Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/18/1996 01:05 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
January 18, 1996
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Co-Chair
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Jerry Mackie
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members were present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE BILL NO. 361
"An Act relating to municipal capital project matching grants for
a municipality organized under federal law as an Indian reserve;
and providing for an effective date."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 361
SHORT TITLE: CAP PROJ MATCHING GRANT FOR INDIAN RESERV
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACKIE
JRN-DATE JRN-DATE ACTION
12/29/95 2360 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/08/96 2360 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/08/96 2360 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
01/18/96 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEANIE SMITH, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Mackie
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol Building, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4925
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information relating to HB 361.
SOLOMON ATKINSON, Council Member
Metlakatla Indian Community
P.O. Box 8
Metlakatla, Alaska 99926
Telephone: (907) 886-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 361.
JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst
Office of the Director
Office of Management and Budget
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 110001
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001
Telephone: (907) 465-4678
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 361.
KIMBERLY METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, Alaska 99811-2100
Telephone: (907) 465-4898
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 361.
TAMARA COOK, Director
Legal Services Division
Alaska State Legislature
Goldstein Building, Room 410
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3867
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 361.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-2, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIR IVAN IVAN called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Ivan, Austerman, Mackie and
Kott. Members absent were Representatives Elton, Vezey and
Nicholia.
HB 361 - CAP PROJ MATCHING GRANT FOR INDIAN RESERV
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that the committee packets for HB 361 contained
the bill; a zero fiscal note from the Department of Community and
Regional Affairs (DCRA); a letter from DCRA describing the impact
of the bill; a sponsor statement; a sectional analysis; a support
letter from the Council Annette Islands Reserve; and corresponding
statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY joined the meeting at 1:07 p.m.
Number 156
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MACKIE, sponsor of HB 361, presented the bill.
He explained that HB 361 was introduced at the request of the
Metlakatla Indian Community. He said that when Metlakatla's FY 96
municipal assistant matching grant program appropriation was
eliminated from the previous year's budget, it was the result of an
technical oversight that HB 361 was designed to correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE stated that Metlakatla had always qualified
as a municipality for the program under the Department of
Administration's regulations. However, legal analysis revealed
that the statutory definition was not specific enough to include
the Metlakatla Indian Community in the program. Since the
statutory definition superseded the regulatory definition, the
appropriation was eliminated and Metlakatla subsequently received
a grant under the Unincorporated Community Capital Matching Grant
Program.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE explained that HB 361 amended AS 37.06 by
adding a new section that included a municipality organized under
federal law as an Indian reserve. He added that HB 361 had been
drafted to specifically include Metlakatla within the Municipal
Assistance Matching Grant Program and to exclude them under the
Unincorporated Community Capital Project Matching Grant Program.
He noted that Metlakatla had in the past received both but would
now receive one like every other community in the state.
Number 340
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE commented that although Metlakatla was the
only Indian reservation in Alaska, in most areas it functioned like
other communities in the state. He pointed out that HB 361 did not
create a new program nor give the Metlakatla Indian Community
anything they had not received in the past. On the contrary, it
actually removed one of the grants they had been receiving. The
purpose of HB 361 was to clarify the original statute as it was
intended.
Number 471
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Representative Mackie would elaborate
on the dollar amounts involved.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE responded that he did not have the figures in
front of him. He emphasized that Metlakatla was not an
unincorporated community; it was incorporated and should be treated
as such.
Number 587
JEANIE SMITH, Legislative Assistant to Representative Mackie,
informed the committee that in 1994, Metlakatla received $60,619;
in 1995, they received $58,909; and in 1996, they would have
received $59,421. However, the 1996 appropriation was eliminated
and they received $25,000 under the unincorporated community grant.
Number 622
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that his concern was that because
there were 226 new tribes in Alaska, there had been a major step
towards creating 226 new governments. He wondered if these tribes
would qualify under this category.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE replied that although he understood
Representative Vezey's concern, HB 361 did not deal with all the
Indian tribes in Alaska, but merely allowed the Metlakatla Indian
Community to be treated like every other community in Alaska that
had an elected mayor, city council, school district, police
department and so forth. In the process, it also eliminated
Metlakatla's unincorporated community grant. He asserted that HB
361 made a technical change to the statute to allow Metlakatla to
be treated like similar communities, which was fully the intent of
the statute in the first place. In fact, he added, the program had
operated that way since its inception. There was no intent to
raise sovereignty issues.
