01/26/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB290 | |
| HB184 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 184 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 290 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 2012
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 290
"An Act creating the endow Alaska grant program in the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development to
encourage community development."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 184
"An Act relating to the sharing of tax revenue from the
fisheries business tax and fishery resource landing tax with
municipalities; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 290
SHORT TITLE: ESTABLISH ENDOW ALASKA GRANT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) AUSTERMAN
01/18/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/12 (H) CRA, FIN
01/26/12 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 184
SHORT TITLE: REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) P.WILSON
03/09/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/11 (H) CRA, FIN
01/26/12 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ERIN HARRINGTON, Staff
Representative Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 290 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Austerman.
KEN CASTNER, Member
Board of Trustees
Homer Foundation
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 290, answered
questions and offered to help craft HB 290 for Alaska.
CANDACE WINKLER, President/CEO
Alaska Community Foundation (ACF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 290.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 184.
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff
Representative P. Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 184, answered
questions.
CARL UCHYTIL, Vice President
Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators
(AAHPA);
Port Director, Docks and Harbors Department, City & Borough of
Juneau
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 184.
JOHN SWEENEY, Finance Director
City & Borough of Sitka
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 184.
STEVE CORPORON, President
Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators;
Director, Ports and Harbors Department, City of Ketchikan
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 184 will make a
difference.
TIM COTTONGIM, Fish Group Manager
Juneau Office
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 184, answered
questions.
KATIE KOESTER, Community & Economic Development Coordinator
City of Homer
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 184.
CHRIS HLADICK, City Manager
City of Unalaska
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 184, expressed
concerns and related support for legislation that only increases
the revenue split with the state.
TIM ROONEY, Borough Manager
City and Borough of Wrangell
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 184.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:40 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:03
a.m. Representatives Foster, Austerman, Dick, Saddler, Gardner,
and Munoz were present at the call to order. Representative
Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 290-ESTABLISH ENDOW ALASKA GRANT PROGRAM
8:03:57 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 290, "An Act creating the endow Alaska grant
program in the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development to encourage community development."
8:04:23 AM
ERIN HARRINGTON, Staff, Representative Alan Austerman, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 290 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Austerman, by paraphrasing the following written
remarks [original punctuation provided]:
Endow Alaska sets up a challenge grant or matching
fund mechanism that allows local community foundations
throughout Alaska to leverage private donations from
within their communities by matching donors'
contributions dollar-for-dollar with state funds.
By providing a powerful tool to help grow the endowed
assets of community foundations, the Endow Alaska
program addresses several objectives:
· It supports community self-sufficiency
· It recognizes the ability of community members
to identify and respond to local needs
· It creates additional catalyst for community
conversations about philanthropy and the power
of Alaskans to invest in meaningful local
projects and visions
· It creates an opportunity to take today's state
dollars--which result from the development of a
finite, non-renewable resource--and turn them
into a financial tool that can yield
perpetual returns, potentially supporting local
projects and investments for centuries to come.
Endow Alaska is inspired by a program that was
originally put in place in Iowa--Endow Iowa--and which
has since been established in Kentucky, as well. The
legislation envisions a relationship between the state
and a "lead philanthropic entity"--a statewide
organization that receives an annual lump-sum grant,
and then turns around and provides numerous "challenge
grants" to local community foundations or community
affiliate funds.
· Presently in Alaska, the organization most
likely to qualify as the "lead philanthropic
entity" would be the Alaska Community Foundation-
-a statewide community foundation with more than
250 funds in management, and assets of more than
$47 million.
· A nonprofit public charity promoting personal
philanthropy and providing financial management,
strategic development and donor-development
services to communities, organizations and donors
across Alaska.
MS. HARRINGTON then posed a hypothetical example in which Kodiak
has a community foundation. The State of Alaska would make an
annual lump sum grant to perhaps the Alaska Community Foundation
(ACF), which would be able to provide a challenge grant to the
Kodiak Community Foundation. The Kodiak Community Foundation
would apply to lead a local campaign and have its fundraising
matched. If the Kodiak Community Foundation was able to raise
$10,000 in its first year, it might be able to obtain a state
match via ACF. She then continued to paraphrase from her
written remarks [original punctuation provided]:
The program is quite simple, but the impacts are
potentially profound.
The bill does not currently recommend a funding level,
though it does provide some funding limitations to
ensure that community investments are made in diverse
regions of the state.
· However, because this is a matching or challenge
grant program, the scope of the fund is
necessarily limited by the capacity of donors in
Alaska's communities.
8:08:58 AM
MS. HARRINGTON then reviewed the legislation, which is only one
section. The language on page 1, lines 6-12, establishes the
Endow Alaska program in the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development (DCCED). The program is being placed in
DCCED due to the department's experience with administering
grant funds through the Division of Community & Regional Affairs
(DCRA). Page 1, line 13, through page 2, line 9, outlines the
requirements of a community foundation for the purposes of this
program as well as what would be considered a lead philanthropic
entity. The language references the Internal Revenue System
(IRS) code because some of these organizations are explicitly
defined in the IRS code and have to meet certain tests. The
language started on page 2, line 10, through page 3, line 5,
describes some of the factors the lead philanthropic entity
should consider when choosing to offer a community a challenge
grant. She characterized this portion of the legislation as the
policy portion in which the legislature describes what it wants
to achieve. The language on page 3, line 6, sets forth the
limits such that the grants cannot exceed $25,000 for a
community foundation unless it benefits multiple boroughs or a
large region. Furthermore, a single borough can't receive more
than five Endow Alaska grants per year. She did note that work
needs to be done in the aforementioned provision since some
areas in the state aren't an organized borough. The last
limitation stipulates that only 5 percent of the grant funds
received by the lead philanthropic entity can be used for
administrative purposes. Currently, ACF administers about [280]
affiliate funds and about $47 million in holding. She related
her understanding that ACF's administrative fees are much lower
than 5 percent of the grant funds received. The final portion
of the legislation consists of definitions. Ms. Harrington then
paraphrased from the following written remarks [original
punctuation provided]:
Our office has been work-grouping this bill with
individuals from around the state who are involved in
community foundations and their work. Through this
process, we have identified several aspects of the
bill that can be improved to:
· Ensure the legislation recognizes the unique
characteristics and opportunities of Alaska
· Enable communities with limited financial
resources to avail themselves of the
opportunities presented by Endow Alaska.
