Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/06/2005 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB128 | |
| SB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 130 | ||
SB 128-BOROUGH INCORPORATION
8:38:00 AM
MR. DAVE STANCLIFF, staff to Senator Therriault, introduced SB
128. The adjustment in statutory language is constitutional.
8:39:39 AM
MR. STANCLIFF informed currently when a group of people propose
a boundary change, the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) may or
may not consider it, but if the government proposes a boundary
change, the LBC must consider it.
8:41:15 AM
MR. STANCLIFF researched the intent back to the founders of the
Alaska Constitution.
8:43:03 AM
MR. STANCLIFF quoted from Senator Vic Fisher:
"The borough, as visualized here, is even more than just a unit
of local government; it is also a unit for carrying out what
otherwise is carried out as state functions. We (indisc)
visualize that the state will force boroughs to organize since
we feel they should be set up on such a basis that there would
be enough inducement for each to organize."
8:45:18 AM
MR. STANCLIFF asserted SB 128 does not restrict the ability of
the LBC to consider any local change brought before it.
8:47:09 AM
MR. STANCLIFF aired government should originate with the people,
and especially with regards to borough formation and boundary
changes.
8:48:38 AM
MR. DARROLL HARGRAVES, chairman, Local Boundary Commission,
testified against SB 128. The members of the LBC are not
interested in working fulltime to advocate anything. They
respond to petitions and legistrative mandates. It is not their
purpose to look for borough planning and forming. The precedent
has been set in establishing boroughs and cities and should be
protected.
8:51:23 AM
MR. HARGRAVES continued some people resist borough formation.
Most of the population is in a local borough that was mandated
by the Legislature. Delegate Barry White expressed optimism that
the State of Alaska would offer incentives for borough
formation.
8:54:13 AM
The eight boroughs of Fairbanks, Mat-Su, Anchorage, Kenai
Peninsula, Kodiak Island, Sitka, Juneau and Ketchikan take in
nearly 7 out of every 8 Alaskan citizens.
8:55:38 AM
The 1972 Legislature mandated that each second-class city with
at least 400 residents should be reclassified as a first class
city.
8:57:32 AM
MR. HARGRAVES added the LBC has concerns that SB 128 is
unconstitutional.
8:58:25 AM
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT advised Mr. Hargraves there would still
be two methods of borough formation, the difference being
elected officials are involved in the process.
9:00:03 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Hargraves to clarify his opening
remarks.
MR. HARGRAVES explained the LBC typically does not wage
campaigns in regards to legislative matters. The LBC does not
typically seek to organize boroughs. The LBC responds to
petitions by having hearings. In this case, the LBC opposes SB
128 as it is seen as a negative for statewide policy.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether the LBC has ever initiated a borough
formation.
MR. HARGRAVES replied no. Requests always come to them in the
form of an initiative or a local option.
9:02:28 AM
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS expressed concern with Mr. Hargraves' use of
the words "typically" and "for the most part."
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS asked Senator Therriault the process for
when two communities want to form a borough and asked how SB 128
would contribute to the process.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said there are currently citizen groups in
the Delta Junction area who are using the Title 29 route.
SENATOR GUESS asked whether SB 128 would prohibit anyone from
forming a borough.
th
SENATOR THERRIAULT answered no. The April 5 opinion from Ms.
Tamara Cook says, "The bill does not prohibit the Local Boundary
Commission from considering a borough corporation requested of
it by any entity if it chooses to do so."
9:05:04 AM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked the option for the LBC should a
member of the Department of Community & Economic Development
(DCED) come to them and suggest a location for borough
formation.
MR. STANCLIFF answered the commission would have total
discretion.
SENATOR THERRIAULT referenced a 1959 attorney general opinion
that quoted a section of statute that was repealed. "Since the
commission may consider any local government boundary or any
proposed local boundary change, it exercises other powers as
prescribed by law. It shall present proposed local government
boundaries or local government boundary changes to the
Legislature during the first ten days of every session." In
previous statute it differentiated between a local boundary and
a local boundary change. No borough has ever been formed under
Title 44 as a local boundary change. That methodology has never
been used in the State of Alaska.
9:08:04 AM
SENATOR CHARLIE HUGGINS asked Mr. Hargraves whether he was
involved in the Valdez initiative.
MR. HARGRAVES answered the LBC has not received a petition from
Valdez. Some communities in that area have petitioned to become
a borough.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked for clarification that the LBC is not
currently working on anything that would include Valdez.
MR. HARGRAVES asserted the LBC is not currently working on
anything to do with Valdez.
9:10:18 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked whether Mr. Hargraves knew of any activity
regarding the Valdez area.
MR. HARGRAVES answered local municipalities are always looking
at the expansion of boundaries but that doesn't become LBC
activity. There is an old petition that was presented to the LBC
but he couldn't say what has been done. Nothing is in front of
the LBC today in regards to Valdez.
9:12:17 AM
BOB HICKS, vice chair, LBC, testified in opposition of SB 128.
Local political decisions do not usually create proper
boundaries. Boundaries should be established at the state level.
Article 10 Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution implements that
policy. It creates the LBC and it devotes three sentences to
creating the legislative review process. The last sentence
provides for local option elections as an alternative method to
the legislative review.
9:14:59 AM
MR. HICKS continued the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled twice on
this in the past and they said the Section 12 legislative review
method coexists with all the other processes established by law.
Section 12 is independent of the other processes. SB 128 amends
the present statute to say that a boundary change may not be
construed to include borough incorporation for purposes of
petitions originating from any of three legal sources. That is
different from the way it was originally advertised in the press
releases. He wondered why SB 128 doesn't address all boundary
changes.
9:17:17 AM
MR. HICKS maintained SB 128 is susceptible to two different
interpretations. One is that the LBC cannot consider a borough
incorporation request. Government originates with the people. SB
128 disenfranchises every political subdivision in the state
from requesting boundary incorporation. SB 128 limits the
borough incorporation process now only to the local option
election. The Alaska Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the
constitutional policy that local political decisions do not
create proper boundaries. SB 128 will repeal the legislative
review method. SB 128 will leave all future boundaries solely to
local elections. For these reasons, SB 128 will be declared
unconstitutional.
9:19:53 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Hicks his interpretation of the word
"change" in Section 12.
9:22:41 AM
MR. HICKS said creation of a borough results in a boundary
change in the same way that the two Alaska Supreme Court
decisions say that disillusion of a corporation results in a
boundary change under Section 12. A boundary change exists as
soon as an organized borough is created.
9:25:01 AM
SENATOR GUESS referenced Ms. Tamara Cook's memo, which stated
"The bill does not prohibit the LBC from considering borough
incorporation requested of it by any entity if it chooses to do
so." She asked Mr. Stancliff whether there was anything in the
current statute that instructs the commission on which petitions
to consider.
MR. STANCLIFF said the latitude constitutionally clearly rests
with the constitution to set the conditions and the standards
and the criteria. There is nothing in the Legislature that
suggests a stronger directive. He advised he has detailed email
communications from LBC staff.
9:27:32 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS asked for copies of the communication. He held SB
128 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|