Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/08/1994 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 8, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative John Davies
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice Chair
Representative Bill Williams
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Carl Moses
MEMBERS ABSENT
none
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 259: "An Act relating to general grant
land entitlements for certain
boroughs and unified municipalities;
and providing for an effective date."
PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION
*HB 393: "An Act relating to unincorporated
community capital project matching
grant program; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 393 and
Chairman of the House Rules
Committee which sponsored HB 259
GLEN VERNON, Borough Manager
Lake and Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 495
King Salmon, AK 99613
Phone: 246-3421
Position Statement: Supported HB 259 and HB 393
RON SWANSON, Director
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107001
Anchorage, AK 99510-7001
Phone: 762-2692
Position Statement: Supported HB 259
JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
Box 110020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
Phone: 465-3568
Position Statement: Commented on HB 393
LAMAR COTTEN, Lobbyist
Lake and Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 103733
Anchorage, AK 99801
Phone: 258-7143
Position Statement: Supported HB 259 and HB 393
KAREN BRAND, Staff
Representative Carl Moses
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
Position Statement: Staff to Prime Sponsor of HB 393
and Chairman of the House Rules
Committee which sponsored HB 259
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 259
SHORT TITLE: GENERAL GRANT LAND ENTITLEMENT
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/26/93 796 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/26/93 796 (H) CRA, RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/20/93 (H) CRA AT 01:30 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRANT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-6, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:04
p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Willis,
Davies, Williams, Toohey and Sanders were present and noted
a quorum was present.
Number 024
HB 259 - GENERAL GRANT LAND ENTITLEMENT
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MOSES, CHAIRMAN OF THE RULES COMMITTEE,
SPONSOR OF HB 259 said, "House bill 259 amends AS 29.65.010,
the land entitlement section, to statutorily authorize
187,000 acres for the Lake and Peninsula Borough, and gives
the Borough until October 1, 1996 to select those lands.
This figure represents approximately three percent of the
total state lands located within the Borough. By formula in
statute, the Lake and Pen Borough would receive
approximately 30,000 acres. Because the Lake and Pen
Borough is attempting to promote economic development,
become less dependent on the price of fish, and because the
value of an acre of land in urban Alaska is much greater
than an acre in southwest Alaska, the borough planning
commission felt that an entitlement of 187,000 acres was
more equitable than 30,000. The borough assembly and
planning commission are developing a comprehensive borough
plan, and have identified lands of interest to them. AS
29.65 currently provides a land selection process for newly
formed boroughs. Within the boundaries of the Lake and
Peninsula Borough, there is very little land available from
Vacant, Unappropriated, and Unreserved inventories. Because
other state lands would need reclassification before
issuance to the borough, pursuing entitlements through the
formula in AS 29.65.030 would be a more time consuming
process. Because the land selection process would be very
time consuming, House Bill 259 would raise the priority for
processing grant land entitlements for the Lake and
Peninsula Borough by simply adding their entitlement to the
list of municipalities and boroughs currently in AS
29.65.010(a). HB 259 is a noncontroversial bill, and does
not affect other boroughs or their grant allocations. I
would ask that the Community and Regional Affairs Committee
favorably consider the bill."
Representative Bunde joined the committee at 1:09 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked, "Would the Lake and Pen
Borough be entitled to this much land without this, but it
would just take longer? Is that the point here?
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES replied, "Without this statute, they
would only be entitled to 30,000 acres."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES continued, "So it's more than just a
timing issue, they want to speed the process up?"
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said yes.
GLEN VERNON, BOROUGH MANAGER, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH,
via teleconference, said, "...fish tax being the only real
tax base that we have and what's needed is this land in
order to diversify and bolster the tax base and support the
activities in the borough. The process of selecting the
acreage in this bill is a detailed one. The planning
commission and the borough assembly have gone through and
identified, parcel by parcel, the lands that they feel would
be appropriate for the borough to select and the total
number of acres in the bill reflects that process. Simply
adding up the parcels they feel are essential to the
borough. The total state lands involved here represent only
three percent approximately, of the state lands within the
borough, even though many of those lands are presently not
classified."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Could you give us an overview
of the resource values that you selected for when you were
looking for this land?"
MR. VERNON said, "The borough would only be able to gain
surface estate on any selected lands, so the resource values
that we're dealing with would be only those resource values
that relate to surface use. Primarily, we had a number of
selections that relate to the tourism, visitor, hunting,
fishing, recreational industry that's in the borough. The
resource value would come primarily from the location of the
lands relative to the visitor industry."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked, "You talked about a tax
base, what type of tax base are you talking about?"
MR. VERNON said, "The only real revenue base or tax base
that the borough presently has, is a tax that imposes on the
sale of raw fish. We have imposed a permit fee requirement
on lodges and guides that are involved in the recreation
industry, however, it's very minimal. We are looking at the
possibility...a room tax or bed tax type of arrangement.
That would help to diversify."
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, "Have you done any
poling of the people that are going to be made part of this
whole in the neighborhoods at all?"
MR. VERNON replied, "We've had public hearings and meetings
throughout the communities. We have 17 communities
throughout the borough, and public hearings have been held
in all of those communities."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if it was only "positive
feedback."
MR. VERNON said, "We've had generally positive feedback
throughout the borough from individuals living within the
borough. We have had concerns expressed, not about the
lands to be selected, but about the potential bed tax or
sales tax that the borough might impose if we're successful
in moving in the direction we'd like to."
Number 268
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked what Mayor Alsworth's
position was on HB 259.
MR. VERNON said, "Mayor Alsworth was indeed a part of the
selection of going through and identifying the parcels;
however, he did indicate the potential conflict and that was
discussed and I think, full disclosure has been made of the
interest that he has there."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The question was not to question
Glen's integrity, I was just wondering if he was in favor of
the bill or not."
MR. VERNON said, "He favors the bill."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Where did the 34,000 acre figure
come from and where did the 187,000 acre figure come from?"
MR. VERNON said, "The approximately 30,000 comes from the
formula in the statute. The alternative that we would like
to pursue is the one that sets forth 187...189,000 acres
that is in the proposed bill, and that total comes from
simply going through the borough selecting those lands we
feel the borough should administer. So the figure is tied
to specific parcels."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Would it be fair to
characterize this as a wish list to some extent? Or was
there some kind of competitive process that brought the list
down to 187,000?"
MR. VERNON said, "Yes there was a much larger number of
parcels that were initially selected. The parcels that were
finally settled upon actually resulted from two different
meetings where paring down took place. Yes, I think it does
still, to some extent, represent a wish list. We recognize
that we may not be able to select everything that we've
identified. We would still like to have the acreage
identified in the bill and then go through the process with
DNR (Department of Natural Resources) and other agencies as
to which lands can be reclassified and be openly selected."
Number 337
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Have you communicated with the
other boroughs? Are you stepping on anybody toes?"
MR. VERNON said, "We believe that we're not stepping on
anyone's toes. I'm not aware of any other boroughs that
object to this. Indeed, there may be other boroughs who
would like to follow this same procedure."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The 34,000 acres comes from a formula
that's based on the physical size of the borough?"
RON SWANSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, said, "The
formula that is used for figuring peninsula entitlement,
that's both cities and boroughs, is based on 10 percent of
the vacant, unappropriated, unreserved state land within the
borough's or city's boundaries. So what we do is, we go
through, we figure out how many acres of state land is
within a given municipality and how many has a proper
classification. The VUU (Vacant Unappropriate Unreserved)
formula does not take into consideration, the unique or
special circumstances of each municipality. For example,
the Municipality of Anchorage has very little state land
within its boundaries, but has a tremendous demand. Other
cases, such as Lake and Pen, there's a substantial amount of
state land there but because of the classification, not much
is made available. We have not yet certified Lake and Pen's
entitlement, we're not allowed to do that by law until after
January 1st of this year and we're given two years to do it,
but we do estimate we'll come up with about 29,000 acres."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG reiterated, "How do we get from 34,000 to
187,000?"
MR. SWANSON said, "That's exactly what this bill does. This
municipality, like every other municipality kind of goes
through it and looks at land that they think is appropriate
for municipal ownership, and identifies it and flat argues
for acreage. In this particular case, I certainly support
conveying land to a municipality and I do think that 29,000
acres is low for a borough of that particular size, but if
187,000 is the right figure, that's a policy call for you to
make."
Number 393
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "If we stipulate 187,000 acres in
this legislation, is that an entitlement chiseled in stone
that they will receive 187,000 acres or is that a maximum
that they can receive?"
MR. SWANSON said, "That is a maximum, but every municipality
I've seen certainly achieves their maximum."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG continued, "These figures are subject to
legislative as well as formula computation."
MR. SWANSON said, "The statutes now require the formula of
computation which we will do in due time. But all boroughs,
basically, at least the older ones, have come to the
legislature and have established entitlement with them that
reflects various formulas that they think meet their needs."