· Clarify that the program is intended to grow
endowed funds
· Underscore the importance of local donors and
local control of funds.
After your committee hears public testimony today,
we'd like to return at a future meeting with proposed
revisions to HB 290 that helps achieve the goals I've
just outlined.
8:14:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the policy if more than
one philanthropic entity existed in a community or if there came
to be more than one philanthropic entity in the future.
MS. HARRINGTON said that currently she wasn't aware of
communities that have more than one community foundation.
However, she deferred to those in the community foundation
realm. She related her understanding that typically there is
only one community foundation in communities with such an
organization.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER acknowledged that may be the case now,
but suggested that once state money is available more such
organizations may be created. For instance, if an existing
community foundation doesn't support a particular issue, she
could envision another organization being created. Therefore,
there should be a manner in which to select which community
foundation [to fund] unless the intention is to fund multiple
community foundations.
8:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then directed attention to page 2, lines
5-6, of HB 290 and inquired as to whether the intention is to
support only community organizations or also corporate and
private organizations.
MS. HARRINGTON acknowledged that the aforementioned portion of
the legislation is one in which the sponsor would want to amend
in order to provide clarity regarding [the member organization
being the Alaska Community Foundation].
8:17:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how the work of the
Rasmuson Foundation would compare with what HB 290 proposes.
MS. HARRINGTON recommended that the committee invite the
Rasmuson Foundation to speak regarding its work and view on the
proposal in HB 290. She did note, however, that she believes
the Rasmuson Foundation would need a formal invitation to
testify due to the nature of the organization. To the question,
Ms. Harrington specified that the Rasmuson Foundation has been
investing in community foundations through challenge grants as
well as through the community foundation mechanism, albeit with
a different focus. The focus of the Rasmuson Foundation with
the community foundation mechanism has been to provide funds and
assist communities that don't have community foundations to
create one and thus involves more technical assistance. Ms.
Harrington emphasized that HB 290 doesn't compete with the work
of the Rasmuson Foundation, rather it enhances it.
8:19:04 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the committee certainly can invite
the Rasmuson Foundation to speak at the next hearing of HB 290.
8:19:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to the inception of this idea.
MS. HARRINGTON explained that staff in Representative
Austerman's office subscribe to various newsletters and follow
some nonprofits. Originally, staff became aware of the Endow
Iowa program and some of its benefits, particularly in the rural
communities of Iowa. She opined that the Endow Iowa program has
experienced an astonishing level of success, success in ways
that she suggested would be analogous in Alaska. The Endow Iowa
program was inspiring and resulted in discussions of how it
would work in Alaska.
8:20:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the $25,000 limit [specified on
page 3, lines 8-9] is per year.
MS. HARRINGTON answered that the $25,000 limit is intended to be
per year, although she acknowledged that it's not clear in the
legislation. In further response to Representative Saddler, Ms.
Harrington confirmed that the $25,000 limit is for each sub unit
not the lead organization and the borough is not intended to be
the recipient of the funds. This language could be clarified,
she acknowledged.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined that with a 1:1 match, much
philanthropy would flow to this proposed fund and perhaps starve
other philanthropic organizations. He inquired as to the
experience in Iowa.
MS. HARRINGTON related that in conversations with nonprofits she
found that annual campaigns are fairly different than
endowments. In fact, the Chilkat Valley Community Foundation
related that they were explicit with nonprofits that they didn't
intend to perform annual fundraising or compete with nonprofits
to provide ongoing annual services. Rather, they are dealing
with bequests and planned giving and other ways in which funds
can flow into the fund during major life transitions. The
aforementioned resulted in some of the nonprofits being the
original investors in the community fund.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised then that the goal of HB 290 is
to create an endowment from which the proceeds go toward direct
grants to the community foundations.
MS. HARRINGTON replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether this would be a one-time
appropriation to the lead philanthropic organization or would it
take a couple of years.
MS HARRINGTON deferred to the sponsor.
8:24:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related that he has reviewed it both as
an annual appropriation or a larger sum to create its own
endowment from which the interest earnings are spent. He
expected the discussion of the aforementioned to occur in the
Finance committees.
8:25:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the Alaska Community Foundation
is the lead philanthropic organization.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied that currently ACF is the
organization which he knows has a track record and the
capability to do this, although there may be other organizations
that will come forward.
8:25:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the sponsor has had any
discussions with the Kenai and Soldotna [foundations].
MS. HARRINGTON confirmed that there is a Kenai Peninsula
Foundation. The sponsor statement in the committee packet
includes a list of community foundations that already exist.
She noted that there are also community funds that have been
established with the assistance of Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation (ASRC) in order to benefit all of the North Slope
communities. Furthermore, there are communities throughout the
state that are actively exploring the establishment of local
community foundations.
8:27:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN, returning to Representative Gardner's
earlier question, clarified that the legislation doesn't specify
there is only one community foundation or affiliate, and
therefore there is the potential for more than one as reflected
in the language on page 1, line 11. He then suggested that the
benefit of having more than one foundation could result in a
better organization or philanthropic community due to the
competition.
8:28:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that under the language
capping the grant amount on page 3, lines 8-9, communities with
multiple organizations would receive a greater benefit because
each organization would receive $25,000. Therefore, she
questioned whether the limit would be one per organization or
per community, in which case knowing the selection criteria
would be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded that he was not sure.
