04/07/2005 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB160 | |
| HB231 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB28 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 160 | ||
| = | HB 28 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2005
8:09 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 160
"An Act limiting the use of money of the state and its political
subdivisions to affect an election."
- MOVED CSHB 160(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 231
"An Act relating to the definition of 'municipality' for
purposes of human services community matching grants."
- MOVED CSHB 231(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act exempting the state and its political subdivisions from
daylight saving time."
- MOVED HB 176 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 28
"An Act relating to the municipal dividend program; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 28 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 160
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) STOLTZE
02/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/05 (H) CRA, STA
03/17/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/17/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 231
SHORT TITLE: HUMAN SERVICES GRANT ELIGIBILITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) WILSON
03/23/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/05 (H) CRA, HES, FIN
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 176
SHORT TITLE: ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SALMON
02/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/05 (H) CRA, STA
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 28
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL DIVIDEND PROGRAM
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) CRA, STA, FIN
03/29/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/29/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/05/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/05/05 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/07/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 160.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor, presented HB 231.
JANET CLARKE, Assistant Commissioner
Division of Management and Finance Services
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 231, provided
information with regard to the history of the Human Services
Community Matching Grants program.
HEATHER WHEELER, Deputy Director
Department of Health and Human Services
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related that the Municipality of
Anchorage's Department of Health and Human Services supports HB
231 if funding for the program is increased.
DIANE DISANTO, Community Development Specialist
Office of the Mayor
Municipality of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Municipality of
Anchorage would support the legislation if the three communities
[currently receiving the grants] were held harmless with an
additional appropriation of $394,000.
ELLEN KRSNAK
Catholic Social Services
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 231, but noted
that it's critical that the three communities currently in the
program are held harmless.
ANDY HARRINGTON
Alaska Legal Services
Arctic Alliance for People
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Arctic Alliance for People
hasn't taken a position on HB 231.
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Board of Directors
Southeast Conference
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related that [HB 231] is a piece of the
puzzle that would help continue current social services.
MOIRA SMITH, Staff
to Representative Woodie Salmon
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 176 on behalf of its sponsor,
Representative Salmon.
PAULA RAK
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 176.
LYNN WILLIS
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 176.
ADAM BERG, Staff
to Representative Carl Moses
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 28, offered to
answer questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:09:16 AM.
Representatives Olson, Thomas, LeDoux, Neuman, and Salmon were
present at the call to order. Representatives Kott and Salmon
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 160-PUBLIC FUNDS & BALLOT PROPS/CANDIDATES
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 160, "An Act limiting the use of money of the
state and its political subdivisions to affect an election."
8:09:32 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt CSHB 160, Version 24-LS0586\F,
Kurtz, 4/6/05, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version F was before the committee.
8:09:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
said that he took to heart the comments made at prior hearings
regarding not limiting local school boards/districts when
communicating information on school bonds. Therefore, the
legislation has been narrowed to [address only] state matters.
8:11:50 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to report CSHB 160, Version 24-LS0586\F,
Kurtz, 4/6/05, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 160(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 231-HUMAN SERVICES GRANT ELIGIBILITY
8:12:20 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 231, "An Act relating to the definition of
'municipality' for purposes of human services community matching
grants."
8:12:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that HB 231 expands the definition of a qualified
municipality to include a consortium of municipalities located
in the same geographic region with a combined population that
exceeds 50,000. The aforementioned would allow organizations
such as the Southeast Conference to form a consortium in order
to receive funding for social services in the region. She
informed the committee that the Human Services Community
Matching Grants program is receiving $1.2 million from the state
in general funds (GF) this coming year. In order to qualify for
the aforementioned grants, communities must: provide a 30
percent matching fund; comply with the grant application
procedures; and establish a citizens' advisory group.
