Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/29/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB366 | |
| HB364 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 364 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2012
8:05 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. 366
"An Act establishing an Alaska intrastate mutual aid system and
relating to the duties of the Alaska division of homeland
security and emergency management and the duties of the Alaska
State Emergency Response Commission."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 364
"An Act relating to a credit against the net income tax for a
contribution made by a taxpayer to a nonprofit organization that
provides an emergency shelter for the homeless or a facility for
alcohol or drug detoxification."
- MOVED CSHB 364(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 366
SHORT TITLE: DISASTER PLANNING AND SERVICES
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
03/15/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/12 (H) MLV, CRA
03/27/12 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/27/12 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/27/12 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/28/12 (H) MLV RPT 6DP
03/28/12 (H) DP: MILLER, AUSTERMAN, CISSNA, LYNN,
THOMPSON, SADDLER
03/29/12 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 364
SHORT TITLE: TAX CRED: CONTR. TO HOMELESS SHELT/DETOX
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
03/12/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/12 (H) CRA, FIN
03/22/12 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/22/12 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/12 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/29/12 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 366.
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff
Representative Eric Feige
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 366.
RICHARD ETHERIDGE, Chief
Capital City Fire/Rescue;
Second Vice President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 366.
JIM BULTER, Attorney
Baldwin & Butler
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to forward HB 366.
DAVID GIBBS, Director
Emergency Operations
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 366.
DENNIS BRODIGAN, Director
Department of Emergency Services
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 366.
BRYAN FISHER, Chief of Operations
Division of Homeland Security/Emergency Management
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 366.
TERRY HARVEY, Staff
Representative Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the committee with additional
information on HB 366.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 364, answered
questions.
DAN AUSTIN, General Manager
St. Vincent de Paul Society of Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to forward HB 364.
LAUREN RICE, Director
Public Advocacy
Covenant House Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 364 and its
intent.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:05:21 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05
a.m. Representatives Austerman, Dick, Saddler, Gardner, and
Munoz were present at the call to order. Representatives Foster
and Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 366-DISASTER PLANNING AND SERVICES
8:05:39 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 366, "An Act establishing an Alaska intrastate
mutual aid system and relating to the duties of the Alaska
division of homeland security and emergency management and the
duties of the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission."
8:06:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, Alaska State Legislature, informed
the committee that HB 366 proposes to establish a statewide
mutual aid framework. He explained that mutual aid is a system
used by emergency service organizations to provide backup to one
another. It's fairly common for neighboring communities to
respond to a request from a local fire department for additional
equipment.
8:07:24 AM
MICHAEL PASCHALL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 366 by paraphrasing from the following
written remarks [original punctuation provided]:
For disclosure purposes, I am an assistant chief and
board member of a fire department that may fall under
this agreement and I chair the Delta Greely Local
Emergency Planning Committee, which may be asked to
participate in planning activities under this
agreement, and am a member of the State of Alaska
Interoperable Communications Committee under the State
Emergency Response Commission.
Representative Feige is the chief of the Chickaloon
Volunteer Fire Department and may participate in
activities under this agreement.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
"Mutual aid agreements and assistance agreements are
agreements between agencies, organizations, and
jurisdictions that provide a mechanism to quickly
obtain emergency assistance in the form of personnel,
equipment, materials, and other associated services.
The primary objective is to facilitate rapid, short-
term deployment of emergency support prior to, during,
and after an incident."
Through the EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance
Compact), all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands all
have agreed and established guidelines to provide aid
across state boarders.
Across Alaska, local organizations adjacent to each
other sometimes have agreements to provide assistance
in the event of an emergency, often within the same
political subdivision. When an incident commander
needs additional resources, such as an additional
ambulance, established procedures work to make the aid
available.
Unlike the EMAC that allows response across state
borders, and local agreements that provide assistance
for isolated incidents - Alaska has no unified
agreement in place allowing one political subdivision
to assist another.
Although assistance can be obtained, all of the
details concerning cost, responsibility, liability,
and other details have to be negotiated on a situation
by situation basis.
When an event occurs, people work to continue the
operation or the reestablishment of these services.
Time is not available to negotiate items such as: Who
will pay the transportation costs to the area? Who is
responsible for maintenance? Who can terminate an
employee? Etc.
HB 366 and its companion in the other body, SB 208,
will put in place a tool that will make assisting
those in need easier for us here in Alaska. This
process is not just about typical emergency services
such as fire, police, and emergency medical services.