8:29:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER inquired as to the feedback regarding the
5 percent administrative cap, particularly from those smaller
communities that don't have the administrative economies of
scale.
MS. HARRINGTON said that she hasn't received any feedback on
that matter. However, she clarified that the 5 percent
limitation is for administrative purposes within the lead
philanthropic entity. When the dollars go to the local
community foundation, they are intended to flow into the endowed
fund to build it. Therefore, there would be no administrative
fees at the local level, which is based on the assumption that
these foundations are already functioning or will be shortly and
the purpose is to build endowments with existing resources
running the administrative functions.
8:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if there is any standard for
management of the lead philanthropic organization.
MS. HARRINGTON said that she is learning about the IRS
restrictions that provide high levels of assurance that these
organizations are operating in a manner consistent with the
public good. Additionally, Uniform Prudent Management of
Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) ensures that donors have the
ability to be ensured that organizations holding endowed funds
on their behalf are doing so in a fiscally prudent manner.
Essentially, when there is a fund with many donors, [the donors]
can become the safeguard in that the donors have the ability to
be sure the foundation is being managed prudently.
8:32:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled the legislation's goal of
leveraging donations. Referring to the language on page 2,
lines 16-17 and 29-30, she asked if the community foundations
and community affiliate organizations are required to match
dollar-to-dollar or can they do more.
MS. HARRINGTON confirmed that the language allows for community
foundations to [provide a match that exceeds dollar-for-dollar].
However, she wasn't sure that is useful and characterized it as
a policy call.
8:34:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that this is a
matching grant fund and thus the community foundation has to
raise whatever amount the state is asked to provide.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied yes.
8:34:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the details of the Endow
Iowa and Kentucky programs.
MS. HARRINGTON said she would have to research the type of
philanthropy those two programs have generated. Since the
Kentucky program was enacted relatively recent, it's likely just
beginning to have impacts. However, in Iowa the dollar-for-
dollar match component has been in existence for six to seven
years during which donors could receive a tax write-off. The
Iowa program was so successful that it had to do away with the
dollar-for-dollar match and only have the tax write-off for
donations.
8:36:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that in terms of money flow, the
state would appropriate a certain amount of money to the lead
philanthropic organization that would take applications for
grants. Local community foundations would apply for grants, the
applications would be scored, and a matching amount of funds
would be provided. He then asked whether there is another
effort to obtain matching state funds or do the state matching
funds come through the lead philanthropic organization.
MS. HARRINGTON clarified that it's intended to refer to the
funds that are received through the lead philanthropic
organization.
8:38:04 AM
KEN CASTNER, Member, Board of Trustees, Homer Foundation,
informed the committee that the Homer Foundation has been in
existence for over 20 years. He noted that he submitted written
testimony to the sponsor and thus he would like to provide
answers to some of the questions posed today. He informed the
committee that UPMIFA, AS 13.70.020, is state law that addresses
the concerns expressed by Representative Saddler regarding the
prudent management rule. With regard to Representative
Gardner's concern over the possibility of rapid growth of new
community foundations, he reminded the committee that community
foundations don't fund projects. Therefore, there is no
competition. [Community foundations] fund other 501(c)(3)s and
other general charitable organizations and publish annual
reports. He characterized community foundations as apex boards
that are difficult to populate. Most of the work for community
foundations is in regard to the management and administration of
the funds as well as reporting; the distribution of grant funds
isn't the largest portion of what a community foundation does.
Although he said he wouldn't expect a rapid growth of community
foundations, he would expect ACF would grow more affiliates. He
said he would also expect the smaller communities to create
simple funds, which he referred to as community endowments.
Because of the nature of the various sizes of communities in
Alaska, he expressed hope that the community funds would qualify
for matching grants for their endowments. Mr. Castner opined
that as a public charity, [community foundations] have to
annually meet a public support test such that one-third of the
community foundation's income has to come from public sources.
Although the support from individuals is capped, it's not from
governmental sources. Therefore, any funds from governmental
sources are very helpful in meeting the aforementioned public
support test. In closing, Mr. Castner offered to help craft
this legislation for Alaska.
8:42:01 AM
CANDACE WINKLER, President/CEO, Alaska Community Foundation
(ACF), provided the following testimony:
[The Alaska Community Foundation is] a statewide
community foundation that works to increase
philanthropy and build community throughout the state.
I am testifying in support of HB 290, which I think is
a pragmatic way to incentivize and grow individual
philanthropy and to invest in Alaska's future. I think
Alaskans understand the value of endowments; ... we
all live with the Permanent Fund as a part of our life
and I also think Alaskans recognize the importance of
local control and guidance and I think that this bill
enables that to happen. Many of us in the nonprofit
and development world know that Alaska has low levels
of individual giving and I think the concepts behind
this bill utilize state resources to maximize and grow
private dollars that will not only help build these
permanent endowments but will also help build a
culture of philanthropy. And I think that ... is how
a program like this can help all of the nonprofits in
the State of Alaska that are doing such great work.
To give a bit of context to the bill and to the work
of community foundations, I want to tell you a little
bit about the Alaska Community Foundation .... We
have been around for 16 years. During that time we
have granted out more than $30 million around the
State of Alaska. We currently hold about $55 million
in assets for the benefit of Alaskans. From that we
grant out somewhere in the neighborhood of around $5
million last year and I think that's what we're
anticipating this year.
