Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/22/2007 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB185 | |
| HB152 | |
| HB202 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 185 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 202 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 185-MUNICIPAL ROAD SERVICE AREAS 8:02:48 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 185, "An Act relating to certain municipal service areas that provide road services." 8:02:58 AM CAROL BEECHER, Legislative Intern to Representative John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, provided the following statement: The bill before you today, House Bill 185, provides boroughs with a means of altering existing road service area boundaries to ensure taxpayer fairness among residents of service areas. A service area is a taxing jurisdiction within a borough that has been established to provide special services, such as road maintenance or fire protection. These services are requested and approved by voters residing within a specific area. State law permits borough residents living outside a service area to use service area roads for their sole or legally required access. These residents derive a direct benefit equal to residents within the service area yet they can refuse to contribute to the cost of construction or maintenance of these roads by voting down any annexation attempt. These state mandated annexation votes typically fail as individuals are reluctant to join a service area when they can instead use these maintained roads for free. HB 185 amends state law by allowing a service area to annex property that uses its roads for their sole or legally required access without a separate vote of the property to be annexed. A second issue arises where residents of a service area are required to pay into a service area even though they do not utilize the service roads for access to their property. Service areas, however, are often reluctant to vote to remove property from the service area because it effectively raises taxes on the remaining property owners. HB 185 amends state law by allowing a borough assembly to exercise its judgment to alter, by ordinance, a service area boundary to exclude a property that does not use service area roads as its sole or legally required access. 8:05:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM commented that she likes the intent of HB 185 and hopes it moves from committee today. 8:06:07 AM RENE BROKER, Attorney, Fairbanks North Star Borough, related support for HB 185. She pointed out that road service areas are formed on the central principle of taxpayer fairness such that those who receive the special services provided by a road service area pay for the cost of those special services. However, under current law in Fairbanks it has inadvertently resulted in two substantial deviations from the aforementioned principle. Firstly, under current law neighboring property can use service area roads for access to their homes and businesses while not paying anything to construct or maintain the road. The aforementioned becomes particularly egregious and difficult when the free use differs substantially from the service areas own use in number or type. For example, a gravel hauling business that significantly degrades the roads. Secondly, citizens sometimes have to pay to maintain roads that they no longer use. She explained that occasionally development around an existing service area changes the use pattern. However, under the current system, despite the change in use a citizen in such a situation would have to continue to pay taxes to the service area. Both inequities can be fixed only if taxpayers are willing to vote against their own financial interest. Therefore, the Fairbanks North Star Borough strongly supports HB 185 because it permits municipalities to remedy both problems by altering service area boundaries but only to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the underlying principle that those who receive the special services pay the cost. 8:08:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to page 2, lines 19-23, which excludes a vote by the people residing in the subdivision proposed to be added to a road service area if the road service area roads are the only access to the subdivision. He asked if the people in an existing service area are able to vote on an annexation. MS. BROKER replied yes, adding that the people in the existing service area don't want to have additional property foisted on them. The people of the road service area need to determine whether requiring people who use [the roads maintained by the road service area] for free makes sense because it may not always be a good financial decision for the existing road service area to take on that additional obligation of the added property. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN posed a situation in which one travels from subdivision A to get to subdivision B, the new subdivision, the residents of subdivision A would get to vote on that. MS. BROKER replied yes, because those in subdivision A are providing the roads and are impacted by the traffic. Furthermore, subdivision A should be able to vote on the annexation of subdivision B because were subdivision B to be annexed, subdivision A would have to pay for the roads within subdivision B. 8:10:47 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX related her discomfort because it seems that there will be those who will be grouped in a service area who won't be able to vote on the matter. She asked if a road service area could be gated and charge for its use. She recalled that there's a community in Kodiak that wanted the borough to construct a bridge. Since the borough wasn't interested, the community constructed the bridge with a gate and charged for its use. Therefore, she questioned whether there are ways to address this matter. MS. BROKER pointed out that service areas are part of the borough and thus [the roads in service areas] are publicly dedicated roads for which taxpayer money within the service area goes to pay for the road. However, it's a different scenario if it's a private road. Ms. Broker stated that publicly dedicated roads can't be gated or blocked and only allow certain people to travel on them. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to why a person who spends the night in the road service area would not have to pay for the road service area. MS. BROKER said that [getting to people in the aforementioned situation] would require monitoring and invasiveness that [the borough] isn't willing to do. "What we're trying to do is establish a rule that says if ... you ... by location of your property use that road in the same exact manner, for access to your property, as the people in the service area, then you should be put on the same basis as the people in the service area in terms of payment." CO-CHAIR LEDOUX suggested that perhaps the problem is the road service area itself in that if these are public roads with public use, perhaps everyone in the borough should have to pay for them. 8:14:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN returned to his earlier example with subdivision A and subdivision B and asked if a vote taken by the people in subdivision A is an advisory vote or a binding vote. MS. BROKER answered that it's a binding vote. The borough assembly can't add the property without the approval of subdivision A road service area. 8:16:06 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to how road service areas come to exist in the first place. MS. BROKER explained that road service areas begin with a citizens' petition that goes to the assembly. Upon approval from the assembly, there's an election. The problem is that as communities develop, subdivisions and properties develop around an existing road service area that was formed 20 years ago. 8:17:21 AM RANDY FRANK, Member, Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, echoed Ms. Broker's testimony that this legislation is about fairness. He, too, opined that this situation has arisen since Fairbanks doesn't have road powers. He related his belief that road service areas are a great system that needs a bit of tweaking in order to make the situation fair. 8:18:20 AM MS. BROKER, in response to Representative Olson, informed the committee that in Fairbanks there are about 107 road service areas. 8:19:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if HB 185 will impact organized areas that are looking to combine road service areas. 8:19:23 AM MIKE BLACK, Director, Division of Community Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), said that if an assembly or council was trying to combine a service area it would require a vote. He said that he wasn't sure that this [legislation] would have a substantial impact on most communities. 8:19:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that the Mat-Su Borough is reviewing combining some road service areas in order to gain efficiencies and [economies of scales]. He asked if anything in HB 185 would impact the [road service areas in the Mat-Su Borough]. MR. BLACK related his understanding that Section 1 [paragraph] (2) would apply in the Mat-Su Borough. He questioned whether the vote would be required in the Mat-Su Borough. If a vote was required in the Mat-Su Borough, it would impact their ability to combine the road service areas. 8:21:16 AM SANDRA WILSON informed the committee that currently she lives on a private road and a subdivision has been constructed in front of her property. One vote was held regarding forming a road service area, which was voted down basically because those on the private road voted against it. She related that most likely the road service area will take another vote to create their own road service area. If HB 185 passes, the subdivision would be allowed to form a road service area and once doing so force those on the private road to become part of it because it would be the only access for the residents of the private road. She noted that when the subdivision was constructed, "they pushed through our road that we used to have and there's now currently a house sitting on it." Therefore, the subdivision has blocked the other access out for those on the private road. Ms. Wilson concluded by relating her opposition to HB 185. 8:22:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that the committee packet includes an amendment that would seem to address the aforementioned situation. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH mentioned that the amendment is requested by the sponsor. 8:23:10 AM TAMMIE WILSON testified in opposition to HB 185. She informed the committee that sometimes subdivisions are built in front of areas with existing roads, which forces them to be included [in a road service area] without a vote. The aforementioned seems to provide road powers to the borough, to which she was opposed. Furthermore, those who don't want to be included but are forced to be part of a road service area can adversely impact the road service area. For instance, such individuals could force a dissolution vote or attempt to decrease the mill rate such that the roads can't be serviced. She then highlighted that in the Fairbanks area there are many public and private roads. The private roads are those that were constructed in the 1950s or 1960s but were never dedicated. She related that in her own situation if the road service area [in the subdivision in front of her property] was established, the front section would be maintained while the remaining private portions of the road wouldn't. However, residents on the private road would be required to pay the same amount [as those in the subdivision]. Such situations are occurring throughout the borough. With regard to fairness, she emphasized that such would mean that everyone [paying into a road service area] would have their roads maintained no matter the designation of the road. She expressed concern with regard to taking away an individual's ability to vote as it can cause more problems. Therefore, she urged the committee to vote against HB 185. 8:25:00 AM MS. TAMMIE WILSON, in response to Representative Dahlstrom, clarified that Sandra Wilson is her daughter. However, she emphasized that others are facing similar situations as she and her daughter. In further response to Representative Dahlstrom, Ms. Tammie Wilson explained that the private road was constructed in the 1950s. She informed the committee that her deed specifies that the private road is her access in and out. After living on the property and maintaining the road for a few years, one day she came to find that her access was cut off and a new road was built. She said that she basically had no say on the aforementioned. The access now available is through a subdivision, which is a public maintained road. If that subdivision chose to become a road service area, the area could choose to take a vote and leave those on the private road out of the initial vote and later force those on the private road to be included in the road service area. She opined that it's not fair that an area could vote to become a road service area and then add extra roads later. 8:27:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM surmised that Ms. Tammie Wilson is also discussing quality of lifestyle. MS. TAMMIE WILSON clarified that her concern is that there are individuals who have lived on roads that they have maintained for 20-40 years. However, because there is so much construction in the [Fairbanks area] large plots of land are purchased and change access. Ms. Tammie Wilson reiterated that she has to go through a subdivision to access her property. She then reiterated her concern that [those in the subdivision] will force those on the private road into something without a vote. This results in a financial obligation that's based on the value of the home. In order to reach fairness of road service, there should be a straight fee rather than basing it on the value of the home. She opined that there are many problems with road service areas. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether those on the private road had any conversations regarding the possible purchase of the parcel that's now a subdivision. MS. TAMMIE WILSON answered that the option wasn't available because the builder wants to build houses on the six river lots. In response to Co-Chair Fairclough, she specified that her house sits on five acres. 8:29:46 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, recalling that Ms. Tammie Wilson's deed originally provided for access, questioned how the private road wasn't given access when the subdivision was built. MS. TAMMIE WILSON related that she has been trying to find out how the borough, through its platting division, was able to give permission to the builder to cut off access to the private road. However, she said that she hasn't been able to get an answer. 8:30:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if under HB 185 Ms. Tammie Wilson could be annexed into the road service area. MS. BROKER related her understanding that Ms. Tammie Wilson lives off a private road, and thus she couldn't be annexed in to the road service area because Ms. Tammie Wilson would have to have public road access to her property as a legal standard for being placed in a road service area. Ms. Broker informed the committee that private roads that haven't been publicly dedicated aren't included in road service areas because taxpayer money can't be spent on private roads. 8:31:31 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX related her understanding that Ms. Tammie Wilson had access to her property through a private road and the borough seemed to say that she will continue to have access, except that it will be through a different road. However, someone is planning on paying for and maintaining the different road. MS. BROKER highlighted that the borough doesn't extinguish private road rights, which Ms. Tammie Wilson could've enforced in law. Ms. Broker explained that the borough approved a subdivision/subdivider who constructed publicly dedicated roads by the borough. The aforementioned is all the borough did and the borough didn't extinguish any private right, she opined. 8:33:32 AM LUKE HOPKINS, Presiding Officer, Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, pointed out that during the aforementioned situations there are a number of opportunities for comment during the public process, including during road service areas meetings. 8:34:35 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH surmised that Ms. Tammie Wilson feels that she's been left out of part of the process. MR. HOPKINS commented that Ms. Tammie Wilson can come forward and testify and has. He related his understanding that Ms. Tammie Wilson's situation is regarding a private road and a publicly dedicated road that now ties into a public road on the other side of the subdivision that was platted. Mr. Hopkins opined that the portion of the road Ms. Tammie Wilson had used could "still be there" if she and other property owners wanted to take it up with the current land owners. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH asked if there's a notification process for what's proposed today such that the impacted property owners and service area occupants would be notified. MR. HOPKINS replied yes. Depending upon the action, there is public notice, notice at the service district level, and assembly level discussions prior to any action. 8:36:13 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX posed a situation in which a road service district is formed by a group who wants its formation and who then annex in an area in which residents didn't want it. She further posed that the annexation may be based on the argument that those in the area being annexed into the road service area are benefiting from it. MR. HOPKINS explained that when a service district formed, it comes before the assembly after going through a public process. Once the service district is formed, the individuals in the area are allowed to vote. There is a public process during which any individual is allowed to comment. With regard to a platting issue for a subdivision prior to the formation of a road service district, such an issue goes to the platting board for which there is public notice and comment. Ultimately, the assembly takes final action after the election. Therefore, the public has ample opportunity to comment, he opined. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that only those within a certain discrete area would be allowed to vote on the formation of a road service area. Therefore, one could form the road service district around those wanting it and not include those likely to vote against the road service area, and then want to annex them afterward. However, only those in the initial geographic area of the road service area could vote. MR. HOPKINS noted his agreement that such could occur, but he again reiterated that there are many opportunities to review and act upon any misjudgments. 8:39:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON suggested exploring the possibility of consolidated road service areas. 8:40:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN posed a situation in which a subdivision is built in an existing road service area. He asked if those on the road connecting the new subdivision would be allowed to vote whether those in the new subdivision can use [the roads] in the existing road service area. MR. BLACK said that he would need more time to review such a situation. MS. BROKER pointed out that if property is developed within a road service area, no vote is required. 8:41:49 AM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, explained that if a subdivision is already within an existing road service area, then that property is already being taxed a mill rate for road services. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his assumption that there would be an increase in road service area taxes in order to maintain the additional roads, although there may only be a few new [residents of the subdivision]. MS. MOSS explained that a road service area has a certain amount of road miles. She likened a road service area to a subdivision because it's platted and has boundaries. Those within the road service area's boundaries are taxed a mill rate to provide funds to maintain roads. The only concern with regard to adding property to a road service area would be the expense of maintaining the new roads in the road service area. Ms. Moss said that she didn't foresee a large increase in the mill rate to the existing road service area if only adding six homes. Ms. Moss specified that it really depends upon the road miles being annexed into the road service area. 8:44:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA associated herself with Representative Olson's comments. 8:45:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked if there are some small service areas [in the Fairbanks area]. MS. MOSS said that could be the case, although she said she isn't familiar with all the road service areas in the borough. MS. BROKER confirmed that there are some small road service areas. She recalled that there is a road service area that's a quarter-mile long. 8:45:56 AM MS. MOSS related that the Fairbanks North Star Borough has made a large effort to deal with its road service areas over the last couple of years. 8:46:43 AM JENNIFER YUHAS, Special Assistant to the Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, related support for HB 185 on behalf of the mayor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. 8:47:01 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed the public hearing. 8:47:47 AM MR. FRANK explained that road service areas came into existence in the 1970s due to the borough's lack of road powers. The road service areas used the government as a vehicle to collect taxes and oversee the maintenance and building of roads within subdivisions. The aforementioned worked well until there were hundreds of road service areas. He noted that it's difficult for people to agree on like conditions for roads. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that for one road service area to join another, a vote is required. He pointed out that some are reluctant to join road service areas and don't really see a benefit to doing so. Currently, there are a handful of contractors who perform the maintenance on these roads. Often these contractors [provide service to a geographic] cluster of road service areas in order to provide cheaper service. Therefore, combining of road service areas to achieve a cheaper per mile cost is already occurring, without the government being involved. A few years ago, a road service area committee was established to discuss the problems in the road service areas as well as problems boroughwide. The legislation before the committee today passed through that process. In fact, HB 185 was unanimously passed by the road service area committee as well as the assembly. 8:50:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA commented on the difficulties of growing communities. She questioned whether [DCCED] might have ideas to develop good statewide legislation. She opined that it's horrible to envision the Mat-Su Valley with this situation. 8:52:21 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH related that her request for feedback from the Municipality of Anchorage as well as local road service areas resulted in the following two questions on which she would like Ms. Broker to comment. The first question is that the primary issue raised in HB 185 is whether the new clause on page 2, line 19, is constitutional. She explained that Anchorage has a charter amendment requiring a vote of both service areas. Therefore, she wasn't sure whether the language could be permissive because it creates a possible conflict in Anchorage's charter, which may be the case in other areas of the state as well. The second question is in regard to other communities that may have other charter amendments requiring votes in and out of service areas. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON related that he would have the Kenai Peninsula Borough's road service manager review the impact this legislation will have on other portions of the state. 8:54:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM commented that the Chugiak-Eagle River road board has been run quite efficiently, and thus she said they would be able to answer any questions. 8:54:40 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH related that HB 185 has been [reviewed] by the [Chugiak-Eagle River] road board and there doesn't seem to be a conflict. However, the city as a whole is reviewing the legislation in relation to its charter. 8:55:17 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she is somewhat sympathetic to those being forced into a road service area without having the ability to vote on it. CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH reminded the committee that the sponsor has provided the committee with an amendment. She asked if the committee wanted to take up the amendment now or when the legislation is taken up at its next hearing. 8:55:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related that he didn't want to take up the amendment until he has had an opportunity to speak with some of his constituents. 8:56:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA suggested that it may be appropriate to have the sponsor speak to the amendment in order to provide the committee with an explanation. 8:58:00 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, lines 19-27 (3) to require approval by the voters residing in a propertysubdivision proposed to be added to a road service area if roads maintained by the service area provide the only access to the propertysubdivision or provide access to the propertysubdivision that is required by the subdivision plat or by other regulation or ordinance;" (4) to change in the boundaries of a road service area to exclude a propertysubdivision that does not rely on the use of roads maintained by the service area for the property'ssubdivision's only access or for access to the property that is required by the subdivision plat or by other regulation or ordinance. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected. 8:58:14 AM MS. BEECHER explained that the purpose of the amendment is to address a situation in which there is a rock pit from which rock is being hauled through a subdivision. "So, it would not only be then a subdivision that would have to pay into your road service if that's what they were using as their exclusive use, but also property," she further explained. 8:58:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew her motion to adopt Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt CSHB 185, Version 25- LS0687\E, Cook, 3/21/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM then moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected for discussion purposes. 8:59:48 AM MS. BEECHER explained that Amendment 1 addresses a situation in which a property, such as a rock pit, uses a road service area as its access to the rock pit. She further explained, "Since a subdivision is specific to an area that is building residential areas, this would also include those kinds of situations where they would then have to pay for a road service area that they were accessing and using." CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to how Amendment 1 differs from Version E. MS. BEECHER answered that Amendment 1 provides a broader statement than the narrow definition of a subdivision and thus includes property. In further response to Co-Chair LeDoux, Ms. Beecher said that she was merely using a rock pit as an example of something that wouldn't qualify as a subdivision, but would use a road service area as its direct access. Furthermore, such use would wear the roads and the rock pit wouldn't have to pay for that use or maintenance because it wouldn't qualify as a subdivision. 9:01:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM withdrew Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 9:01:53 AM CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that HB 185 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|