Currently, the only qualified communities are Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Mat-Su. She pointed out that the [committee
packet] should include a listing of the subrecipients of the
grants in the aforementioned communities, which include valuable
community services. Although Representative Wilson said that
she supported such community services, it's difficult for those
farther away to utilize such services. Therefore, this is a
fairness issue. Under HB 231, municipalities and boroughs
located in the same geographic region with a combined population
in excess of 50,000 could form a consortium to qualify for these
grants.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the accompanying fiscal
note assumes that two additional geographic regions, the Gulf
region and the Southeast region, would be able to form a
consortium. The Gulf region encompasses the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, the Kodiak Island Borough, and the Valdez/Cordova
Census Area. The communities included in the Southeast region
are illustrated in a map [included in the committee packet] of
the Southeast Conference. If HB 231 is enacted, the Southeast
Conference would assist with the formation of a consortium.
8:16:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the [consortium] would have to be
the area mentioned because some of the communities included in
the Gulf region aren't in the Alaska Regional Development
Organization (ARDOR) of the area. She pointed out that Kodiak
is part of the Southwest Municipal Conference ARDOR that
connects to the Aleutian chain.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON specified that as long as [the region] met
the criteria and the guidelines established in the legislation,
any area could form a consortium. She said that the requirement
that the combined population of the [consortium] be in excess of
50,000 is in existing statute.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to why the aforementioned
population requirement is specified in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that she wanted to maintain the
same qualifications while allowing those in the same geographic
area the ability to form a consortium and set priorities with
regard to what organizations receive the benefits.
8:18:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON echoed Representative LeDoux's concerns
with regard to the population requirement, and highlighted that
the entire northern half [of the state], other than Fairbanks,
isn't eligible. He characterized the population requirement as
unfair.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed, but specified that the population
requirement is in existing statute. Changing the population
requirement in statute would be up to committee. This
legislation merely attempts to make [the ability to form a
consortium] available to others in the state.
8:19:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the rationale why these
population specifications are in statute.
8:20:17 AM
JANET CLARKE, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Management and
Finance Services, Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS), informed the committee that the [Human Services
Community Matching Grants] program originated in the 1980s when
the state had a lot of money. These were social service block
grants, which were designated grants without statutory authority
that, at the time, were only provided to Anchorage and
Fairbanks. In the late 1980s and 1990s during budget
reductions, there was concern that the program wasn't in
statute, and thus former Representative Boyer proposed this
statute in order to form the statutory support. The rationale
at the time, she recalled, was that Fairbanks and Anchorage were
disproportionately impacted for social services because they
were large hub communities to which people migrated for
services. In 1992 the statute was devised. Due to population
increases, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough now qualifies, which
changed the dynamic of the underpinning appropriation to the two
large communities. Last year the legislature increased the
appropriation to accommodate the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
entering the program.
8:22:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether changing the definition of
"municipality" would kill the entire [Human Services Community
Matching Grants] program.
MS. CLARKE answered that such would be for the committee to
decide. However, she highlighted that things have definitely
changed in DHSS's budget in regard to the funds available to
other social service agencies in other parts of the state. For
instance, there used to be more designated BRUs or grants to
named recipients for social service agencies and now all those
are competitive grants.
8:23:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON reiterated his concern with this
legislation being based on population.
MS. CLARKE clarified that the state doesn't choose which
grantees receive the funds, rather local municipalities go
through a process of allocating these funds. Therefore, this is
a pass-through from the state to the local municipalities, which
is why population was used as a basis for prorating the amount
appropriated. The idea, she specified, is that this is a block
grant concept and the state isn't involved in choosing the
subgrantees.
8:25:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised then that there is less funding
in DHSS to give out to smaller areas that would've been covered
in other ways.
MS. CLARKE agreed, and specified that this is the only state
pass-through program that DHSS has.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA turned attention to the out migration from
small communities to urban centers, which places a weight on
social services in urban areas and simultaneously there is
nothing to stop the out migration. Therefore, she surmised that
the social services in a local community could stabilize the
community somewhat.
MS. CLARKE said that's not her area [of expertise], although it
sounds logical.
8:27:26 AM
MS. CLARKE drew attention to the fiscal note. She explained
that although it's a zero fiscal note, a couple of different
scenarios were provided. She emphasized that if there isn't a
larger appropriation to this program and the legislation passes,
the amount received will be prorated. If the legislature wanted
to pass HB 231 and hold everyone harmless under the scenarios
outlined in the fiscal note, it will cost an additional
$394,000.