We have 280 different funds ... included in that is
the Alaska Children's Trust (ACT), which just recently
those funds moved over from the State of Alaska. With
regard to affiliates, we actually have five affiliates
that are locally ... managed and they set goals at a
local level, do local fundraising, make granting
decisions, but do fall under the governance structure
of the Alaska Community Foundation, and that's the
Seward Community Foundation, Petersburg Community
Foundation, Kenai Peninsula Foundation, Jessica
Stevens Community Foundation, and Chilkat Valley. In
addition, we have three partner community foundations
that are their own stand-alone nonprofits: the Homer
Foundation, Juneau Community Foundation, and the
Arctic Slope Community Foundation (ASCF). Those
stand-alone entities do hold permanent endowments with
the Alaska Community Foundation in addition to endowed
funds they held locally. And then we have a more
loosely structured partnership with the many other
community foundations: Chugiak Eagle River, Bethel
Community Services Foundation, and Northstar Community
Foundation.
We do have experience in managing these matching
programs. In partnership with the Rasmuson Foundation
we have given away more than $1 million in matching
funds to ... our two partners and the five affiliates
as they have raised dollars. These have proven to be
a really effective method to build community
endowments. In a four-year period the Seward
Community Foundation, an affiliate of ACF, received
three bequests; one of them was a $1.9 million gift
when a long-time Sewardite passed away. So, it's not
only an effective way to raise dollars today, but
there's the potential as activity and the work is
happening in local communities to plant seeds and
receive some of those resources when Alaskans pass
away. So, that's really powerful. The program has
been called the Community Asset Building Initiative
(CABI) and from a generous grant with the Rasmuson
Foundation, we will be expanding to three or four new
communities as early as this fall. We are currently
working on meeting with different communities and
determining their interest level.
8:46:33 AM
MS. WINKLER continued:
Specific comments on the bill, as Erin stated, ACF is
not a membership organization. The only membership
organizations that really work with foundations are
Philanthropy Northwest, which is our regional
association in Alaska. It's one of the five
Northwestern states, and then there also is the
National Council on Foundation that's a membership
organization; they are the entity that oversees the
community foundations' best practice standard that is
referenced in the bill.
If I were to make comments specific to the bill, there
is on page 2, line 27, a reference to those best
practice standards. And I do think that this is a
policy area for you all to think about. The
terminology says "substantially complied" with these
best practice standards for organizations who might be
applying to the lead organization to participate in
the matching funds. From my perspective, trying to
administer language around "substantially complied" is
complex; it entails defining what that means. And so
from my perspective it would be much easier to have
language that says you either meet these best practice
standards or you don't. I think then that review
process happens at a national level and I think some
of the questions regarding ... if you have two
community foundations or ... are unsure about how
funds are invested or managed, ... that national best
practice standard reviews those policies and
practices. And I think it provides the highest level
of protection for the state dollars and also the
individual donor dollars that are coming in. That's
the standard that Iowa is using. There also is
currently draft language at a federal level to use
USDA funds to do a very similar project to incentivize
rural communities to build endowments and it also uses
the best practice standards as sort of the marker of
how you participate in that program. So, ... I do
think that the policy decision around that is that we
do have some community foundations, that at this time
in the State of Alaska meet those standards [and] we
do have some that don't. And I think that there will
be a cost associated for some of those that don't to
actually get that best practice standard. And so,
that is certainly a consideration.
Ken talked a little bit about some of the strategies
to try to address the needs of communities that don't
currently have a community foundation. And I think
some of his suggestions were good ideas. Currently
the Alaska Community Foundation does have what we call
an Alaska Fund and out of that fund any community is
eligible to apply. We could look at setting up some
sort of fund that matching funds went to and then
state funds ... corresponded and could be open only
for those communities that did not have a specific
local community foundation in the region. It would be
one way to kind of aggregate that activity but provide
still some benefit to communities that maybe are quite
small or don't have the current capacity.
8:50:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the criteria used to
evaluate applications from communities without an existing fund
that apply to ACF. She also inquired as to examples of things
commonly funded by community philanthropic endowment funds.
MS. WINKLER stated that such organizations, ACF, mostly fund
nonprofit organizations via the grant program. However, there
may be a few cases in which ACF may become involved with
expenditure responsibility when there is a need in a community.
She explained that when communities without a nonprofit apply,
ACF performs basic due diligence to ensure the nonprofit is in
good standing with the IRS. If it's a competitive project, the
proposal would be evaluated on the criteria that have been set.
Other funds are established in such a way that they may be
funding a specific organization by design, which means that
there is a basic review to ensure the organization is still in
compliance and operating effectively. The process for
determining an affiliate community foundation is complex and
very different than applying for funding for a grant. Ms.
Winkler then related that ACF funds a wide variety of issues
based on the goal/mandate to improve the quality of life in
communities throughout Alaska. Therefore, ACF may fund
refrigeration systems, food banks, a smolt study, revitalization
of the Gwich'in language, trails, parks, and basic health and
human service needs. Much of what ACF funds is dictated by the
280 different funds, she stated.
8:53:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, referring to the language "substantial
compliance with the national standards" on page 2, line 27,
asked if Ms. Winkler would foresee any problem with "national
standards" working in small communities in Alaska.
MS. WINKLER answered that the downside of national standards is
that it takes time and effort to document the practices, which
can be costly. There are some community foundations in the
state that do great work, but don't meet those criteria. There
are also community foundations in Alaska that do meet the
national standards, such as ACF and the Homer Community
Foundation. In fact, ACF is currently in the process of re-
certification, which occurs every five years. Ms. Winkler
opined that the criteria are doable and provide protection by
demonstrating that the organization has an investment strategy
and policy, a distribution policy, a grant policy, and a fund
acceptance policy. An external body reviews whether the
community foundation has the policies and practices in place to
manage the complexities of a community foundation.
8:55:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested that Ms. Winkler work with the
[sponsor] to develop a flow chart of the various organizations
and how the money could flow through them.
MS. WINKLER agreed to do so. She then explained that the
affiliate organizations work in their community to be the face,
set agenda, raise funds, and make grant recommendations.
However, legally affiliate organizations are part of ACF and
governed by its bylaws, policies, and investment strategies.
