ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 3, 2005
8:05 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. 25
"An Act relating to the sharing of fisheries business tax
revenue with municipalities; and providing for an effective
date."
- FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to contracts for the provision of state public
assistance to certain recipients in the state; providing for
regional public assistance plans and programs in the state;
relating to grants for Alaska Native family assistance programs;
relating to assignment of child support by Alaska Native family
assistance recipients; relating to paternity determinations and
genetic testing involving recipients of assistance under Alaska
Native family assistance programs; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 69 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SEATON
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) CRA, FIN
01/20/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/20/05 (H) Heard & Held
01/20/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/03/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 69
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/12/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/05 (H) CRA, HES, FIN
02/03/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the sponsor of HB 25, answered
questions.
MICHAEL KAMPNICH, Harbormaster
City of Craig
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 25.
JEFF CURRIER, Manager
Lake & Peninsula Borough
King Salmon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he didn't agree with the
rationale of HB 25.
CHRIS HLADICK, Manager
City of Unalaska
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 25.
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Regional Dive Fisheries Association (SARDFA)
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 25.
VALERY McCANDLESS, Mayor
City of Wrangell
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 25.
BOB JUETTNER, Administrator
Aleutians East Borough
Sand Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 25.
CLARK CORBRIDGE, Manager
City of King Cove
King Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 25.
KATHERINE FARNHAM, Director
Division of Public Assistance
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 69 on behalf of the governor,
sponsor.
SHARON OLSEN, Director
Employment and Training
Tlingit-Haida Central Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 69, discussed
Tlingit-Haida Central Council's NFAP and its future plans.
MOLLY MERRIT-DUREN, Director
Employment Training Services
Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CIRI)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 69, discussed
CIRI's desire to become a temporary assistance provider for
tribal families.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR BILL THOMAS called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:05:32 AM.
Representatives Olson, Thomas, Kott, LeDoux, Neuman, and Salmon
were present at the call to order. Representative Cissna
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 25-REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to the sharing of
fisheries business tax revenue with municipalities; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR OLSON moved to adopt CSHB 25, Version 24-LS0169\F,
Utermohle, 1/28/05, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version F was before the committee.
8:06:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
noted that the committee packet should include letters of
support and charts. He reminded the committee that this
legislation only addresses the portion of the fisheries business
tax for those fish landed in a municipality or borough and
exported unprocessed. The legislation doesn't change the 50
percent of the fisheries business tax for those fish processed
in the state or for those processed within the state but outside
of a municipality. Representative Seaton turned attention to
the document entitled "Distribution of Fish Business Tax on Fish
Exported Unprocessed" that is based on the estimate of what the
2005 return will be, which is $743,000. The more recent chart
specifies the actual [return] for 2004, which was $534,000.
Therefore, there has been growth. Representative Seaton pointed
out that the committee packet should also include a chart
showing the growth of the program going back to 1999. In
response to concerns that he has heard, Representative Seaton
explained that formula takes the tax generated across the state
and proportionally distributes that to each of the 14 fisheries
management areas based on total poundage processed in the area.
"Within that management area then there's another formula that
distributes generally it's 50 percent based on an equal share
basis, each community applying and 50 percent on population or
there's a longer formula that distributes it based on actual
impacts," he explained. This legislation addresses the division
between the management areas so that the tax generated in a
particular area would return to that area rather than to the
location of the largest amount of poundage processed in the
state.
8:11:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the impacts to a community
when fish are landed in a community but not processed in that
community.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON specified that [the impact to the
community could be the use of infrastructure to prepare the fish
to be shipped out fresh], which would include cranes, harbor
facilities, washing facilities, et cetera. For example, troll-
dressed salmon landed in Juneau [and exported elsewhere] are
unprocessed per the Department of Natural Resources' definition
of processed. The location within the state where fish are
processed would receive the revenue, the 50 percent split. This
legislation doesn't impact the aforementioned. He reiterated
that this legislation only impacts that fish which is brought
into a community and then exported [out of state] unprocessed.