8:28:29 AM
HEATHER WHEELER, Deputy Director, Department of Health and Human
Services, Municipality of Anchorage, related that the
municipality's Department of Health and Human Services supports
HB 231 if funding for the program is increased. She highlighted
that through grants to local nonprofit agencies, the Human
Services Community Matching Grants supports basic safety-net
services critical to the state's most vulnerable citizens. She
echoed earlier comments with regard to Anchorage being a hub
attracting many people from all over the state, and therefore
Anchorage's community matching grant program provides services
to those traveling to Anchorage who end up so disadvantaged. If
the definition of municipality changes such that more
municipalities are able to receive the funding, the
appropriation needs to increase as well. Passing HB 231 and
increasing the appropriation for the Human Services Community
Matching Grants will allow more communities to provide the
essential safety-net services to prevent or alleviate serious
mental or physical hardship in the state.
8:30:30 AM
DIANE DISANTO, Community Development Specialist, Office of the
Mayor, Municipality of Anchorage, stressed that the Human
Services Community Matching Grants are matching grants. She
acknowledged that there may be a reduction in this program, and
if that's the case she assumed that the municipality would
oppose the legislation. Therefore, Ms. DiSanto said that the
municipality would support the legislation if the three
communities [currently receiving the grants] were held harmless
with an additional appropriation of $394,000. She related that
[the Municipality of Anchorage] would like to support the
funding being restored to the $2.2 million level of four years
ago.
8:32:14 AM
ELLEN KRSNAK, Catholic Social Services, informed the committee
that Catholic Social Services is a subgrantee for this grant.
She explained that this grant supports three of Catholic Social
Services' programs in Anchorage, which served approximately
18,000 people last fiscal year. Many of those folks are from
around the state and they seek services in Anchorage. Catholic
Social Services is supportive of this legislation, but it's
critical that the three communities currently receiving it are
held harmless.
8:33:29 AM
ANDY HARRINGTON, Alaska Legal Services, Arctic Alliance for
People, explained that the Arctic Alliance for People Program is
a coalition of nonprofits in the Fairbanks area. He stated that
the Arctic Alliance hasn't taken a stand on HB 231. He related
that last year when the Mat-Su Borough's population increased to
the point at which it could be included, the Arctic Alliance
worked to help with its inclusion. Mr. Harrington said that he
is personally in favor of extending the program to include other
parts of the state. He then stressed the importance of anyone
supporting this legislation to also make the commitment to
include an additional appropriation in order to ensure that the
programs in the existing communities don't suffer. In
Fairbanks, these grants have declined by about 40 percent over
the past few years. Mr. Harrington said that it's important to
review the agencies that have been able to obtain funding under
these grants as well as those agencies submitting worthwhile
proposals that haven't been able to obtain funding due to
decreased funding. The program works well, he opined, due to
local control, local match, and volunteerism. However, in order
for the program to work well, the state will have to put up its
share to ensure that no harm is done in those municipalities
currently operating the program and to ensure that those
communities new to the program are able to get as much use from
the program as the three existing communities have.
8:36:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the existing grantees were
impacted when the Mat-Su Borough qualified.
MR. HARRINGTON answered that in the end there was no net effect
on existing grantees when the Mat-Su Borough entered the
program. He informed the committee that the aforementioned was
due to the hard work of the Anchorage nonprofits, the Fairbanks
501(c)(3)s, and the agencies in the Mat-Su Borough.
8:37:53 AM
ROSEMARY HAGEVIG, Board of Directors, Southeast Conference,
informed the committee that she is also the executive director
of Catholic Community Services (CCS), which provides social
services throughout Southeast Alaska. Ms. Hagevig recalled a
couple of years ago the incoming president of Southeast
Conference recognized that the economic development aspirations
of Southeast Conference couldn't be realized without solid
infrastructure for health, social services, and education.
Therefore, Southeast Conference established a health and social
services committee, which has discussed this matching grant
opportunity.