It also includes everything from water and sewer
treatment facilities, electricity and other utilities,
care of pets and livestock, debris removal, shelter
management, transportation, fuel delivery etc. All
services individuals expect to be available to them
before, during and after an emergency.
The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA),
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and
interested emergency response organizations developed
model legislation for an intrastate mutual aid system
(IMAS). A copy of the model legislation has been
provided to you.
The bill you have before you is Alaska's adaptation of
the IMAS. It was developed by the Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management in conjunction with
several organizations including the Alaska Fire Chiefs
Association, Alaska Municipal League, and the
Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Section 1 of this bill requires the Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management to play an
integral part in developing and implementing the
Intrastate Mutual Aid System established by this bill.
Section 2 requires the division to coordinate the
operation of the IMAS.
Section 3 addresses the State Emergency Response
Commission and requires the commission to make
recommendations about IMAS and adopt regulations
necessary to carry out the agreement.
Section 4 requires the commission to review and make
recommendations about the mutual aid system.
Section 5 establishes the mutual aid system between
participating political subdivisions. Provides that
every political subdivision is a participating member
unless the subdivision withdraws. Provides what
assistance a political subdivision may request.
Addresses qualifications and employment of, and
workers' compensation for, emergency responders.
Establishes reimbursement procedures, tort liability
for participating political subdivisions. Provides
definitions for the provisions establishing the mutual
aid system.
8:12:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the mutual aid system envisions
assistance only for disasters as defined or for responses to
routine situations.
MR. PASCHALL explained that under this agreement, the requesting
political subdivision must declare a local disaster in order for
the mutual aid agreement to come into effect. This agreement,
he clarified is not the type of agreement that's utilized for a
house fire or a wreck. The purpose of this agreement is so that
say Fairbanks could provide services to Eagle. In further
response to Representative Saddler, Mr. Paschall said he didn't
believe the term "disaster" is defined in [HB 366], and
therefore he offered to review how it's defined in statute. Mr.
Paschall related that the requesting subdivision would declare
that it has a disaster in that it has exceeded its available
resources and needs help.
8:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK observed that HB 366 has been heard in the
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs and
was reported out from it with no changes.
MR. PASCHALL confirmed that was the case. He noted that the
legislation was drafted mutually with the House and the Senate,
introduced by the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee in order to move through the House and catch up with
the Senate legislation.
8:15:11 AM
RICHARD ETHERIDGE, Chief, Capital City Fire/Rescue, Juneau,
Alaska; related support for HB 366, which creates the framework
for a mutual aid agreement within the state. Currently, each
department has to negotiate with neighboring departments to
develop a mutual aid agreement. In Southeast Alaska the
aforementioned is difficult because there are multiple small
communities that aren't connected by a road system.
Furthermore, there are small mining and logging camps with
emergency responders who can be overrun and experience major
disasters. Since one emergency responder organization doesn't
know which agency it'll be working with, it isn't practical for
one department to make agreements with each separate
municipality or local government. However, it does make sense
for an emergency responder organization to work with neighboring
departments with which they work on a regular basis. This
legislation is a collaborative effort between the state, local,
and federal agencies to establish a uniform framework so that
everyone is on the same page and has the same expectations when
there is a disaster. Furthermore, the legislation creates
common definitions. Mr. Etheridge highlighted that no
department in Alaska has the ability to handle a major disaster
on its own, particularly since smaller local governments would
have a different definition of "disaster" than the larger
municipalities. This legislation provides a framework for
agencies to lend assistance during a disaster and avoids
negotiations for payments and coverage during the disaster, and
therefore quickens the ability to lend assistance. Although
state law allows for mutual aid agreements with neighboring
departments, it isn't practical. Therefore, HB 366 will
eliminate the aforementioned administrative process. Mr.
Etheridge informed the committee that in the last few years
Juneau has been called more often to help neighboring
communities. He opined that with declining budgets and the
difficulty faced with the recruitment and retention of
volunteers, [establishing an Alaska intrastate mutual aid
system] is more important than ever. For example, the town of
Hoonah is down to eight firefighters, and therefore a simple
structure fire could overwhelm Hoonah and result in a request to
Juneau for assistance. In such an event, time is critical and
having this all in place beforehand makes it easier to lend aid
quickly. He then told the committee that just last month Juneau
Fire/Rescue was called to Thorne Bay for a hazardous materials
call. He characterized HB 366 as common sense legislation that
has all the chiefs and emergency managers working on the same
page. In conclusion, Mr. Etheridge related the support of the
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association and Capital City Fire/Rescue for
HB 366, which he encouraged the committee to move forward.
8:19:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled Mr. Paschall's earlier testimony
that a community would have to declare a disaster in order to
invoke the mutual aid system. She asked if the situation in
which Hoonah needed help holding a class would require it to
declare a disaster.
MR. ETHERIDGE clarified that HB 366 wouldn't impact typical
things like that rather he highlighted it in order to illustrate
the shrinkage departments are experiencing. He informed the
committee that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
requests 18 people as a standard response to a structure fire.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that effectively [emergency
responders will continue] working with neighboring communities
in those ways. She further surmised that HB 366 wouldn't cover
the issue of liability in a situation in which [a responder] is
injured, for instance, when the Juneau Fire/Rescue went to
Thorne Bay to respond to the hazardous material call. She asked
if the liability would be borne by the community that requested
assistance or by the entity responding.
MR. ETHERIDGE explained that currently they have to negotiate
with each community when aid is sent. He noted that Juneau
Fire/Rescue does assist prior to the declaration of a disaster
in hopes of keeping the situation scaled down. Therefore,
HB 366 would create the framework so that [the details] are
specified and each individual municipality could model their
agreements after that proposed in HB 366.
8:22:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER related his understanding then that the
definition of disaster is more a function of the capability of a
community/department to the situation rather than an absolute
definition.
MR. ETHERIDGE replied yes, adding that it's based on the
capabilities of the community either through the size of its
emergency responders or the capabilities of its department. For
instance, Juneau Fire/Rescue responded to the situation in
Hoonah when two of its police officers were shot because it
effectively shut down Hoonah's emergency medical services.
Although Juneau Fire/Rescue was able to provide assistance, the
logistics and details took quite a bit of time to work through.
This legislation would allow the details to be worked out prior
to the need for assistance.
8:23:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there are many logging camps
left in Southeast Alaska. He then inquired as to the
capabilities of the logging camps in terms of autonomous fire
protection or disaster response.
MR. ETHERIDGE answered that some logging camps will have their
own small fire brigades that would be volunteers. He said that
there are some small logging camps. The mining camps in
[Southeast Alaska] tend to have more structured medical and fire
services.
8:24:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to how this [intrastate
mutual aid system] would work in terms of Anchorage that has
paid firefighters versus Eagle River that has volunteer
firefighters. He further inquired as to whether Anchorage and
Eagle River would be considered one political subdivision for
the purpose of requesting mutual aid or would there be sidebars
between the volunteer force and the professionals.
MR. ETHERIDGE responded that he wasn't sure how such close
neighboring communities would work, but he imagined it would be
up to political leaders in the communities to make the
decisions.
8:25:08 AM
JIM BULTER, Attorney, Baldwin & Butler, began by informing the
committee that he's been involved in the incident management
community for a little over 20 years and remains fairly active
with both the public and private sector corporate incident
management teams that work on the state, regional, and national
levels. He related that about 60-70 percent of his practice
deals with issues surrounding incident management and disaster
related issues for a variety of clients. Over the years the
disaster system has been put together principally by a plan, but
it's often forgotten that the plan is the bone of the system.
This legislation, he opined, provides the muscle and the
connective tissue in that it provides a mechanism for
participating entities to pre-organize the system that's
necessary to ensure resources move between different
jurisdictions, particularly in the area of nontraditional
resources. Because fire and hazardous materials incidents are
more frequent, there are clearer lines of authority between
state and local agencies, especially in the area of fire, to
move resources for wild land fires. The situation becomes more
complex when there is the need to move public
works/utilities/specialist resources. This legislation allows
pre-development of a standardized system for the administrative
matters and helps develop a system that qualifies and types
those resources. Mr. Butler expressed hope that HB 366 will
provide another tool for policymakers who are in office during a
disaster in their community, such that there is a plan as well
as administrative issues in place. In conclusion, he urged the
committee to forward HB 366.
8:28:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if Mr. Butler had any role in
bringing HB 366 forward.
MR. BUTLER said he participated collaterally as he has
encouraged those involved to move along the process. He noted
that he is the sole public member of the State Emergency
Response Commission and although he isn't speaking on behalf of
the commission, supporting the type of initiative in HB 366 has
been an issue it has discussed for some time. Mr. Butler
saluted those involved in taking the initiative for making
HB 366 happen.
