Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/25/1999 08:05 AM 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
March 25, 1999
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Co-Chairman
Representative John Harris, Co-Chairman
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 63
"An Act relating to land use regulation in residential zones by
home rule municipalities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 40
"An Act combining parts of the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and parts of the Department of Community and Regional
Affairs by transferring some of their duties to a new Department of
Commerce and Rural Development; transferring some of the duties of
the Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs to other existing
agencies; eliminating the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
relating to the Department of Commerce and Rural Development and
the commissioner of commerce and rural development; adjusting the
membership of certain multi- member bodies to reflect the transfer
of duties among departments and the elimination of departments;
creating the office of international trade and relating to its
duties; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 40(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to municipal service areas and providing for voter
approval of the formation, alteration, or abolishment of certain
service areas; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 63
SHORT TITLE: LAND USE IN HOME RULE BOROUGH
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HALCRO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/25/99 79 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/25/99 79 (H) CRA
2/11/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/11/99 (H) <BILL CANCELED>
3/25/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 40
SHORT TITLE: DEPT OF COMMERCE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOHRING, Cowdery, Austerman,
Therriault,
Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 28 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/99
1/19/99 28 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 29 (H) CRA, L&C, FINANCE
3/09/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/16/99 484 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY
3/18/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
3/18/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/24/99 561 (H) COSPONSOR(S): AUSTERMAN, THERRIAULT,
3/24/99 561 (H) HARRIS
3/25/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING, Sponsor of HB 40
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2186
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as Sponsor of HB 40.
TOM LAWSON, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
PO Box 110803
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0803
Telephone: (907) 465-2505
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the fiscal note for HB 40.
YVONNE CHASE, Acting Administrative Director
Director, Division of Community & Rural Development
Department of Community & Regional Affairs Director
333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 220
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341
Telephone: (907) 269-4610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 40.
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 40.
CARL BERGER
Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council
PO Box 2021
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-5967
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern regarding the continuance of
DCRA service.
MICHELLE DECORSO, Community Development Planner
Association of Village Council Presidents
PO Box 2347
Bethel, Alaska 99559
Telephone: (907) 543-1924
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 40.
SHARON CLARK
Clarks Point, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 236-1427
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported maintaining DCRA as a separate
entity.
RAYMOND AGUVULUK, Mayor
City of Wainwright
PO Box 9
Wainwright, Alaska 99782
Telephone: (907) 763-2815
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 40.
TIM GILMARTIN, Mayor and City Manager
Metlakatla Indian Community
PO Box 8
Metlakatla, Alaska 99926
Telephone: (907) 886-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 40.
PERRY AHSOGEAK, Director
Community & National Resources
Tanana Chiefs Conference
122 First Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 40.
MARVIN YODER, City Manager
City of Galena
PO Box 149
Galena, Alaska 99741
Telephone: (907) 656-1301
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 40.
JOHN EASTAN
PO Box 849
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 40.
LARRY DICKERSON, Executive Director
Copper Valley Economic Development Council
PO Box 9
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-5001
POSITION STATEMENT: Emphasized the need to maintain the essential
functions, services and resources provided by
DCRA to remain no matter the organization.
JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4939
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-20, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Halcro, Harris, Morgan,
Murkowski, Dyson and Joule. Representative Kookesh was not
present.
HB 63 - LAND USE IN HOME RULE BOROUGH
Number 0050
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced that the first order of business
before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 63, "An Act relating
to land use regulation in residential zones by home rule
municipalities."
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO, Sponsor of HB 63, Alaska State Legislature,
said that he would explain the proposed committee substitute (CS).
He informed the committee that a little over 10 years ago, his
neighbors took a case regarding gravel extraction all the way to
the Alaska Supreme Court. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that
gravel extraction was not compatible with the designated land use
development; therefore, the developers were shut down. This seems
to be a constant battle. Co-Chairman Halcro acknowledged that Sand
Lake gravel pit had served the community, but in the past 15 to 20
years subdivisions have developed around the border of the gravel
pit. Approximately 15 years ago, the Sand Lake gravel pit was
rezoned as residential R1. This legislation merely establishes in
statute that extraction of gravel for commercial purposes from
areas zoned residential is illegal. The legislation further
provides for a public hearing if municipalities want to change a
land use designation or use land for something other than allowed
under the land's current classification. He pointed out that this
legislation ensures that there is adequate public testimony which
has not always been the case in the past.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that on the Hillside, it is sometimes
necessary for developers to go in and take out gravel for the
foundation which is allowed under a building permit. Some
developers may develop large tracts, this bill allows the developer
to extract and utilize gravel on-site for infrastructure
improvements. However, the legislation prohibits the transfer of
the gravel off-site. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that last year in
his area, several neighborhood meetings were held due to a
developer's proposal which would have resulted in a gravel truck
being on the streets in his district every five minutes for about
three years. Although the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that
gravel extraction is not compatible with residential land use, the
temptation remains. Co-Chairman Halcro stated that this is a
municipal issue. The municipality does have zoning enforcement
rules, but those are not set in statute. Co-Chairman Halcro noted
that this statute merely provides the municipality and the
neighbors the right to say "No, that is a prohibited land use."