MS. HAGEVIG related that due to the geography of Southeast
Alaska, [Southeast Conference] realized that it would never be
able to attain the statutory requirements related to population.
After reviewing the region's infrastructure, it was realized
that the Southeast Conference and United Way are strong
organizations in Southeast Alaska. The Southeast region is
approaching a population of 70,000, although it's dispersed.
Ms. Hagevig said that Southeast Conference is the entity that
she envisioned would provide the necessary advisory committee
group for the region. She highlighted that in Southeast Alaska
there are already a number of communities contributing to social
services activities. Therefore, there should be no difficulty
in obtaining the required 30 percent match. Ms. Hagevig related
that social service providers in Southeast Alaska are looking at
opportunities to do what they can to improve the quality of life
for the people being served. This [grant program] would be a
piece of the puzzle to help continue to provide current
services.
8:42:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the 70,000 figure for the
population in Southeast is from the U.S. Census.
MS. HAGEVIG specified that the total population of Southeast
Alaska is between 65,000-70,000. She reiterated that
Southeast's population is dispersed among many small communities
and many different types of local government structures. In
response, Ms. Hagevig said she couldn't say for sure whether the
population number she used is from the U.S. Census.
8:43:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised then that Southeast Conference
would provide services to any community in Southeast.
MS. HAGEVIG replied yes, and added that in excess of 50 percent
of the United Way agencies are already providing services that
are regional in nature. Under the [proposed] statute, she
envisioned a competitive process. She stressed that the
Southeast region didn't intend to fiscally impact those already
receiving funds. Therefore, [Southeast Conference] would hope
that the zero fiscal note would be changed to reflect the true
cost as was the case when the Mat-Su Borough was brought into
the program.
CO-CHAIR OLSON closed public testimony.
8:44:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested amending the population base
from "50,000" to "25,000", and inquired as to the sponsor's
thoughts on such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON recalled fighting the legislation
regarding the expansion of sewer and water grants because it
would result in more participants and not everyone would be able
to continue to receive the funds received in the past. However,
the House as a whole decided to encompass as many people as
possible, and therefore she felt the chance for [passage of HB
231] would be greater. She emphasized that [under HB 231] the
rules hadn't been changed, only the pool of [participants].
However, Representative LeDoux's suggestion would seem to change
the rules and thus she didn't imagine the body as a whole we be
as open to passing the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified that she is only suggesting
changing the consortium of cities.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON specified that the 50,000 population
requirement is already in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that the 50,000 population
requirement is [a change] HB 231 would make. Currently, statute
specifies that [a municipality ranges in population] from
10,000, 20,000, to 65,000 dependent upon the organization of the
city. The language [HB 231] adds refers to a consortium of the
entities specified in current statute.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON indicated his preference for a population
[requirement] of 100 people or less. He stated, "But municipal
should be the one ... deciding that factor ... that doesn't have
numbers."
8:48:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reviewed the definition of municipality as
specified in [AS 29.60.250(2)(A)-(C)].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reiterated her suggestion for an amendment
to change the [new subparagraph (D)] population specification
from "50,000" to "25,000". She inquired as to the sponsor's
opinion of the aforementioned.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON indicated that she would be agreeable to
Representative LeDoux's suggestion if that's the only way the
legislation could be passed.
8:49:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT appreciated Representative LeDoux's
suggestion that would address the Kodiak area, but pointed out
that it may also result in including the Kenai area.
Representative Kott stated that he supports the legislation in
existing form and he places trust in the House Finance Committee
with regard to expanding the amount of money [available]. He
inquired as to how the sponsor envisioned the various entities
of the consortium coming to an agreement on a grant application.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON acknowledged that [an agreement on a grant
application] would take much cohesiveness. She pointed out that
the Southeast Conference works well together now, and therefore
she didn't believe it would be difficult for its members to come
together to make priorities. In fact, the Southeast Conference
already has groups that provide services throughout Southeast
Alaska, which she characterized as one big family.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised then that the sponsor is relying on
the Southeast Conference ARDOR to make this all happen.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that the communities in Southeast
Alaska work hard to be self-sufficient as much as possible.