The aforementioned situation provides local flavor and autonomy
without redundant infrastructure. Because the program is
substantially supported with a partnership with the Rasmuson
Foundation, 99.5 percent of the dollars raised in affiliate
foundations stay in those endowments because they don't have
significant operational costs as those are handled by ACF. She
did note that the Iowa model and pending federal legislation
recognizes those affiliates as eligible and able to apply for
matching funds. However, because there are specific endowed
funds that ACF holds only for the benefit of Seward and Moose
Pass, those grants can't be spent on grants or projects in any
other part of the state.
8:58:50 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 290 would be held over.
HB 184-REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
8:59:18 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 184, "An Act relating to the sharing of tax
revenue from the fisheries business tax and fishery resource
landing tax with municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
8:59:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON , Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the sponsor of HB 184, paraphrased from the following written
testimony [original punctuation provided]:
HB 184, Refund of Fish Business Tax to Munis, will
increase the municipalities' share of the Fisheries
Business Tax and the Fisheries Landing tax from 50% to
75%. It is the intent that these funds will be used
for port and harbor infrastructure maintenance. This
bill will NOT change the taxes levies. It just deals
with the distribution.
In 1986 the state started to divest itself of ports
and harbors to reduce operating and capital costs. At
that time the state owned 99 of the 125 harbors. Over
the following 25 years the state has turned over 74 of
its harbors to municipalities and boroughs. It is now
up to the boroughs and cities to maintain their own
infrastructure. Many of the ports and harbors that
support the infrastructure for our commercial
fisheries, are rundown and in need of major
maintenance or complete rebuilds. Well maintained port
and harbor facilities are critical to the economic
health of our coastal communities. Currently we have
the Municipal Harbor Grant fund that helps with this
maintenance. You have in your packet a graph of the
way this fund has been appropriated in the 5 years
since it was created. It is sporadic and makes it
difficult for a municipality to implement a Harbor
plan if the funding is always uncertain. This increase
in the Fisheries Business tax will allow munis to take
advantage of a sound strategic plan for the
development and maintenance of their port
infrastructures.
Under the current system funds generated by the
Fisheries Business Tax from processors are distributed
4 different ways:
Fish processed inside a municipality are divided
equally between the state and the municipality.
If the processing occurred within an incorporated city
inside a borough, the 50% is divided equally between
the two entities, city and borough.
If the processing occurred outside of an incorporated
city the 50% goes entirely to the borough.
On fish that are processed or landed outside of any
municipal or borough boundaries half of the tax
revenue goes to the general fund (state) and the other
half goes to the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED). The department
distributes its share among fishing communities in
Alaska according to a formula that proportionally
allocates the tax based on the pounds of fish
processed in 14 different Fisheries Management Areas.
(you should have a map of these areas in your packets)
The percent that goes to each fisheries management
area is then split between the communities by a
locally determined formula apportioning equal
community shares and per capita shares. This formula
will not change with HB 184.
In addition to the fisheries business tax HB 184 will
also increase the municipalities' share of the
Fisheries Resource Landing tax a subset of the
Fisheries Business Tax. This tax is on fresh fish that
is not "processed in state". This fish can be troll
dressed salmon, gutted and gilled Halibut, live crab,
and geoducks. This is the high value fresh fish that
is exported live and that is highly desirable. Our tax
distribution system is clearly diverting from one of
the fastest growing parts of the market. In some cases
the ports where the product is landed does not even
qualify to receive a portion of the redistribution
under the current formula.
HB 184 would, in addition to changing the split
between the state and the municipalities, direct the
Fisheries Resource Landing Tax revenue on these
"unprocessed" fisheries resources back to the
incorporated port of landing and or the borough where
they were landed. This will help more accurately and
fairly cover the cost of building and maintaining the
infrastructure utilized in generating the tax. By
tying Fisheries Landing Tax revenue return directly to
the municipality where the landing occurred, HB 184
ensures that ports are compensated fairly for their
efforts and the revenues they generate.
I'm sure each of you are wondering how this will
impact the areas you represent. You have in your
packets a table that reflects the changes that cities
and boroughs can expect.
HB 184 will increase the fish tax share with boroughs
cities and communities to help with port and harbor
maintenance and improvements. It will also share
exported unprocessed fish tax with the area where the
fish was landed. I urge you to move this bill from
committee.
9:05:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt CSHB 184, Version 27-
LS0576\R, Bullard, 1/25/12, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version R was before the committee.
9:05:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that Version R includes
intent language relating that the additional funds will be used
for marine infrastructure, improvements, and maintenance.
Version R also includes a new subsection to have the boroughs
and municipalities submit a report specifying how the funds
received were used. The reports will be required for both the
revenues from the fisheries business tax and the fisheries
resource landing tax; the information can be compiled into a
single report. Version R also modifies the existing language
for the (indisc.) fish and is required when a new borough is
formed.
9:07:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to why legislative intent is
being used for this proposed change rather than making it a
requirement. She then asked if historically the 50 percent has
been used for docks and harbors or has it been used for other
things. She further asked how the funding for various
communities would look if Version R passed; that is would the
needs of the docks and harbors be met or would it be some years
before it's met, she asked.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, speaking to why legislative intent was
used, related that some communities are wealthier than others
and thus may be able to maintain their harbors better than
others. The legislation addresses maintenance and repair.
Furthermore, communities receive the tax revenues now, but
without any parameters regarding where the community has to
spend it.
9:09:15 AM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative P. Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, pointed out that restricting the use of the tax to
only marine facilities and harbors and maintenance might make it
difficult to use the tax revenues for repairs to roads used to
haul fish to market.
9:09:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if leaving the intent language
would mean that there is a prohibition against [using fish tax
revenues] to build a playground in a park. She then related her
understanding [from gestures from the sponsor] that the [fish
tax revenues] could be used to build a playground in a park.
