Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/07/2007 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB72 | |
| SB124 | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(CRA)
"An Act relating to the community revenue sharing program;
and providing for an effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
2:26:34 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman moved to adopt CS SB 72, Version 25-LS0506\L as
the working document.
Without objection, the Version "L" committee substitute was
ADOPTED as the working document.
Co-Chair Stedman advised that, rather than any incorporating
significant changes, the committee substitute simply made
numerical changes such as updating community population numbers.
2:27:09 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman communicated that his staffer, Tim Grussendorf,
would review the committee substitute.
2:27:22 PM
TIM GRUSSENDORF, Staff to Senator Lyman Hoffman, affirmed that
the Version "L" committee substitute included a few technical
changes, but did not make any substantive changes.
Mr. Grussendorf directed attention to a six page spreadsheet,
dated May 7, 2007, and titled "Est FY08 Revenue Sharing
Distribution - Organized Communities Under CSSB 72(FIN) [copy on
file] pertaining to Version "L". Communities' population
figures, depicted in the second column, reflect the most current
census information.
Mr. Grussendorf advised that the population numbers on the
spread sheet "backed out" municipality populations from the
total borough population in the cases of the State's three
unified boroughs: Anchorage, Juneau, and Sitka. As a result,
borough numbers are smaller than previously presented.
2:29:26 PM
KATHY WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), testified in Juneau and voiced appreciation for the
effort exerted on "this wonderful bill". When the Holy Cross
city clerk was informed of the amount that community would
receive under the provisions of this revenue sharing program,
her excited response was "We can buy fuel!" AML is in "total
support" of the bill.
2:31:26 PM
JEROME SHELBY, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough, testified via
teleconference from Kodiak and commended the Committee for the
"outstanding job" conducted on addressing a wide array of issues
and developing a good bill for Alaska. One element not addressed
in the bill, however, is the State's 27 unincorporated
communities within organized boroughs. Even thought their
inclusion would decrease the per capita multiplier,
unincorporated communities should be provided, at the very
minimum, $25,000. They should not be penalized for being an
unincorporated community within an organized borough.
Mr. Shelby noted that while only one such community existed on
Kodiak Island, seven or eight were located on the Kenai
Peninsula. Another borough had approximately nine. Not
considering them in the bill would produce "some pretty big
inequities in some of these areas where this occurs." This is
the only concern with the bill. All other aspects of it are
"excellent".
2:33:04 PM
ROBERT PRUNELLA, City Manager, City of Wrangell, testified via
teleconference from Wrangell, in support of the bill. "We're
pleased with the outcome" and the assistance the bill would
provide to communities' budgets.
Co-Chair Stedman was aware of Wrangell's "budget circumstances".
This bill, and the separate school funding bill, would provide
assistance to the city.
2:33:53 PM
DAN SALMON, Administrator and Representative, Igiugig Village
Council and Assembly Member, Lake Peninsula Borough, testified
via teleconference from an offnet location in support of the
bill with the addition of including unincorporated communities
within an organized borough, such as Igiugig, in it.
Mr. Salmon contended that unincorporated communities are being
penalized by their absence from the bill.
Mr. Salmon explained that currently Igiugig, whose population
typically ranges between 45 and 50, except for summer when it's
population swells toward 150 primarily due to tourism
activities, does not discriminate in providing fire and
emergency services to residents and visitors. The community's
infrastructure system includes a public boat landing and
campgrounds; a medical clinic; a solid waste facility and
recycling program; electrical generation for the community's
schools, residents, public buildings and airport; water and
sewer systems; and road maintenance. It also interacts with
federal and state entities and municipalities.
Mr. Salmon stated that when the community involved itself in the
effort undertaken in 1989 to form an organized borough in the
area, he had been advised not to "encourage Igiugig to join the
borough" as they would lose revenue. Since then, Igiugig has
investigated becoming classified as a city. The Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development informed them that,
due to its small population, they would be intensely
scrutinized. The Department also "saw no sense" in why the
community wanted to become a city in light of how effectively it
manages its infrastructure. He had to agree since Igiugig is
doing as much or more than what recognized cities in the State
do.
Mr. Salmon extended an invitation to Legislators to visit the
community to witness how it manages its affairs. The
infrastructure is impeccably maintained and "the place is
spotless. In conclusion, on behalf of unorganized communities in
organized boroughs, he "strongly encouraged you to find a way to
finance the 25 or so communities that have been left out of this
bill as presently written."
2:38:36 PM
Mr. Grussendorf informed the Committee that the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development fiscal note
accompanying Version "L" specifies that the fiscal impact in FY
08 to be $48.1 million. Thereafter, funding would be provided by
the community revenue sharing fund established by the bill. The
annual funding beginning in FY 09 would equate to the lesser of
$50 million or three percent of all mineral lease rentals,
royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue
sharing payments and bonuses received by the state during the
preceding year as specified in the analysis section of the
fiscal note.
2:39:14 PM
Co-Chair Stedman restated the funding mechanism for the program.
Mr. Grussendorf affirmed. The funding would likely not exceed
$50 million.
Senator Olson asked regarding the requests to include
unincorporated communities within organized boroughs in the
community revenue sharing program proposed in the bill.
2:40:03 PM
Mr. Grussendorf advised that discussions with these communities
have occurred. The decision was made however, to follow
traditional Legislative policy in determining which communities
would receive the funding. The Committee could make a policy
call and opt in additional communities.
Senator Olson asked whether there had been a "large outcry" to
include funding for unincorporated communities.
Mr. Grussendorf responded that they had heard from "quite a few"
such communities.
2:40:43 PM
Co-Chair Hoffman moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
Without objection, CS SB 72(FIN) was REPORTED from Committee
with new $48,100,000 fiscal note dated May 7, 2007 from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
2:41:20 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|