Number 411
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would like to ask about the
process that the Lake and Pen Borough would go through in
selecting and specifically, I would like to know if
essentially the same criteria would be applied to the
state's interest in these lands as would apply elsewhere in
the state."
MR. SWANSON said, "Through this bill process through the
legislature, I think it's very useful if the legislature
gives us a type order of what kind of land they think is
appropriate to convey to any given municipality. Even if
that does not happen, we would go through what we call a
best interest finding and see if the best interest of the
state to convey any given parcel to a local government."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if DNR has taken an official
position on HB 259.
MR. SWANSON said, "The department supports in concept an
increased entitlement. We have not had a chance to review
the selections to see if they're appropriate. I think it's
appropriate for the borough to, and Mr. Vernon has done
that, identify the types of land that they're selecting."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE continued, "This bill allows a maximum
selection but it doesn't aberrate the state selection
process where the borough has to make it's best case and the
state may or may not agree with them on that."
MR. SWANSON said, "I agree, what you're saying is the
Department of Natural Resources should convey up to 187,000
acres of state land to the municipality. The municipality
would then make their selection, we would go through
(indiscernible) to see if it's appropriate for that parcel
or parcels to go to borough ownership."
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Is there any Native land in
there?"
MR. SWANSON said, "There, of course, is Native land within
the borough, but none of that is considered, only state
land."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Does unencumbered mean not subject
to mental health trust land's complications?"
MR. SWANSON confirmed, "That is correct."
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "You had said that the
department hasn't yet had a chance to evaluate whether they
thought that this was a reasonable selection or amount. Do
you have any sense of what the time frame for that would
be?"
MR. SWANSON said, "It's difficult to answer because I don't
know what form the borough has their information in. Once
it's given to me, I would try to give it real prompt review
to help you in your deliberating process. I can't tell you
whether it's days or weeks without seeing what they've got."
Number 476
MR. VERNON responded, "We do have the land selected in the
form that it could be submitted immediately to the division.
We'd be happy to do that."
MR. SWANSON said, "If Mr. Vernon can supply it immediately,
I will also review it immediately."
Number 485
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would appreciate that; if we
could have the lands that the borough has selected, the maps
be transmitted to DNR and have DNR respond to us on their
observations on those particular selections."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'm reassured with the idea that
you go through the normal land selection process and so I
don't expect DNR to give away the farm and I don't feel
particularly qualified to decide whether 187,000 or 180,000
or 190,000 acres is the appropriate amount of land."
Number 497
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "It's obvious in looking at the other
boroughs that there is no formula. You can base it on a lot
of things. So what we're talking about is whether or not we
should allow the Lake and Peninsula Borough to select no
more than 187,000 acres with the concurrence of the
Department of Natural Resources."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I agree with that. Mr. Swanson
had indicated that he thought it might be helpful if the
committee would consider whether or not there should be any
kind of committee guidance on the resource values to be
selected for in the lands, and I don't think there's any way
we could know whether or not there are any issues there that
we should be concerned about or not unless we have some
other people look at the range of lands that are being
considered."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Is that a fair assessment of your
remarks?"
MR. SWANSON replied yes.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG questioned, "Natural Resources would like to
look at the selections prior to this legislation passing?"
MR. SWANSON said, "That's the recommendation we're making to
you, of course it's your call to make but we can give you a
lot better assessment in a week. I think it's in the
state's best interest to convey the types of land of a
particular parcel the borough has identified."
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "It's going to the Resources
Committee next. How about if Mr. Swanson's concerns (are
addressed there)?"
MR. SWANSON said, "I would be more than happy to provide
that information to the Resources Committee."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "To me, it's more a matter of
curiosity than concern. I'm not concerned about DNR giving
away the farm or Lake and Peninsula Borough running off with
our acres."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY agreed.
Number 537
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "There are some state interest,
we have some fiduciary responsibility."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The legislature will not make the
determination of which lands are selected and which lands
are not. We will make the determination of what the maximum
numbers of acres can be, according to this legislation. On
the other side of the coin, the state seems very slow to get
land into private ownership and maybe this is a way to
advance this process."
Number 545
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said, "DNR is still going to protect
the state as to what the borough can select, so I think
you're covered on that basis. What's more important here is
the state is starving with our budget crisis and whatnot for
economic development and this is a step in the right
direction to create economic development."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I don't have any disagreement
with any of that. I think that's all fine, I just think we
have a certain responsibility to look over DNR's shoulders
as the process goes along and make sure it's all in the
state's best interest."
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "It seems like a reasonable
compromise, moving it from here on to resources with those
people at the DNR having a chance to provide more
information there (in the House Resources Committee)."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY added, "That's DNR's job and they're
much more qualified than we are."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Who are we to quibble with the
Chairman of Resources about this matter. He wants it, he
gets it."
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY moved that HB 259 be moved from
committee with individual recommendations. There were no
objections.
HB 393 - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRAN
CHAIRMAN OLBERG brought forth HB 393.
Number 581
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES, SPONSOR, testified, "HB 393 relates to
the unincorporated community capital matching grant program.
HB 393 amends AS 37.06.020, the eligibility requirements to
participate in the unincorporated community capital matching
grants program. Currently, only unincorporated communities
outside of organized boroughs can participate directly in
the program. Unincorporated communities within boroughs do
not participate directly, and only receive a portion of the
borough's allocation of the municipal capital matching
grants program, if the borough sees fit. HB 393 will level
the playing field for all unincorporated communities by
allowing those outside of boroughs, and those inside of
boroughs where 25 or more residents permanently reside, and
where there is no roadway connection to other communities,
to participate in the program currently administered from
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs. The bill
will take effect July 1, 1994. When the language to develop
the Capital Matching Grants Programs was drafted, there was
an oversight in recognizing that the Lake and Peninsula
Borough, for instance, has 13 unincorporated communities
that must share the pool of Municipal grant monies that the
borough receives. I would appreciate prompt consideration
for HB 393, so that the 24 unincorporated communities that
will be made eligible to participate in the program can do
so in FY '95. This tries to straighten out an inequity.
What happens now, you penalize communities for becoming
organized in a borough.
JACK FARGNOLI, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR stated, "Our position on
the legislation is that we have no objection to this. We
have discussed this with Lake and Peninsula Borough. While
we don't have exactly the same view on whether or not it's
unfair, we do understand where it's constituents are coming
from insofar as whenever you draw a line someone's on one
side of the line and someone's on the other side of the
line. We do have one concern about it. Our point of view
is that, as the legislation has been proposed, in its
current form, it sets up two dynamics which are at odds with
each other. One of which is the constitutional mandate that
boroughs have the responsibility for planning their capital
projects within their borough districts and the associated
constitutional mandate to provide for the greatest level
government with the fewest number of elements of local
government. We feel that new unincorporated communities
that are located within the boroughs grantees, would be at
odds with that mandate. So we feel it would improve the
legislation and be more in keeping with constitutional
mandates, if the boroughs involved were required to have
some approval over the capital projects that are being
proposed by the new eligibles, if you will. This would
allow the kind of coordination of capital project planning
and development within boroughs which is the responsibility
under the constitution of the boroughs."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "We'd like to encourage
unorganized areas of the state to organize and take more
local responsibility. Do you view that without this bill
there's an impediment to organizing?"
MR. FARGNOLI said, "Would a change in the legislation be
enough to change a community's mind is the question really
as it would be valuated by a community. There are lots of
pluses and minuses in incorporating or staying
unincorporated. In general, we don't feel it would be a
large determinant in that decision. If this were a 300
million dollar program, whatever incentives were there or
disincentives, would be proportionately larger. Certainly,
at this current level, we don't think it would be a
determining factor."
Number 680
CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified, "An organized city within a
borough is already excluded and receives separate funding
under this. On one level you can consider it as giving
unincorporated cities and incorporated cities within the
borough equal footing on a funding standpoint. The
population of each of which is excluded from the grant for
the borough itself."
MR. FARGNOLI confirmed this, "Under Representative Moses'
legislation, the proper populations are backed out so that
there's no double counting of the populations."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Borough oversight is a wonderful
thing up to a point, but the moment you said that,
`skimming' raced through my mind."
MR. FARGNOLI said, "There are limitations in the existing
law that would limit the administrative costs that can be
taken by any pass through entity."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for a response from
Representative Moses and Mr. Vernon on borough oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE MOSES said, "I certainly don't have any
problem with it, in fact I welcome it. There was no intent
to circumvent the borough government. We welcome an
amendment to take care of that."
TAPE 94-6, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. VERNON said, "Even under the present program the borough
has taken the money that it's entitled to, which is a
relatively small amount, a little over $39,000 to spread
among 12 unincorporated communities, which gives each of
them around $3300 as I recall. In any event, we would
concur with the idea of the borough becoming a coordinator.
In fact, with regard to the small amount of money which we
have received under the fiscal '94 provision, that's exactly
what we're doing."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "How many such unincorporated
communities are affected by this legislation in Lake and Pen
and then statewide?"
MR. FARGNOLI said, "We have a rough estimate so far from the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs. We're looking
at about 23 or 24 communities, approximately 10 of which are
within Lake and Pen."
Number 047
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would be interested in a
little bit of sensitivity analysis to the number 25. How
would those numbers change if we changed the limiting number
of 25 persons."
Number 055
MR. FARGNOLI said, "We had initially started out looking
when we were exploring this topic with Lake and Peninsula
Borough folks, of a potential population of about 78
eligibles and that was on a rather inclusive 25 people or
more living as a coherent social unit and that list of
criteria that are in the proposed legislation, the one that
brought that down to 24, would be whether they're roadless
or not."
Number 076
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked, "How many communities are
currently participating in this?"
MR. FARGNOLI replied, "Right now, we have about 67 in the
'94 version of the program in the unincorporated community
side and I think that becomes 68 in fiscal '95. So it would
be 24 added to that."
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS continued, "If there's no fiscal
note, that means you're just going to divide the pot out
among more communities?"
MR. FARGNOLI said, "The Department of Administration won't
be affected by this. They would get adjusted population
numbers and that would be the only difference they would see
programatically. The DCRA feels... that the additional
grant administration load that would come with 24 new
eligible grantees could be done within their existing
staffing. As far as the funding, that's a question that
would be before the legislature as a whole and the governor.
The question really would begin at what's the overall
funding targets set by the governor and proposed and
appropriated by the legislature for the municipal and the
unincorporated programs. Would they look at those as one
pot of money to be split two ways or two separate pots.
Another option is to take money from the municipal side and
move $600,000 over or add $600,000 to the unincorporated or
keep the unincorporated at it's current and let everyone's
allocation drop."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why there is a reference to the
previous fiscal year in HB 393.
MR. FARGNOLI said, "I think the emphasis on the previous
fiscal year is that in the other parts of the existing
statute, the eligibility...is driven by their standing as of
the previous fiscal year."
Number 222
LAMAR COTTEN, LOBBYIST FOR LAKE PENINSULA BOROUGH, testified
in support of HB 393, saying, "Lake and Pen is like many
other boroughs in rural Alaska where they work directly and
are a chief source of funding for capital projects. It's
not out of the ordinary for them to participate or provide
oversight as it stands now for such projects. Typically, a
lot of those projects relate back to the services that the
borough, either directly or indirectly, provide. So I think
the intent of oversight by the borough is compatible with
how Lake and Pen and Aleutians East and other rural boroughs
have operated. The constitution talks about limited number
of governments in rural Alaska...I think it's unfair to some
small communities that have reviewed the issue of
incorporating but...shouldn't be forced into it simply to
receive funds such as this program. So instead of adding
another level of government...the basic function of
government is being provided by one entity and simply adding
another hat to a small group of people sometimes, I don't
think really serves a greater purpose of providing services.
With respect to the issue of population, I think the way
this is written is good. All boroughs or communities are,
for some reason or another, forced to go through this
process of identifying who actually does live in a community
for various grants. So I think they do update their
population base every twelve months."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES cautioned that the language regarding
population data is vague in HB 393 and suggested that it
specify that DCRA should arbitrate the population of
communities.
MR. COTTEN agreed and said, "They currently are the ones
that review and sign off on the populations for the other
programs."
Number 294
KAREN BRAND, STAFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE MOSES, stated "The
reason we put that qualifier in there is that without it, we
were coming up with several definitions of communities that
would now qualify. There were groups of residents, 25 or
more, that would qualify as being a separate community and
that was not the intent."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "But my little bity communities in
organized boroughs are on the road system. Where does that
leave them?"
MS. BRAND said, "That's the other side of the hat. We had
to come up with a qualifier and after many deliberations
with the legal drafter of trying to pare down, it hurt some
of our communities also, it omitted them."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reminded the committee, "There was some
discussion of an amendment... that would keep the borough in
the loop."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "My staff and Representative Moses'
staff and the department may draft something in the way of a
committee substitute."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I was wondering if there might
be a qualifier that depended on distance along the road."
There was some discussion about possible qualifying
language.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think this one needs a little
reflection and work," and announced adjournment at 2:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|