9:10:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to Representative
Gardner's earlier question, said the tax revenues could be used
for other things.
9:10:31 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ interjected that the need for harbor repair and
replacement is much greater than the increased amount of
funding.
MS. ROONEY related that there are witnesses on line who may be
able to speak to the overall need.
9:11:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER clarified that she understands the need
and that her question is regarding whether communities can [use
the fish taxes for things other than those related to
maintaining and improving harbor facilities]. If so, the
ensuing question then is why would the aforementioned be
desirable. She then reiterated that she is interested in
whether historically the 50 percent has been dedicated to the
infrastructure of the fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON confirmed that the current language of
the legislation could result in municipalities using the funds
for something besides the infrastructure of fisheries, which is
why the intent language in Version R is important.
9:12:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if since the state began
transferring the responsibility for ports and harbors to local
communities there has been any structure for the local
communities to pay for their ports. He further asked if there
is any requirement that local communities provide funding for
maintaining them and have they being doing so by using their
portion of the fish tax and other revenues.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON replied yes and no. Due to sporadic
funding to the communities, it has been difficult and many
harbors are in awful shape, she said. She then highlighted that
the report is required so that [the legislature] knows where the
fish tax funds are being spent.
9:13:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the state, by transferring
ownership of the ports and harbors to local communities, did a
disserve to local communities that don't have the funds to
maintain their ports and harbors. He then questioned why the
increase in percentage of taxes going to the communities isn't
increased to 100 percent.
MS. ROONEY explained that 100 percent of the tax isn't going to
the communities because there are some uses for the 50 percent
that goes to the state, such as the salmon credits that the
state receives. As it is now, she said she wasn't sure whether
the 25 percent provides enough funds within the state to cover
that. Therefore, [the sponsor] is working with the Department
of Revenue (DOR) on that issue.
9:15:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to how Delta Junction would be
impacted.
MS. ROONEY explained that DCCED uses a formula that spreads the
tax across places that have processors. Since some processing
is done in Delta Junction, it receives part of that tax. If
there is an increase, it's likely because of the 75:25 split.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that there is a decrease in Holy
Cross, Shagaluk, and Russian Mission.
MS. ROONEY suggested that the decrease is likely because the
allocated formula-based tax is being given to the communities
where the fish is landed rather than using a formula in terms of
where it was processed.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified that the chart entitled
"Fisheries Tax Revenue Share Analysis and Community Revenue
Sharing" shows the amount in dollars not millions of dollars.
9:18:43 AM
CARL UCHYTIL, Vice President, Alaska Association of
Harbormasters and Port Administrators (AAHPA); Port Director,
Docks and Harbors Department, City & Borough of Juneau, related
that AAHPA is a strong supporter of HB 184, which he urged the
committee to move forward. He then addressed why it's so
important to receive additional funds for harbor maintenance.
As was mentioned the state used to own all harbors in the state
that were built in the 1950s-1970s. Over the last 10 years,
many of the state harbors have been transferred to
municipalities. Mr. Uchytil emphasized that harbors and other
marine facilities aren't money-making enterprises. In Juneau,
the docks and harbors don't receive property tax or sales tax
support for maintenance. Therefore, Juneau has to rely on
federal grants and state-harbor matching grants to recapitalize
the harbors. This legislation would provide more maintenance
funds to the harbors in order to allow municipalities to better
maintain and recapitalize the harbor facilities. Mr. Uchytil
related his understanding that when the state owned the harbors,
the moorage was pennies on the dollar. When the ownership of
the harbors were transferred to the municipalities, it was
impossible to increase the moorage rates to the level necessary
to generate the funds required to maintain the harbors. He
noted that the [Juneau Harbors Board] is not in favor of
increasing moorage rates. In discussions with a local Juneau
fisherman, the local fisherman claimed that his moorage rate in
Juneau has tripled over the last five years. In conclusion, Mr.
Uchytil said that HB 184 would be a huge benefit to those who
manage and maintain the harbors in the state.
9:22:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that she has heard a good case
for the need of more funding to address harbor maintenance and
related infrastructure. She then asked whether HB 184 will make
much of a dent in the need.
MR. UCHYTIL informed the committee that Juneau receives about
$300,000 of the fish tax and it is provided directly to the
Juneau Docks and Harbors Department. The new percentages
proposed in HB 184 would provide Juneau an additional $200,000,
which would allow for more maintenance in the Juneau harbors.
He characterized the additional funds as a "huge windfall" for
the City & Borough of Juneau.
9:23:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether these extra funds would be
enough.
MR. UCHYTIL replied no, it would never be enough. He offered to
provide members a tour of the Juneau docks and harbors. He
explained that within the City & Borough of Juneau Docks and
Harbors Department, half of the costs are for staff and the
other half is for utilities. There are never enough funds
available to set some aside for recapitalization of projects,
rather they have to rely on the state or the federal government
for large recapitalization projects. Having additional funds to
utilize for targeted maintenance would be beneficial, he opined.
9:24:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if transferring the ownership of
docks and harbors from the state to municipalities was a
successful effort.
MR. UCHYTIL disclosed that he has only been the vice president
of the City & Borough of Juneau's Docks and Harbors Department
since August. He informed the committee that the City & Borough
of Juneau purchased DeHart's, a private dock in very poor
condition, and has secured funding to recapitalize that dock in
the coming year.
9:25:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that the roughly $300,000
Juneau receives from the fish taxes has been used for operating
costs not for rebuilding harbors or infrastructure.
MR. UCHYTIL answered that would be correct for Juneau. He
explained that the fish taxes are comingled with other fees and
aren't segregated.