If the fish is processed outside of the state, the tax base is
lost although the price for that unprocessed "fresh" fish is
higher. He mentioned that there has been review of the
possibility of coordinating DNR's definition of processed and
the Department of Revenue's definition, however, those
definitions serve different purposes.
8:14:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed concern because she can't
identify which communities will win and which will lose under
this legislation. She expressed further concern that smaller
communities may be disproportionately impacted by this
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that this [formula] isn't tied
to the size of the community. He informed the committee that
DOR hasn't collected data in a manner by which it could be
broken down [by community]. Furthermore, confidentiality
requirements specify that DOR can't provide a community-by-
community breakdown unless there are three major processors in a
community. Still, this legislation specifies that taxes
generated in a community will be shared with that community.
Therefore, those communities dealing more in high value fresh
marketing will have the tax returned to the community, such as
would be the case with Chignik. He turned to the community of
Unalaska and the Bering Sea rationalization, which many
anticipate will result in more King crab being flown out live
because it's a higher value product. As the aforementioned
happens, the direct tax benefit from that 50 percent is lost.
He acknowledged that [Unalaska] is the largest port in the area
by poundage, which the distribution formula favors. Fisheries
have grown away from the state's tax structure, he said.
Representative Seaton explained that in 1991 the legislature
decided that 50 percent of the raw fish tax would be distributed
back to the local communities where the processing took place.
At that time everything was processed in Alaska. However, now
fisheries have moved toward fresh fish being flown out and
processed elsewhere, which results in a higher value for the
fishermen. Representative Seaton specified that if a community
doesn't send out fresh product, then it can't expect to have the
tax returned. He informed the committee that [under this
legislation] Kodiak will gain $52,000 in revenue that it's
currently losing by exporting unprocessed fish outside of the
state.
8:21:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to which communities have more
than three processors because such information would seem to
anecdotally suggest the impacts.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that the best information he has been
able to obtain is the chart ["Distribution of Fish Business Tax
on Fish Exported Unprocessed"] in the committee packet. He
pointed out that most communities don't have over three
significant processors, and therefore due to the confidentiality
requirements of DOR the information can't be released by
community.
8:23:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that some
communities recognize this problem and already have a tax.
Therefore, she questioned why this couldn't be addressed locally
in the areas without a fish tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that the purpose of HB 25 is to
share the revenue with communities as originally intended in
1981. However, the fisheries have developed away from the
original definition of processed fish, which wasn't foreseen in
the original tax distribution. With regard to those areas with
additional taxes, Representative Seaton said that's a different
question than whether the state would want to distribute part of
its tax money back to the impacted communities. The question
becomes whether that distribution should be to where the impacts
occur because the impacted communities can be identified.
Representative Seaton specified that HB 25 merely says that
those taxes generated within a municipal community will be
shared back with that community rather than being distributed
broadly based on poundages processed across the state.
8:27:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if it's a substantial amount of
money for those communities negatively impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that most [of the negatively
impacted communities face a loss] of less than $1,000. A chart
[entitled "ESTIMATED DCCED Payments"] reviews the difference in
funding. This chart only shows what comes out and isn't
distributed, and therefore one must keep in mind that the same
amount will come back to the communities and be distributed
based on what communities generate the money. Representative
Seaton informed the committee that each region can propose a
distribution formula to DCCED, which could mitigate most of the
losses.
8:30:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised then that there is a mechanism by
which those communities that are negatively impacted can go to
their own local government to mitigate the [loss].
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied yes.
8:30:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if that would be true of all the
negatively impacted communities, including the communities in
the Lake & Peninsula Borough. She further asked if the Lake &
Peninsula Borough would receive more money under this
legislation, and thus the communities within the borough could
[seek help from the] borough.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON specified that the Lake & Peninsula
Borough is an aggregate area. "When you take the tax back to
the communities that generate the revenue," the Alaska Peninsula
aggregate area is going to lose revenue because under the
current distribution formula the large volume of fishery
poundage generated in Unalaska results in Unalaska receiving the
taxes generated in northern Southeast, southern Southeast,
Kodiak, and Kenai. Therefore, the tax shifts from the areas
generating the revenue to the largest port. He noted that the
Lake & Peninsula can change its formula to accentuate the
smaller communities.
