02/01/2011 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB65 | |
| Presentation: Denali Commission | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2011
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act making regional Native housing authorities eligible to
receive grants through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
from the senior citizens housing development fund."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION: DENALI COMMISSION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEV. FUND GRANTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON, HERRON, FOSTER, JOULE
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) CRA, FIN
02/01/11 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM CLARK, Staff
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 65 on behalf of Representative
Edgmon, sponsor.
MARK ROMICK, Director
Planning Department
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related AHFC's support for HB 65.
JOEL NEIMEYER, Federal Co-Chair
Denali Commission
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a presentation on the Denali
Commission.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:47 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04
a.m. Representatives Saddler, Foster, Gardner, and Munoz were
present at the call to order. Representatives Austerman,
Cissna, and Dick arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 65-SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING DEV. FUND GRANTS
8:05:05 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act making regional Native housing
authorities eligible to receive grants through the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation from the senior citizens housing
development fund."
8:05:26 AM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Bryce Edgmon, Alaska State
Legislature, characterized HB 65 as simple legislation that
would benefit seniors throughout Alaska by including regional
housing authorities among the entities eligible for grants
through the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation's (AHFC) Senior
Citizens Housing Development Fund (SCHDF). Currently, the fund
is open to municipalities, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofits.
He noted that the nonprofit status is based on a fairly strict
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition. He further noted
that some regional housing authorities have went to the
considerable effort to qualify as nonprofits under the IRS
definition. Mr. Clark then informed the committee that Alaska
has 14 regional housing authorities, which he characterized as
some of the most experienced and affordable housing developers
in the state. He told the committee that AHFC supports HB 65,
which has a zero fiscal note as the fund is already funded at
$4.5 million in the governor's proposed budget. The legislation
won't have any impact on costs, but will allow fund managers to
more effectively allocate the available funds.
8:10:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to how much more money will
be available to the regional housing authorities with this
change.
MR. CLARK said that in terms of the projects funded, usually
funds from the SCHDF are just one piece of the collection of
funding from various sources. He pointed out that the committee
packet includes three examples of SCHDF projects, all of which
demonstrate a fairly diverse collection of funding sources. For
one project the total development cost was $5.1 million of which
SCHDF provided about 20 percent of the funds. For another
project the total costs were $2.3 million of which SCHDF
provided about 50 percent of the funds. In yet another project
the total development costs were $2.4 million of which SCHDF
provided about 16 percent of the funds.
8:12:06 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to the balance of the fund.
MR. CLARK related his understanding that AHFC tries to exhaust
SCHDF's resources annually. In further response to Chair Munoz,
Mr. Clark said the fund has been in the $4.5 million range over
the last few years. Returning to the examples of projects he
spoke of earlier, Mr. Clark informed the committee that the
first example was a retirement community in Fairbanks with 20
units, which he characterized as one of the most ambitious
projects of the three he highlighted. The second project,
located in Houston, is six units with a cost of $2.3 million.
The third project he highlighted earlier is located in Togiak
and is also a six-unit project with a cost of $2.4 million.
8:14:30 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that the SCHDF is
traditionally viewed as gap financing.
MR. CLARK answered that's his understanding as well. According
to officials associated with housing authorities, their funding
for even a single project is diverse, including funds from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, AHFC, the
Denali Commission, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development.
8:15:33 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the fund has historically been able to meet
the requests submitted.
MR. CLARK related his understanding that at times grant
applicants have been turned away. However, the number of
applicants turned away in a given year versus those applicants
that are awarded a grant is not a great proportion. He related
his further understanding that AHFC has discussed this
legislation as allowing AHFC to be more effective in the
allocation of these funds. Therefore, it's possible, he
conjectured, that a larger number of worthy projects are being
funded, but at a slightly lower amount for each project.
8:16:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked if a particular regional housing
authority identified the need to fill a gap.
MR. CLARK opined that there's always a need for more senior
housing since seniors are the fastest growing segment of
Alaska's population. Furthermore, he recalled that the goal of
this legislation is among the priorities of the statewide
association of housing authorities. The legislation was
specifically brought to Representative Edgmon by the Aleutian
Housing Authority.
8:18:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked if the regional housing authorities
are providing feedback specifying that there are projects in the
coming years. He clarified that he's trying to obtain a sense
of the demand for this funding.
MR. CLARK conjectured that there won't be a dramatic increase in
pressure on the fund, but he noted that around the state senior
projects are being hoped for and planned.
