Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1995 01:37 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SCRA - 3/22/95
SB 96 UNFUNDED MANDATES ON MUNICIPALITIES
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON called the Senate Community & Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. He brought SB 96 ,
sponsored by Senate Kelly, before the committee as the first order
of business.
Number 010
JOSH FINK, aide to Senator Kelly, explained that just as the U.S.
Congress is attempting to address the considerable financial
hardships unfunded federal mandates place on state governments,
many state legislatures are beginning to address the same financial
hardships unfunded state mandates are placing on local governments.
At present, 16 states have laws to try to limit or prohibit state
government from imposing unfunded mandates on municipalities.
Additionally, more than 20 other state legislatures are considering
legislation much like SB 96.
SB 96 was introduced by Senator Kelly to remedy the problem of
unfunded state mandates in Alaska. The legislation is a high
priority for the Alaska Municipal League, the Municipality of
Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Alaska Conference
of Mayors, and the City of Unalaska, among others.
Unfunded mandates cause cash-strapped cities to decrease basic
municipal services in order to pay for the unfunded mandates. As
these unfunded mandates increase for local governments, aid to
municipalities has been cut more than 55 percent. As
municipalities and local governments struggle to provide services
mandated but not funded by the Legislature, increased property
taxes and other local taxes have been used as funding vehicles as
well as cuts in other services.
Mr. Fink said the principal imperative of this legislation is that
the state government should not require municipalities by statute,
regulation or administrative action to implement any new programs,
service or activity which significantly impacts that municipality's
budget unless the legislature is willing to provide funding for
that new mandate.
SB 96 sets us a mechanism which will go a long way to preventing
state government from imposing new mandates without funding them.
However, the legislature is, ultimately, constitutionally capable
of imposing such mandates if it desires.
Number 070
SENATOR TORGERSON directed attention to a proposed committee
substitute. SENATOR KELLY moved the adoption of CSSB 96(CRA) as a
working document. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 080
JOSH FINK, in presenting a section-by-section analysis of CSSB
96(CRA), said Section 2 is the crux of the legislation. It adds a
new section to Title 24 and provides that a bill enacted after
January 1, 1996 that imposes new or increased costs to
municipalities is not effective unless funds are appropriated at
the time of enactment to fully fund these new or increased costs
resulting from the new legislation.
Further, unless sufficient funds continue to be appropriated each
successive legislative session that the mandate is in effect, the
mandate shall be revoked. Exceptions to this are: a bill passed
by two-thirds of the members of each house; a mandate requested by
the affected municipalities; a bill that affirms existing law as it
has been construed by the courts or enacts federal law or
regulation; and a bill that creates, eliminates, or changes a
criminal offense as defined in Title 11.
Number 190
JANET KELLY, Assistant Professor of Political Science & Public
Administration at Clemson University in South Carolina, informed
the committee she has been studying state mandates to localities
for the last 10 years.
Professor Kelly has discussed the legislation before the committee
at some length with Kevin Ritchie of the Alaska Municipal League,
as well as discussing some of the potential pitfalls of other
states' experience with a statutory prohibition on unfunded
mandates. She added that SB 96 avoids much of that pitfall and she
believes it is an excellent bill.
Professor Kelly said this sort of legislative attempt at self-
limitation is very useful and that it heightens legislative
awareness of the fiscal constraints of municipalities, but it also
recognizes the state legislature's right and necessity to impose
unfunded mandates in the event that there is an emergency, etc.,
where such a mandate is clearly indicated.
Professor Kelly reiterated SB 96 is an excellent bill and she has
no difficulties with it.
Number 240
SCOTT BRANDT-ERICHSEN, Assistant Municipal Attorney, Municipality
of Anchorage, testifying from Anchorage, voiced the municipality's
support for CSSB 96(CRA), and stated he was available for
questions.
SENATOR TORGERSON said a question has come up concerning the
exception in Section 2, (d)(2), "mandate requested by the affected
municipalities," and asked if this language was too broad. SCOTT
BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that there is procedure which would help
in identifying whether a municipality or whether all of the
affected municipalities have requested a change. He suggested that
section could be worded in a way that would provide a clearer
distinction.
