Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/05/2011 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB183 | |
| Overview: Update on the Energy Efficiency Policy & Recommendations by the Cold Climate Housing Research Center | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 183-APPLICATION OF VILLAGE SAFE WATER ACT
8:08:47 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 183, "An Act relating to the Village Safe Water
Act."
8:09:12 AM
SHELIA PETERSON, Staff, Representative Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from the following sponsor statement:
House Bill 183 amends the definition of "village"
under the Village Safe Water Act. Currently an
unincorporated community, a second class city, or a
first class city with not more than 600 residents is
eligible to receive a grant under the Village Safe
Water Program. House Bill 183 amends the definition to
include a home rule city with less than 600 residents.
A home rule city has the same government powers as a
first class city. The difference rests in how the two
cities are organized. A first class city is
established under AS 29.35.50-260 while a home rule
city adopts a charter as the framework for the city.
Four years ago the City of Nenana as awarded a Village
Safe Water grant to upgrade an aging water and sewer
system. The city worked diligently with state
officials for several years to plan and finalize the
project. Unfortunately, right before construction was
to begin, the Department of Environmental Conservation
notified Nenana that the city was not eligible to
receive a Village Safe Water grant; the city was not a
first class city, but a home rule city.
The change in HB 183 allows the City of Nenana to
proceed with the needed upgrade to its water and sewer
system using Village Safe Water funds. Passage of HB
183 this year ensures that a construction season is
not lost.
8:10:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to who establishes the terms
for the grants.
MS. PETERSON deferred to Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) staff.
8:11:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether it would be possible
to merely change the definitions of the grant such that the
language specified that home rule cities are eligible for grants
rather than changing the definition of a home rule city.
MS. PETERSON clarified that the definition of "village" is in
statute and is explicit in terms of what type of organized
community qualifies. Therefore, to add a different type [of
organized community] the statute would have to be changed, which
is what HB 183 does. Ms. Peterson added that there is companion
legislation in the Senate Finance Committee. The Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee adopted a
committee substitute (CS) for that companion legislation and a
blank CS mirroring the Senate CS has been provided to the
committee.
8:12:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if there has been any discussion
regarding an effective date.
MS. PETERSON related that she and the sponsor have noticed that
HB 183 doesn't have an effective date, and therefore they might
ask the committee to consider an effective date.
8:13:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said that he fully supports expanding the
definition if it results in more communities being eligible. He
then inquired as to the consequences of removing the existing
statutory language referring to the two-mile radius.
MS. PETERSON confirmed that Version M does delete the existing
statutory language referring to a two-mile radius.
8:15:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if this change would impact
communities other than Nenana.
8:15:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 183, Version 27-LS0601\M, Bullard,
3/30/11, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version M was before the committee.
8:15:40 AM
BILL GRIFFITH, Program Manager, Facility Programs, Division of
Water, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), said that
under Version M several communities would be impacted. The home
rule municipality change would allow Nenana and Yakutat to
qualify for village safe water funding. Increasing the
population allowed under the statute for first class cities and
home rule municipalities from 600 residents to 1,000 residents
would result in several more communities being included.
Several of the communities that would now be included have just
recently surpassed a population of 600, such as Akiachuk and
Kipnuk. He noted that several other communities have been at a
population of more than 600 residents, but haven't been eligible
for some time. Those communities include King Cove, Hoonah, and
Sand Point. There are also communities, such as Kake and
Kasigluk, with a population of over 550 that would soon be
ineligible if the population doesn't increase. Mr. Griffith
pointed out that Version M also includes a change that specifies
which unincorporated communities would be included. That change
requires that the community has an established local government,
either a city or tribal government. Therefore, some currently
eligible communities without a city or tribal government would
become ineligible. However, these communities could become
eligible again by forming a second class city. In response to
Representative Saddler, Mr. Griffith guessed that there are
probably dozens of unincorporated cities or cities without a
tribal government. He noted that although most of those
communities haven't requested village safe water funds, a
handful of communities have.
8:18:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER expressed interest in which communities
would be impacted, particularly if any are in his district.
Representative Foster then related a situation in which the
village of Sheldon Point recently changed its name to Nunam
Iqua, and asked if that would be a problem.
MR. GRIFFITH replied no.
8:19:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that Version M
makes changes to move from an unincorporated community to a
village listed in 43. U.S.C. 1610 or 1615.
MR. GRIFFITH agreed with her understanding and offered to
provide a copy of that list.
8:20:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised that the aforementioned is a bit
different than the sponsor's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, in response to Representative Foster's
earlier question, estimated that there may be eight villages in
Representative Foster's district that might benefit from this
proposed change. He then directed attention to a document in
the committee packet that specifies the villages that will be
eligible [for village safe water funding under Version M].
MR. GRIFFITH, referring to the list, pointed out that the second
class cities would remain eligible because the statute will
continue to have no population limit for second class cities.
8:21:41 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
testified in favor of HB 183 as it addresses an issue that has
been in play for many years. Municipalities and communities
with all the attributes of "smaller ones" have been left out of
[the ability to qualify for village safe water funds] because of
their populations or differing status. With regard to
Representative Foster's earlier question, the village of Nunam
Iqua would be fine as it's still a municipality. Those
communities that have difficulties with elections likely have a
tribal government or a municipal government and would likely
[remain eligible for village safe water funds]. One of the
issues with programs that provide services or pockets of funds
to unincorporated communities with no tribal or municipal
government, is regarding to whom the check is given and held
responsible in terms of ensuring the project is completed.
Therefore, the language defining ["village" as the specified
organized communities] is appropriate since it requires the
residents in the community to assign someone as the head of the
community to at least receive the funds and be responsible to
the state in terms of the use of the funds.
8:23:32 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ requested that Ms. Wasserman explain the different
types of community organization.
MS. WASSERMAN explained that a home rule city is guided by a
charter, although it has ordinances. First class cities are
responsible for their education, have a planning and zoning
commission, and can levy a property tax. Second class cities
are usually much smaller and aren't required to provide as much
paperwork or responsibility in order to operate the city, save
one exception. She agreed with Ms. Peterson that it would be
difficult to change the status through regulations. In further
response to Chair Munoz, Ms. Wasserman said a second class city
has sales tax authority. Although a second class city may have
property tax authority, she didn't believe any levy it. A home
rule city may levy a property tax.
8:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER, referring to the document specifying new
communities eligible under Version M, inquired as to why St.
Mary's, a first class city with a population of 507, would be a
newly eligible community rather than a community that is already
qualified. He further inquired as to why St Mary's wasn't
already eligible.
MS. WASSERMAN responded that she would've also assumed St.
Mary's would've been eligible all along and wouldn't know why
they aren't.
8:26:38 AM
JASON MAYRAND, Mayor, City of Nenana, informed the committee
that the City of Nenana is a home rule municipality and has done
its utmost to be self-sufficient, reliable, and independent of
the state. He highlighted the common understanding of the state
that communities should keep their government as close to the
people as possible, which Nenana has done by incorporating and
having its own charter. Of all home rule municipalities
organized as home rule, Nenana is the smallest by far. This
legislation would allow replacement of 35 year old
infrastructure, the water and sewer system. He informed the
committee that the City of Nenana filed its application, the
grant documents were accepted, and the grants appropriated.
Shortly thereafter, Nenana's ineligibility was found. He
acknowledged that there is the possibility of going through the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) project, Safe
Water and Clean Water funds for which the state provides 85
percent of the grant with a 15 percent match. The city utilized
the aforementioned back in 2000 for a short expansion project
which resulted in a debt of $520,000, the 15 percent.
Therefore, the City of Nenana is paying about $3,400 a month for
the next 20 years to repay that loan. Although that doesn't
seem like a lot, the municipality operates on about $600,000 per
year. With the increases in energy costs and health care costs
and payroll for city employees very little is left to do any
capital projects. Mayor Mayrand stressed that the City of
Nenana's water plant could fail any day. Although maintenance
for the water plant is high, the city has good operators. In
fact, the prime operator for the City of Nenana's sanitation
system was recently awarded operator of the year for the state.
He opined that the aforementioned illustrates that Nenana is
responsible and takes care of its systems. In conclusion, Mayor
Mayrand requested that HB 183 be passed this session as time is
of the essence.
8:30:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to the project the City of
Nenana borrowed money from the state.
MAYOR MAYRAND specified that it was an extension project for
lines that provide sufficient capacity for the required
sprinkler system in the Nenana Student Living Center.
8:31:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the changes encompassed in
Section 1 of Version M would impact other programs or
opportunities.
8:32:22 AM
SCOTT RUBY, Director, Division of Community & Regional Affairs,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development,
answered that he didn't believe the changes in HB 183 will
impact other programs because the definition is specific to the
eligibility of the Village Safe Water Program.
8:33:06 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:33:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved that the committee adopt a
conceptual amendment to include an immediate effective date for
HB 183. There being no objection, it was adopted.
8:33:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the statute for the
Village Safe Water grants.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER answered AS 46.07.010.
8:34:40 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:34 a.m. to 8:36 a.m.
8:36:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the adoption of the immediate
effective date to HB 183 will allow Nenana to process its grant
application and begin the project this construction season.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied yes.
8:37:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report the proposed CS for
HB 183, Version 27-LS0601\M, Bullard, 3/30/11, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 183(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 183 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| CSHB 183 ( ).pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| CSHB 183 ( ) Changes.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| Nenana Letter.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| Population 500-1000.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2011 8:00:00 AM SFIN 4/17/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| ANCSA Reference.pdf |
HCRA 4/5/2011 8:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |