Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/14/2001 01:13 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 13 - SERVICE AREAS:VOTER APPROVAL/TAX ZONES Number 0029 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would be SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 13, "An Act relating to municipal service areas and providing for voter approval of the formation, alteration, or abolishment of certain service areas." [Adopted as a work draft at the previous hearing was version 22- LS0164\F, Cook, 2/3/01.] Number 0147 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, began his opening remarks by acknowledging the presence, at the last hearing on the proposed CS, of one of the members of the Constitutional [Convention, former Senator Fischer]. He felt sure that all of the members of the Constitutional Convention would have agreed that the Alaska State Constitution was a living document, and that it spoke very strongly to checks and balances. In his view, the proposed CS was about checks and balances; it would allow local folks to check the power of local government if they wish. Power should lie with the voter and not with local government. The key issue in the proposed CS was local government and local control, and how to define local control. He noted that the committee had already heard dueling legal opinions, but he put far more faith in the opinion of the legislature's attorney. He added that nothing was unconstitutional until it was found to be so by the Alaska Supreme Court. He commented that legislative will should be taken into account, and that the legislature was responsive to its constituency. He reminded the committee that this was not just a parochial issue - people in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat- Su) valley and in Fairbanks also had a very strong interest. CHAIR ROKEBERG observed that the committee had recently received a letter from Mr. Gatti, attorney for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and a letter from Larry DeVilbiss. Number 0513 HEATHER M. NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Rokeberg, House Judiciary Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, provided comments on the constitutional aspects of the proposed CS. It was her belief that the proposed CS was constitutionally sound. In 1974, the Alaska Supreme Court found, with regard to Article X, Section 11, of the state constitution, that while home rule powers were intended to be broadly applied, they were not intended to be preeminent; the legislature could dictate how they wanted it done. [The legislature] could bring forth rules that limit those powers. Number 0590 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Alaska's Constitutional Convention, page 121, regarding the structure of government that reads as follows: "In all cases, however, service areas were to be creatures of boroughs and function under borough fiscal control." He asked Ms. Nobrega how this fits under her analysis. MS. NOBREGA offered that Article X, Section 5, of the constitution, states that [a service area] is subject to the provisions of law or charter, and that is what the proposed CS is doing. It creates a law that would rule how the service areas were implemented. She said she would agree, however, with Representative Berkowitz, that it is possible for something to be constitutionally permissible, yet contrary to the spirit of the drafters [of the Alaska State Constitution]. Number 0704 CHAIR ROKEBERG confirmed that this was a very difficult issue, it was not a clear-cut case and there were splits of opinion. He was taken with the message from Mr. DeVilbiss that stated: "HB 13 is good for the little guys in service areas who have at least a little control over what is good for them. That is good," and felt the statement encapsulated the whole issue. He agreed with Representative Berkowitz that there was not a clear- cut area from which to interpret this constitutionally. However, from the preponderance of evidence heard, coupled with the opinion of Legislative Legal Services, he believed it indicated that [the proposed CS] was constitutional. Furthermore, the legislature had a responsibility, and certainly the right, to enact legislation in areas that may be gray. Number 0764 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read: Page 1, line 4 through page 2, line 23 Delete all material Renumber following sections accordingly Number 0821 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. During the following discussion, he said Amendment 1 would be contrary to what they were trying to enact in the title and would also go against the sponsor's recommendations. In addition, service districts in the Fairbanks area would no longer have assistance in obtaining some degree of authority. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned that it was his understanding that Amendment 1 would receive widespread support in Fairbanks. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL countered that he did not think anyone in his district had had the opportunity to address what would be left of the proposed CS, should Amendment 1 be adopted. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE added that he had spoken with a road area supervisor from the Fairbanks area, Mr. Frank, who was adamant that, for their needs, the proposed CS needed to include the provisions that Amendment 1 would remove. Number 1069 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Meyer, Berkowitz, and Kookesh voted for Amendment 1. Representatives Rokeberg, Ogan, and Coghill voted against Amendment 1. [Representative James was absent.] Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that while the bill was before the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, many of the same discussions took place. He acknowledged that some members of his constituency were opposed to the proposed CS. However, because he felt that ultimately, the courts would have to resolve the constitutional issues, he would be voting to move the proposed CS out of committee. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that it would be a very difficult vote for him. Despite this, he was going to support moving the proposed CS out of committee. He believed it did have the constitutional foundation to be passed. He had voted for similar legislation in the past, but it was still a difficult decision because he understood the municipality's concerns. Number 1163 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report the proposed CS for SSHB 13, version 22-LS0164\F, Cook, 2/3/01, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Number 1175 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN acknowledged that while there were conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of the proposed CS, he had confidence in his own ability to sense constitutional problems. In addition, he said he put great faith in the opinion of Tam Cook, the legislature's legal counsel. Number 1252 A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg, Ogan, Meyer, and Coghill voted in favor of moving the proposed CS for SSHB 13, version 22-LS0164\F, Cook, 2/3/01. Representatives Berkowitz and Kookesh voted against it. [Representative James was absent.] Therefore, CSSSHB 13(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|