There are a number of demands on the municipality's zoning
enforcement. Over the last few years, Co-Chairman Halcro's
district has found it difficult to get the municipality to respond
and further the current rules are not clear. This legislation
merely clarifies what is acceptable and what is not. This
legislation allows a home rule borough to fine a violator up to
$500 per day. More importantly, this legislation provides the
community with a set of guidelines in order to know what is
acceptable and not acceptable with regard to land that is prezoned
residential.
Number 0571
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked for clarification on the difference
between HB 63 and the proposed CS.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that the proposed CS permits the home
rule borough to fine a violator and allows the developer to extract
gravel from the site under a building permit. The building permit
would note the amount of gravel acceptable to be taken off-site.
The proposed CS establishes the fine per day.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed with Co-Chairman Harris that the
legislation was targeting commercial users. Co-Chairman Halcro
informed the committee that last summer a developer purchased a
57-acre tract of land on which to build homes. A week later, the
developer wanted to extract some gravel in order to move for
foundations, although the 57-acre tract is relatively flat.
Through other industry sources it was discovered that this
developer intended to take the gravel off-site and utilize it in
different subdivisions as well as to bid low on public works jobs.
That would have resulted in yet another large hole in the ground as
well as lowering property values in the neighborhood.
Number 0774
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved to adopt the proposed CS, LS0239\D,
Cook, 3/5/99 as the working document before the committee. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON noted that he has had much experience with
this. He believed that Co-Chairman Halcro fairly accurately frames
the argument. He asked if the proposed CS has a by-pass provision
which would permit the use of gravel off-site, if the developer
would not be impacting the neighborhood.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied no. The proposed CS prohibits the
extraction of gravel in those areas zoned residential.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the legislation would prohibit a land
owner from "ruining" his land even when no harm is done to anyone
else.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the developer can always go
before the local planning and zoning board or the local commission
to request the land be rezoned to allow such.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if the committee would hear from anyone
from Anchorage Municipal Zoning.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO did not believe so. He noted that this
legislation was sent out to a number of contacts from which there
was no response.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that it would have been appropriate to
invite Anchorage zoning enforcement to comment on this legislation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO commented that Steve Ellis, Manager of
Codes/Land Use Enforcement, Department of Public Works,
Municipality of Anchorage has been very frustrated and overworked.
Co-Chairman Halcro reiterated that the rules are not clear and
there is no monitoring. Co-Chairman Halcro said that he had talked
with Mr. Ellis about introducing something on this issue and Mr.
Ellis seemed very supportive.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON wondered if while the committee is meeting,
Anchorage Municipal Zoning could be invited to testify.
Number 1207
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed the following situation. If a
developer of a residential area that has extracted gravel does not
have a legitimate purpose in using the gravel elsewhere, would the
developer be restricted from moving that gravel from his land.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO clarified that the legislation would restrict
the developer from moving the gravel off-site without a building
permit. However, the developer could use the gravel elsewhere on
that property. In further response to Representative Murkowski,
Co-Chairman Halcro agreed that the developer could get individual
permits to remove the gravel.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI appreciated the frustration of those in
the Sand Lake area. Has there been contact with other home rule
areas regarding this issue?
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the sponsor statement has an
article from the Peninsula Clarion attached which discusses a
similar problem in the Kenai Peninsula. The concerns in the Kenai
Peninsula are regarding the property value as well as the effects
on the drinking water. He anticipated, with the diminishing
availability of land, that this will continue to be a problem.
Co-Chairman Halcro emphasized that the legislation does protect
legitimate gravel operations. In further response to
Representative Murkowski, Co-Chairman Halcro said that he had not
had any input from the Fairbanks area.
Number 1413
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that another problem surfaces
after gravel extraction takes place and no residential development
occurs. In such cases, the pits end up being unattractive and when
full of water, a dangerous area for children as well as a breeding
ground for mosquitos. Also when these pits are dry, the dirt
bikers congregate in the pit resulting in injuries and annoyed
residents. Representative Dyson indicated that the difficulty is
holding the developer to his commitment, especially when gravel is
so valuable in Southcentral Alaska.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that in the
aforementioned incident, one of the partners in the development
company owned a paving company. The word is that when that
development company bid on the public works project to repair the
coastal trail, the company bid approximately $26,000 less than the
next bidder. The savings would be achieved due to the gravel from
the lot that the developer already owned. Co-Chairman Halcro
stated that remediation is a huge problem. In another situation in
Co-Chairman Halcro's area, there is a pit that has been remediated
and filled in every summer for seven or eight years and it will be
another 10 years before the pit is filled. The land itself is lost
because the fill is overburden and tree stumps. Co-Chairman Halcro
said that there are a number of issues.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to whether there is currently
a requirement that if gravel is extracted there shall be
remediation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied no.
