Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/21/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB187 | |
| HB13 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to the definition of 'municipality'
for purposes of human services community matching
grants."
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON explained that HB 231 addresses
human services community matching grants, which total about
$1.2 million annually. Qualified communities have to
provide a 35 percent match to receive a grant, and only
three communities are now qualified. This bill would make
it possible for other communities to form consortiums to
pool money to receive these grants. Any group of
communities totaling 35,000 could apply. She referred to a
Talking Points handout (copy on file.) It is not the intent
of the bill to take away from the original three
communities. The deadline for applying for these grants is
October. She described the process, which would not go into
effect until 2007. The Southeast Conference would assist in
the development of consortiums.
3:17:43 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked for clarification of the intent of the
bill. Representative Wilson repeated that it is not the
intent to take away services from anyone else.
Representative Croft asked about geographic area
definitions. Representative Wilson replied that the
geographic areas were purposely not defined. Representative
Croft asked whether diverse areas could apply.
Representative Wilson said that is fine. Representative
Croft asked if the bill might delay harming communities
receiving current services.
Co-Chair Meyer clarified that the intent is to increase the
amount appropriated in the future.
3:20:49 PM
Representative Hawker related that there is no intent to
take funding away, presuming the same level of funding is
maintained. He suggested that more funding would be needed
in the future. Representative Wilson said that decision
would be made in a HESS subcommittee. Representative Hawker
disagreed with the zero fiscal note. Representative Wilson
referred Representative Hawker to the second page
explanation of the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Meyer suggested another option. Representative
Wilson said some of it has already been done.
3:22:40 PM
Representative Joule asked about population requirements.
Ms. Wilson implied that the numbers could be changed.
3:24:25 PM
MARLEEN NORTON, HUMAN SERVICES, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,
ANCHORAGE, (via teleconference) spoke to the user's matching
grants. She requested that sufficient funding be provided
for services.
3:27:18 PM
ROB ALLEN, SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE, SITKA, (via teleconference)
spoke in support of the legislation. It adds an additional
category to the definition of areas that would be eligible
to receive state grant funds for human services. He pointed
out that the population of Southeast Alaska is declining and
fewer contributions are flowing to nonprofits from
businesses and communities. He urged passage and support of
the bill.
3:30:14 PM
JANET CLARKE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF FINANCE
AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, addressed the fiscal note. There is nothing
mandating holding harmless of the grantees. Representative
Hawker agreed.
Ms. Clarke provided the history of the program. The
original program was established in the 1980's and the block
grants went to only Anchorage and Fairbanks. In the early
1990's, with the downturn in state revenues, then-
Representative Boyer put the program in statute and it was
developed. At that point, no other community qualified
except Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Ms. Clarke referred to the fiscal note related to the CRA
version of the legislation (#2), which would impact in FY
07. She noted the two scenarios provided by the note. Ms.
Clarke referenced page 3. The department made the program a
statewide program, which would cover the entire population
of the State. Page 4 of the fiscal note provides the
opposite view, which would need an additional appropriation.
3:35:57 PM
Representative Hawker asked about the grant history. He
pointed out that the program had been targeted. It was
codified in 1992. He noted that two years ago, the grants
had been zeroed out. He asked how that reconciled with
expansion of the program.
3:37:34 PM
Ms. Clarke related that governors and commissioners can
change their minds and they do support the bill at this
point.
Representative Hawker inquired about diminishing the amount
going to the communities. Ms. Clarke replied that the
department is neutral on that subject. The original intent
of the social services block grant has changed with the
advent of Mat-Su. When the programs were at their budget
height, there were many designated grants. Today, there are
no designated grants.
Representative Hawker asked for clarification of "none"
going to the state. Ms. Clarke replied that there are none
in the operating budget. Representative Hawker noted that
$1.5 billion dollars is in the Department of Health and
Social Services budget this year. He requested a statewide
breakdown. Ms. Clarke replied that there is a breakout of
the community grants in the amount of $150 million dollars
in the grant book analysis.
Representative Hawker asked if scenario 1 or 2 is the intent
of the bill. Representative Wilson replied the intent is
not to make anything worse for other areas at the benefit of
her district. Representative Hawker observed that is
scenario 2. He asked, with limited financial resources,
where the dollars would come from.
Representative Wilson commented that services have been cut
to parts of the state and to municipalities due to the
elimination of revenue sharing. This type of economy puts
more stress on families and communities, and human services
needs definitely need to be met throughout the state.
3:42:18 PM
Representative Hawker asked which area to the money should
be taken from. Representative Wilson replied from the
personal care attendant area, which needs sideboards.
Representative Hawker agreed. So much is driven by
abandoned revenue sharing. He stated appreciation for
Representative Wilson's perspective.
Vice-Chair Stoltze recalled that many cuts have been made to
communities statewide. Representative Wilson responded that
in Southeast Alaska, services such as Catholic Community
Services had to be cut, which left a large void.
Representative Hawker made a suggestion about the fiscal
note; have a two-scenario fiscal note with a clear intent.
Ms. Clarke said that could be done. Representative Hawker
noted this year's 5 percent increase for PERS and TRS. Ms.
Clarke deferred to the wishes of the finance committee.
3:46:54 PM
Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, on page
1, line 8, to delete 35,000 and insert 50,000. Vice-Chair
Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Wilson stated her support for the original
bill.
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his objection to adopt Amendment
1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
3:48:20 PM
Ms. Clarke clarified that several regions of the state would
not qualify at 50,000 population. It would cost $400,000 to
hold the current participants harmless.
Representative Wilson explained how the consortium would
work.
3:49:54 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze set the bill aside. HB 231 was HELD in
Committee for further consideration.
3:50:29 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|