However, [the decisions with regard to human services community
matching grants] will be as a whole within Southeast Conference.
Representative Wilson then expressed concern with the overall
funding issue, and emphasized that [she didn't introduce HB 231]
to make the situation worse on anyone else. Therefore, she said
she was concerned that a further expansion could be problematic
[with regard to the funds available].
8:52:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that it's up to the House Finance
Committee to make the appropriation for the budget. He remarked
that if the pool [of funds] doesn't expand, then he would find
himself in a difficult position. However, he recalled comments
on the House floor in which a member related that "we're looking
out for all Alaskans" and thus he would support HB 231.
8:53:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that Kodiak could probably live with
the population [specification] of 50,000. However, she
predicted a large problem unless the term "geographic region" is
defined. She opined that under this legislation it seems almost
every community in the state could be included as long as they
were willing to come together in a geographical area.
Therefore, she suspected there would be a major discussion or
even litigation with regard to the definition of a "geographic
region".
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that it's not easy for different
areas to pull together and work well together. Therefore,
before the aforementioned could occur it would require much work
ahead of time. Representative Wilson opined that it would work
in Southeast because the area has already been doing so for
years.
CO-CHAIR OLSON commented that the Kenai Peninsula Borough and
the Kodiak area have worked together on a number of issues.
8:56:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented that governments [and their
boundaries] are arbitrary. She inquired as to how a certain
community size is tied to the matching part of the program.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that the requirement to come up
with the 30 percent related to the reason why an umbrella
organization is necessary. [The umbrella organization] could be
different for each area, which is why "it" is left open and has
the money passing through the umbrella organization to disperse
the funds.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA restated her question regarding whether
there is any relationship between the raising of the [matching]
money and the population.
8:58:34 AM
MS. CLARKE surmised that Representative Cissna was asking
whether obtaining matching funds would be easier if a larger
umbrella group sponsored the program responsible for the match.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the aforementioned is part of the
thinking with the size requirements.
MS. CLARKE recalled that the match requirements were passed in
1992 so that the local communities had ownership of the program.
At the time of passage, she didn't believe there were thoughts
about the size because the constructs were established to
support the Anchorage and Fairbanks communities.
8:59:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT turned attention to the fiscal analysis and
surmised that it suggests that the Southeast and Gulf Coast
regions would be eligible for this grant program.
MS. CLARKE explained that the fiscal note was intended to
provide a couple of scenarios because of the lack of definition
of "region" in the legislation and thus could be open to some
interpretation. She explained that the analysis left the
situation as it is for the Municipality of Anchorage, the Mat-Su
Borough, and the Fairbanks North Star Borough and merely
reviewed other areas that would qualify based on the regional
scenario. She informed the committee that [in the scenarios of
the fiscal note], the census districts and areas were used,
ARDOR regions weren't presumed. Certainly, if an ARDOR region
was defined, it would change things. [The legislation] seems
fairly open in regard to which regions could come together in a
consortium. Therefore, the fiscal note [scenarios] merely
provide an idea of the impact of the legislation. In further
response to Representative Kott, Ms. Clarke confirmed that a
region could be tied to an [ARDOR].
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to why the Southwest region
wasn't included as a region that could enter into this
[program].
MS. CLARKE highlighted the language "same geographic region" and
the [other] regional constructs specified were reviewed, and
thus the Southwest region wasn't included because its population
doesn't exceed 50,000.
9:02:42 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON said that he tended to agree with Representative
Kott that if HB 231 is moved out "clean," it would ultimately be
"fixed" in the House Finance Committee.
9:02:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that he tends to support HB 231. He
suggested that the members with an interest in this could work
with the House Finance Committee regarding whether there will be
any additional funding. He then noted that sometimes
communities can do well without relying on the state.
9:03:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report HB 231 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected, and moved that the committee
adopt Amendment 1, which would [on page 1, line 8] change the
"50,000" population specification to "35,000".