Number 1631
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that there is a provision in
the proposed CS that states that the "... borough may by ordinance
require remediation". She asked if Co-Chairman Halcro intended for
that to be retrospective as well as prospective.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that it would be difficult to have it
retrospective because these pits are large. Therefore, the
remediation would be prospective.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if the legislation only referred to home
rule boroughs.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO clarified that the legislation referred to home
rule municipalities as is in the title.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if it would be appropriate to change the
language in the body to be consistent with the title because there
is a difference between home rule municipalities and home rule
boroughs.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO informed the committee that the Ms. Cook,
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research, drafted the
legislation. He agreed with Co-Chairman Harris that the
legislation refers to home rule boroughs.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS indicated that it would be appropriate to change
the language in the title to be consistent and refer to the home
rule borough.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether the sponsor's intent was to
have this legislation speak to the home rule borough or the home
rule municipality.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO was uncertain as to why the title and language
of the bill were not consistent. The legislation was supposed to
refer to home rule boroughs. Co-Chairman Halcro explained that
Alaska statute specifies that first and second class boroughs shall
provide for planning and platting. Therefore, first and second
class boroughs are the only boroughs mandated to have zoning to
which this legislation would apply. This legislation would not
apply in a community without zoning.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved a conceptual amendment that the
title of the proposed CS be changed to refer to home rule boroughs.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1846
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the zoning office in Anchorage
was contacted.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS informed the committee that Don Alspach was
contacted and Mr. Alspach said that he would like to submit written
testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he liked the intent of the
legislation. He indicated the need to postpone the action on the
proposed CS until hearing from the Municipality of Anchorage. He
further indicated the need to formally notice the Alaska Municipal
League and the contractor community regarding the proposed CS.
Representative Dyson noted that it was not his intention to delay
the process, but he believed those folks should have the
opportunity to review this legislation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if Co-Chairman Halcro had contacted those
people mentioned by Representative Dyson.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO reiterated that he had spoken with Steve Ellis,
folks in the municipality, folks in his district, and the community
council. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that he had not spoken with Mr.
Alspach. Co-Chairman Halcro did not have a problem with waiting
for the municipality to comment.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS suggested that other home rule boroughs such as
Fairbanks and Juneau be contacted for comment as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that after recognizing
Representative Dyson's comments and the fact that HB 63 only has
one committee of referral, the legislation should receive a full
and fair hearing.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced that HB 63 would be held and heard
Tuesday, March 30, 1999 in order to receive more input. He noted
his support of the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed with Co-Chairman Harris' comments that
all home rule boroughs be contacted for comment.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON pointed out that the Alaska Municipal League
should be able to notice this bill for comment per its mission. He
commented that if he were an Anchorage resident, he would wonder
where his lobbyist was.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that HB 63 was on the schedule over a
month ago, although it was taken off for changes. He agreed with
Representative Dyson and said, "The silence is deafening."
The committee stood at-ease from 8:36 a.m. to 8:40 a.m.
HB 40 - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Number 2140
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS announced the next order of business before the
committee as HOUSE BILL NO. 40, "An Act combining parts of the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development and parts of the
Department of Community and Regional Affairs by transferring some
of their duties to a new Department of Commerce and Rural
Development; transferring some of the duties of the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development and the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs to other existing agencies; eliminating the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the Department
of Community and Regional Affairs; relating to the Department of
Commerce and Rural Development and the commissioner of commerce and
rural development; adjusting the membership of certain multi-
member bodies to reflect the transfer of duties among departments
and the elimination of departments; creating the office of
international trade and relating to its duties; and providing for
an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to Section 75, page 44, line 12 of HB
40 and suggested that the language in subsection (b) be changed
from "may" to "shall".
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING, Sponsor of HB 40, Alaska State Legislature,
noted that he had discussed this change with Representative Joule
yesterday. Representative Kohring said that he would be open to
the modification if the committee feels it is necessary. He
pointed out that the language in HB 40 is reflective of the
language in the statutes.
Number 2281
TOM LAWSON, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Commerce & Economic Development, commented that much
work went into this fiscal note although it was an update from the
fiscal note for HB 400 last year. He noted that the fiscal note
before the committee includes one-time costs as well as savings.