8:33:43 AM
MICHAEL KAMPNICH, Harbormaster, City of Craig, related the City
of Craig's support for HB 25. Craig is a small coastal
community where commercial fishing is important to the local
economy. Mr. Kampnich informed the committee that the City of
Craig operates three harbors, two docks with cranes, and an ice
house. The aforementioned facilities, as well as other
facilities, support the commercial fishing fleet. Over the
years, the revenue the City of Craig has received from the raw
fish tax has been used to purchase equipment and materials for
the harbor facilities and have also been used as matching funds
for larger harbor or marine-related projects the city has
undertaken. As the fishing industry has bounced back, an
increasing amount of fish are being shipped out because of the
demands for quicker delivery and higher quality. While the
aforementioned is good for fishermen and the industry as a
whole, it has left the City of Craig with a decreasing string of
revenue from the fisheries business tax. In conclusion, Mr.
Kampnich said, "House Bill 25 reestablishes the important link
between fishery landings and revenues received by the
communities. This, at a time when it is more important than
ever for communities to support the industry in their effort to
produce the highest quality product possible."
8:36:20 AM
JEFF CURRIER, Manager, Lake & Peninsula Borough, highlighted
that under this proposal there would be negative impacts on
about 100 communities in the state. He further highlighted that
69 percent of the funding being shifted through this legislation
comes from the Alaska Peninsula. Furthermore, this comes at a
time when most of communities, particularly in the Lake &
Peninsula Borough, face failing prices. Mr. Currier stated that
he doesn't agree with the rationale behind this legislation.
Mr. Currier requested the committee give very careful
consideration to HB 25.
8:38:08 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, Manager, City of Unalaska, said that he is
confused with DOR's numbers because one can't really see the
winners, although the losers are obvious. He pointed out that
the City of Unalaska stands to lose $180,000, and therefore the
City of Unalaska isn't going to be in favor of HB 25. Mr.
Hladick said although he could understand communities wanting to
capture some tax of exported unprocessed fish, he said he
couldn't understand it if it's at the expense of other
communities. In closing, Mr. Hladick related that the mayor and
city council of the City of Unalaska will be against HB 25.
8:40:00 AM
JULIE DECKER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Dive
Fisheries Association (SARDFA), related SARDFA's support of HB
25. She highlighted that the market is demanding more live and
fresh seafood. For example, the geoduck fishery has increased
live shipments to over 90 percent of the annual quota, which has
increased the value by about 300 percent. However, the
communities that have supported [development of the geoduck
industry] are being penalized because the tax on the live
seafood is being redistributed to coastal communities throughout
the state. She didn't believe the aforementioned is fair.
Furthermore, the communities have to provide much infrastructure
for [fresh seafood to be exported]. She echoed the sponsor's
earlier comments that the marketplace has changed since the
implementation of the fisheries business tax.
8:42:26 AM
VALERY McCANDLESS, Mayor, City of Wrangell, related support for
HB 25. As is the case in many communities in Southeast Alaska,
Wrangell is in a transitioning economy. The fishing industry is
also making a transition and shipping more live product.
Although this live product would be classified as "unprocessed"
fish, it impacts the local community through use of a myriad of
services. Therefore, it's very important to capture this tax
revenue stream, particularly in light of the lack of municipal
revenue sharing funds. "It is critical for us to capture the
fair level of taxes for what is really happening in the fishing
industry," she emphasized. Ms. McCandless commended the
sponsors for bringing this legislation forward because it's
important that laws reflect what is really happening in the
fishing industry.