8:29:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to why the statute is necessary
for something that makes so much sense.
MR. BUTLER offered that in many cases, municipalities view the
authorities/responsibilities granted to them through their
charter documents or Title 29 work within the borders of their
particular jurisdiction. The concept of moving resources across
the line is sometimes different than what is planned for as they
typically plan for situations within their jurisdiction.
Furthermore, while one municipality may work with its neighbor
with a mutual aide agreement, this legislation attempts to
create a standardized framework that's recognized on a statewide
level and would allow issues with insurance and risk management
to be addressed so that everyone has "skin in the game" when
resources are moved between jurisdictions.
8:31:28 AM
DAVID GIBBS, Director, Emergency Operations, Fairbanks North
Star Borough, related the support of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough (FNSB) for HB 366. The FNSB believes HB 366 is good
public policy and provides a framework for a consistent and
integrated mutual aid system to ensure effective response in
disaster situations. He informed the committee that the 2009
ice jam flooding provided real world experience with this matter
and was part of the impetus for the legislation. The FNSB was
asked to provide fire service to the City of Eagle since its
volunteer fire department was inundated with flood waters. The
FNSB emergency management staff also assisted with sheltering a
plane load of evacuees from another Yukon River village. He
noted that there was an additional request for assistance for
animal care and control, which couldn't be provided because of
the lack of an agreement to do so. These communities were
geographically isolated from the borough, and therefore the
borough never contemplated the need for mutual aid agreements
with them. The myriad of issues that arose impacted the FNSB's
ability to provide timely assistance to these communities, and
thus clearly demonstrated the need to have procedures and
agreements in place long before a disaster occurs. Mr. Gibbs
opined that the establishment of an integrated and structured
intrastate mutual aid system as proposed by HB 366 will
substantially close the gap.
8:34:06 AM
DENNIS BRODIGAN, Director, Department of Emergency Services,
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, related support for HB 366 for all
the reasons stated by his colleagues. This legislation will
assist those [communities] with finite resources in times of
disaster as it will provide a clearing house to gain additional
resources in a timelier manner.
8:35:07 AM
BRYAN FISHER, Chief of Operations, Division of Homeland
Security/Emergency Management, Department of Military & Veterans
Affairs (DMVA), related support for HB 366. He informed the
committee that DMVA has worked with local jurisdictions over the
last few years to put together the language encompassed in
HB 366. The legislation directs the Division of Homeland
Security/Emergency Management to work primarily as the
administrative management piece in order to ensure that all the
policies, procedures, necessary documentation on reimbursement,
et cetera are in place. The legislation further directs the
State Emergency Response Commission to oversee the
implementation of IMAS. Statutorily the division is responsible
for review of interjurisdictional disaster response plans and to
work with local governments to ensure that the division is
prepared to meet any size disaster in the state. Currently,
division staff is the primary support to the State Emergency
Response Commission. Therefore, the legislation has a zero
fiscal note because it's already part of the division's routine
business to ensure that the plans are in place, coordinated, and
appropriate records maintained. With regard to an earlier
question, Mr. Fisher informed the committee that the term
"disaster" is defined in the Alaska Disaster Act, AS 26.23.900.
Furthermore, the language in AS 26.23.140 enables principle
executive officers of a political subdivision to declare a local
disaster. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that the division is
fully prepared to support HB 366.
8:37:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER stated she was puzzled with the zero
fiscal note because on page 1, line 9, the language says, "To
this end, it may employ or otherwise secure the services of
professional and technical personnel ...."
MR. FISHER explained that there are times when a political
subdivision has contracted response personnel for day-to-day
response, such as to run public works facilities. Therefore,
the intent of the language was to ensure that those folks would
be covered so that contracted public works personnel from one
municipality could be used in another municipality.
8:38:50 AM
MR. PASCHALL, in response to earlier questions, explained that
in terms of Anchorage and Eagle River the Municipality of
Anchorage is one political subdivision and has agreements with
the two volunteer fire departments within it. The Fairbanks
North Star Borough has numerous fire departments within the
municipality as well as in the City of North Pole and the City
of Fairbanks, which are separate subdivisions. The intent with
HB 366 is to address situations such as Valdez requesting
equipment from Deltana, which would be anticipated. With regard
to training, Mr. Paschall directed attention to the language on
page 5, line 28, and on page 6, lines 5 and 7, which is a
response guideline as well as a preparation guideline.
8:40:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related that she was disappointed that no
one from Anchorage is testifying on HB 366, which she assumes
means Anchorage isn't troubled by the legislation. She then
posed a scenario in which HB 366 becomes law and Anchorage has
existing agreements with other subdivisions, which would take
precedent.
MR. PASCHALL clarified that this doesn't override existing or
future agreements between political subdivisions.
8:41:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised then that HB 366 speaks more to
the relationship for mutual aid between the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, for instance,
rather than the Anchorage Fire Department and the Chugiak
Volunteer Fire Department.
MR. PASCHALL responded that's correct.
8:42:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to the definition of "disaster"
in AS 26.23.900, which doesn't include the component of the
ability to respond to the capacity as mentioned by Mr.
Etheridge. Therefore, he expressed interest in reconciling the
different definitions of "disaster".
MR. PASCHALL explained that responders provide assistance when
the receiving/requesting entity has exceeded its capacity,
otherwise they wouldn't ask for assistance. The definition
speaks to who can declare a disaster. For example, an
unincorporated village, which is defined as a community of
greater than 25 people, can declare a disaster. Upon further
clarification from Legislative Legal Services, he said he
understood that any unique or cohesive area could be considered
a community, a political subdivision, and thus request
assistance under this agreement. In further response to
Representative Saddler, Mr. Paschall stated that he hadn't seen
any language that addressed the number of times a disaster could
be declared. However, an executive officer can declare a
disaster for up to seven days. Following the initial period,
the municipal body has to provide a formal statement of the
declaration of a disaster. He reminded the committee that this
is in reference to a local disaster because a larger disaster
would be declared by the governor and the disaster cabinet. Mr.
Paschall emphasized that [the details/agreements for a larger
disaster] are already in place, this legislation addresses how
small communities declare disasters or emergencies and ask for
assistance from others.
8:44:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER characterized [HB 366] as smart planning;
however, he asked if there are any areas of the legislation that
could be improved.
MR. PASCHALL noted that he didn't participate actively in
drafting HB 366, but believes it was well done and addresses the
unique aspects of Alaska.
8:46:15 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ closed public testimony.
8:46:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to report HB 366 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
8:47:18 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:47 a.m. to 8:49 a.m.
HB 364-TAX CRED: CONTR. TO HOMELESS SHELT/DETOX
8:49:57 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 364, "An Act relating to a credit against the net
income tax for a contribution made by a taxpayer to a nonprofit
organization that provides an emergency shelter for the homeless
or a facility for alcohol or drug detoxification."
8:50:15 AM
TERRY HARVEY, Staff, Representative Munoz, Alaska State
Legislature, pointed out that the committee should have a
Legislative Research Services' document that identifies the
nonprofit emergency and drug and alcohol detoxification
facilities in Alaska. The document does note that there is the
possibility that they may have overlooked other existing
facilities. He told the committee that information regarding
categorizing the facilities that offer only housing versus those
that offer housing and additional services for the homeless is
forthcoming.
8:51:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled that the Salvation Army has a
facility that offers housing for fathers and children, which
isn't on the list.
MR. HARVEY offered to research that facility. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Harvey acknowledged that
facilities could face erratic funding if there aren't repeat
donors to these organizations, which could result in holes in
their budget for which they approach the legislature to fill.
The proposed committee substitute incorporates changes to
address the aforementioned.
8:54:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt CSHB 364, Version 27-
LS1425\I, Nauman, 3/27/12, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version I was before the committee.
8:54:58 AM
MR. HARVEY offered to review the changes encompassed in Version
I. He related that he heard from several of the shelters
regarding the requirement for individual organizations to report
to the state the donations received, the amount, and the use of
it. There was concern with regard to the paperwork involved and
the ability to track the donations, particularly for small
organizations that receive small dollar donations. There was
also concern with regard to how this would impact state agencies
involved with providing operational dollars to these
organizations, specifically there was concern that reports
indicating a certain amount of incoming dollars could impact
what the organization annually expects from the state. Those
concerns were addressed by deleting the reporting requirement
and on page 2, line 10, inserting paragraph (d), as follows:
(d) The commissioner shall, by January 1 of each year,
provide to the legislature a list of recipients of
contributions, the total amount of contributions
reported, and the total amount of credit claimed under
this section during the previous calendar year.
8:58:24 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ clarified that in HB 364 the organization had to
report to the legislature, but the change encompassed in Version
I requires the commissioner of DOR to provide a report to the
legislature regarding those organizations that had utilized the
tax credit.
MR. HARVEY replied yes, adding that it's still important for the
legislature to know how this tax credit is being implemented and
how effective it is. He reminded the committee that the
legislation includes a sunset provision. He then opined that he
doesn't believe the information would be used against an
organization requesting grants and state funding.
8:59:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related that his district and region are
supportive of this legislation. Upon review of the list of
organizations, it seems to offer good regional balance.
9:00:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER maintained concern regarding whether
these funds [receiving the tax credit] would potentially
supplant state funds and create a lack of sustainability for
these organizations.
9:01:52 AM
MR. HARVEY, returning to his review of the changes in Version I,
directed attention to page 2, line 3, subsection (c). The
impetus for subsection (c) was from Representative Austerman who
expressed the desire for organizations that want to make a
donation to be able to obtain a predetermination regarding
whether their donation would receive the tax credit.
9:03:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER expressed concern that there is no plan
to have DOR confirm that an agency actually received a donation
for which the taxpayer filed a claim. Therefore, she questioned
whether there should be a confirmation process to confirm those
reported as receiving the donation actually did receive it.
MR. HARVEY deferred to DOR.
9:04:58 AM
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue, explained that this proposed tax credit would work as
the existing tax credits. Therefore, when the division performs
its audit, it would confirm that the recipient received the
funds. With new tax credits, the division often performs a
compliance project, which reviews every taxpayer who claimed the
tax credit and reaches out to the recipients to ensure receipt
of the funds. The aforementioned are common processes for which
the division doesn't need additional statutory authority.
9:06:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER posed a scenario in which a contribution
is for a building fund. She asked if that information would be
easily included in the report so that having a building fund
with assets in it wouldn't adversely impact the organization
when it approached the legislature for operating funds.
MS. BALES answered that more than likely, the division wouldn't
know specifically for what the funds were used. The division
would merely track the contribution to ensure that a qualified
organization received it. Therefore, at the time the agency
requests additional funds, it would be up to it to let the
legislature know how the funds were used. The division would
provide the data to confirm that the agency did receive the
contribution.
9:07:30 AM
DAN AUSTIN, General Manager, St. Vincent de Paul Society of
Juneau, began by highlighting that Juneau is Alaska's most
homeless city. On a per capita basis, Alaska has one-and-a-half
times the homeless rate in Anchorage, four times that of
Fairbanks, and three times that of Los Angeles County to which
some refer to as the homeless capital of America. Over the last
two decades, homelessness has grown throughout the nation but
the resources to operate shelters have not kept pace. For
instance, after more than 10 years of operating a childcare
facility for low income families St. Vincent de Paul had to
close it last year because it had to decide whether to utilize
its resources for maintenance and operation of its homeless
facility or to subsidize its childcare facility. On top of
that, just last month heating oil increased to over $4.00 per
gallon. Furthermore, St. Vincent de Paul had to suspend the
purchase of food vouchers. Mr. Austin emphasized that it's
important to know that many shelters such as St. Vincent de Paul
provide housing as well as other services to those who are
homeless and poor, including food vouchers, travel assistance,
medical assistance, and emergency family aid. Therefore, as the
operating expense of the shelter and the demand on the shelter
increase, something has to be eliminated. Normally, the
discretionary services that help keep the safety net together
for the poor in the state is the first to be eliminated. Mr.
Austin informed the committee that St. Vincent de Paul doesn't
rely on state and federal grants for the shelter's operation
rather it relies on the thrift store revenues, which supply
about 51 percent of the actual operating expense of the shelter,
and the other 49 percent is provided by the residents
themselves. In conclusion, Mr. Austin urged the committee to
move HB 366 forward so that shelters in Alaska can sustain
operations while working on the critical issue of homelessness.
9:11:30 AM
LAUREN RICE, Director, Public Advocacy, Covenant House Alaska,
explained that Covenant House is a shelter for homeless and at-
risk youth in Anchorage. Although the facility is located in
Anchorage, it truly serves the entire state. Last year,
Covenant House Alaska served over 4,000 individual youth of
which about 48 percent of the youth served are Alaska Native.
Covenant House Alaska provides a spectrum of services including
emergency services as the facility is open all day every day and
programs through which youth can stay with Covenant House for up
to a year-and-a-half and live in transitional housing and gain
life skills. Covenant House Alaska offers everything from food
and showers to long-term educational support. She characterized
Covenant House Alaska as almost serving as the family for these
youth well into their late teens and early twenties. Ms. Rice
related support for HB 364 and the intent behind it; private
investment in the nonprofit community is essential not only so
that nonprofits can provide services but also for the health of
the entire community. The majority of the Covenant House Alaska
budget consists of private funds and its work is to share with
individual corporations and businesses in the community stories
of the youth and the mission of Covenant House Alaska to meet
the needs of the youth. The aforementioned is vital to Covenant
House Alaska's operating budget and to its advocacy and
communication efforts because the youth at Covenant House Alaska
are some of the most invisible youth in the state. Homeless
youth become invisible as a means of survival, she stated. The
corporate employees to which Covenant House Alaska reaches out
become mentors, instructors of life skills classes and provide
service work and special events. The benefits youth receive
from corporate volunteers go well beyond the monetary amount
invested. This legislation incentivizes the efforts of Covenant
House Alaska even more as it provides an incentive for companies
to learn and invest in nonprofits serving their neighbors.
Furthermore, HB 364 facilitates private investment in human
services from which all involved parties benefit. Ms. Rice
noted her appreciation for the changes in Version I. In
conclusion, Ms. Rice stressed that Covenant House Alaska's
support of HB 364 is to encourage and incentivize private
investment in nonprofits, not to diminish or impact the state's
role in caring for the state's most vulnerable population. She
related her view that HB 364 is a way to increase private
investment and community support of Covenant House Alaska's
work, not replace state funding or grants.
9:15:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked then if Ms. Rice has no concern
that corporate donations might supplant state funding.
MS. RICE answered that wouldn't say that she has no fear of that
and acknowledged that tax incentives and tax breaks have
replaced some federal funding. However, nothing in HB 364
indicates to Covenant House Alaska that the aforementioned is a
process the state will go through. This legislation is viewed
as another tool in the tool box. If organizations find that
[the tax credit] impacts gaining state support for their
services, they could choose not to participate. Ms. Rice opined
that the onus is on the organization to do the strategic
planning and maximize resources and services provided when there
is extra revenue while not putting into place systems that are
unsustainable. Organizations such as Covenant House Alaska,
which has been providing services for over 20 years, that have a
long history of building sustainable budgets understand that
every year they have to build their operating budget and they
are prepared to make responsible decisions.
9:17:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the purpose for including
the requirement that DOR provide a list of donation recipients
to the legislature if it's not to possibly supplant state
funding.
MR. HARVEY related that he worked with DOR on that language.
He further related that the success of this program depends upon
donations and what kind of tax credit is acted upon. The annual
report to the legislature was felt to be beneficial and provide
insight into how the program develops.
9:18:47 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked whether this requirement is similar to that of
the education tax credit and other tax credit programs.
MR. BALES informed the committee that in other tax credit
programs DOR provides the aggregate number of contributions, not
a list of who receives the contribution.
CHAIR MUNOZ asked then if Ms. Bales believed it would be best to
make the language consistent with what is done with other [tax
credit programs].
MS. BALES responded that it would depend upon the legislature's
intent in terms of analyzing this credit. She recalled the
hearings on the film credit, during which she understood the
legislature wanted to know the recipients of the tax credit in
order to determine whether the tax credit is working. Ms. Bales
said she wasn't sure the list of recipients of the tax credit
would really tell the legislature [whether it's working] rather
it provides knowledge as to how many contributions were made.
Therefore, she opined that it's up to the legislature to
determine.
9:20:16 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that she is amenable to a language change
regarding the list.
9:20:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Amendment 1, as follows:
Page 2, line 11,
Delete "a list of recipients of contributions,"
9:21:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected, and added that the legislation
proposes some generous incentives. Therefore, it might be
useful to know who is receiving the [tax credit]. He opined
that who is receiving the benefits might be useful for the state
to know how effective the organizations are.
9:21:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she could see real value in knowing
the categories of totals there are. However, listing specific
names is problematic, she indicated. She asked whether there is
an easy way to provide an aggregate of different groups, such as
those dealing with homelessness, substance abuse, and child
welfare.
9:23:08 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ pointed out that the legislation already speaks to
emergency shelters for the homeless and facilities for alcohol
and drug detoxification. She asked whether it would be possible
to provide aggregate totals in those two broad categories.
MS. BALES answered that the division could do that, but asked if
the committee is interested in the size or other details of the
shelters.
CHAIR MUNOZ asked whether the aforementioned can be accomplished
with Amendment 1.
MS. BALES said the division would need more specific language,
such as "and the types of facilities". She related that when
the division writes regulations it listens to the appropriate
legislative meetings to determine the intent.
9:25:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER withdrew Amendment 1.
9:25:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved Conceptual Amendment 2, which would
insert language requiring a list of total [contributions] by
category of recipients. Representative Gardner specified the
language to be inserted [in place of the language on page 2,
line 11, "a list of recipients of contributions,"] would be:
"the amount of the contributions subtotaled by category of
recipient for" and the categories would match those listed on
page 1, lines 11-13 of Version I.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 adopted.
9:27:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether it would be the intention
of DOR to make the list of eligible entities available on its
website.
MS. BALES answered that DOR would do that. Because of the
501(c)(3) requirement the IRS has a list of those and the
division would work with the sponsor and the organizations in
the state to compile such a list.
9:28:09 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ recalled that there was an Anchorage facility
missing from the list of [nonprofit emergency shelters and drug
and alcohol detoxification facilities in Alaska]. She expressed
the need to include any organizations that may have been
inadvertently missed.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER informed the committee that the facility,
the McKinnell House in Anchorage, is actually listed.
MS. BALES told the committee that the statutory language would
trump the list, and therefore those entities that are properly
designated would be on the list.
9:29:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER maintained his belief that it would be
beneficial for the state to have more specific information
regarding who is using the tax credits and how they are applied.
Therefore, he expressed interest in obtaining a clear definition
of the various types of facilities so that as much information
as possible could be obtained in order to determine how
effective the tax credit program is. He also expressed the need
to know which entities would fall under HB 364 and which
wouldn't because there is a list from Legislative Research
Services and another list of homeless shelters and they don't
necessarily overlap. For example, Beans Cafe and Alley Chalet
aren't on the Legislative Research Services list.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that those entities not on the
Legislative Research Services list aren't shelters.
9:31:04 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if Ms. Bales could further refine those
categories as the legislation moves forward.
MS. BALES agreed to do so.
9:31:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern with regard to lists of
taxpayers who donate as there would seem to be privacy issues.
CHAIR MUNOZ clarified that it would be an aggregate list by
broad category of recipients. Therefore, the individual donor
information wouldn't be reported.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA acknowledged that, but expressed suspicion
that [the individual donor information] may be linked.
Moreover, she didn't want people to unknowingly jeopardize [an
entity] and expressed concern with donations taking over the
role of state funding.
CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that this tax credit is
for companies that make donations and receive a corporate tax
credit or other tax credit per the IRS code.
MS. BALES confirmed Chair Munoz's understanding and then
directed attention to the language on page 2, line 1, which
specifies that the amount of the credit is 50 percent of the
contribution up to $200,000. Therefore, for a corporation that
makes a $400,000 donation, $200,000 will come from the
corporation and $200,000 from state's general fund in the form
of a tax credit. The tax credit proposed in HB 364 is
structured such that for every dollar a donor gives, the state
matches.
CHAIR MUNOZ related her understanding that this doesn't refer to
small individual donations rather it refers to corporate
donations.
MS. BALES agreed, and added that the only tax type for which
this contribution can be taken against is the corporate income
tax.
9:36:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his understanding that there are
26 different pieces of tax credit legislation. The legislature
should be concerned with regard to the cumulative impact of
those tax credits to the state treasury even though much of the
information indicates the cost to the state treasury is
indeterminate. While this is a generous credit and it's good to
review creative efforts to support worthy causes, there has to
be concern with regard to the possibility of supplanting federal
funds and the need for more state funds later for these
causes/charities.
9:37:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her agreement, but hesitated to
draw the line for the most indigent and needy group.
Furthermore, the cumulative issue is for the House Finance
Committee to address.
9:38:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHB 364, Version 27-
LS1425\I, Nauman, 3/27/12, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 364(CRA) was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
9:38:41 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:38 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB364 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |
| CSHB364 version I.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |
| HB364-DOR-TAX-03-16-12.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |
| HB364 Leg Research Homeless Stats.pdf |
HCRA 3/29/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 364 |