Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
02/19/2008 07:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Local Boundary Commission Working Group | |
| Adjourn |
* 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 19, 2008
7:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Anna Fairclough, Co-Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Co-Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Woodie Salmon
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION WORKING GROUP
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LYNN CHRYSTAL
Local Boundary Commission (LBC)
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding the LBC and
answered questions.
MARJORIE VANDOR, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding the LBC and
answered questions.
BILL ROLFZEN, Municipal Assistance, National Forest Receipts,
PILT
Juneau Office
Division of Community & Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding the LBC and
answered questions.
JEANNE MCPHERREN, Local Government Specialist
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding the LBC and
answered questions.
SCOTT BRANDT-ERICHSEN, Attorney
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
PETER CAFFAL-DAVIS
Hyder, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR ANNA FAIRCLOUGH called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 7:06:10 AM.
Representatives Fairclough, LeDoux, Dahlstrom. Representatives
Neuman, and Cissna were present at the call to order.
^Local Boundary Commission Working Group
[Contains discussion of HJR 30.]
7:07:12 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH announced that the only order of business
would be an overview of the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) in
regard to HJR 30.
7:08:15 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH recounted the prior hearing on HJR 30 during
which the testimony characterized the proposed Ketchikan
annexation as a money grab that leaves communities [outside of
Ketchikan] unable to fund education. Therefore, she inquired as
to the criteria the LBC uses to make its decision.
7:08:54 AM
LYNN CHRYSTAL, Local Boundary Commission, explained that the LBC
begins with the Alaska State Constitution and then proceeds with
the following in the following order: state regulations, state
law, and then LBC regulations. With regard to the National
Forest receipts, those are transitory funds that have been
sunsetted. Therefore, the LBC doesn't place a tremendous amount
of worth on those because they are transitory. The borough is
long-term and thus the LBC looks more toward taxes that would be
more ongoing.
7:09:51 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if, under existing law, it would be
legally possible to approve annexation contingent upon the end
of National Forest receipts.
MR. CHRYSTAL answered that he didn't know, and deferred to the
Department of Law (DOL).
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the annexation could be
approved with an exception specifying that if the National
Forest receipts are reauthorized, those funds would continue to
go to the communities they do now rather than the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough.
7:14:17 AM
MARJORIE VANDOR, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of
Law (DOL), explained that the National Forest receipts are
governed by federal law and thus the recipients are determined
by federal law. Although the LBC can place contingencies on
petitions for annexation, approval from the federal government
would be required for the territory to still be considered in
the unorganized borough and those receipts to go to the other
communities. Once [the land] is in an organized borough, she
related her belief that the federal law treats it differently.
She suggested that Mr. Rolfzen may be more familiar with this
program. Ms. Vandor related her understanding that the LBC can
make certain contingencies, but it can't violate federal law.
7:15:22 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised then that under existing law, the LBC
can make an approval with a contingency.
MS. VANDOR clarified that there are certain contingencies that
the LBC can place on a petition for annexation, but she said
she's not certain the LBC can place the suggested contingency
since the National Forest receipts are governed by federal law.
She indicated that such a contingency may require approval from
the federal government. In further response to Co-Chair LeDoux,
Ms. Vandor said she would have to review the regulations
regarding whether under current law an annexation could be
approved contingent upon the disappearance of the National
Forest receipts. Normally, contingencies occur when there is
knowledge regarding something in the future that will or will
not happen. For example, an annexation of the Greens Creek mine
into the City & Borough of Juneau was allowed after a specific
period of time. The period of time allowed the mine to stay
outside of the mine and get up and running without paying a
certain tax. The aforementioned is an economic moratorium,
which is allowed under state law. Ms. Vandor said she would
need to research whether the National Forest receipts will or
will not be available in the future.
7:18:08 AM
BILL ROLFZEN, Municipal Assistance, National Forest Receipts,
PILT, Juneau Office, Division of Community & Regional Affairs,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), explained that the National Forest Receipts Program was
established in 1908 and Alaska has been participating since
statehood. He related his belief that as long as there are
national forests in the U.S., there will be a National Forest
Receipt Program. In response to the downturn in the timber
industry, Congress, in 1998/1999, enacted the Secure Rural
Schools Program which gives each state the average of its three
highest payments from 1986-1989. What is possibly sunsetting is
the Secure Rural Schools Program, which would return the state
to the previous National Forest Receipts Program. Mr. Rolfzen
explained that under [the previous National Forest Receipts
Program] 25 percent of the income generated within each national
forest is returned to the state to be shared with the
counties/boroughs within that national forest. Federal law is
very clear that the National Forest receipt payments for each
county or borough is proportional to the acreage within its
boundaries. Therefore, Ketchikan's proposed annexation removes
acreage from the unorganized borough into the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough.
7:20:08 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX requested a comparison of the funds received by
the unorganized borough through the Secure Rural Schools Program
versus the amount of funds that would be received if the program
reverted to the National Forest Receipts Program.