The fiscal note includes input from the following agencies: the
Department of Commerce & Economic Development (DCED), the
Department of Community & Regional Affairs (DCRA), the Department
of Health & Social Services (DHSS), the Department of Labor, and
the Department of Administration. The Department of Administration
is involved due to the department's leasing specialist, Keith
Gerken. Mr. Lawson emphasized that the fiscal note is a best
guess. He pointed out that HB 40 would impact four separate
agencies, over $200 million worth of programs, and approximately
500 state employees.
MR. LAWSON directed the committee to the first page of the fiscal
note. The total cost of HB 40 is $718,700 for the first year.
Savings are realized beginning in the second year, therefore
savings in the second year amount to $189,000 which grows to a
savings of $221,100 in the third year and thereafter. He noted
that there are two major elements to HB 40: the savings from staff
cuts, and the capital cost.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS understood Mr. Lawson to say that in fiscal year
(FY) 2000 it will cost $718,700 to implement HB 40. Does that cost
span all the departments?
MR. LAWSON replied yes.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if in the following years the same amount
of money would be saved or would it be a zero increase every year.
He noted that the fiscal note projects a savings of $221,100 in FY
2002; would an additional $221,100 be saved in FY 2003?
MR. LAWSON said that it would be the same savings each year.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS stated, "So, in reality, it's zero those next
years. You're not actually saving anything from the previous
year."
MR. LAWSON agreed.
Number 2475
MR. LAWSON directed the committee to page 2 of the fiscal note
which discusses the staff reductions. The first staff reductions
are one commissioner and one secretary. Mr. Lawson believed that
the work load would increase for the first two years while
adjustments are made to the integration of the two departments.
Therefore, Mr. Lawson did not believe any further staff could be
cut at that point. He pointed out that three of the directors are
downgraded from which some savings would result. The third year
savings is the result of a personnel rule which states that
personnel in a frozen salary situation would have to absorb the pay
cut in the third year of the freeze. Mr. Lawson understood the
need to reduce staff. Therefore, in the first twelve months a
comprehensive review of all staff will occur and focus on the need
to have a second deputy commissioner and a special assistant. In
the second twelve months of HB 40, the focus would shift the
administrative services staff in order to determine if there is any
duplication. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that his
administrative staff is swamped virtually all the time. Although
the staff may be doing the same tasks under the merger, the work
from one agency is not eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if after the first 24 months, does
the fiscal note reflect a reduction in staff.
MR. LAWSON replied no, but indicated that it would be probable that
there would be more staff reductions.
Number 2659
MR. LAWSON moved on to the second major element of the fiscal note,
the capital cost. The capital cost includes the moving costs, the
one time network services changes, and space planning. The total
capital costs are $907,700. He explained that they felt the best
way to estimate the moving costs was to establish a moving cost
factor. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that Mr. Gerken
determined a moving cost factor of $6,100 which is outlined on page
six. The next step was to create the Anchorage and Juneau space
allocation worksheet which lead to the inventory of the Anchorage
and Juneau staff, the determination of where that staff was
located, and where that staff should move. He noted that the
staff inventory is based on current year staffing levels and
therefore, does not include any budgeted increments that may be
included in the Governor's FY 2000 budget request. He pointed out
that no new leasing costs are included in the capital costs. Mr.
Lawson explained that the reason for referring to the costs as
capital costs is because he did not believe everything could be
accomplished in one year which would necessitate the money carrying
forward into future years. The money should be budgeted in the
budget of the Office of Management and Budget due to HB 40's impact
on four different agencies.
MR. LAWSON directed the committee to page four of the fiscal note
which is the space allocation worksheet for Juneau. Per HB 40, the
job training staff would be moved to the Department of Labor. The
Department of Labor feels it important that the nine job training
staff be physically moved into the Department of Labor. However,
the current space for the Department of Labor does not allow for
extra staff. There is a commerce office, the Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute (ASMI), in that building. Therefore, the ASMI
staff would be moved to the DCRA offices and the labor staff would
be moved in. Since he believed it vital that the DCRA programs be
integrated into the DCED programs, Mr. Lawson said that the DCRA
staff left should be moved into the State Office Building.
However, the ninth floor which houses DCED is filled. In order to
achieve this integration, the Division of Occupational Licensing
staff would have to be moved to the DCRA building. Mr. Lawson
pointed out that the worksheet specifies that the Head Start
program, three staff, would be moved from DCRA to DHSS, but that is
not reflected in the options listed at the bottom of page four of
the fiscal note. With that error, the total number of positions
being moved, 96, does not change.
Number 2953
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that the fiscal note allocates
$25,000 for Juneau to contract an architect to design office
facilities. She understood that the architect would not be
designing new offices, but rather placing staff in the current
space.
MR. LAWSON replied yes.
TAPE 99-20, SIDE B
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to what are tenant improvements.
