Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/13/2017 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| SB9 || SB9 | |
| SB14 || SB14 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 9
"An Act relating to military facility zones."
9:05:16 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for SB 9, Work Draft 30-LS0183\J (Shutts,
2/8/17). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CHAD HUTCHINSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN COGHILL, introduced
the bill.
9:06:15 AM
AT EASE
9:08:02 AM
RECONVENED
9:09:00 AM
Mr. Hutchinson discussed the PowerPoint, Committee
Substitute for Senate Bill 9
By the Senate Finance Committee
(CSSB 9)(FIN) - "An Act Related to Military Facility Zones;
and Providing for an Effective Date" (copy on file).
Mr. Hutchinson highlighted slide 2, "CSSB 9(FIN) Focuses on
Military Facility Zones":
• Potentially important around the state. Especially in
communities with a "military industry."
• High degree of focus in Interior Alaska.
• Eielson Air Force Base
• Fort Wainwright
• Clear Air Force Station
• Fort Greely
•
• Military Facility Zones help foster surrounding
industry in the community.
Mr. Hutchinson addressed slide 3, "Planned Military
Construction Projects in the Fairbanks Area." The slide
represented the urgency and the context of the current
situation.
Mr. Hutchinson looked at slide 4, "Eielson F-35; Facility
Plan." The slide was a closer look at the construction
projects.
9:13:39 AM
Mr. Hutchinson highlighted slide 5, "Reminder: What Are
Military Facility Zones?"
• Designated areas
• Established by the Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA)
• Close to a military facility
• Where industrial and economic development directly
enhance the facility's ability to fulfill its mission
(via public/private funding sources, credit, and
guarantee programs).
• Currently, DMVA considers a number of factors. One
factor includes review of the comprehensive plan of
the local municipality/borough.
• The problem? Comprehensive plans take time.
Meanwhile the military construction window is
short.
9:16:22 AM
Mr. Hutchinson looked at slide 6, "Simple Legislative
Solution - Simple Fix":
1. The main focus of CSSB 9(FIN) is to allow a military
facility zone to be implemented after consideration of
a local zoning ordinance. The following was added:
"or local zoning ordinances;" in AS 26.30.020(c).
2. Relieves the burden of the local community doing a
time-consuming comprehensive plan. The opportunity is
now.
9:17:14 AM
Mr. Hutchinson highlighted slide 7, "Anything else?"
• Yes.
• On February 2, 2017 the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Committee accepted an amendment brought to
Senate members by the Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA). The amendment received no
objection.
• The amendment added another layer of protection to the
DMVA against civil liability. It makes it clear that
DMVA cannot be held liable for civil damages for a
military facility zone designation, based on
inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the
municipality/borough.
• Also added that the legislation would be effective
immediately.
9:18:07 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that the state already received
military construction money. She queried the purpose of the
bill. Mr. Hutchinson replied that the bill allowed for the
use of grants and loans at low interest rates as it related
to construction projects around the military installations.
He stressed that the bill affected the businesses that
worked on base, helped to reduce their interest rates. He
stressed that the low interest for residential construction
projects would be beneficial to many companies. He remarked
that the legislation also helped the supplemental
industries.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested a Sectional Analysis.
Senator Dunleavy wondered what the bill would change, and
queried the ramifications of its passage such as its effect
on zoning. Mr. Hutchinson replied the bill maximized the
benefit for construction entities that were hoping to take
advantage of low interest rates for some of the anticipated
construction projects around military installation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there were low rate
interest rate loans currently offered by the federal
government that required a comprehensive plan approach. Mr.
Hutchinson responded that there was a variance. He
explained that each state was different, and flexibility
related to military facility zones.
Senator von Imhof wondered who initiated the process. Mr.
Hutchinson replied that the process began with the borough,
and its coordination with Lockheed Martin. The application
came from the borough, submitted to the Department of
Military of Veterans Affairs, and upon approval create a
zone around the military installation. The companies could
work with either Lockheed Martin or the Air Force and
submit for grants in ensuring that the military mission
moves forward.
Senator von Imhof surmised that the borough designated the
land near the military to create an opportunity. Mr.
Hutchinson agreed.
9:23:32 AM
Senator Micciche stated that the bill created flexibility
within the process. Mr. Hutchinson agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether there was a possibility
that the plan could be used in reverse. She shared that the
state lobbied the federal government to ensure a
comprehensive analysis on economic impact should the
federal government close military facilities. She wondered
whether the legislation would allow for the federal
government to go through the local government for the same
result. Mr. Hutchinson asked for more information about the
question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether the bill allowed for a
bypass of the federal government to examine economic impact
when considering military facility closures. Mr. Hutchinson
felt that that the bill would allow for a strong synergy
between all the governments to support the underlying
military mission.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered how the legislation would affect
construction companies outside of the military zone. Mr.
Hutchinson replied that any company could take advantage of
the program, if it directly affected the military mission.
Co-Chair Hoffman surmised that the companies within the
zone would have a better financial position versus those
outside of the zone. Mr. Hutchinson replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the difference the original bill
and the committee substitute. She also requested a
sectional analysis.
9:27:54 AM
Mr. Hutchinson discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on
file):
Section 1: Simply adds the words "or local zoning
ordinances" to Alaska Statute 26.30.020(c)(1).
If added, the Department of Military and
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) has increased
flexibility when considering a proposed military
facility zone. The zone can be consistent with
the local zoning ordinance or the local
comprehensive plan.
Section 2: This section was proposed by DMVA. The
language ensures that the department will not be held
civilly liable for a military facility zone
designation based on inaccurate or incomplete
information provided by a municipality/borough.
Section 3: Clarifies that this legislation is
effective immediately
Vice-Chair Bishop felt that the bill helped to meet the Air
Force mission. He remarked that the Air Force hoped for
more activity related businesses for their service members.
9:30:15 AM
AT EASE
9:30:48 AM
RECONVENED
9:31:16 AM
COLONEL ROBERT DOEHL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested Mr. Doehl's written testimony.
9:36:50 AM
JIM DODSON, PRESIDENT, FAIRBANKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
support of the legislation.
JEFF STEPP, STAFF, MAYOR'S OFFICE, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR
BOROUGH, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in support
of the bill.
CHRISTINE NELSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
PLANNING, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), spoked in support of the bill. She
explained the purpose of the bill.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
9:43:09 AM
Vice-Chair Bishop discussed the fiscal note.
Senator Dunleavy queried the difference between the
military legislation passed in a previous legislature. Mr.
Hutchinson explained that the previous legislation was
unworkable because the comprehensive plans took to long. He
stated that the bill would ensure the same objective
through a zoning ordinance.
Senator Dunleavy that the different between the 2012
legislation and the current bill, was that it expedited the
process. Mr. Hutchinson agreed.
SB 9 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:46:19 AM
AT EASE
9:48:21 AM
RECONVENED