9:05:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT withdrew his motion to report HB 231 from
committee.
9:05:06 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON objected to Amendment 1.
9:05:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON inquired as to how large the pool of
communities would be under the population specification of
"35,000".
CO-CHAIR OLSON said that he didn't believe anyone in the room
could answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON suggested then that the committee should
hold HB 231 until an answer is received. He said that he didn't
have a problem with the 35,000 population specification,
although it doesn't include the areas in his district.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked on the challenged nature of
smaller towns in Alaska. This legislation provides incentives
for communities to work together and review the common good of a
larger group of people. Representative Cissna characterized
this legislation as having positive possibilities, and perhaps
the 35,000 population specification will provide more hope to a
more diverse group.
9:07:22 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Cissna, Salmon, and
LeDoux voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Kott and Olson voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 3-2.
9:07:52 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:08 a.m. to 9:11 a.m.
9:11:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his understanding that the new
language in HB 231 would mean that the [interested consortium of
cities, unified municipalities, and boroughs] would have to
apply by October 1st. Therefore, whether the House Finance
Committee decides to include an appropriation is moot for this
year. Without an effective date, this legislation would pass in
May, end up on the governor's desk, and it would be 90 days
before it goes into effect. Therefore, he suggested that the
Southeast Conference would have its work cut out for it due to
the timeframe. Representative Kott suggested then that if the
hope is to have this available, then perhaps an immediate
effective date would be in order.
MS. CLARKE agreed with Representative Kott's understanding. She
explained that current statute requires municipalities to apply
October 1st of the year preceding the start of the new fiscal
year. She opined that the intent was to allow the legislature
to know which communities had applied before going through the
appropriation process.
9:14:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which would provide for an immediate effective date
so that all communities would be eligible this year. There
being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:14:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report HB 231, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 231(CRA) was
reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
HB 176-ELIMINATE DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME
9:15:54 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 176, "An Act exempting the state and its
political subdivisions from daylight saving time."
9:16:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON, sponsor of HB 176, explained that HB 176
would eliminate daylight saving time, and therefore the passage
of this legislation would result in Alaska staying on Alaska
Standard time. He opined that the recent time change impacted
many. Representative Salmon highlighted that in Alaska the
winter days are short and the summer days are long. He
acknowledged the arguments regarding the notion that [daylight
saving time] saves energy and not having daylight saving time
would impact the time with which Alaskans can do business with
the Lower 48. In regard to the latter contention,
Representative Salmon pointed out that today there are multiple
modes of communication that accommodate whatever time zone in
which one is located.
9:18:53 AM
MOIRA SMITH, Staff to Representative Woodie Salmon, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that in Alaska daylight saving time is
unnecessary. Originally daylight saving time was done on a
national level primarily to save energy and it works in the
Lower 48. However, it doesn't work so well in Alaska because
the vast geographic expanse of the state results in the majority
of the state being located in areas where the hour saved doesn't
provide daylight and thus it doesn't save energy. Furthermore,
there are health and safety concerns with the change in time
such as the disruption of the circadian clock, which is most
prominent in children and teenagers. Moreover, the disruption
of business isn't a concern because of the multiple modes of
communication available beyond the telephone.
9:21:01 AM
PAULA RAK provided testimony in opposition to HB 176. She
indicated that it would be inconvenient for Alaska's time to be
two hours different from Seattle for half of the year. Federal
statute 15 U.S.C. 260 was established "with regard for the
convenience of commerce and the existing junction points and
division points of common carriers engaged in interstate
commerce." She informed the committee that the convenience of
commerce has been defined to include consideration of all
impacts upon a community, including impacts on individuals,
families, businesses, and other organizations. Because of
Alaska's location in the Pacific Northeast, commerce has been
historically tied to Seattle, which observes Pacific time. The
proposed change would result in Alaska being one hour different
from Seattle time in the winter and two hours different in the
summer. She reminded the committee that in 1983 elected
officials wanted to unify Alaska by combining time zones.
However, the proposal to change most of Alaska to Alaska
Standard time elicited a loud outcry from Southeast Alaska. She
opined that most residents didn't want to change, but rather
wanted to stay on Pacific Standard time. This legislation would
mean that Southeast Alaska would be an additional hour different
from the preferred time zone for part of the year. Ms. Rak
highlighted that when Alaska switched to one time zone those the
farthest east and west of Alaska were burdened the most in that
the time zone wasn't natural for the rhythms of the sun in
either area. Therefore, [Alaska Standard time] was touted as a
compromise. Ms. Rak suggested that either the state should
maintain the current situation or return to the situation prior
to 1983. As a business owner, Ms. Rak said she finds it very
inconvenient to be four hours different than the East Coast. In
fact, this change would result in Alaska being five hours
different than the East Coast for part of the year. She said
that she would miss the hour of daylight in the spring and fall
when the days are shorter. Ms. Rak concluded by relating that
if northern residents are unhappy with their time zone, then
they should change their situation and leave Southeast Alaska
alone.
9:25:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recalled that when this issue has been
brought up in the past, the impact to business has been the
major issue. However, the sponsor has opined that the impact on
businesses shouldn't be as great due to the multiple modes of
communication. He inquired as to how this proposal would impact
Ms. Rak, as a business person.
MS. RAK said that even with faxes and Internet access, there is
still the need to talk with folks on the telephone. Having only
three hours of business hours in common with the East Coast is
inconvenient. The extra hour of daylight in the early morning
doesn't do much good, she opined.
9:27:15 AM
LYNN WILLIS stated his support for HB 176. He began by thanking
the sponsors of this legislation. For the third time in six
years, such legislation has been introduced and will hopefully
receive the full hearing and public debate that it deserves. He
reviewed the legislation introduced in prior years. Mr. Willis
specified that HB 176 should be law for the following reasons.
First, a majority of Alaskans support repeal of daylight saving
time. According to a statewide public opinion poll of 505
Alaskans conducted in April 2004 by Dittman Research, 58 percent
of Alaskans favor repeal of daylight saving time. Second, there
is no need to change clocks because Alaska is the Land of the
Midnight Sun. Most of the state is located at high northern
latitudes where extremes in day length are part of life. This
time of year Southcentral Alaska is gaining an hour of natural
daylight about every 10 days. Third, most Alaskans already use
daylight saving time year round. With the exception of the far
Aleutian Islands, since 1983 all of Alaska lying west of the
Yukon territory has been on permanent daylight saving time. Mr.
Willis pointed out that from April to October, use of daylight
saving time adds an additional hour between the difference in
the position of the sun in the sky and the time of the clock.
Fourth, no energy is being saved by the use of daylight saving
time. Fifth, Alaska should be able to be more than one hour
different than Seattle or four hours different than New York for
six months of the year. He indicated that computers and other
communication technology advances allow communication and most
commercial transactions regardless of time or location.
Furthermore, Mr. Willis alluded to the notion that Alaska is
part of the global economy. He highlighted that the two of the
largest nations in Asia, Japan and China, don't practice
daylight saving time. Perhaps Alaska could exploit its time
difference to provide services not available in other time
zones, he opined. In conclusion, Mr. Willis urged support for
HB 176.
9:31:35 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
9:32:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report HB 176 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
9:32:46 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON objected and noted that as a small businessman
the difference in time [without daylight saving time] was
noticeable and had an impact.
9:33:07 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Salmon, Kott,
LeDoux, and Cissna voted in favor of reporting HB 176 out of
committee. Representative Olson voted against it. Therefore,
HB 176 was reported out of the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-1.
HB 28-MUNICIPAL DIVIDEND PROGRAM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 28, "An Act relating to the municipal dividend
program; and providing for an effective date."
9:34:31 AM
ADAM BERG, Staff to Representative Carl Moses, Alaska State
Legislature, said that he was available to answer questions.
9:35:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that there are some amendments
in the committee packet.
CO-CHAIR OLSON informed the committee that [neither of the
amendments had been offered].
9:35:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON announced that he would like to withdraw
the amendments.
9:36:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA moved to report HB 28 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:37:09 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|