MR. LAWSON deferred to Mr. Gerken who is currently out of town.
Mr. Gerken is comfortable that this is a real cost estimate.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the construction of tenant
improvements amounts to over 50 percent of the moving costs.
Co-Chairman Halcro indicated that the cost for the construction of
tenant improvements is a variable and has some flexibility.
MR. LAWSON again deferred to Mr. Gerken.
Number 2900
MR. LAWSON directed the committee to the Anchorage space allocation
worksheet. He noted that the Anchorage worksheet is a radical
change from last year's fiscal note which is good news. The major
difference is that the move into the Atwood Building is 12 months
further along. The Atwood Building was purchased by the state and
money was appropriated for the move of all state employees into the
building. Therefore, the costs for moving staff into the Atwood
Building is already appropriated and is not included in the fiscal
note. At this point, almost all of DCED's offices as well as the
Governor's offices in the Frontier Building are scheduled to move
into the Atwood Building this summer. He noted that the Department
of Natural Resources has already started to move into the Atwood
Building. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that due to the
leasing situation in the Atwood Building, everyone cannot be moved
at once. Moving the DCRA staff into the Atwood Building would
possibly take up to six or seven years. In Anchorage, 15 job
training staff in DCRA would be moved to the Department of Labor.
The child care program, 14 staff, would be moved to DHSS. A total
of 29 staff moving in Anchorage would need to be paid for through
HB 40. Mr. Lawson informed the committee that the total moving
cost for the staff in Juneau and Anchorage is $762,500.
Number 2760
MR. LAWSON moved to the second aspect of the capital cost, the
network services. The challenge is to convert various systems.
Due to the movement of the Anchorage labor staff and child care
staff out of DCRA, new hardware and software systems are necessary.
The cost of those systems are estimated on the last page of the
fiscal note. The network software for DCRA and DCED are not the
same which resulted in the component in the fiscal note to transfer
the system hardware and software in order to have the same kinds of
systems. If the goal is to truly integrate all the programs, the
network systems must be integrated as well.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO inquired as to why different divisions utilized
different software.
MR. LAWSON explained that different state agencies utilize
different software. For example, DCRA uses a Windows NT server
while DCED uses a NetWare server. Mr. Lawson did not believe there
is a statewide policy on network software. There are standards for
software on individual work stations.
MR. LAWSON continued on with the last element of the capital costs,
space planning. This would require a space planner to work with
the Juneau staff. A space planner has been utilized for months in
Anchorage due to the planned move to the Atwood Building. He said
that it is a challenge to make the most efficient use of the space,
especially when the space is limited.
Number 2548
YVONNE CHASE, Acting Administrative Director, Director, Division of
Community & Rural Development, Department of Community & Regional
Affairs, pointed out that there are costs that can be quantified
which are included in the fiscal note while other costs are
difficult to measure. Ms. Chase said that one could argue that as
programs move from one department to another, the services to the
community will be continued. However, the notion of similar
services being placed together is debatable. She noted that DCRA
spans the spectrum from fuel to babies which to many would seem
incompatible. She pointed out that with DHSS for example, families
need more than just social services. In DCRA, one of the most
effective things is working with communities on the basic survival
needs in energy. Further, through the Division of Municipal &
Regional Assistance there is assistance provided to communities to
identify problems and work to change those problems. One of the
important pieces for that is the support for children and families
through job training and the early childhood programs.
MS. CHASE emphasized that the costs for communities that do not
receive that combined service delivery system often results in an
increase in child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Ms. Chase
reiterated that the services will remain no matter the
organization, but there is about a five year window for people to
settle again. Ms. Chase identified the issue at hand as which way
saves money in the long-run.
Number 2333
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, testifying via
teleconference from Bethel, expressed concern that rural Alaska
not lose or have diminished service in those services that were
previously provided by DCRA. She noted that DCRA has been very
helpful with the fish disaster.
CARL BERGER, Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council (LKEDC),
testified via teleconference from Bethel. He explained that the
Lower Kuskokwim Economic Development Council is an Alaska Regional
Development Organization (ARDOR) which serves 27 communities on the
Lower Kuskokwim. Mr. Berger expressed the need to continue the
service provided through state agencies as in the past. The
continuation of service no matter the organization is of importance
not only for disaster situations, but also for normal everyday
services provided to the rest of the state.
MICHELLE DECORSO, Community Development Planner, Association of
Village Council Presidents, testified via teleconference from
Bethel. She believed that DCRA has always been a vital link to
villages in the region. She described DCRA as a sort of clearing
house of information even for services that DCRA does not provide.
Ms. Decorso wondered if DCRA would maintain its presence.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING reiterated that the primary intent of HB 40
is to focus on economic development. This legislation also
attempts to preserve and protect the integrity of programs
currently in DCRA because Representative Kohring believed that if
such restructuring was not attempted, departments would be open to
substantial budget cuts. He did not feel that staff administering
these programs would be overburdened because only the oversight of
the management structure is being increased.
MS. DECORSO asked if Representative Kohring intended to keep the
Bethel office open.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING clarified that there is no language in HB 40
that would eliminate the Bethel office or any other office. Any
modifications to programs and the location of the offices will be
left to the discretion of the new department.
Number 1990
SHARON CLARK, testifying via teleconference from Clarks Point,
believed that DCRA has established a great relationship and
provided much responsibility to the Bush. She did not want the
efficiencies or services of DCRA to be diminished in any way if the
consolidation should occur. With regard to the cost savings of
moving staff, Ms. Clark was concerned that the staff reduction
savings are not realistic to the cost of space planning and the
conversion of network services. She noted that DCED does not
really deal with the social problems of the communities. Ms. Clark
did agree with the move of child care and job training due to the
significant savings that could be realized from the elimination of
duplicative services. Ms. Clark supported maintaining DCRA as a
separate entity.
RAYMOND AGUVULUK, Mayor, City of Wainwright, testified via
teleconference from Wainwright. He inquired as to why the
consolidation of DCRA and DCED was wanted.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that HB 40 would save on upper
management costs when the departments are consolidated.
Representative Kohring noted that there are nine programs within
DCRA and DCED that are similar in nature. Therefore, consolidation
of programs similar in nature would create more efficiency. He
reiterated that HB 40 would also focus on economic development.
MR. AGUVULUK asked if HB 40 would be passed this year.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS stated that HB 40 would go through the process.
The legislation has two more committee referrals, House Labor &
Commerce and House Finance.
Number 1616
TIM GILMARTIN, Mayor and City Manager, Metlakatla Indian Community,
testified via teleconference from Metlakatla. He noted that his
experience has taught him that paring down is not always the
answer. Mr. Gilmartin said that he was trying to keep informed.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS said that the committee wanted to ensure that
rural communities are not forgotten and are not hurt by HB 40.
PERRY AHSOGEAK, Director, Community & National Resources, Tanana
Chiefs Conference (TCC), testified via teleconference from
Fairbanks. He said, "We oppose this legislation." He noted that
DCRA has always been a voice for the rural areas and has always
listened and worked for the villages.
MARVIN YODER, City Manager, City of Galena, testified via
teleconference from Galena. Mr. Yoder opposed HB 40. He discussed
his time working with the City of Craig which is doing well now,
however other small communities need the services provided by DCRA.
He said, "For these small communities, having a friendly agency
dedicated to their needs may make the difference between survival
and dissolution." Mr. Yoder pointed out that there is uncertainty
regarding the status of second class cities, village councils, and
other organized boroughs. The state is at a critical point in
planning for what a municipality is. Mr. Yoder believed there
should be an agency dedicated to finding solutions to such.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING explained that under the new organization
established by HB 40, there would be a new Rural Affairs Division
which is essentially the former DCRA. There would also be a
Statewide Economic Development Division which is essentially the
former DCED. The programs of the departments remain in tact.
Representative Kohring reiterated the improvements that would be
found in scoping and planning due to this centralized approach with
regard to centralized expert staff and financial support for rural
areas. This is closer to the one-stop shop concept.
MR. YODER said that he was in favor of the efficiency, but the
concern remains that the small communities need a department such
as DCRA.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated that the plan is to retain that
connection.
Number 1190
JOHN EASTAN, testifying via teleconference from Dillingham, opposed
HB 40. Mr. Eastan understood the need for consolidation of
duplicative services, but the overlapping missions of DCRA and DCED
seem to be a bit different in some areas. For example, the mission
of DCED for growth differs from the infrastructure development that
DCRA has in place. The DCRA has a more aggressive approach towards
the development of resources that may not take rural areas into
consideration. Mr. Eastan expressed concern that the grant
programs assistance to obtain grants, municipal assistance and
revenue sharing, capital grants to tribal governments, training,
and technical assistance to governments may be interrupted or
severed. He also indicated concern with the loss of a cabinet
position who is the advocate for the rural areas.
Number 1042
LARRY DICKERSON, Executive Director, Copper Valley Economic
Development Council, testified via teleconference from Glennallen.
Mr. Dickerson said that he favored improving efficiency and
effectiveness of the state delivery of programs. Mr. Dickerson
noted that there are some essential functions that DCRA provides
that no one in the state organization provides. No matter what
happens with regard to the consolidation of programs, he expressed
the need to ensure that those essential functions of DCRA not be
eliminated. Through his experience with reorganization or
consolidation, the delivery of services, resources and/or functions
are harmed.