8:44:26 AM
BOB JUETTNER, Administrator, Aleutians East Borough, commented
that all coastal communities share common concerns and are
dealing with a lot of infrastructure to support the fishing
industry. Mr. Juettner indicated that in the Aleutians East
Borough there is only one industry, the commercial fishing
industry. Therefore, everything done in the borough is geared
toward the commercial fishing industry, which has changed [over
the years]. Mr. Juettner suggested that this is a local issue.
He informed the committee that the communities on the Alaska
Peninsula tax the fishing industry at all levels. Mr. Juettner
further suggested that the committee needs to review the
definition of "processed" and [write] the legislation in terms
of passing the test of time not just a current change in market
conditions. In conclusion, Mr. Juettner emphasized the need for
the law to match reality.
8:48:36 AM
CLARK CORBRIDGE, Manager, City of King Cove, said that he has
the same concerns as Mr. Juettner articulated. The City of King
Cove has a lot of infrastructure that is impacted by vessels
coming in but not processing the fish in King Cove, such as the
port and harbor facilities, water, sewer, and support services
like emergency and police. Therefore, the loss of revenue due
to HB 25 will significantly impact King Cove. He predicted that
the passage of HB 25 will have a devastating impact on the
communities smaller than King Cove where the revenue lost will
proportionally be a greater portion of the community's budget.
8:50:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to how serious communities
will be impacted.
MR. CORBRIDGE related that information he has indicates that
passage of the current version of HB 25 will result in places
such as Cold Bay and False Pass losing about half of the
revenues they currently receive. He noted that both Cold Bay
and False Pass have no revenue to lose.
8:50:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she didn't feel comfortable with HB
25 without figures. She opined that it's difficult to believe
that no more specific figures can be obtained to determine the
winners and losers. Therefore, she said she would be remiss in
passing out HB 25.
8:51:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA concurred with Representative LeDoux, and
questioned whether there has not been discussion with enough
communities to mollify those who have concerns. She
acknowledged that the fishing industry has changed enormously.
Therefore, it's probably good to take time with this matter and
perhaps have a subcommittee work on it.
8:53:43 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON moved to report CSHB 25, Version 24-LS0169\F,
Utermohle, 1/28/05, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
8:53:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX objected.
8:54:02 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Neuman, Olson, and
Thomas voted in favor of reporting CSHB 25, Version 24-LS0169\F,
Utermohle, 1/28/05, out of committee. Representatives Cissna,
Salmon, Kott, and LeDoux voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 25,
Version F, failed to be reported out of the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 3-4.
HB 69-PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
8:54:59 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 69, "An Act relating to contracts for the
provision of state public assistance to certain recipients in
the state; providing for regional public assistance plans and
programs in the state; relating to grants for Alaska Native
family assistance programs; relating to assignment of child
support by Alaska Native family assistance recipients; relating
to paternity determinations and genetic testing involving
recipients of assistance under Alaska Native family assistance
programs; and providing for an effective date."
8:55:33 AM
KATHERINE FARNHAM, Director, Division of Public Assistance,
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), began by
explaining the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, which is a federally funded program that is matched by
state dollars at a maintenance of effort level. The TANF was
revamped significantly after the welfare reform of 1996, which
allowed for block grants to states for the monies that go to
needy families in order to provide cash assistance and benefits
into a welfare to work program. She referred to a chart that
illustrated the success of that block grant program and the
welfare reform initiative. She informed the committee that
Alaska's program [TANF] has won three years of high performance
bonuses based on the success of employing Alaskans who were on
welfare. Since the peak [of welfare assistance] in April 1984,
there has been a reduction of 58 percent in the number of cases
on welfare. The aforementioned saves the state $66.1 million in
cash benefits.
