Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
03/01/2005 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB116 | |
| HB114 | |
| HB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 121-SERVICE AREAS IN SECOND CLASS BOROUGHS 9:43:49 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 121, "An Act relating to consolidating or abolishing certain service areas in second class boroughs." [Before the committee was CSHB 121(CRA), Version 24-LS0396\Y.] 9:44:06 AM KACI SCHROEDER, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 121 on behalf of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. Ms. Schroeder explained that when the state revenue sharing program was in place, residents of subdivisions located outside of city limits were able to rely on state money to form road service areas. Now that the revenue sharing program is over, those residents are no longer able to rely on that state money, and some of the service areas are not taxing themselves adequately enough to maintain services to the roads. Without adequate service, those roads are deteriorating and becoming unsafe. MS. SCHROEDER noted that the borough bears ultimate financial responsibility for the service areas; however, the borough cannot assess a borough-wide tax and apply it to the service areas. The proposed legislation would allow second-class boroughs to consolidate or abolish service areas that are either nonfunctional or functioning below minimum standards. At the same time, the bill would protect those service areas that are taxing themselves adequately and performing their services adequately. 9:46:01 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the reason the borough can't tax and distribute "to the road service areas" is because it doesn't have the taxing power, or because it can't allocate money. 9:46:08 AM MS. SCHROEDER said she doesn't know the specifics of the taxing scheme for the borough, but she indicated that someone was online to testify who could answer that question. 9:46:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the bill addresses groups or areas that are capable of taxing themselves and elect not to. 9:46:39 AM MS. SCHROEDER answered yes. 9:47:00 AM CHAIR SEATON asked if the revenue sharing went to the districts themselves, or to the borough to be distributed. 9:47:11 AM MS. SCHROEDER said she doesn't know. 9:47:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked what the difference is between the committee substitute (CS) and the original bill. 9:47:55 AM MS. SCHROEDER replied that the CS simply adds an effective date. 9:48:08 AM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Chair, Road Commission, said she recognizes that the [Fairbanks North Star Borough] has a problem with service areas that choose not to tax themselves and maintain the roads. Those roads create a safety hazard for the borough, and they are used by ambulances, fire trucks, and school buses. She said there is a chance that something could happen and the borough would be held liable. She stated, "This simply gives a borough an opportunity to get rid of the risk of being responsible for service areas that aren't maintained." MS. MOSS revealed the reason she is following the bill is that she wants to be assured that it isn't going to disrupt service areas that do their job properly. She said, "I am very comfortable with the language here - that it does protect service areas that are doing their job right, and allows them to continue doing their job." MS. MOSS, regarding Chair Seaton's previously stated question about revenue sharing, said, "That was money that was appropriated to the borough, and then the borough distributed it on a per-mile basis." 9:50:20 AM MS. MOSS, in response to a question from Chair Seaton, explained that the borough sends out the bills, while the service area determines what the mill rate is for road maintenance. In response to a follow-up question from Chair Seaton, she noted that service areas are formed by election of an area; rural services assist in deciding what the boundaries will be, then the borough clerk arranges for an election. 9:51:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that he had served on a road service area. He asked whether the road service area board is submitting a mill rate that is being rejected by the borough, or if it is submitting a request "for zero" that the borough is accepting. 9:52:19 AM MS. MOSS explained that, in Fairbanks, several service areas don't have boards anymore, because the money dried up. The borough acted as though it had the authority to authorize maintenance, even though it didn't, because it felt a responsibility to keep the roads safe. 9:53:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked "If there's no board, but a community decides ... [to] pave the main road leading into a subdivision, are we saying that can't be done anymore by dissolving the board?" 9:53:28 AM MS. MOSS answered, "Yes, you are saying that." 9:53:40 AM CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding that there's nothing [in the bill] to prevent a new service area from forming again. 9:53:53 AM MS. MOSS answered that's correct. 9:53:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER offered her understanding that the bill would actually eliminate the liability that the [road service area] board currently has for unsafe conditions, but would in no way address the issue of unsafe roads. 9:54:08 AM MS. MOSS answered that's correct. 9:54:16 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if the borough would remain responsible for the roads if the road service area was abolished. 9:54:38 AM MS. MOSS answered no. She clarified that, currently, as long as a service area exists, it is not a separate entity from the borough, as far as liability is concerned. The purpose of the bill is to dissolve a service area that creates some risk, which would take away the liability from the borough. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Gruenberg, she stated that the borough does not have road service powers; therefore, nobody would be responsible. She noted that there are hundreds of roads in the [Fairbanks North Star Borough] today that do not fall under service areas. She offered examples. 9:55:40 AM CHAIR SEATON offered his understanding [HB 121] would only address second class boroughs. 9:56:04 AM MS. MOSS answered yes. She added, "Home rules operate by charter, so they do have the capability to do this, just in a different manner." 9:56:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS thanked Ms. Moss for her testimony. He stated that this issue is a significant one, and he noted that Fairbanks has the full support of the Fairbanks North Star Borough assembly. 9:56:49 AM RENE BROKER, Attorney at Law, Fairbanks North Star Borough, stated the borough's support of HB 121. She said the borough has 107 road service areas. She said the borough has been confronted with the cessation of state funding and has service areas that are unable or unwilling to tax themselves and thus have essentially been legally nonfunctional and/or dysfunctional. She stated, "We don't believe that it's ever a good policy decision to completely separate control from responsibility, which is where the borough is at right now with its service areas. So, we're just simply urging that we regain some control, but continue to respect the autonomy of those service areas that are functioning as legally intended." 9:58:09 AM DAN BOCKHORST, Local Boundary Commission, Central Office, Division of Community Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development, stated that the department endorses the measure to give borough governments the flexibility to provide for the efficient delivery of services, and [HB 121] would do that for second class boroughs. Notwithstanding that, he said the department would like to make two observations regarding the bill: First, there is nothing unique about a second class borough that would suggest that the measures in the bill are needed for that particular class of borough, but not for other classes of borough. He said, as noted in previous testimony, home rule borough governments have the capacity to exempt themselves from "this provision," but AS 29.35.450 (d) applies to home rule borough governments. He noted that there is a petition currently pending that would change the current classification of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough from second class to home rule. The provisions of HB 121 would not extend to Ketchikan if it were to become a home rule borough government. MR. BOCKHORST stated his second observation is that the bill, as written, gives greater flexibility and authority to a general law, second borough than it does to a home rule borough government, and under Alaska's constitution, home rule is intended to provide for maximum local self government. 10:00:24 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. CHAIR SEATON announced that HB 121 was heard and held.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|