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 |