Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/23/1996 01:45 PM House FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL 20 "An Act establishing the Alaska municipal basic services program, relating to certain programs of state aid to municipalities and recipients in the unorganized borough; and providing for an effective date." DEB DAVIDSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, testified in support of the proposed legislation. She stated that SB 20 would change the name of the Revenue Sharing program to "Priority Revenue Sharing for Municipal Services", and would change the Municipal Assistant Fund to the Safe Communities Fund. The change would require that payments from the Safe Communities Fund be used for specific prioritized purposes. The intent of the changes would more accurately reflect the purposes for which payments received are used. The programs appear to be a type of "slush fund" for communities and the change in name and requirements would help dispel that notion. Ms. Davidson concluded, the date of payment has been changed so that communities receive entitlement from both Priority Revenue Sharing and the Safe Communities Fund on July 31st of each year. Previously, payments from revenue sharing were made on July 31st and municipal assistance payments were made on February 1st. Representative Martin spoke against the fiscal note. Ms. Davidson discussed the fiscal note and the amount that the general fund would lose from moving the date. Part of the reason for the earlier payment would combine the two programs. By raising the minimum entitlement for each community from $25 thousand dollars to $40 thousand dollars would remove some funding from the larger communities. Those communities were willing to make that shift recognizing that the smaller communities require those funds to remain solvent. Ms. Davidson added that the sponsor felt that the lose of interest was worth the agreement from the large municipalities to contribute to the small communities. Those payments would be made on July 31st, at the beginning of the State fiscal year. Currently, revenue sharing is also paid on July 31st. Municipal assistance is currently 9 paid in February and the appropriation for that payment is made the prior year. It would be up to the municipalities to invest that money to earn the interest. The State would not be giving them the extra money in interest. Representative Kelly asked the intent of Section 10. Ms. Davidson replied that Section 10 would address the base amount account. When the municipal assistance program began, it was enacted so that the State would have the gross receipts business tax. Municipalities received a portion of money back from that tax. That tax was then repealed in 1978. The program was written so that those municipalities who had received money in 1978, would receive the same amount every year as established their first year. Under the current program, that is the amount paid. The remainder of the fund appropriation was then paid to all the municipalities on a per capita basis. The result was that as appropriations to the fund decreased through the years, individual municipalities would then deal with varying percentage reductions. She added, the total dollar amount would be reduced although the distribution of that would be proportional among the communities. In response to Representative Therriault's question, Ms. Davidson explained that smaller communities are currently having difficulty in maintaining their operating budget and the services that they are required to provide. That being the reason to increase the minimum entitlement for smaller communities from $25 thousand dollars to $40 thousand dollars. Representative Therriault questioned the State's benefit. Ms. Davidson clarified that the municipalities rely on the State to the extend that they receive funds through the Municipal Assistance Program. Should they dissolve, the responsibility of those services would return to the State. Representative Martin questioned if "safe" communities had been defined. SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON noted that there was no specific definition for that. He added that any group could qualify under "safe" community if they receive revenue sharing. Representative Martin reiterated his concern with the increased costs to the State. Senator Torgerson responded that he did not agree with the fiscal note as submitted by the Department. He pointed out moving the payment date back to July should create a surplus to the State rather than an expenditure. Representative Grussendorf responded to Representative Martin's concern regarding a safe community. He explained that criteria for a safe community would include the ability to respond to the need for hospital beds, police and fire protection. He emphasized that would be the same criteria 10 used by the Municipal Assistance Program. TOM NICOLOS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF BARROW, BARROW, spoke in support of the proposed legislation. He urged the Committee's passage of the bill. KEVIN RITCHIE, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ALASKA CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, JUNEAU, noted that the proposed legislation is the highest priority of the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and the Alaska Conference of Mayors. All communities have reached consensus on the bill after two years work. Mr. Ritchie commented that the current plan would not increase the appropriation, although, it would be allocated differently. The program is looking at a $4.5 million dollar reduction in funding. He suggested that the legislation would require more accountability from each community especially for basic services. In response to Representative Therriault's comments, Mr. Ritchie stated that the majority of communities do provide public safety, stressing that public safety is the top priority of most communities. Programs have been significantly cut over the years, restricting services to a minimum in many communities. Mr. Ritchie stated that there are 160 communities in the State. (Tape Change, HFC 96-133, Side 2). Mr. Ritchie listed public safety services offered by the communities. * Police * Fire * Water/sewer * Emergency Medical Services (EMS) He added, the concept addresses public safety as well as health issues. Mr. Ritchie stressed that the bill would work with the established budget caps. The roads program will strengthen the relationship with the State and would be used as part of the long-range fiscal planning. LAMAR COTTEN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (DCRA), stated that the Department does support the concept of SB 20 which would eliminate the "hold harmless" clause, placing the poorer communities at a disadvantage. Mr. Cotton suggested that the $40 thousand dollar allocation would amount to a combination of municipal assistance and 11 revenue sharing. Those communities are the smallest and have the least ability to raise revenue in their areas. He stressed that it was the Administration's position that a corporation exist at the local level to provide these essential services. Small communities get nothing for free, paying either through taxes or user fees. Mr. Cotten advised, that the Administration questions the date, recommending that checks be issued in October or November. BOB BARTHOLOMEW, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INCOME AND EXCISE AUDIT DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, pointed out that the Administration does support the bill, although, would like to see the fiscal note reduced, resulting in a loss of interest income in the amount of $130 thousand per month. Secondly, he added, the impact would be substantial in as much as July and August are the largest financial out-lays to the State. The Administration would request that the delivery date be changed to October or November, which would move the date forward two to three months. That change would keep the State from experiencing a cash flow problem. SB 20 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|