MR. DICKERSON pointed out that DCRA is the one organization that
not only does economic development, but also helps to build the
capacities needed for economic development in the state. As part
of the unorganized borough, Glennallen does not have many of the
organizational capacities to manage the growth and change
occurring. He noted that he has had a 20 year or so relationship
with DCRA due to his various positions over the state. Mr.
Dickerson emphasized the need for the essential functions,
services, and resources to remain for those in the rural areas.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN expressed the need for DCRA to maintain its
identity through this merger due to the department's importance to
all of rural Alaska.
There being no further public testimony, the public testimony was
closed.
Number 0805
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to page 44, line 12, Section 75 (b).
He proposed an amendment that "may" be changed to "shall". He
recognized that the language, "may", was taken from the DCRA
statute, but the language for DCED is "shall". If these two
departments are to be consolidated and further budget reductions
are reviewed, the "may" language leaves the door open as far as
what the department can and cannot do. Representative Joule urged
the committee to change the language. Representative Joule offered
the amendment which follows:
Page 44, line 12
Delete "may"
Insert "shall"
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING concurred with the proposed amendment which
he believed would make the former DCRA stronger.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said that she supported Representative
Joule's amendment. She derived from the testimony today that the
concern is that the services of DCRA be maintained. The proposed
language change could alleviate that concern.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if the committee was working off the
committee substitute; did the committee adopt the proposed CS,
Version LS0056\D, Lauterbach, 3/16/99, at the last meeting?
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS said that the proposed CS, Version D, was
adopted at the last meeting. Co-Chairman Harris asked if there was
any objection to Representative Joule's amendment. There being no
objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0504
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that he had a proposed amendment,
Amendment 2, for the committee's consideration. He pointed out
that part of the fear with the merger of the two departments is
that the effectiveness of DCRA would be diminished. The overall
goal of the sponsor is well-intended and Co-Chairman Halcro
supported the concept, but care must be taken in this endeavor. He
informed everyone that the committee heard from Byron Mallott
regarding his work with communities and the concerns expressed by
those communities.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that Amendment 2 would establish a
rural affairs advocate in the Office of the Governor. This notion
developed after discussions regarding the Rural Governance
Commission who wanted a point person for rural Alaska. Amendment
2 would create a rural affairs advocate, a cabinet-level position,
that would be appointed by the governor. This advocate would work
out of the governor's office and be subject to the same rules of
ethics as commissioners. Co-Chairman Halcro noted that the rural
affairs advocate will have statutory duties which are listed in
Section 44.19.012 of Amendment 2. Co-Chairman Halcro believed that
the rural affairs advocate could be a good source of information
for the legislature in years to come.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO moved that Amendment 2 be adopted. Amendment 2
reads as follows:
Page 1, line 9, following "development":
Insert "; establishing in the Office of the Governor the
position of rural affairs advocate"
Page 26, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 50. AS 39.20 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec.39.20.085. Salary of rural affairs advocate.
The monthly salary of the rural affairs advocate
appointed under AS 44.10.012 is equal to Step E,
Range 28, of the salary schedule in AS 39.27.011(a)
for Juneau, Alaska ."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 26, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec.52. AS 39.52.170(c) is amended to read:
(c) The head of a principal; executive department
of the state may not accept employment for
compensating outside the agency that the executive
head serves. The rural affairs advocate may not
accept employment for compensation outside the
Office of the Governor.
*Sec.53. AS 39.52.180(d) is amended to read:
(d) A former governor, lieutenant governor, rural
affairs advocate, or department head, as
appropriate. This subsection does not prohibit
service as a volunteer lobbyist described in AS
24.45.161(a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as
defined under regulations of the Alaska Public
Offices Commission."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 28, following line 16:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec.64. AS 44.19.010 is amended to read:
Sec. 44.19.010. Office of the Governor. The Office
of the Governor includes the lieutenant governor,
the budget officer, the rural affairs advocate, and
the staff that the governor finds necessary to
administer the executive powers of the state.
*Sec.65. AS 44.19 is amended by adding a new section to read:
Sec.44.19.012. Rural affairs advocate. (a) The governor
shall appoint a rural affairs advocate whose duties are
to
(1) advise the governor and the heads of each
principal executive department about the role of
rural governments;
(2) monitor and advance recommendations about
proposed policy changes that would affect rural
governments and rural affairs;
(3) monitor and advance recommendations about
delivery of government services
(4) assist in coordinating efforts of state
agencies in providing services to and in the rural
areas of the state;
(5) advocate within state government for
maximization of local autonomy and local control;
and
(6) encourage respect for differing aspirations,
traditions, and cultures in the state.
(b) The rural affairs advocate may not employ staff or
adopt regulations."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Renumber internal references to bill sections in accordance
with this amendment. Below are all internal bill section
references in this bill:
Page 69, line 26
Page 70, line 30
Page 71, line 3
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. She
inquired as to how the rural affairs advocate would mesh with the
head of the rural affairs division. Would the rural affairs
advocate be the advocate for all departments or for the revamped
Department of Commerce and Rural Development?
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained that the Governor currently has a
special assistant on rural issues which would be replaced by the
rural affairs advocate. The rural affairs advocate would be the
voice of all departments with regard to all issues pertaining to
rural Alaska.
TAPE 99-21, SIDE A
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO said, in response to Representative Murkowski,
that the rural affairs advocate would not be subject to
confirmation, but would be appointed by the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated that all the governor's
appointments are subject to confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that the rural affairs advocate is
not a commissioner and therefore the position does not require
confirmation by the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said that he would be flexible in order to
provide assurances to those in rural Alaska that the programs in
the new department are given adequate attention and administered
properly. Representative Kohring expressed the need to ensure that
the rural affairs advocate position does not result in a blossoming
of additional positions underneath this cabinet level position.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO directed Representative Kohring to page 2, line
28, which should address his concern.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI surmised that the primary difference
between the current special assistant to the Governor on rural
affairs and the proposed rural affairs advocate is that the rural
affairs advocate is a cabinet position.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO agreed with Representative Murkowski. He noted
that currently the Governor's special assistant to rural affairs
position is vacant.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked, directing the question to the rural
committee members, if this rural affairs advocate would alleviate
some of the rural district's concerns regarding the consolidation.
Number 0325
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that the Alaska Constitution
requires the existence of a local government affairs agency under
the Executive Branch which has been the DCRA with its commissioner.
Representative Joule said that voice would be carried to the new
consolidated department, but that would not be the sole purpose of
the new department. Representative Joule supported the proposed
language of the rural affairs advocate.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO clarified that the special assistant does not
have statutory duties, but the proposed rural affairs advocate
would have statutory duties.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS inquired as to the other cabinet positions that
are not confirmed by the legislature.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO said that he was not sure.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that at this level there would be a
lot of networking between the different departments and
commissioners. He believed there would be positive interaction.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN said, "I'll support it. I think it's time.
We've got to start showing that we do have a heart. ...and we do
think of the whole of Alaska as a whole, not just Anchorage,
Fairbanks and not really look at the Bush. So, I think it's time
and I really appreciate it."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that Amendment 2 is an unfortunate
compromise that he would strongly support. "I think that the one
man one vote that had us, forced us to redistrict the Senate by
population did a disservice to the intention of the upper House in
our state. And, certainly on a national level, the framers
understood that the Senate was the only protection the small states
had against the overwhelming power of the large and populous
states. And I believe that our state constitution framers had
exactly the same intention and that--the idea that it would
representative--representation by judicial districts or something
else other than a strictly population base was an attempt to
protect the large and rural areas from the unintended, but
overwhelming power of the population bases. And rural Alaska lost
a strong protection and advocacy inadvertently as a result of that
ruling." Representative Dyson believed that Co-Chairman Halcro was
making the best out of an unfortunate decision. He noted that the
only other strong voice the rural areas have in the legislature is
this committee. He appreciated the committee's sensitivity to the
disenfranchisement of rural populations. Representative Dyson
trusted that the rural affairs advocate will have more than
symbolic meaning.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if Representative Murkowski maintained her
objection.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reiterated that she supported Amendment 2,
but she did not see language in Amendment 2 that states that the
rural affairs advocate is appointed by the governor.
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO directed Representative Murkowski to Section 65,
lines 13 and 14 subsection (a) specifies that this position is
appointed by the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if this cabinet appointment is
subject to legislative confirmation.
JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant to Representative Halcro,
Alaska State Legislature, clarified that the pay range of the rural
affairs advocate is at the cabinet level, but the appointment is
not a cabinet appointment. Therefore, legislative confirmation is
not required. Mr. Lack noted that the committee could change that,
if desired. Since this position is not a department head, the
constitution does not require confirmation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS believed that the intent of the rural affairs
advocate is to be similar to the Director of the Office of
Management & Budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE pointed out that the Chief of Staff and
Director of the Office of Management & Budget are not subject to
confirmation which would be similar to the rural affairs advocate.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI withdrew her objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN HARRIS asked if there were any other objections. There
being no further objections, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1177
CO-CHAIRMAN HALCRO moved to report CSHB 40, Version LS0056\D,
Lauterbach, 3/24/99, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that HB 40 is scheduled to be heard in
House Labor & Commerce and House Finance Committees.
There being no objection, CSHB 40(CRA) was reported out of
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING thanked the committee for its consideration
of HB 40 which he believed was a better piece of legislation due to
the amendments. He believed that the fiscal situation of the state
was bringing rural and urban Alaska together.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community & Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|