8:19:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to whom the 501(c)(3) and
501(c)(4) nonprofits are and how they feel about this proposed
increase in competition for the grant funds.
MR. CLARK related his understanding that AHFC didn't anticipate
any problems. He pointed out that the applicants in the past
have totaled two to nine.
8:20:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the sponsor anticipates that
with passage of HB 65 different groups will participate or will
those existing nonprofits have easier access.
MR. CLARK informed the committee that only a handful of the 14
housing corporations have managed to acquire 501(c)(3) or 501(c)
(4) nonprofit status. Therefore, HB 65 will save the other
housing authorities from having to acquire 501(c)(3) or
501(c)(4) nonprofit status, which he predicted will greatly
increase the number of qualifying housing authorities.
8:22:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to what organizations will be
in line to apply for these funds.
MR. CLARK explained that the regional housing authorities in the
state are Native housing authorities, many of which are
administered through the area's Native associations. However,
he pointed out that the Native association's work as housing
authorities are open to anyone in need.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there are other entities that
will want to utilize this opening to SCHDF grants.
MR. CLARK opined that since the regional housing authorities are
so closely identified with the regional Native entities, this
legislation would take care of that desire.
8:23:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN turned the committee's attention to the
zero fiscal note and asked if this proposal will eat into AHFC's
dividend that it pays to the state each year.
MR. CLARK related that AHFC doesn't believe there will be any
additional cost to the state. With or without HB 65, SCHDF has
been included in the governor's proposed budget in an
appropriation of $4.5 million.
8:25:07 AM
MARK ROMICK, Director, Planning Department, Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, related that AHFC supports HB 65.
8:25:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that after visiting so many
communities and seeing senior housing, she is reminded of the
need for studies in order to discover what exactly is needed in
terms of senior housing. She asked if there have been such
housing studies.
MR. CLARK noted that the grant process for the SCHDF is quite
rigorous and includes the showing of a demonstrated need,
feasibility of the project, and sustainability of the project
once it's built.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the meaning of
sustainability.
8:29:13 AM
MR. ROMICK answered that for AHFC sustainability includes
operating expenses, particularly utilities. Therefore, AHFC
requires all property in which it's involved to meet the state's
thermal standards for energy efficiency. The AHFC encourages
meeting the highest level of energy efficiency palpable with the
existing energy efficient rating system. The corporation also
encourages exploration of alternative heating systems rather
than traditional oil systems. Mr. Romick said that energy
efficiency and reduction of operating expenses through the
heating system or use of long-term maintenance free materials
and using very energy efficient construction is an important
part of the program, as well as the use of energy efficient
appliances.
8:31:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested that it would be great to more
closely review the rating speculations in terms of meeting the
needs that exist.
CHAIR MUNOZ said she would be happy to hear that topic at
another hearing.
8:32:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed the committee's attention to the
letter from the Bristol Bay Housing Authority (BBHA) which
references an attorney general's opinion stating that the
regional housing authorities weren't eligible to use these
grants. He requested that Mr. Clark speak about that.
MR. CLARK explained that the opinion refers to the 501(c)(3) and
501(c)(4) status demanded by the IRS. Because the regional
housing authorities are nonprofits and operate similar to a
501(c) nonprofit, there was confusion regarding whether those
entities were already eligible for the grant fund. Therefore,
the attorney general's opinion was to clarify that matter. When
it was definitively determined that the regional housing
authorities weren't eligible unless they became 501(c)(3) or
501(c)(4) status, this legislation was pursued.
8:33:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER pointed out that HB 65 has the support of
AHFC as well as many regional housing authorities. He then
expressed interest in the number of senior citizens HB 65 would
benefit. To that end, he used the first project as an example
and extrapolated numbers to determine that 80 seniors would
benefit.
8:35:17 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 65 would be held over.
^PRESENTATION: Denali Commission
Presentation: Denali Commission
8:35:37 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business before
the committee is a presentation of the Denali Commission.
8:37:10 AM
JOEL NEIMEYER, Federal Co-Chair, Denali Commission, began by
informing the committee that it's his second year serving and
thus he has been on the board for a year. He related his work
background, which included a five-year stint with the Denali
Commission that started in June 1999. He then informed the
committee that the Denali Commission is based on the regional
commission model, the first of which was the Appalachian
Regional Commission. A couple years after the Denali Commission
formed, the Delta Regional Authority was established. He noted
that there are three other commissions. Mr. Neimeyer
highlighted that the Denali Commission is an independent federal
agency with ties to the U.S. Department of Commerce. He
explained that with the Denali Commission Act of 1998 Congress
entrusted seven Alaskans to determine where the funds are used.