Number 743
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he would feel more comfortable if the
wording included "as recognized on or by" a certain date.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE referred to HB 361, page 1, line 7, which
reads, "A municipality organized under federal law as an Indian
reserve that existed before enactment of 43 U.S.C. 1618(a) and is
continued in existence under that subsection is a municipality for
purposes of AS 37.06.010 - 37.06.090 ...." Representative Mackie
suggested that the wording accomplished what Representative Vezey
wanted. He added that Metlakatla was the only municipality in
Alaska meeting that criteria. Although it had not been
specifically mentioned by name, Metlakatla was the only community
that would be affected.
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted that Representative Nicholia had joined the
meeting.
Number 920
SOLOMON ATKINSON, Council Member, Metlakatla Indian Community,
testified via teleconference in support of HB 361. He mentioned
that with him was Mayor Jack Booth, Sr. Mr. Atkinson provided
background information and the reasons for requesting the
legislation, saying Metlakatla had provided almost all of the
services and organizations available in any municipality. He
admitted Metlakatla might differ from other reservations in the
Lower 48 in that they tried to work closely with surrounding
communities and the state of Alaska. They were seeking
clarification of the statute and were aware that they would be
eliminating funding under the unincorporated community grant
program.
Number 1173
JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Director,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor,
concurred with Representative Mackie on the interpretation of the
history and original intent of the bill. He said OMB had helped
draft the legislation and the original intent was to have
Metlakatla treated as a municipality under the program, largely on
the grounds that it functioned as a municipality. The technical
interpretation was not what they had intended but had been brought
to OMB's attention by Tamara Cook of the Legal Services Division.
Mr. Fargnoli offered to answer questions and stated that the
Governor supported Metlakatla's being treated as a municipality and
being taken out of the unincorporated side of the program.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned that for 1996, Metlakatla was
allocated $59,000 under the matching grant regulations. He
wondered what would happen to those funds if Metlakatla became a
municipality.
MR. FARGNOLI responded that he believed HB 361 explicitly provided
for Metlakatla to retain prior balances and carry those balances
with them to the municipal side of the line. He explained that was
how OMB had treated the three or four other communities that had
crossed over the line from one status to another. He added that
the original purpose of the bill was to allow communities to
accumulate money, for up to five years, so they could aggregate
amounts large enough to fund significant projects. Regardless of
the reason why a community changed status, OMB had no compelling
interest in making communities either lose or gain funds. Thus, he
said, OMB had tried to take a neutral stance.
Number 1328
KIMBERLY METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA),
suggested that anyone having specific questions contact Tena
Bavard, Grants Administrator for DCRA, who runs the Unincorporated
Community Capital Project Matching Grant Program. Ms. Metcalfe-
Helmar stated that DCRA had no problems with the bill, which
cleared up an ambiguity in current law. They viewed it as a
housekeeping measure with no fiscal impact.
Number 1360
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA commented that HB 361 was a good bill that
was needed, especially for Metlakatla. She made a motion to move
the bill to another committee.
CO-CHAIR IVAN asked to hear from Representative Mackie before
taking up the motion.
Number 1379
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE expressed that he did not realize the
committee was to that point yet and noted that others in the
audience from the Administration and the Legal Services Division
could answer any questions. He said he had represented Metlakatla
for six years. Metlakatla participated like any other community in
Alaska; they operated the same way, educated their children the
same way, and took part in numerous statewide programs, as well as
state and federal elections. Representative Mackie commented that
it was sometimes discouraging to Metlakatla residents to be treated
as if their community was different. The reason they were an
Indian community under federal law was due to an arrangement made
with the federal government years before.