Number 318
SENATOR KELLY noted that in her testimony, Professor Kelly referred
to an "emergency." Professor KELLY said she was referring to a
history of other states' experience with similar legislation in
which legislatures have been able to, in the event of the
emergency, quickly generate the two-thirds majority that they need
in each house in order to enact an unfunded mandate. SENATOR KELLY
commented that as a state that seems to stagger from natural
disaster to natural disaster, we could probably anticipate some
type of an emergency in the next several years, and he suggested
adding an exception relating to bills passed in response to a state
of emergency as proclaimed by the governor. He also suggested that
maybe an approach on (d)(2) "mandate requested by the affected
municipalities" could be changed to "mandate officially requested
by the Alaska Municipal League" which would be relatively
representative of the majority of communities throughout Alaska.
SENATOR R. PHILLIPS pointed out that communities drop in and out of
the League and there are different reasons that they may oppose a
mandate and at what levels they may oppose it at.
Number 360
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, noted
that federal anti-mandates legislation had been signed by
President Clinton earlier in the day, and he believes it will have
a big effect on state/federal relations, as well as with
municipalities.
Mr. Ritchie said the Leagues believes that SB 96 is a real strong
statement and more of a moral imperative and a discussion point
than a law that's going to be enforced by the courts. He said
there are ways to get around the bill, but the thing that makes it
a moral imperative is the fact that it is written down and agreed
to. It is a very strong, very supportable bill.
Number 525
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked how many unfunded mandates have been passed
on to the municipalities in the last two or three years and their
costs. KEVIN RITCHIE responded that the state has been very
conscientious in not creating additional statutory mandates, and
the League feels the state restraint has been really good as budget
pressures increase. He noted that the Legislative Research Agency
created a report which includes all of the mandates from state
government to local government, but there wasn't a breakdown on
what Senator Hoffman was asking. However, probably the poignant
example would be the senior citizen property tax. It was a bill
that passed years ago, but the decision to underfund it has
happened annually. SENATOR KELLY said he would have staff research
the last four legislative sessions to see if any legislation that
mandates was passed and that falls under the purview of this bill,
as well as to look at some of the pieces of legislation that didn't
pass.
Number 575
SENATOR KELLY moved the following amendments to CSSB 96(CRA)
Page 3, line 16: Delete "audit" and insert "finance"
Page 3, after line 30: Insert a new paragraph to read as follows:
"(1) bill passed in response to a disaster emergency
declared by the governor under AS 26.23.020;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 4, line 1: Delete "the affected municipalities" and insert
"resolution from the Alaska Municipal League"
Hearing no objection, SENATOR TORGERSON stated the amendments were
adopted.
TAPE 94-5, SIDE B
Number 010
KIM METCALFE-HELMAR, Special Assistant, Department of Community &
Regional Affairs, stated the department had just received the new
committee substitute and has not had an opportunity to take a close
look the fiscal impacts of the new language on page 5, which
requires the department to prepare an estimate of the increased
costs if the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation would
require increased costs to municipalities. Also, it is unclear to
the department how it would fit in with the findings that would be
undertaken by the legislative finance division as outlined in
subsection (b) on page 3.
Number 035
RANDY WELKER, Legislative Auditor, Legislative Audit Division, said
his initial concern with the original committee substitute was in
the provision on page 3, line 16 that was just changed in Senator
Kelly's amendment from the legislative audit division to the
legislative finance division.
Mr. Welker related that the zero fiscal note prepared by
Legislative Audit was prepared based on the provisions of
subsection (c) on page 3, which provides that if a municipality
disputes the findings it can petition the audit division for
review. He said if we are putting a good faith effort into the
legislation, where the findings are well thought out, the only time
where a municipality might dispute findings is if a finding is
determined to not impact a municipality when, in fact, it clearly
does.
Number 070
SENATOR R. PHILLIPS voiced his concern on how legislators on the
Budget and Audit Committee are going to know what is going on
unless there is some of kind of reporting system to the committee
itself. RANDY WELKER said there are a lot of requests that the
audit division gets for quick turn-around type of things that they
can do, and he would consider this in that regard. He added that
if it was something that would significantly impact the division,
he would then go to the committee and ask for prioritization.
However, he thinks the primary emphasis is going to be on the
definition of "sufficiently funded" which is outside of the
findings and the role that he sees the audit division playing. But
he not sure that the bill defines who will make the determination
of whether or not a mandate is sufficiently funded. SENATOR Kelly
agreed that is a weakness in the bill, and he thinks some work is
going to have to be done on that particular section.
Number 110
There being no further testimony on CSSB 96(CRA), SENATOR TORGERSON
stated the bill would be held over for additional work and would be
back before the committee at its next meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|