MS. FARNHAM explained that the same law in 1996 allowed tribal
organizations to run similar tribal or community/regional-based
TANF programs. About 37 tribal TANF organizations are operating
nationwide, of which three are in Alaska. In order for the
tribal organizations to have a program that's fair and equitable
to the state's program, the legislature decided to include a
state component in the tribal programs, which is the Native
Family Assistance Program (NFAP). In 2000, the legislature
established NFAP with a sunset of June 30, 2005. The following
four regions were designated as able to establish a tribal TANF
program: Tanana Chiefs Conference, Tlingit-Haida Central
Council, Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP), and
Metlakatla Indian Community. The first three have been running
programs since 1999-2000. Ms. Farnham pointed out that the
federal law allows all 12 regional nonprofits and Metlakatla
Indian Community to run a tribal TANF program. However, state
law only allows for the aforementioned four tribal
organizations.
MS. FARNHAM pointed out that the same state law required the
division to submit a report to the legislature highlighting the
relative merits and successes of the tribal TANF program. The
report highlights the successes of the three programs and
reinforces the notion that flexibility and local control -
knowing the families and economies - make for a stronger, more
successful program. In fact, the tribal organizations are doing
a better job than the state in very rural areas where the
economic challenge is very significant. Therefore, the
administration is in support of making NFAP permanent in statute
and offering it to all 12 regional nonprofits and Metlakatla,
which would then match the federal legislation.
MS. FARNHAM noted that HB 69 has a fiscal note that is based on
new tribal organizations, specifically Cook Inlet Tribal
Council, who have expressed a strong interest in running their
own program. The Cook Inlet Tribal Council has been working
with the state since May 2004 to prepare for a tribal TANF
serving Alaska Native and American Indian residents in the
Anchorage area. The aforementioned is a significant population
and would form one of the nation's largest TANF programs. The
fiscal note identifies how current federal funds going to the
state for that population would be reduced because that money
would go directly to Cook Inlet Tribal Council. She pointed out
that since the federal block grant would drop, the state's
maintenance of effort level would drop and produce general fund
(GF) savings for the state. Ms. Farnham informed the committee
that two other regions, Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)
and Maniilaq Association, are seriously reviewing this and have
issued letters to the federal government and the state.
Therefore, with the passage of this legislation there could
potentially be six regions with tribal TANF programs by the end
of fiscal year 2006.
9:02:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON inquired as to the amount of the state
match.
MS. FARNHAM answered that the maintenance of effort level is 75
percent of the federal block grant, and offered to provide the
committee with the specific amount after some staff work.
9:03:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that this
legislation would lower the amount the state is providing, and
then asked if the state will receive more federal money.
MS. FARNHAM confirmed that this legislation reduces the
maintenance of effort requirement, which is the GF match. The
state will not increase the federal amount it receives. In
fact, the federal amount the state receives would be reduced if
Cook Inlet Tribal Council establishes a NFAP because it will go
directly to Cook Inlet Tribal Council. Specifically, the GF
reduction as a function of the Cook Inlet transfer would be
about $2 million, and the federal reduction is $2.8 million and
will go directly to Cook Inlet Tribal Council in the future.
9:05:16 AM
MS. FARNHAM returned to Representative Salmon's question, and
specified that the current maintenance of effort, GF, is $41
million, which is 75 percent of the federal amount. The federal
amount the state receives is roughly $60 million. In further
response to Representative Salmon, Ms. Farnham specified that
the GF component to Tanana Chiefs Conference is $2.4 million
annually, Tlingit-Haida Central Council is about $2.6 million,
and AVCP is about $3.7 million. The annual cost for the NFAP
for those three organizations is $8.7 million in state funds.
9:06:49 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS surmised then that the four fiscal notes total
$8.7 million.
MS. FARNHAM explained that the four fiscal notes are the result
of different components of money changing. For example, one of
the fiscal notes reflects the fact that the federal money will
be taken out of the state and given directly to Cook Inlet
Tribal Council. Another fiscal note pertains to taking state
funds and moving those to the NFAP for Cook Inlet Tribal
Council. Furthermore, there is a fiscal note pertaining to
child support collections, which is built in to the funding of
the some of the TANF programs. There is also a fiscal note
pertaining to child care benefits. Ms. Farnham noted that no
fiscal note is necessary for the three existing tribal TANF
programs, assuming continuation of the legislation.
9:08:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised that this successful model, the
TANF program, is replicated in other communities, and the state
saves money in terms of the fact that the state doesn't perform
what is now done by the local entities. She asked if there is
also a savings because the state is dealing with Native
organizations. She recalled that the federal government
increases its participation if [the state] works with Indian
Health Service (IHS) entities.
MS. FARNHAM confirmed that it's a reduction in funds to the
state, but not an increase in the shift to the federal
government. The amount of the block grant to the Native
organizations is based on the 1994 families on welfare. The
exact amount the state would've received for that block grant is
passed on to the Native organization on a dollar-for-dollar
basis. Ms. Farnham related that the model is to provide as much
wrap around, family-oriented services as possible, which has
been better done by the tribal organizations.
9:10:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related her understanding that [those
communities with a NFAP] would provide all the welfare services.
MS. FARNHAM answered that in the three regions that currently
have NFAP, the tribal organization serves all of its tribal,
Native families. In the western region where AVCP operates,
AVCP is contracted by the state to serve all Native and non-
Native needs in the region. The same approach is anticipated in
Bristol Bay, she related. However, the Cook Inlet Tribal
Council will serve all Alaska Natives and American Indians in
the region. In further response to Representative LeDoux, she
reiterated that to whom the tribal organization provides
services would vary by region.
9:13:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his understanding that two Native
nonprofits are in the process of being authorized to provide
assistance under the Native Family Assistance grant. He
inquired as to who those Native nonprofits are.
MS. FARNHAM reiterated that currently there are three Native
regional nonprofits [providing assistance under the Native
Family Assistance grant]. She specified that [the division] has
been working with Cook Inlet Tribal Council cooperatively since
May while [the division] has just begun to work with BBNA and
Maniilaq Association over the last couple of months.
9:14:26 AM
SHARON OLSEN, Director, Employment and Training, Tlingit-Haida
Central Council, related that Tlingit-Haida Central Council
serves all of Southeast Alaska. Tlingit-Haida Central Council
serves the health, education, employment, and human and public
service needs of more than 25,000 tribal members, of which about
4,000 are under age 18. She informed the committee that the
Tlingit-Haida Central Council TANF program was the second such
program to be in operation. The organization averages 360 cases
per month. She noted that less than 18 percent of households
Tlingit-Haida Central Council served are two-parent households.
The Tlingit-Haida Central Council TANF program estimates an
additional 300 potential clients due to child support. Although
there may be increases in case loads, there are measures in
place to thwart that burden, which is a very effective diversion
program. She related that one reason there are increased
caseloads is because the organization is present in every
community in the region. Tlingit-Haida Central Council has
been able to operate the program with existing funds, she noted.
Ms. Olsen said that it has been a challenge to operate a TANF
program in an area with such high unemployment. She mentioned
the lack of training and meaningful employment.
MS. OLSEN turned to the flexibility that the Native programs
bring to TANF. For example, the fatherhood initiative attempts
to reconnect fathers with children and meet their
responsibilities in supporting their children. She pointed out
that Tlingit-Haida Central Council recently received a two-year
planning grant to offer a tribal support unit to undertake the
[child] support services for the region. The aforementioned is
important to add, she opined. She informed the committee that
of the 13 regions in Alaska, only one hasn't consolidated the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Health
and Human Services funds into one program, one grant, and one
reporting system. That consolidation means an organization can
do more, which was noted in a recent Office of Management &
Budget report which rated the Public Law 102-477 tribes were
higher than all other programs within the Department of
Interior. Furthermore, Tlingit-Haida Central Council received
the Chiefs Award from the Department of Labor [& Workforce
Development] because of the ability to provide thorough reports
in a timely fashion. She mentioned that Alaska grantees have
worked closely through the Alaska Native Coalition on Employment
and Training.
