Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/26/2002 08:07 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 26, 2002
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 389
"An Act changing the date of repeal of a provision authorizing
an exemption from and deferral of municipal property taxes on
certain types of deteriorated property; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 389(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 27
Relating to urging the Local Boundary Commission to adopt
standards and procedures to enable the commission to return a
petition for a local boundary change to the petitioner when the
commission determines the petition is substantively deficient or
in need of substantial amendment or supplementation.
- MOVED HCR 27 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 389
SHORT TITLE:MUNI TAX EXEMPTION: DETERIORATED PROPERTY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/06/02 2165 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/06/02 2165 (H) CRA
02/19/02 2329 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
02/26/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HCR 27
SHORT TITLE:LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/22/02 2365 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/22/02 2365 (H) CRA
02/26/02 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 389.
MARK MARLOW, Businessman
(No address provided)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 389.
DAN BOCKHORST, Staff
Local Boundary Commission
Department of Community & Economic Development
550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1770
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3510
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HCR 27.
ABIGAIL FULLER
PO Box 2845
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that [HCR 27] is a good idea, but
offered some suggestions.
PETE ROBERTS
P O Box 1134
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed his suggestions for HCR 27.
DORIS CABANA
Alaskans Opposed to Annexation
PO Box 607
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported returning [problem] petitions.
VI JERREL, Ph.D.
Alaskans Opposed to Annexation
PO Box 938
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 27.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m.
Representatives Morgan, Meyer, Halcro, and Scalzi were present
at the call to order. Representatives Murkowski, Guess, and
Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in progress. [The minutes
for the overview can be found under the 9:20 a.m. minutes for
the same date.]
HB 389-MUNI TAX EXEMPTION: DETERIORATED PROPERTY
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 389, "An Act changing the date of repeal of a
provision authorizing an exemption from and deferral of
municipal property taxes on certain types of deteriorated
property; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0110
REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, Alaska State Legislature, testified
as the sponsor of HB 389. He noted that HB 389 is a reiteration
of legislation passed in 1998. That 1998 legislation authorized
municipalities to provide for tax exemptions with the
understanding that the exemptions would enable developers to
renovate deteriorated properties. One such property is the
McKay Building, which prompted the 1998 legislation. The 1998
legislation will expire in July 2002. Therefore, HB 389 would
extend the expiration date to 2005. Representative Kohring
pointed out that this legislation applies to any deteriorated
property, within a municipality, that could potentially be
renovated. He noted that HB 389 could apply to the Knik Arm
Power Plant.
Number 0322
MARK MARLOW, Businessman, requested the committee's support for
HB 389. He commented that he wasn't exactly sure why there was
a sunset provision in the original legislation. He informed the
committee that although a law would receive more use in an older
part of the country, there were many things built during World
War II that could possibly be renovated. Mr. Marlow commented
that there are a few [buildings], such as the Knik Arm Power
Plant, for which he would like to be able to use this
legislation. He explained that [he is] putting together a
project with the Knik Arm Power Plant in response to an RFP from
the U.S. Army who is seeking power for Fort Richardson.
Number 0581
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to whether the sunset date
should be eliminated entirely.
MR. MARLOW indicated his agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said that would be the best scenario.
Number 0619
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO recalled that three years ago this
legislation was HB [76], which he sponsored. Originally, [HB
76] didn't have a sunset date. However, [HB 76] was amended by
Senator Halford on the Senate floor. Representative Halcro
recalled that Senator Halford said that he was concerned because
in some communities the largest and oldest dilapidated buildings
were owned by wealthy people. Therefore, Senator Halford
expressed the need to maintain a check and balance, a sunset
date, in order to avoid abuse. Representative Halcro pointed
out that the original bill clearly provided authority to the
local government and would have to move through a very public
process. Therefore, he felt that any abuse would be spotted.
CO-CHAIR MEYER commented that the [Anchorage] assembly does
review these [projects] thoroughly, and there is much public
scrutiny.
MR. MARLOW explained that the local assembly would have to, by
ordinance, designate an area that a dilapidated structure is
within as a deteriorated area. That would have to happen first.
After that step, the developer could request an exemption,
referral, or blend of the two. Therefore, there are safeguards
built into the legislation so as to prevent possible abuses.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that she would leave it to the
sponsor as to whether he wanted to amend the bill. She
mentioned the possibility that the sponsor may want to discuss
the amendment with Senator Halford before seeking its adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING recommended amending HB 389 by deleting
the sunset date entirely.
Number 0876
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the committee adopt the
following amendment:
Page 1, line 6,
Delete the entire sentence.
There being no objection, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0962
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved to report HB 389 [as amended] out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 389(CRA) was
reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that although the drafter will
probably understand, she clarified: "It will show the language
in the statute being deleted, we're not actually deleting that
line."
The committee took a brief at-ease from 8:23 a.m. to 8:24 a.m.
HCR 27-LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION PROCEDURES
CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 27, Relating to urging the
Local Boundary Commission to adopt standards and procedures to
enable the commission to return a petition for a local boundary
change to the petitioner when the commission determines the
petition is substantively deficient or in need of substantial
amendment or supplementation.
[There was an unnecessary motion to place HCR 27 before the
committee.]
Number 1181
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI noted that HCR 27 is the result of the
contentious Homer annexation. Representative Scalzi informed
the committee that sometimes a community, to appease a few
people, will submit petitions that are too small. There have
been instances in which the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) has
rejected those small petitions because the planning is for five
or ten years. Therefore, in order to expedite the process HCR
27 will allow the LBC to return a petition early in the process.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI turned to the current situation and
inquired as to what the commission does when it receives a
petition that is "out of scope."
Number 1358
DAN BOCKHORST, Staff, Local Boundary Commission; Department of
Community & Economic Development (DCED), explained that under
the current process DCED is responsible for making a
determination as to whether a petition has all the technical
matters in order regardless of the merit of the facts or policy.
If a petition is accepted for filing, the LBC moves through the
entire process, which can take a year or more. Although it
isn't a common occurrence that petitions are "out of whack" in
terms of the standards, there have been some such instances.
For example, there or four years ago there was a proposal to
carve up the Fairbanks North Star Borough and extend it.
Although that petition clearly didn't meet the standards, no
provision existed to allow denial of the petition without moving
through the entire process. Therefore, in that case the LBC
went through the entire process and was ultimately denied. This
resolution, HCR 27, encourages the LBC to develop a circuit
breaker that would allow the LBC to make a summary judgment on
petitions that fail to meet a [specified] threshold of standards
to conform to the local government principles established in the
constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding then that the
only way the LBC can deny a petition from the outset is if the
petition has a technical deficiency.
MR. BOCKHORST answered yes, and noted that the LBC has rejected
petitions that haven't conformed to the technical requirements
of law.
Number 1514
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to what Mr. Bockhorst
envisioned; she asked whether he envisioned a preliminary
hearing.
MR. BOCKHORST answered that there are many options available to
the commission, one of which would be analogous to a summary
judgment proceeding in a court in which a notice of filing is
given. In a summary judgment proceeding citizens are invited to
comment [and there would be] a quick hearing on the concerns
raised with the petition.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI turned to HJR 18, which limits petitions
to no more than 10 percent of the current area or population. He
explained that HJR 18 was put forth for discussion. When Mr.
Bockhorst was asked whether he felt HJR 18 was beneficial,
Representative Scalzi recalled that Mr. Bockhorst said that the
LBC does a good job and makes sound and reasonable decisions.
Furthermore, both those in support of and in opposition to the
Homer annexation [agreed] that [the 4.5 square miles] was
reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if regulations are being
promulgated now.
MR. BOCKHORST replied that the LBC did adopt regulations in July
2001. Those regulations, currently being reviewed by the
Department of Law, include some innovative provisions that deal
with some of the controversial aspects of annexation. [These
regulations] would require local governments to conduct local
public hearings on proposals before being filed with the
department.
Number 1781
ABIGAIL FULLER, testifying via teleconference, said that she
believes [HCR 27] is a good idea. The LBC does need to be able
to return petitions that have major problems. She recommended
that the LBC should also be able to return a petition if the
proposal is too controversial. Although all controversy can't
be eliminated, there is often things a municipality can do to
reduce the level of controversy. For example, in the Homer
annexation the city was repeatedly asked to pull the petition
and start over, which would've made a difference. She said that
when the city wasn't willing to pull the petition, the LBC
should've instructed the city to do so.
Number 1828
PETE ROBERTS testified via teleconference. He related his
belief that the process is quite flawed. He recommended review
of the following. First, the choice of the annexation method
should be left to the LBC, possibly after a short hearing by the
LBC commissioners. Therefore, much controversy would be
eliminated from these annexations because the city couldn't
start a hostile annexation as was the case in Homer. Second, is
the issue of due process. He referred to the Alaska State
Constitution, Article I, Section 7, which addresses due process
in executive branch procedures. The process of the LBC wasn't
anything like due process. For example, both parties didn't
have access to the same number of filings. Third, the public
hearing at the end doesn't serve any purpose more than to
further inflame the situation. Therefore, he suggested having
this public hearing prior to the preliminary report being
completed. In such a case, consideration could be given to
public comment. Mr. Roberts urged the committee to consider his
three suggestions.
MR. ROBERTS, in response to Representative Scalzi's comments
regarding the hearing suggestion, clarified that he was
suggesting that the final hearing should happen prior to the
preliminary report. Therefore, the hearing would be part of the
process when the comments would matter and thus there would be
time to reflect upon the comments.
Number 2083
DORIS CABANA, Alaskans Opposed to Annexation, testified via
teleconference. Although Ms. Cabana supported returning the
petitions as suggested in [HCR 27], she suggested that the LBC
obtain public input before the changes are put into place. Ms.
Cabana remarked that those impacted by [petitions] should be
allowed to vote, even when [the petition] is returned. She
pointed out that the U.S. Constitution comes before any other
law. She related her belief that legislative review [of
annexations] has robbed citizens of the right to vote.
Therefore, the laws need to be cleaned up and there needs to be
more public input. Ms. Cabana reviewed what she viewed as
improprieties with the Homer annexation process, such as the
limited time [to testify]. She commented on the number of
members on the LBC that are from Anchorage.
Number 2197
DR. VI JERREL, Ph.D., Alaskans Opposed to Annexation, thanked
Representative Morgan for his "yes" vote on HJR 39. Dr. Jerrel,
Ph.D., noted her support of HCR 27, which is a small change in
the LBC regulations. She expressed the need to throw out the
LBC's regulations. She emphasized that the state cannot make
any laws above the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law
of the land. It's unconstitutional to rob people of their right
to vote, she said. Furthermore, the people in the proposed annex
area should be allowed to vote. Dr. Jerrel, Ph.D., informed the
committee that Robert Erwin, Attorney, Alaskans Opposed to
Annexation, has noted [in his filings] the unlawful and
unconstitutional reasons why the Homer annexation should have
not been approved. She urged those members that voted [against
moving HJR 39 from committee] to review the constitution. She
also urged the committee to review HJR 39 again.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI announced that if there had been any way
he could've recused himself he would have. Therefore, he said
that he would vote with the majority of the committee.
Number 2413
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI returned to the testimony that the LBC
should be left to determine whether the annexation is
appropriate rather than the city.
MR. BOCKHORST explained that under current law, a city
government is permitted to file any petition it wishes, given
the standards. The LBC must consider any local government
boundary change requested by a municipal government. This
resolution encourages the LBC to establish a mechanism by which
it returns petitions that don't meet the standards, which he saw
as addressing the issue. In further response to Representative
Scalzi, Mr. Bockhorst stated that controversial is a subjective
term that would be difficult to measure. He said he feels that
the LBC was created was to examine proposals that are
controversial at the local level, examine them with a statewide
perspective, and render judgments based on the standards that
exist in the law.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI used the Homer annexation as an example.
He related his belief that the City of Kachemak should've been
more a part of the dialogue. However, he felt that dialogue
didn't occur because it would've been very controversial. He
asked Mr. Bockhorst if he viewed it as a controversial standard.
MR. BOCKHORST answered, "I certainly think it would be
controversial." He related his belief that the Homer annexation
didn't include the City of Kachemak partly because of
controversies, and partly because the city maintains that it's
paying its own way in local costs. Mr. Bockhorst said,
"Certainly, the question exists as to whether or not the
constitutional principles are served of having minimum numbers
of local government units when you have two city governments
existing side-by-side and the bigger city government essentially
serving and providing services to the citizens of the smaller
local government." He pointed out that this issue will be
raised when this committee hears HB 296, which deals with
mergers and consolidations.
Number 2600
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI recalled dialogue regarding the
questioning by the LBC versus the legislature, during the
hearing process. He noted that there has been much discussion
regarding the lack of dialogue the LBC gave in reference to the
public [testimony]. He indicated the need for the appearance of
the dialogue to be made better and thus he asked if [Mr.
Bockhorst] had any suggestions.
MR. BOCKHORST turned to Ms. Cabana's testimony that she was told
she couldn't speak at one of the LBC meetings. He explained
that the matter wasn't on the agenda and thus [the matter] can't
be [discussed]. He pointed out that the LBC has prohibitions
against dealing with a matter that isn't on the agenda, and it
also has prohibitions against ex parte contact. However,
legislators are able to receive individuals to discuss these
issues at any time. Mr. Bockhorst related his belief that the
record on the Homer annexation was extensive and was reviewed by
the LBC. In regard to comments that the LBC was reading from a
prepared script during the decisional deliberations, Mr.
Bockhorst refuted those comments and explained that the LBC had
before it a workbook in which the department had listed all of
the standards with spots for the commission members to make
notes during the hearing. Mr. Bockhorst related his belief that
the commission members do put forth a tremendous out of time and
effort in their deliberations.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI turned to the issue of the makeup of the
LBC and the charge that the LBC is made up of more urban
officials than rural officials, and requested that Mr. Bockhorst
speak to that assertion.
MR. BOCKHORST explained that by statute, the LBC consists of
five members, one member is appointed from each judicial
district of the state. Therefore, there is geographic
representation on the LBC. There is also a member that is
appointed from the state at large. The current composition of
the LBC is such that the member from the Third Judicial District
and the Chairman, who is appointed from the state at large, are
both from Anchorage. This composition hasn't always been the
case. He pointed out that there have been cases in which the
LBC has consisted of no members from Anchorage. In further
response to Representative Scalzi, Mr. Bockhorst pointed out
that statutes require that appointed members have knowledge in
the field. He related his belief that the members of the LBC
are highly qualified and experienced. Although he understood
the concern of overrepresentation of Anchorage, Mr. Bockhorst
didn't believe that such a composition was a poor reflection on
the LBC's work.
Number 2845
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI moved on to the issue of local officials
being recused from the issue.
MR. BOCKHORST said that this was the first time, in his 22 years
serving the LBC, he has ever heard the issue of recusing local
officials. Mr. Bockhorst related his belief that it is
particularly important for local representatives to weigh in on
the issue. Therefore, he didn't feel that recusing a local
official was appropriate.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that the public testimony would be
closed.
TAPE 02-9, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her belief that [HCR 27] is a
good first step in allowing the LBC to address [inadequate
petitions] early on. She said she feels this would be good for
the public as well as the LBC.
Number 2919
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA returned to the issue of a controversial
[petition] and related her belief that [HCR 27] is intended to
address controversy when there is a substantive legal problem,
not when the [petition] is merely controversial. Furthermore,
Representative Kerttula said she feels it would've been wrong
for Representative Scalzi to recuse himself.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed his hope that those who have
testified on the Homer annexation realize that they have helped
make the LBC process better.
Number 2828
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved to report HCR 27 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, HCR 27 was reported from
the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee
meeting took an at-ease at 9:03 a.m. in order to hear an
overview from the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development regarding the Alaska Economic Information System.
[The minutes for the overview can be found under the 9:20 a.m.
minutes for the same date.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|