The aforementioned act set forth the following general governing
principles: small staff; limited overhead costs; numerous
program partners; shared resources, common vision; transparency;
and decisions made in Alaska. The slide with the pie chart
entitled "FY99-FY10 Denali Commission Program Funding Uses"
illustrates that since inception the Denali Commission has
funneled over $1 billion to 2,100 projects. The pie chart
further illustrates that the main area of service is for energy,
which is predominantly for bulk fuel storage tanks and rural
power upgrade systems. He noted that although the Denali
Commission continues to do a lot of work with bulk fuel, it has
expanded to include power generation. In fact, recently the
Denali Commission has worked in partnership with the state on an
emerging energy technology program. The pie chart also
illustrates that the Denali Commission spends about $300 million
on health facilities. He explained that early on it was decided
that rather than base the program [for construction of health
facilities] on cost it would be based on minimum need.
Ultimately, 47 different stakeholders from throughout the state
were brought together over the course of 10 months to discuss
the role of the Denali Commission and how it may have a positive
impact on the delivery of primary care in rural Alaska. The
result was a matrix by which the size and square footage of a
clinic was based on the population and isolation factor of a
community. Mr. Neimeyer moved on to the slide with the graph
entitled "Denali Commission Funding Sources FY99-FY10" which
illustrates the decline in funding that started in 2007. The
next slide has a map of the U.S and the coverage of the various
commissions. The map also illustrates that the other
commissions touch many other states and thus they have many
representatives speaking on their behalf in Washington, D.C. In
contrast, the Denali Commission has the least number of
representatives speaking on its behalf in Washington, D.C.
8:45:24 AM
MR. NEIMEYER referred to the slide entitled "Partners" that
lists some of the partners of the Denali Commission. He
highlighted that the Denali Commission partners with the federal
government, the state, and nonprofits depending upon whomever
it's best with which to work in the community and provide the
service. He said that the next slide entitled "Partnerships
Make it Happen" illustrates the partnership between the state
and the Denali Commission. Of the almost 900 Denali Commission
projects funded over the course of 2006-2010, the Denali
Commission had $478 million of funds available, the state
provided $106 million to those specific projects and the Denali
Commission leveraged funding in the amount of $461 million. The
aforementioned illustrates the state's direct funding
partnership with the Denali Commission, but more significantly
is that the state provides project management for a significant
number of the projects.
8:46:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that when the Denali Commission
sought additional state assistance in 2004, there were some who
purported that the Denali Commission is a federal program and
didn't need state funding. She asked if that's accurate.
MR. NEIMEYER stated that the Denali Commission's relationship
with the state existed from the beginning. Mr. Neimeyer said
that he has heard comments similar to those Representative
Gardner heard and acknowledged that the original act didn't have
a cost share match requirement. However, a couple years later
with the health program, a cost share match requirement was
established.
8:49:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then asked if the $4:$1 match specified
on the slide entitled "Collaborative Programming" has changed.
She also asked if the other commissions have comparable state
participation.
8:49:43 AM
MR. NEIMEYER highlighted that of the $2.4 million the State of
Alaska provided to the Denali Commission, $106 million went
directly to projects. He then turned attention to the $300
million the legislature provided for weatherization across the
state. The Denali Commission provided $1 million for training,
most of which went to the housing authorities and were mainly
used to train their crews so that they could be more efficient
with state funds. Although the credit for the aforementioned
improvements belongs to the state, the Denali Commission's small
investment likely allowed the $300 million to go further. The
aforementioned illustrates the collaborative programming and how
the Denali Commission, in this time of declining appropriations,
can be more effective with the state and other program partners.
In further response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Neimeyer
confirmed that the other commissions are similar to the Denali
Commission. However, the other commissions have legislation
that specifies the states are to contribute funds that cover
half of the administration of the commission. Furthermore, the
other commissions have a required cost share match, which is
generally 50 percent. Mr. Neimeyer pointed out that in other
states, the other regional commissions can use their funds to
match other federal funds. The aforementioned has resulted in
[the states using the commission's funds as matching funds] in
order to help extend [state] projects by [the state] not having
to put forth the match.