9:21:41 AM
MS. OLSEN highlighted Tlingit-Haida Central Council's Tribal
Vocational Rehabilitation (TVR) program, which furthers what
it's doing with TANF families. A recent study related that one-
third of individuals receiving employment-related services from
other programs such as TANF have specific learning disabilities.
As the TVR program partners more extensively with TANF, the
number with disabilities served by TVR is expected to increase.
She informed the committee that Alaska Natives rank second
highest in the state with children with disabilities. She
related that those students who can't pass their exit exam at
high school will be TANF and TVR clients in the future.
Therefore, it's important to continue what Tlingit-Haida Central
Council has begun. She noted that the Tlingit-Haida Central
Council TVR center was built to prepare for welfare reform and
offers life, office, basic computer, financial planning skills,
as well as other specialized training. In conclusion, Ms. Olsen
urged the passage of HB 69, and encouraged the state to work
directly with [the tribal organizations'] TANF and child support
programs in order to ensure families receive the assistance
necessary and more families become self-sufficient.
9:23:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN highlighted [from Ms. Olsen's written
testimony] that all regions in Alaska, save Maniilaq are not
operating under Public Law 102-477.
MS. OLSEN pointed out that it's a voluntary program, and noted
that Maniilaq will be consolidated and [operating under Public
Law 102-477] very soon. She opined that they weren't [operating
under Public Law 102-477] because they were much smaller than
other regions.
9:24:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT turned to Tlingit-Haida Central Council's
child support enforcement program. He surmised that Ms. Olsen
wasn't suggesting that the Child Support Enforcement Division
would decentralize its functions to the Native entity, but he
requested she comment.
MS. OLSEN specified that a [federal] law recently passed
allowing tribes in the U.S. to operate their own child support
enforcement programs. First, up to a two-year grant was offered
to allow tribes to research and prepare for the implementation
of a child support enforcement program. Tlingit-Haida Central
Council is in the first-year planning grant stage and will be
meeting with the state next week to review memorandum of
agreements. If this program enhances what is already being done
[by Tlingit-Haida Central Council], then it will be pursued.
9:26:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT surmised then that the current state system
could be decentralized and the tribal organizations could take
over child support enforcement.
MS. OLSEN replied yes, and highlighted that the organization is
already working with these families.
9:27:34 AM
MOLLY MERRIT-DUREN, Director, Employment Training Services, Cook
Inlet Tribal Council (CIRI), informed the committee that Cook
Inlet Tribal Council serves the Anchorage area and the CIRI
villages. She reviewed the services CIRI provides, including
those related to employment and training, child and family,
substance abuse, and education. Ms. Merrit-Duren said that CIRI
is poised and would like to become a temporary assistance
provider for tribal families. She highlighted that many of the
Native nonprofits, such as CIRI, have been providing case
management for welfare to work participants. In fact, CIRI has
been doing the aforementioned for over eight years, with an
average case load of 600-800 participants. By becoming a tribal
TANF, CIRI would add the eligibility piece. She noted that CIRI
has worked closely with AVCP, Tlingit-Haida Central Council, and
TCC, and have been encouraged that this is the right thing to
do. She noted that CIRI is also a consolidated Public Law 102-
477 provider, which provides additional flexibility.
MS. MERRIT-DUREN informed the committee that the original 1994
caseload in Anchorage for Alaska Natives and American Indians
was 1,123. As of November 2004, the caseload was 692. During
this timeframe Anchorage has experienced a large influx of
Alaska Natives and American Indians. Also during this
timeframe, CIRI was able to help to decrease the Native American
and American Indian caseload by 62 percent. She highlighted
that many Native nonprofits are sophisticated organizations. In
fact, CIRI is a provider of accounting services for 39
nonprofits in the community of Anchorage. Furthermore, CIRI has
no financial single audit findings. Additionally, CIRI provides
information technology services for five nonprofits in the
Anchorage area.
9:33:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 69 out of committee
with individual recommendations [and the accompanying fiscal
notes]. There being no objection, HB 69 was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:33:35 AM.