9:26:57 AM
JOHN SWEENEY, Finance Director, City & Borough of Sitka, began
informing the committee that the City & Borough of Sitka has
passed a resolution in support of HB 184. The City & Borough of
Sitka, he related, believes HB 184 is critically important and
strongly advocates for its passage. Within Sitka, there is an
estimated amount of scheduled repairs and maintenance that spans
the next 20 years and would cost in excess of $110 million.
Furthermore, three of Sitka's five major harbors are in need of
a substantial rebuild or overhaul within the next five to eight
years. He opined that Sitka has been lucky to have a matching
grant included in the governor's capital budget for a partial
rebuild of the Alaska Native Brotherhood Harbor. The amount of
reserve working capital in Sitka's harbor fund would be
completely exhausted if used to meet one of the three harbor
rebuilds needed in the next five to eight years. He mentioned
that Sitka had internal discussions regarding increasing moorage
rates. However, there is an upper limit on the amount of
moorage increases that can be passed on before it drives
marginal commercial fishermen out of business or causes them to
relocate to a different municipality. In either case, it would
be difficult and devastating for Sitka, particularly since
Sitka's other major industry of tourism has continued to decline
in the last several years. Mr. Sweeney emphasized that the need
is great and the municipality is committed to doing what it can
with the raw fish taxes it receives in order to help fund the
maintenance. However, the need is so great that it's impossible
to achieve with the moorage mechanism that currently exists.
9:30:20 AM
STEVE CORPORON, President, Alaska Association of Harbormasters
and Port Administrators (AAHPA); Director, Ports and Harbors
Department, City of Ketchikan, related if one were to talk to
the fishermen who pay the fish taxes, one would find that back
when the state owned the harbors they didn't mind paying it
because the funds came back as some of the maintenance. The
fishermen who pay the fish taxes want those funds to go back
into harbors. Although the state did a good job building the
harbors and docks, it didn't put much into them after that. As
the harbors and docks reached their service life, it was more
cost effective to transfer them to the municipalities. Over the
last seven or eight years, all of the harbors in Ketchikan have
been transferred from the state to the municipality and most of
those harbors need to either be substantially replaced or
rebuilt. In order to "sweeten the deal" when the harbors were
turned over to the municipalities, the state provided some
deferred maintenance funds. Ketchikan received $3.9 million for
its six harbors. However, about $17 million worth of work was
necessary to bring them up to par. Ketchikan, he stated, has
done a good job parlaying the $3.9 million with other grants and
local funding to accomplish $7 million worth of work, which
leaves about $10 million worth of work yet to do for just the
harbors transferred from the state. Beyond the harbors, the
fishermen in Ketchikan want a drive down ramp constructed, which
would be about a $5 million project. The rate structure in
place for decades allowed Ketchikan to operate its harbors
without performing any major maintenance. Mr. Corporon related
that when he took his position as the director of Ketchikan's
ports and harbors five years ago, he met with Ketchikan's
finance director. In order to have savings to bond for $10-$15
million worth of work not including the drive down ramp, a 75
percent rate increase was necessary. The aforementioned would
equate to a 15 percent increase over the next five years, which
the customer base can't handle. Mr. Corporon mentioned that he
was able to convince the Ketchikan City Council that the fish
tax funds needed to go to the harbors, and thus that's been
occurring for the last several years. He pointed out that since
Ketchikan is a city and borough, half of the 50 percent goes to
the borough and the other half goes to the city. The borough
has no harbor infrastructure, and thus has been using those fish
tax funds for things other than docks and harbors. This
legislation has caught the attention of the borough, which has
come to the table with the city and is working on a memorandum
of understanding such that even the borough's fish tax should go
to harbor infrastructure. However, such is not the case in all
municipalities as was evidenced at a recent harbormasters
conference where a show of hands revealed that the fish tax
funds of about half of the communities attending went to the
harbors; 25 percent of the communities attending receive part of
the fish tax; and the remaining 25 percent of the communities
attending didn't receive any of the fish tax. Mr. Corporon
opined that one of the key elements of HB 184 is the attempt to
steer the funds to the harbor infrastructure. Polling the
members of AAHPA revealed that there are about $90 million worth
of projects, which he surmised was a backlog of projects when
the transfer of the harbors from the state to municipalities
occurred. In conclusion, Mr. Corporon opined that HB 184 will
make a difference.
9:36:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether it was an option or a
mandate from the state for municipalities to take over ownership
of the harbor and dock facilities.
MR. CORPORON related his understanding that if the communities
didn't want the docks and harbors, then the state threatened to
sell them; that is auction off the floats. Therefore, the
communities not taking ownership wasn't a realistic option. In
further response, Mr. Corporon clarified that his understanding
was that the infrastructure would be sold/auctioned because it
couldn't remain on state land and thus the harbor would go away.
9:37:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that although he understands that
the potential increase in funding offered by HB 184 would help,
he questioned what would happen in five years.
MR. CORPORON answered that the legislation would make a large
difference in Ketchikan, particularly since Ketchikan has been
dedicating its fish tax to its harbors. If the borough provides
its portion as well, Ketchikan can bond the $5 million for a
drive down ramp. The desire would be for more so that Ketchikan
could address the $10 million in backlogged maintenance from the
transfer. He mentioned that in Ketchikan about $80,000 in
additional revenue is necessary for every $1 million desired to
be bonded, which amounts to about a 70 percent rate increase.
9:39:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to why 100 percent of the
entire fish taxes shouldn't go toward ports and communities.
MR. CORPORON acknowledged that the fishermen use more than just
harbors. However, he reiterated that if harbor infrastructure
falls into disrepair, fishermen will go elsewhere.
9:40:15 AM
TIM COTTONGIM, Fish Group Manager, Juneau Office, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue, in response to Representative Saddler,
explained that 50 percent of the gross tax reported on the
[fisheries business tax and the fishery resource landing tax]
returns is guaranteed to be shared with the impacted
communities. To the extent the activity occurs outside of an
organized city and borough that share goes to DCCED to be
allocated. The state's share is subject to credits and thus
claims for the salmon credit, the education credit, or the Winn
Brindle tax credit are removed from the state's share.
Technically, as long as there are credits claimed, the state
never receives 50 percent of that tax rather it receives less.
The salmon credit currently has a provision limiting it to 50
percent of the tax on salmon. Therefore, the maximum credit a
processor that processes strictly salmon can claim for this
particular program is limited to 50 percent, which fully
protects the state's share. There are no such limitations with
the education credit, except that it can't exceed the total tax.
Again, any time anyone claims combined credits that exceed 50
percent, it comes from the state's share and thus doesn't come
from the community's share. When the share is increased to 75
percent, there is a risk of there being more taxpayers in more
communities not being able to cover this share back to the
community with their taxes alone. For example, if a processor
owed the state $100 in gross tax and wanted to claim credits
amounting to $50, the state would receive $50 in cash and the
community would be guaranteed $50. An increase in the share to
75 percent would result in the state being $25 in the hole and
would have to draw those funds from elsewhere.
9:43:27 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ asked if this proposed change would cover the
potential cost to the state.
MR. COTTINGIM answered that there are still sufficient general
funds available to cover the implementation of HB 184 and thus
pay for the credits the state loses.
9:43:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired how large of a dollar value is
associated to DOR in terms of the fisheries tax.
MR. COTTINGIM replied that DOR still expects to receive
sufficient funds from the two programs, even after credits.
However, this is assuming the behavior remains the same. If the
maximum education credit is increased to $5 million and more
processors using more, there is the potential to erode what goes
to the state.
9:45:45 AM
KATIE KOESTER, Community & Economic Development Coordinator,
City of Homer, related support for HB 184. This legislation,
she opined, addresses a fairness issue in terms of sharing the
funds collected. She echoed earlier testimony regarding that
there is a lot of infrastructure involved in supporting the
commercial fishing industry. Since Homer facilitates a lot of
fresh product being trucked out, Homer doesn't get a lot of the
fisheries business tax back because the product doesn't meet the
definition of processed. This legislation would change that and
would specify that funds from the fisheries business and landing
taxes would be spent on harbor maintenance. Returning the funds
back to the communities where they are collected will help with
the deferred maintenance communities have faced since the
transfer in ownership, she opined. This legislation, she
emphasized, will help support the fisheries economic engine for
Homer and the state. She guaranteed the committee that Homer
would be happy to return the funds to its port and harbors.
9:49:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much of the fish taxes go to
Homer ports and harbors.
MS. KOESTER related her belief that all [the fish tax] funding
goes to the enterprise fund, but she expressed the need to check
with the Homer harbormaster.
9:49:59 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, City Manager, City of Unalaska, began by stating
that he appreciates what the state does to support commercial
fishing in the state. He then pointed out that the Alaska
Municipal League (AML) resolution included in the committee
packet relates support for an increase of more than 50:50 in the
split of revenues, not support for HB 184 or expanding the
program to include the unprocessed fish definition in HB 184.
The aforementioned wasn't discussed when that resolution was
passed. Mr. Hladick further clarified that the tax is not
generated in the community where the fish is landed rather the
tax is generated in the community where the fish is processed.
He commented that it would be interesting to know the negative
economic impacts to the communities wanting to be involved with
this program. The change in the definition of processing does
change the result in the formula as it redistributes the
revenue. Mr. Hladick then related his understanding that the
intent of the shared fisheries business tax was to share tax
revenue with communities that have onshore processing in order
to help mitigate the impacts of that activity on the community.
However, allowing the proposed change to include unprocessed
fish in the program would defeat the original intent of the
program. Mr. Hladick stated that he is in support of
legislation that only increases the revenue split with the
state. He also related support for finding a way to increase
funding for ports and harbors. In conclusion, he expressed
concern with legislation that changes a long-standing tax share
program and thus he suggested that perhaps there needs to be a
tax program to address unprocessed fish.
9:52:34 AM
TIM ROONEY, Borough Manager, City and Borough of Wrangell,
related support for HB 184 and noted that the City and Borough
Assembly has passed a resolution in support of HB 184.
Historically, Wrangell has been successful in obtaining funding
for harbor rebuilds, although not so successful in funds to
maintain its harbors. He noted that Wrangell is committed to
dedicate any funds it receives to its harbors. Currently, 75
percent of the funds received go to Wrangell's harbors, with 25
percent going to the general fund. Last year, however, Wrangell
decreased the amount going to the general fund and increased the
amount going to the harbors by 5 percent each. The goal is to
eventually have 100 percent [of the fish taxes] going to the
harbors.
9:53:57 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 184, Version R, would be held
over.
9:54:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested Mr. Hladick's testimony in
writing.
9:54:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related his understanding that the list
entitled "Fisheries Tax Revenue Share Analysis and Community
Revenue Sharing" relates the winners and the losers based upon
the proposed percentage change. He expressed interest in the
list based upon the proposed distribution change in the
legislation but without the change from 50 percent to 75
percent.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON answered that she didn't think it would
look very good, which is why she wanted both in order to
minimize the losers. She informed the committee she has
committed to withdraw the legislation if both changes are not
kept.
9:56:44 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:57 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 184 sponsor stmt Ver D.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 CS Ver E.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 184 Ketchikan Resolution Motion.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 AML Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fish Tax Rev Share An.xlsx |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Petersburg Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Wrangell Support Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB 290 Endow Alaska Sponsor Statement--Version E.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 290 |
| HB290-DCCED-DCRA-01-20-12.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 290 |
| HB184 Fish Mgmt Areas Map.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Muni Harbor Facilities.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 AK Harbormasters Port Admin Resolution.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184 Fish Tax Revenue.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |
| HB184-DCCED-DCRA-01-20-12.pdf |
HCRA 1/26/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 184 |