8:53:12 AM
MR. NEIMEYER moved on to the slide entitled "Denali Commission
Programs" which lists the following programs: energy program,
health facilities program, transportation program, training
program, and government coordination. He remarked that the
government coordination is the magic of the Denali Commission.
He then continued with a review of the energy program, which
includes windmill turbines that reduce the demand for oil for
power generation. However, the use of windmill turbines doesn't
reduce the size of the generation plants that are required. He
noted that bulk fuel farms remain a significant portion of what
the Denali Commission does within the energy program. With
regard to the health program, he specified that [the projects]
are predominantly primary care clinics, although some work is
with rural hospitals. The newest major program of the Denali
Commission is its transportation program, which consists of
surface roads and waterfront ports and harbors. He related his
observation that waterfront ports and harbors is an area in
which the state can collaborate with many stakeholders and
deliver a message to Washington, D.C.; the need seems to be
great in that area. Although there seems to be robust
programming for surface roads, there isn't as much programming
for waterfront ports and harbors. He then pointed out that the
Denali Commission's training program is a very important
component. The Denali Commission aims to train those in rural
settings to be able to work in the Denali Commission projects.
8:55:26 AM
MR. NEIMEYER then thanked the legislature for approving the $3
million the governor placed in the administration's budget a
couple of years ago. The approval of the funds brought to light
that the Denali Commission doesn't have the legal authority to
accept those funds. Of the $3 million, about half will go
toward energy projects while the other half will go toward
transportation projects. For the transportation program there
is a transportation advisory committee that reviews projects.
This year there were 41 waterfront projects and 31 road
projects. The transportation advisory committee met and ranked
the 41 waterfront projects. Since the committee didn't have
enough time to score the surface road projects, that will be
completed in the first week of March. He stated that there will
be a need for an additional cost share match in the
transportation program.
8:56:47 AM
MR. NEIMEYER informed the committee that the Denali Commission's
health program no longer receives behavioral health funding.
However, since there are some leftover behavioral health funds,
the Denali Commission is proposing a suite of four behavioral
health projects. He clarified that part of this request to the
legislature is re-tweaking existing state funds. Therefore,
although there will be no new funds requested, there will be
action requested of the legislature. Mr. Neimeyer related that
in the federal fiscal year 2011 budget there is proposed
legislation that would impact the Denali Commission's energy
program.
8:57:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that in St.
Paul wind turbines funded by the federal government have never
been used because of disputes between the corporation and the
local government that owns the utilities. She said she wasn't
sure whether the Denali Commission is involved or not.
MR. NEIMEYER said that he didn't know the story, but would find
out and forward any information to Representative Gardner.
8:58:42 AM
MR. NEIMEYER, referring to the slide entitled "State $3 Million
Partnership Grant," informed the committee that the seven
proposed power generation projects listed had been funded by the
Denali Commission and the state. However, to reach completion
the projects needed additional funds and thus $1.6 million will
go to those seven proposed power generation projects. During
the December meeting of the commissioners [of the Denali
Commission], it was determined that these should be moved to
construction ready projects. Therefore, the seven proposed
power generation projects should be in construction this summer.
8:59:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked if those projects are all wind
farms.
MR. NEIMEYER responded no, clarifying that most of them are
power generation projects. Upon reviewing the list of seven
communities, he said he didn't believe those communities have
the sort of wind regime that would allow for wind turbines. He
confirmed that the projects are primarily diesel based, that is
diesel generators fired with oil.
8:59:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her observation that in many of
the communities she has recently visited, diesel power
generation is bankrupting communities. Moreover, many of these
communities are losing their populations quickly and often the
folks who could operate [the power generation projects] such as
wind turbines leave. The result, she indicated, is people with
little knowledge of the systems trying to run them. She
indicated the need for the definition of sustainability to
include systems for which there are knowledgeable operators.
Although she praised the Denali Commission for some of its work
with health programs, rural communities often end up with
impressive health facilities that are better than many in urban
centers and yet the community housing is substandard.
9:04:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER opined that the Denali Commission is a
great program for all Alaskans. He then expressed pleasure in
seeing infrastructure being built and local people being trained
and put to work.
9:04:44 AM
MR. NEIMEYER related that with regard to the $3 million match,
the commissioners met in December and determined to use the
funds for projects that are "good to go." On the transportation
side, the mooring projects were viewed as a good opportunity.
