Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/06/1996 01:07 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 330 - UNINCORP COMMUNITY CAPITAL PROJ GRANTS TAPE 96-10, SIDE A Number 0001 CO-CHAIR IVAN called the meeting back to order at 2:41 p.m. He noted that committee packets for HB 330 included the bill; the sponsor statement; affected statutes; a fiscal note from DCRA; a zero fiscal note from the Department of Administration; letters in support; and additional backup material. He invited Representative Carl Moses to present the bill. Number 0053 REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, sponsor of HB 330, explained the bill called for more equitable distribution in the state's unincorporated capital project matching grant program by affording unincorporated communities, existing within boroughs, the chance to obtain the full $25,000 matching grant. This had been consistently available to those unincorporated communities that existed outside of organized boroughs. Communities inside boroughs, which had shared from a pool of resources obtained by the boroughs, had fared much less well, on average, than unincorporated communities outside of boroughs. This bill would restore equity by making communities within boroughs eligible under the same program currently in place for outside communities. It would have them adhere to the same criteria for eligibility; it would correspondingly reduce their boroughs' eligibility through the municipal capital project matching grant program to avoid double-dipping. It would also increase the list of potential applicant communities by up to 60. Representative Moses noted that participants familiar with the issue were available to testify via teleconference. He added that experts were also present to answer technical questions. He concluded by noting there had been a similar bill in 1964. Number 0280 CO-CHAIR IVAN referred to the unincorporated communities, municipalities and second-class cities that received the $25,000 capital matching grants under the program. He asked whether HB 330 affected unincorporated communities not currently eligible or whether there was a funding disparity among recipients. Number 0325 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES responded that an unincorporated community within a borough received less money, sharing in a pool received by the borough. If it were outside a borough, it received the full $25,000. In essence, the law discouraged a community from going into a borough, because it would receive less money under the grant program. Number 0366 CO-CHAIR AUSTERMAN noted that DCRA's fiscal note indicated approximately 60 unincorporated communities could participate; the fiscal note starting in 1996 was for $42 million, increasing to $49 million in FY 2001. He thought HB 330 was a good bill and that the committee should go ahead and move it out; the only question would probably be the fiscal note, he said. He added that the bill would go to the House Finance Committee next, where the fiscal note should be discussed. Number 0425 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES clarified the amounts were not millions of dollars, but thousands. He noted that in the similar 1964 legislation, there was no fiscal note attached, indicating DCRA felt it could handle it within its budget. Number 0442 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he had no problem with moving it from committee. He said it was a great program for unorganized communities outside of boroughs; it ought to be a great program for those inside boroughs as well. He added that they should not penalize everyone else by not funding the program and having the money taken from other people's budgets. He encouraged the legislature to take the second step, to not only authorize it, but to fund it as well. Number 0483 CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that the sponsor had said unincorporated communities belonging to a borough received less than those in unorganized boroughs. This seemed like a reverse of policy. He added it was in the state's interest to organize communities in as many areas as possible. Number 0513 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Representative Moses about the grant monies available. Specifically, he wondered if there was a set amount of money, without adding any to the grant program, to disburse to the various communities. Number 0550 REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied more could be added to it. Technically, though, it would be pro rata among the communities, slightly decreasing the present allotments unless money were added. He emphasized that the amounts should be equitable to all unincorporated communities, without penalizing those that had joined a borough. In essence, he said, that would encourage communities to disassociate themselves from boroughs. Number 0598 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded that was basically what he was driving at; he did not think more money needed to be added to the program. It would be nice, he said, but not required. It was an equitability issue and it would be the only fair thing to do. Number 0624 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thought that was exactly right. They did not have to expand the pie. However, if they did not, everybody would get less, which he did not favor. If the program was good for those now receiving it, it should be good for others. If they did not expand the pie, people would be penalized because the legislature did the right thing by expanding the program to other communities. He thought HB 330 was equitable and fair and ought to be moved out of committee. However, he hoped the legislature would think about making the pie a little bigger to accommodate the new communities without penalizing the existing ones. Number 0687 WALT WREDE, Manager, Lake and Peninsula Borough, testified via teleconference from King Salmon in favor of HB 330. He said the bill would implement the original intent of the program, as he understood it, fixing a problem that had existed for several years. He explained the Lake and Peninsula Borough area was adversely affected by the program as it now existed. The borough had 11 unincorporated villages, representing almost half the borough's population, that did not qualify for the $25,000 matching grant funds. Number 0774 MR. WREDE explained that in 1995, the Lake and Peninsula Borough received a grant of $44,000, to be divided up among the 11 communities; they expected to receive approximately the same amount for 1996. He noted that $4,000 was not much money. If each village was guaranteed $25,000 per year, that would total $275,000 per year. He added that communities could roll funds over from year to year, which would allow money to accumulate. Number 0827 MR. WREDE cited a number of reasons why he felt the current system was unfair. He noted that Representative Elton had spoken eloquently about the fairness issue. Mr. Wrede said the way the program was currently set up hurt economic development and investment in capital improvements in the borough. There was also a policy issue, which Co-Chair Ivan had mentioned, where the state was trying to downsize and transfer more responsibility to local governments. Mr. Wrede felt that was good, but said the current grant program acted as a disincentive to forming organized boroughs. He reiterated that the borough strongly supported HB 330. Number 0990 DAN SALMON, Administrator, Village of Igiugig, testified via teleconference from King Salmon. He explained that Igiugig, a small village of approximately 40 people that swelled to 150 - 200 in the summertime due to tourism, was located at the west end of Lake Iliamna, within the Lake and Peninsula Borough. He said HB 330 greatly affected his community. Igiugig currently funded its own preschool, snow removal, street maintenance, refuse disposal and so forth. Funds to garner capital projects were difficult to obtain. The village lacked sufficient bulk fuel storage facilities, fire fighting equipment, emergency services facilities, and equipment to build and maintain projects, among other things. As intended originally, Mr. Salmon said, the grant program would have been an avenue for Igiugig to realize its economic development goals and plans. It also would have created a level playing field for communities. Number 1067 MR. SALMON said right now, his village could not compete with unincorporated villages in unorganized boroughs. Igiugig, with its $4,000 grants, had to compete for projects with communities that could put up $25,000. That inequitable distribution of money had resulted in less major capital projects being accomplished in his community. He said Igiugig supported HB 330, as he was sure other similarly situated villages would. Number 1165 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that HB 300 move from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|