Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2011 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR4 | |
| SB102 | |
| HB183 | |
| HB89 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 183
"An Act relating to the Village Safe Water Act."
9:30:26 AM
SHEILA PETERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN DICK, explained
CS HB 183 (CRA) and the proposed changes in the CS. She
related that the Village Safe Water Act (VSW) provided
grants for water and sewer in small communities in Alaska.
The bill addressed issues of eligibility. She informed the
committee that VSW defined a village as an unincorporated
community, a second class city, and a first class city with
less than 600 residents. The legislation modified the
definition, modestly eased eligibility, and established
accountability.
Ms. Peterson detailed that the City of Nenana, (population
370) applied for a VSW grant. The community worked with
city officials to plan and design an upgrade to their
existing water and sewer system. The existing system was in
use since 1970. The grant was awarded. The city
subsequently learned that they were ineligible for the
grant because Nenana was a "home rule" city organized under
a charter. She delineated that a home rule city received
their authority under an adopted charter rather than state
statute. The bill added home rule municipalities with less
than 1000 residents eligible for the VSW program. Under the
provision, Nenana and Yakutat were eligible for VSW
funding.
Ms. Peterson continued to discuss the legislation. The bill
raised the population limit for eligibility for first class
cities to 1,000. The legislation ensured that an
"unincorporated community" with a governing body was
eligible. She defined "unincorporated community" as a
community that was not a home rule, first class, or second
class city. Villages identified under Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) qualified. The legislation intended
that ANSCA villages would operate under governing bodies.
She identified the problem. The Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act required that a village must form a non-
profit or for profit corporation but did not mandate a
governing body.
9:34:15 AM
Ms. Peterson indicated that the CS endeavored to include
unincorporated communities. The CS required unincorporated
communities to adopt governing bodies for VSW eligibility.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether Representative Dick
supported the CS. Ms. Peterson affirmed.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT CS Work Draft HB 183
27-LS0601/I (4/11/11 Bullard) as a working document before
the committee.
Representative Doogan OBJECTED.
Representative Doogan asked for a list of the eight first
class cities that would benefit from the population limit
increase. Ms. Peterson referred to an email addressed to
her from Bill Griffith (4/11/11) (copy on file) distributed
to the committee that listed the communities. She listed
the eligible communities: Akiachak, Kipnuk, Yakutat,
Klawock, Hoonah, Ninilchik, King Cove, and Sand Point.
9:37:27 AM
BILL GRIFFITH, FACILITY PROGRAMS MANAGER, DIVISION OF
WATER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), in response to a question
by Representative Neuman, explained that Talkeetna had
water facilities operated and maintained by the borough not
the city. The borough received funding through the
municipal matching grant and loan program. Talkeetna was
eligible for the VSW program.
LINDSAY WOLTER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
ENVIRONMENTAL SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference),affirmed Talkeetna's eligibility for VSW
grants .
Representative Neuman commented that the City of Talkeetna
imposed a tax for water and sewer services to help pay for
the system the Mat-Su borough provided.
Representative Costello wondered about the change related
to the definition of "unincorporated community." She
anticipated unintended repercussions with the change in
statute. Ms. Peterson replied that the definition of
village only applied to the Village Safe Water Program. She
pointed out that the CS removed the ANCSA list. She read
the definition that replaced the ANCSA list related to
eligibility from the CS, Page 1, lines 9-16:
(D) the Annette Island Reserve established by 25
U.S.C. 495 for the Metlakatla Indian Community;
(E) a community with a population between 25 and 1,000
that is represented by (i) a council organized
under 25 U.S.C. 476 (sec. 16 of the Indian
Reorganization Act);
(ii) a traditional village council recognized by
the United States…
Ms. Peterson reassured the committee that the definition
only applied to the VSW program.
Ms. Wolter expressed uncertainty about the interpretation.
She discerned that the language appeared to single out
native or tribal governments eligible for the grants. She
cautioned that possible constitutional concerns existed.
She understood that DEC would like to have a local
government in place to administer the grant and operate the
water and sewer system. She wanted assurance that mandating
tribal governments to form a governing body would not
present constitutional issues.
Representative Costello understood that a governing body
for an unincorporated community was the legislature.
9:44:12 AM
Ms. Wolter stated that she was unaware of a statute that
authorized the legislature as the governing body for an
unincorporated community. She qualified that she was not
familiar with the particular area of law. She understood
from other statutes that the legislature empowered some
unincorporated communities to accept grant funds. She
indicated that the major concern behind the legislation was
to ensure a responsible entity existed to account for the
VSW funds. The solution consisted of a statute that defined
the entity and conformed to the Equal Protection Clause.
Representative Costello expressed concerns with having two
different meanings for unincorporated community defined in
statute. She thought that problems would arise.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the definition included
in the CS was specific to VSW or if it related to other
portions of the law. Ms. Wolter confirmed that the
definition of village only related to VSW.
Co-Chair Thomas related from personal experience that
tribal governments waived their sovereignty in order to
accept funds from the state, including VSW. Vice-chair
Fairclough wondered whether that was a question for the
Department of Law.
9:48:10 AM
Ms. Wolter was unable to confirm Co-Chair Thomas's
statement. She stated she was new to the program and did
not have further information.
Mr. Griffith confirmed that Co-Chair Thomas was correct.
Tribal governments were required to sign a waiver of
sovereign immunity to receive VSW funds.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Mr. Griffith's email
(copy on file) to Sheila Peterson. He noticed the inclusion
of unincorporated communities inside of larger boroughs. He
asked whether that was an issue. He wanted to understand
how VSW defined unincorporated communities. Mr. Griffith
identified that over 100 communities in the state were
unincorporated and had no tribal government or governing
body. Some were located within a borough and some were not.
The program learned of their existence when the community
contacted VSW to request funding. He was often uncertain
what type of governing organization, if any, existed in the
communities.
Representative Gara wondered whether the VSW was the only
funding mechanism available for communities that were using
outhouses and honey buckets. Mr. Griffith answered that the
VSW was the primary program that funded most communities
waste water improvements. Municipal matching grants and
loans to larger communities and occasional legislative
grants from Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCEC) were available. He added that no
established program existed to administer the DCCED grant
funds.
Representative Gara asked how many communities in the state
did not have sewer systems. Mr. Griffith acknowledged that
there were roughly 40 communities where more than half of
the homes were without running water and sewer. He
mentioned that VSW had ongoing projects to provide services
in half of the communities.
Representative Gara related that his only concern about
expanding the program was that the communities with more
serious problems had to compete against additional
communities for the same pot of money. He wondered if VSW
would prioritize communities with the most severe problems.
Mr. Griffith replied that VSW used a prioritization process
and scoring criteria to establish legislative funding for
the program. The criteria determined need primarily based
on the health impacts of the community. Communities without
running water or sewer were prioritized higher.
9:54:01 AM
Representative Gara deduced that the communities most in
need would still get priority under the bill. Mr. Griffith
thought that was a fair assumption. He added that
occasionally VSW funds projects that were not first time
water and sewer. Other criteria were also considered such
as the ability to operate and maintain existing services.
Representative Neuman inquired about the meaning of
"governing body." He mentioned the Legal Services Memo from
the Division of Legal and Research Services (4/6/11 Cook)
(copy on file). He referenced the community of Settlers
Bay, located in the Mat-Su borough, governed by a covenant
board. He wondered whether a subdivision would qualify for
the VSW program. Ms. Wolter reminded the committee that the
Department of Law (DOL) did not write the legal opinion.
She discussed the legal opinion with DEC and ascertained
that city councils were not unincorporated communities. She
believed that the legal services definition of "governing
body" needed revision.
9:58:18 AM
Representative Doogan WITHDREW his objection.
The CS Work Draft HB 183 27-LS0601/I was ADOPTED.
Vice-chair Fairclough OPENED public testimony.
JASON MAYRAND, MAYOR OF NENANA (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of expanding the definition of "home rule." He
expressed concerns that Nenana was precluded from VSW
funding as a home rule municipality. He noted that the
"home rule" definition escaped statute. The legislation
attempted to remedy the situation. He explained that
Nenana's original sewer and water system was installed in
the 1970's by Public Health Services (PHS). In the 1990's,
a sewer and water expansion project was constructed. The
project was funded by a DEC matching grant. The match cost
the community $400 thousand. Four years ago, the community
researched eligibility and applied for the VSW grant which
provided 100 percent funding. He elaborated that Nenana was
working to rehabilitate their water and sewer system. The
piping experienced frequent cracks and required
replacement. The PVC had a tendency to crack and fixing
leaks underground was expensive and time consuming. Nenana
was awarded VSW design and construction funds. The grant
was subsequently revoked and the only option to fund the
project was a capital appropriation. The community could
not repay the exorbitant cost ($1 million to $2 million) in
loans needed to replace the failing system. He stressed
that the community competently operated and maintained the
existing system. He urged passage of the legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether he had heard discussion
on the CS. She invited the mayor to share his opinion on
the CS. Mr. Mayrand referred to CSHB 183 (CRA) Section 1,
line 2 that listed the definition of village as listed in
statute 43 U.S.C. 1610 or 1615 and deleted "unincorporated
community." He offered that the CS should include the
statue and leave in "unincorporated community."
Representative Edgmon concurred with the mayor's
suggestion. He wondered whether that idea was discussed.
Ms. Peterson replied that the concern with the ANCSA
definition was twofold. The ANCSA definition did not ensure
a governing body. The Department of Environmental
Conservation strongly urged inclusion of a governing body
to ensure accountability. The second concern was related to
conformity with the Equal Protection Act. She solicited the
legal memo to determine the constitutionality of the
definition. Legal Services suggested the definition focus
on a governing body as opposed to Native status. The ANCSA
definition was removed. She noted that DEC worked with DOL
to develop the language in the current CS.
10:06:32 AM
Representative Edgmon discussed the legal opinion related
to the Equal Protection Clause. He wondered about including
Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and village councils. He
identified that federal tribal dollars were available that
could enhance VSW grants. Vice-chair Fairclough requested
the information at a later meeting.
Representative Gara asked if DEC led Nenana to believe that
they qualified for funding. Mr. Mayrand replied in the
affirmative. He detailed that in addition to the VSW design
grant, DEC awarded Nenana construction funds appropriated
by the legislature in 2008. Representative Gara opined that
if the legislation was not passed this session the
legislature should appropriate capital funds for the
project on moral grounds. He believed the situation was
wrong.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked if Nenana incurred outstanding
costs due to the rescinded funding. Mr. Mayrand explained
that the city was permitted to retain the design funding;
only the construction funds were withdrawn. Vice-chair
Fairclough asked for the project's construction costs. Mr.
Mayrand responded that the total cost was estimated at $9.5
million over a period of 5 to 6 years.
Representative Gara asked if the city was "out-of-pocket"
for costs associated with the project. Mr. Mayrand answered
in the negative.
10:11:11 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough CLOSED public testimony.
HB 183 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB103-FERC Public Processes.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HB 103 |
| SB 102 Eplanation of Benefits.docx |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
SB 102 |
| SB 102 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
SB 102 |
| HJR 4 Legal opinion aviation fuel tax.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 ltr support businesses.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Ltr support Sorenson.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 supporters.docx |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR4 - Sponsor Stmt Ver D.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR4 ATIF Payout 6.0.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 ltr support Harbormasters.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR4 support ltr Mobility coalition.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR4 Support Miners 1-2011.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HJR 4 |
| CSHB 183 (CRA) Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| ANCSA Reference.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/17/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 CS WORK DRAFT 041111.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| Impact of Proposed CSHB 183 ( ).pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/17/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| Nenana Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| CS HB 183 ( ) Changes for FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/17/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 Legal Memo.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/17/2011 10:00:00 AM |
HB 183 |
| HB 106CS(RES)-NEW DEC-WQ-04-12-11.pdf |
HFIN 4/12/2011 8:30:00 AM |
HB 106 |