He pointed out that the slide entitled "State $3 Million
Partnership Grant" specifies the 17 communities in which there
are mooring projects. Although he didn't believe there is
enough funding to do all 17 mooring projects, the Denali
Commission will strive to do as many as possible. The mooring
projects are based on a Corps of Engineers study. He explained
that the Denali Commission does a survey of the infrastructure
needs or deficiencies after which solutions and strategies are
developed. Referring to the slide entitled "Chevak Mooring", he
explained the need for these moorings, in terms of safety and
efficiency for all, as well as the construction of the moorings.
Mr. Neimeyer then referred to the slide entitled "FFY 11
Transportation Program" and related that the Transportation
Advisory Committee wanted to commit the $3.9 million and the
$12.4 million to waterfront projects. He explained that there's
enough funding in place with the $3 million match. The Denali
Commission has $14.2 million available for roads, but at least a
$500,000 match will be required. The funding the Denali
Commission receives from the Federal Highway [Administration]
has a 9 percent [match] requirement for roads and the funding
from the Federal Transit Authority for ports and harbors has a
20 percent [match] requirement.
9:08:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the matching would come into
play in a case in which the state invests in other waterfront
projects but can't cover the entire cost or is it based on other
criteria. He noted that there is also a ports and harbors fund
within the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) that the state should place more funds. If the state
were to place more funds in [the ports and harbors fund] would
those funds be eligible for a match from the Denali Commission.
MR. NEIMEYER said that the Denali Commission has two kinds of
approaches. He clarified that there are those in which the
state is the predominant funder and the state comes in with $1
million. The Transportation Advisory Committee has tried to
limit most of the transportation projects the Denali Commission
funds to $1 million. The reason is that if the Denali
Commission funded some of the larger projects, very few
communities would enjoy these projects. Therefore, often Denali
Commission is the last funder on many of the major ports and
harbors projects the state funds. The Denali Commission is also
involved in smaller projects which can easily be achieved with
$1 million or less, in which case the Denali Commission is the
primary funder. He noted that routinely much of the funds for
those come from the local communities, although some applicants
don't have the cost share match which is how the Denali
Commission uses the state funds. In further response to
Representative Austerman, Mr. Neimeyer informed the committee
that the Denali Commission has had conversations with DOT&PF
specifically about the ports and harbors program in order to
determine how the Denali Commission can better utilize its
mutual resources. He said he expected something to be in place
within the next year.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noted that the [legislature] is having
conversations regarding how to build up the [ports and harbors]
fund in order to make such projects more viable and position the
communities such that they can approach the Denali Commission.
MR. NEIMEYER interjected that the Denali Commission can offer
and has offered pre-construction funding to prepare a project.
He related his view that such would be a continued function of
the Denali Commission.
9:12:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK stated that he has lived on the Western side
of the Alaska Range for 44 years and has seen some huge benefits
from various programs that have reached the area. However,
there are some programs that prove to be bewildering. For
instance, he recalled a village that received $250,000 for
roads, although no one in the village owned a car or a truck.
In fact, there were only four four-wheelers of which only two
were running. He clarified that he isn't saying those funds
came from the Denali Commission. He further clarified that he
is in favor of seeing funds go to villages to help sustain them,
but situations such as the aforementioned are bewildering. He
offered another example in which a village has solar panels that
have never produced any electricity for the village, which
continues to run diesel generators. He expressed the need for
these projects to have a connection with reality.
Representative Dick offered himself as a resource to the Denali
Commission in curbing the rural out migration in a manner that
makes sense in the smaller communities.
9:14:06 AM
MR. NEIMEYER, returning to his presentation, directed attention
to the slide entitled "Health Program and State Legislative
Changes." He explained that there are two pieces of legislation
that will require cost share matching. Therefore, the Denali
Commission is proposing using the balance of its behavioral
health funding to complete the following four projects: Yukon-
Kuskokwim Elder Assisted Living Facility, Tundra Women's
Coalition, Nugen's Ranch, and Seed of Change.
9:15:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER suggested that Nugen's Ranch is an
example of what Representative Dick was discussing. Upon
reviewing Nugen's Ranch's annual report to the legislature,
Representative Gardner has come to understand that 50 people
started the program and 40 completed the program. There is a
follow up of the 40 who completed the program. She recalled
that the follow up was only six months after completion of the
program, which she believed to be inadequate in terms of
determining whether those people remained sober. Furthermore,
the report indicates that the program spoke with friends and
family members of 16 of the 20 people the program lost track of
in order to determine whether the individual remained sober.
The program is reporting that it has a 72 percent success rate.
Representative Gardner charged that the success rate for the
Nugen's Ranch program is nowhere near 72 percent and a one-year
follow up seems standard. Therefore, she didn't believe the
success rate they purport is real.
MR. NEIMEYER offered to research the matter and get back to her.
9:17:09 AM
MR. NEIMEYER mentioned that the Denali Commission is working
with Karen Rehfeld, Director, Office of Management & Budget,
Office of the Governor, on the suite of four behavioral health
projects.
9:17:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the behavioral health money that
is going to be lost is Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
funds or general funds (GF). He also asked why the funds are
going away.
MR. NEIMEYER clarified that it's Denali Commission funding. He
explained that when the Denali Commission received $30-$40
million annually from the U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services it would fund a broad array of projects. As that
federal funding has declined, the Health Steering Committee and
the commissioners determined that most of those remaining funds
should be used for primary care.
9:18:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that one of the problems is that
in Alaska the issues vary across the state as does the location
in which the issues arise. With regard to spending funds on
drug abuse, suicide, and other such issues, the Denali
Commission has spent funds on those problems. She then
expressed the need to study and develop science and evidence-
based standards that "fit." She further expressed the need to
develop standards to judge the recovery of all the different
programs as well as to ensure that the funds are well spent.
9:20:42 AM
MR. NEIMEYER, referring to the slide entitled "Energy Program &
proposed Federal Cost Share Requirements," informed the
committee that the federal fiscal year 2011 president's budget
proposes a cost share match requirement from the Denali
Commission's base budget, which is expected to be $12 million.
Of that $12 million, the [president's budget includes] a
requirement for a 20 percent cost share match for economically
distressed communities and a 50 percent cost share match for
non-distressed communities. There is also legislation in
Congress that includes such cost share language. Therefore, he
indicated that the cost share language is likely to come forward
in some fashion. The cost share requirement is largely being
done to make the Denali Commission look more like the other
regional organizations that have a very prescribed cost share
match. Mr. Neimeyer estimated the amount of the match needed
will range from $4.5 million to $15 million.
9:22:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked if those projects in which there is
cost sharing the state would have some oversight of the project.
MR. NEIMEYER replied yes, and characterized it as routine.
Furthermore, the collaborative entities would receive common
reports and analysis to ensure that the work is completed on
time, on schedule and within the budget and scope of the
project.
9:23:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the cost share match is to come
from the state or the community.
MR. NEIMEYER explained that this year the cost share match will
come through the community. However, if through the continuing
resolution process a match is required, he suspected that in
time the sophisticated communities that have been identified for
funding Denali Commission projects will come to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that the federal
requirement of matching isn't like when one takes out a mortgage
and has to have a certain amount of money that can't be
borrowed. "The idea is that you personally have an investment
in what's happening and if they're requiring a cost share, it's
not just a funding mechanism but also to have a local
investment," she said.
MR. NEIMEYER replied yes.
9:25:19 AM
MR. NEIMEYER continued by pointing out that government
coordination is another program. He explained that government
coordination is all the interaction between the different
agencies and stakeholders and communities. He then informed the
committee that prior to taking his current position last January
he was notified that [Alaska's congressional] delegation was
interested in the Denali Commission taking the lead on
"sustainable rural communities." The question posed was: "How
can federal services, programs, and projects be delivered to
rural Alaska more efficiently?" The discussion then isn't about
the price of fuel but rather is about the Denali Commission's
regulations and policies in the federal agencies that create
barriers. Upon starting this conversation, it became apparent
that the federal agencies wanted to have this conversation.
Therefore, the Denali Commission produced a report in July in
which the federal agencies identified barriers. The report was
put out for public comment and those comments have been
received, and the process to develop a supplemental report has
begun. Mr. Neimeyer, referring to the slide entitled
"Findings," pointed out that the federal agencies felt it's
important to have a lead agency, focus on community, solutions
in partnership at the federal level, and a regional approach.
He mentioned that the supplemental report should be out in the
next couple of months. In conclusion, Mr. Neimeyer informed the
committee that the Denali Commission will be holding listening
sessions during which Alaskans can provide input regarding what
the Denali Commission is doing right, what is it not doing, and
how can it improve.
9:30:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if in-kind efforts are included in
funding sources.
MR. NEIMEYER answered that in-kind efforts are acceptable to
some degree. Drawing from his 26 years putting rural projects
on the ground, Mr. Neimeyer said that in-kind contributions can
easily be gamed. For instance, a community makes a commitment
to allow equipment to be used for a project, but when it
actually comes time for the project to use the equipment, the
equipment is being used elsewhere. Therefore, back in 1998/1999
the agency determined that it wanted easily measurable and
quantifiable in-kind contributions such as land and gravel
rather than labor.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if any of the listening sessions
will use video conferencing.
MR. NEIMEYER responded no. The Denali Commission will send
letters with the commission's annual work plan asking for
written comments for the communities. He noted that the
meetings in Nome and Bethel are being staged in coordination
with other organizations holding meetings in the area.
9:33:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired as to the portion of the total
energy budget of the Denali Commission that is spent on
alternative energy versus hydrocarbons [in villages]. He
expressed hope that the alternative energy portion of the Denali
Commission's budget would be increasing while the hydrocarbon
portion would be decreasing.
MR. NEIMEYER informed the committee that last year the Denali
Commission funded a little over $3 million for emerging energy
technology and this year $2.4 million in funding is being
proposed for consideration. Although the portfolio of typical
power projects includes wind and hydro kinetic energy, the main
portion is the core electrical infrastructure. He emphasized
that without a state-of-the-art electrical facility, any other
alternative energy improvements won't work well. He noted that
the state has put forth much effort in the alternative arena.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN noticed that one of the Denali
Commission's partners is the Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC). Drawing from his knowledge of AVEC a
few years ago, he recalled that AVEC didn't seem to be a very
efficient operation in that different equipment would be used in
different communities, which required different parts and
maintenance knowledge and procedures. He asked if that has
changed.
MR. NEIMEYER characterized AVEC as a wonderful partner. In the
very beginning, AVEC committed to provide a 10 percent cost
share match to each project with regard to local involvement and
ownership of the project. With regard to the specific concerns,
Mr. Neimeyer related his supposition that what Representative
Austerman discussed may be a legacy of AVEC allowing a community
to join with its existing technology, which would've been
developed under a different regime. Still, he offered to report
back to the committee on the matter.
9:38:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related that he has watched the Denali
Commission for some time and is appreciative of its efforts
within the state. In fact, the Denali Commission's
sustainability model is one that the state should follow. With
regard to the decline in federal funding and the need for the
state to stand up, he suggested that the Denali Commission will
need support from the legislature for the state to stand up.
Therefore, he encouraged better connection between the Denali
Commission and the legislature.
9:40:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the next stage of the
Denali Commission, which may be the end stage as future funding
seems to be declining.
MR. NEIMEYER acknowledged that federal funds are declining and
will likely continue to decline. He opined that the key to the
Denali Commission's success in the future is its transportation
program, if it remains robust and viable. He remarked that
there's a certain dollar figure that folks will pay attention
to, but he wasn't sure what that amount is.
9:42:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding [from the chart
entitled "Denali Commission Funding Sources FY99-FY10"] that the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) funding is increasing
and inquired as to what it's funding.
MR. NEIMEYER informed the committee that the EPA funding is no
longer available. He explained that the graph illustrates the
various legislative platforms that have provided funding to the
Denali Commission. In further response to Representative
Saddler, Mr. Neimeyer stated that the more that can be done with
waterfront ports and harbors, the better. Still, if the Denali
Commission has a transportation program, it will address both
surface and water transportation projects.
9:43:52 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if there would be a listening session in
Southeast.
MR. NEIMEYER related that the Denali Commission sent out
requests to regional players' to host a listening session, but
has yet to hear from anyone in Southeast.
9:44:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how many communities in
Alaska have waterfronts.
MR. NEIMEYER conjectured that 90 to 95 percent of communities in
Alaska have waterfronts.
9:45:22 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ thanked Mr. Neimeyer for his presentation.
9:46:34 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:46 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 65 Aleutian Housing Authority Support.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 Interior Regional Housing Authority - Letter of Support.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 Kodiak Island Housing Authority - Letter of Support.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB65 Economic Impact of Alaska Regional Housing Authorities.PDF |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 Bristol Bay Housing Authority - Letter of Support.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 Cook Inlet Housing Authority Support.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 SCHDF Summary.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 Expected Testimony.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB 65 Sponsor Statement 1.27.11.pdf |
HCRA 2/1/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |