Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/29/2005 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB28 | |
| HB36 | |
| HB2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 36-APPROP: MUNI REVENUE SHARING/SAFE COMM CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act making an appropriation for the state revenue sharing program and the safe communities program at fiscal year 1998 levels, as adjusted for inflation, to provide for public safety and other municipal services; and providing for an effective date." 8:56:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE MARY KAPSNER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, began by noting her disappointment that HB 28 didn't move out of committee because it's a long-term fix [for the revenue sharing and safe communities programs], while HB 36 is a one-year fix. She explained that HB 36 would reinstate municipal assistance and revenue sharing at fiscal year (FY) 1998 levels. The 1998 levels were chosen because it was during a more fiscally conservative time that also recognized the important role that municipalities play in the delivery of services to all Alaskans. Representative Kapsner informed the committee that currently staffing at the small community level is skeletal. If no one is present to open mail, then no one is there to receive the notices regarding federal grants for which they could apply. She reviewed the services provided by communities. Representative Kapsner highlighted that this legislation acknowledges the constitutional obligation to provide certain services, such as public safety, public health, education, and transportation. Whether the services are delivered through the state or local level, these constituents have to be served. The choice is whether to have the municipalities close and shift the responsibility back to the state with line item appropriations. Representative Kapsner pointed out that while an increase in the price of oil is good for the state, it's not good for consumers, municipalities, and small communities. Representative Kapsner related that she had looked forward to this session because she hadn't anticipated the fighting over pennies, but rather had expected that there would be more generosity of spirit and an understanding that municipalities are hitting hard times. 9:01:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX turned attention to Table 2 in the January 2005 Legislative Research Service Report, which lays out the revenue sharing distribution to unincorporated communities. She noted that none of the seven unincorporated communities in her district are listed in Table 2. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER reminded the committee that this table refers to the 1998 allocation. She offered to research why those communities weren't receiving the appropriation in 1998. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised that those seven communities didn't receive municipal revenue sharing because they are unincorporated communities within an incorporated borough. However, she said she didn't see any reason to distinguish between unincorporated and incorporated communities within a borough. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER recalled that in 1996, because of a Senate initiative, the contribution to unincorporated communities was ratcheted down. For further information, she deferred to Mr. Rolfzen with DCCED. 9:03:23 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS inquired as to why Metlakatla received zero in municipal revenue sharing. He then turned to the municipalities on the 1998 list, and informed the committee that Gustavus has re-filed for second class city status and it's not on the list, which is the case with other communities as well. Co-Chair Thomas said that he didn't realize that it takes two to three years to be recognized as a municipality. He expressed the need to provide incentives for communities to organize. 9:05:07 AM KATHIE WASSERMAN, Alaska Municipal League (AML), commented that although some say that the state is in good shape and making money, the smaller communities don't seem to be benefiting. She highlighted the rising costs for fuel, insurance, and PERS as well as the loss of capital grants, revenue sharing, and reimbursement of the senior and veteran tax, all of which make it difficult for these [smaller communities]. She concluded by relating AML's support for HB 36. 9:06:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAVID GUTTENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, spoke in support of HB 36. He reviewed the erosion of funds for areas throughout the state. Representative Guttenberg opined that since the state is receiving higher oil revenues, it should pass some [of that revenue] on to the communities. He pointed out that many communities have no sustaining sources of income. He echoed earlier testimony regarding the lack of local staffing and the difficulties it creates. Representative Guttenberg opined that it's key for the state to recognize its responsibility to give back to communities, which he characterized as most efficient because when things fall apart, they find their way to the legislature. "Maintenance of dollars will prevent that," he opined. 9:10:24 AM BOBBY ANDREW, President, Aleknagik Natives Limited, informed the committee that the Village of Aleknagik signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) October 29, 2000, to address village issues, especially in the face of declining revenues coming in to the village. Once HB 36 passes, it will help those villages that don't have a tax base. He pointed out that most of the lands [in many of the villages] are town sites or Native allotments. He informed the committee that the main offices of many of the regional corporations are located in urban areas. He emphasized that there are many needs in the Village of Aleknagik, such as improving the water and sewer systems. This legislation would assist the village. In fact, [the assistance provided by this legislation] could help with the matching dollars that some of the programs for which communities apply. The [Village of Aleknagik] is fortunate to be able to utilize [some funds] from the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation. 9:13:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER inquired as to with whom the Village of Aleknagik's MOU was. MR. ANDREW answered that the MOU is between Aleknagik Natives Limited, the Aleknagik Traditional Council, and the City of Aleknagik. He informed the committee that the aforementioned organizations meet quarterly. At a recent meeting, a resolution in support of HB 36 was passed. 9:14:22 AM CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that all three municipal assistance bills would be back before the committee next week. 9:15:01 AM BILL ROLFZEN, State Revenue Sharing Municipal Assistance, Division of Community Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), informed the committee that the revenue sharing program was revised in 1980 to the current statutory program, which only provides funding to unincorporated areas within organized boroughs. Therefore, that was followed in HB 36. With regard to the communities such as Gustavus not being on the lists, the data used is from the end of fiscal year 2004, prior to the governor's veto. If this legislation is enacted, the information would be updated. With regard to the community of Metlakatla, it, under revenue sharing, received funding as an unincorporated community; under safe communities, it received funding as a municipality; and under capital matching grants it received funding as an unincorporated entity. 9:16:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the City of Gustavus is listed on Table 2. MR. ROLFZEN clarified that in 2004 Gustavus was an unincorporated community, but now it's a city government. CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that the amount of money a community receives is dependent upon how it's organized. [HB 36 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|