REPRESENTATIVE MACKIE pointed out that when the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was instituted and communities across
the state acquired corporations, land and money, Metlakatla
received none because of their previous settlement with the federal
government. In no way was Metlakatla a rich community with a large
influx of federal funds; in many ways, it was less advantaged than
other Alaska communities. They simply wanted to be treated fairly
like other communities and to have the language clarified.
Number 1479
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY reiterated that his concern was over who else
might be included under the bill. He asked when 43 U.S.C. 1618(a)
was enacted.
MR. FARGNOLI deferred to the Legal Services Division for a
response.
Number 1510
TAMARA COOK, Director, Legal Services Division, said she did not
know the answer to Representative Vezey's question but could find
out. She explained that as she understood it, under ANCSA, Indian
and Eskimo groups around the state were given the option of going
to reservation status akin to that in the Lower 48 or going with
the new corporate form of government. Metlakatla was the only
group that elected reservation status. It is organized as a
reservation along the same lines as other Indian reservations in
the United States.
MS. COOK continued, saying other groups under ANCSA had elected
corporate status. Ultimately, 13 Native corporations were
established. Metlakatla had no representation in those Native
corporations. Ms. Cook said Representative Vezey was correct that
there were other federal laws, including the Indian Reorganization
Act (IRA) under which IRA councils were created, allowing Native
corporations to form governments. However, Metlakatla was the only
Alaska group that was an established Indian reserve. Ms. Cook said
she did not believe the opportunity to form another Indian reserve
currently existed in Alaska. In either case, the language was
drafted so that if in the future another Indian reserve were
formed, it would not qualify under the terms of HB 361 because
Metlakatla was the only one in existence before ANCSA that
continued in that status. Its reservation was never dissolved.
Number 1609
CO-CHAIR IVAN noted the committee had been joined by Representative
Elton.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered whether the United States Congress
were precluded from rewriting Title 43 of the United States Code,
creating a new Section 1618(a).
MS. COOK responded that the United States Congress could amend the
code. However, she said, the test under Alaska law would be 1)
whether the Indian or Eskimo group existed as a reservation prior
to the enactment of that particular federal law and 2) whether,
under the terms of that law, it continued in existence as a
reserve, which was a highly specific status under federal law.
Number 1658
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if there were some reason the language
in HB 361 would be superior to, for example, putting in a calendar
date.
MS. COOK replied that they could certainly put in a calendar date.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked again whether the proposed language
would be superior.
Number 1688
MS. COOK said she did not know that it would be superior. She
explained the wording was taken from a statute already on the
books. In 1986, she said, the municipal assistance program, a
large state aid program, was expanded to include Metlakatla as a
municipality. The language in HB 361 was modeled after the
municipal assistance program language. Ms. Cook said she had used
that wording because the state of Alaska already had experience
manipulating that language in the context of an aid program.
However, she added, there was no reason why the language could not
be changed to include a particular date.
Number 1718
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that as far as he was concerned,
they could use just about any hard date. He stated his concern was
that if part of the United States Code were to be rewritten and
renumbered, it might affect the law in question. He asked for
confirmation that the language was written in numerous other Alaska
statutes.
MS. COOK responded that no, she was aware of only one other Alaska
statute where the definition appeared in that form, which was the
statute addressing the municipal assistance program. She added
that it had been on the books approximately ten years in that form.
She did not know that the definition had caused a problem with
respect to that program.
Number 1758
CO-CHAIR IVAN commented that his own community had been recognized
as a reservation prior to statehood. When they were provided the
option under ANCSA of remaining a reservation or incorporating
under Alaska law, the community opted out of the reservation system
at that time. He asked if there were questions or comments.
Number 1797
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA made a motion to move HB 361 out of the
House Community and Regional Affairs Committee. There being no
objection, it was so ordered and HB 361 moved from the committee.
CO-CHAIR IVAN announced that the next meeting was scheduled for
January 23, with HB 358 on the agenda. He said HB 409 was
tentatively scheduled for February 1. He asked committee members
to please begin reviewing that legislation. He added that the
subcommittee on HB 383 would meet at 4:00 p.m., January 23.
Number 1859
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to conduct, CO-CHAIR IVAN adjourned
the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee meeting at 1:35
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|