicholia voted against moving the bill. The CSHB 28(RES), as amended, moved from the House Resources Standing Committee. CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON handed the gavel over to Co-Chairman Ogan.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|