MR. ROLFZEN pointed out that the income within the Tongass
National Forest was predominantly from stumpage fees charged for
commercial harvesting. Although in recent years there has been
very little timber being harvested within the Tongass National
Forest, a new land management plan has been unveiled for the
Tongass National Forest that calls for cutting 100-200 million
board feet a year. Mr. Rolfzen related that recent estimates
show that without reauthorization of [the Secure Rural Schools
Program] the receipts to the Tongass National Forest will
decrease by about 85-90 percent. In further response, Mr.
Rolfzen confirmed that the receipts could increase later.
MR. CHRYSTAL remarked that it would be difficult to approve the
proposed annexation on a contingency basis.
7:22:28 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH asked if the Secure Rural Schools Program
deposits funds into the general fund.
MR. ROLFZEN said that the National Forest Receipts Program is
governed by Title 41, which does establish a fund. The
department receives the funds, which are subject to
appropriation in the operating budget. He indicated that the
state would be in noncompliance with federal law if those funds
were withheld from the boroughs. The federal law clearly states
that the funds are to be provided to boroughs in an amount
proportional to the National Forest acreage within the borough.
7:23:49 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to the criteria the LBC uses
when considering annexation.
MR. CHRYSTAL explained that first the LBC determines whether the
proposed annexation fits into state constitution, state
regulations, and the Model Borough Boundaries. He directed
attention to a map illustrating the proposed annexation boundary
in 1998/1999, which didn't include Metlakatla, Hyder, or Meyers
Chuck. That proposed annexation was rejected by the LBC. He
then directed attention to the pending proposed annexation,
which includes Meyers Chuck and Union Bay. He noted that both
Wrangell and Ketchikan included Meyers Chuck and Union Bay in
their proposals. After public hearings in Wrangell and
Ketchikan, it was determined that the residents of Meyers Chuck
identified more with Wrangell and thus it and Union Bay were
included in Wrangell's proposal. He mentioned that Ketchikan's
proposed annexation fairly well conforms to the Model Borough
Boundary, save Hyder.
7:26:32 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to the status of the Secure Rural
Schools Program in 1998.
MR. ROLFZEN clarified that the Secure Rural Schools Program has
been in existence since statehood.
JEANNE MCPHERREN, Local Government Specialist, Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), related her
understanding that the Secure Rural Schools Program was
established in 2002 and the National Forest Receipts Program
existed in 1998.
7:27:49 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to the depth of public comment
[with the proposed Ketchikan annexation]. She also inquired as
to why Hyder is being excluded.
MR. CHRYSTAL related that the residents of Hyder were opposed to
inclusion in the Ketchikan annexation. Therefore, the LBC
[amended] the petition such that Ketchikan and Hyder have five
years to find ways in which Ketchikan and Hyder can merge. If
Hyder and Ketchikan can't find a way to do so, the LBC "will do
it" for them. Mr. Chrystal pointed out then that there was some
concession to the public input on that issue. In further
response to Co-Chair Fairclough, Mr. Chrystal informed the
committee that the LBC had all-day hearings in both Wrangell and
Ketchikan. He noted that no one opposed anything in the
Wrangell proposal, but there was adamant opposition to the
Ketchikan proposal.
7:30:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN recalled legislation sponsored by
Representative Coghill regarding annexation, and inquired as to
whether it passed.
MR. CHRYSTAL related his belief that Representative Neuman is
referring to HB 247, which was a reorganization of the LBC. He
emphasized that the LBC is already a separate agency, and thus
he questioned what HB 247 would really accomplish.
7:30:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN opined that [House Bill 133 of the Twenty-
Fourth Alaska State Legislature] could help alleviate some of
the situations such as with the proposed Ketchikan annexation.
He pointed out that part of [House Bill 133] requires a vote in
the areas to be annexed as well as the area proposing the
annexation. "I believe there's three ways that the Local
Boundary Commission now can annex areas, but they only use
pretty much one and that's the one that they decide on; that
they've been using, it's what they say," he said. He then
recalled that he had proposed an amendment [to House Bill 133]
such that at least two votes would be taken in each community in
order to have more informed voters.
MR. CHRYSTAL surmised that Representative Neuman is speaking to
House Bill 133, which did pass.
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that [House Bill 133] spoke to local
action petitions and the proposed Ketchikan Gateway annexation
is a legislative review petition for which no votes are taken at
the local level. Therefore, if the LBC approves the Ketchikan
Gateway annexation, it goes before the legislature for
consideration. On the other hand, the Wrangell petition is a
local option petition, and therefore upon the LBC's approval it
does go before the voters in the area for approval.
7:33:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN mentioned that he has heard from folks in
the area [of the proposed Ketchikan annexation].
7:34:05 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX remarked that the e-mails being received aren't
from those in the areas to be annexed as virtually no one lives
in the areas to be annexed. Those from which the members are
hearing are from outside the area to be annexed, but whose local
schools are going to lose around $9.6 million as a result of
this proposed annexation.
7:34:48 AM
MR. CHRYSTAL, in response to Representative Cissna, said that he
didn't recall anyone from Ketchikan who objected to the proposed
annexation.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that [the
Ketchikan annexation illustrates a situation in which] a large
unorganized borough with lots of land places extreme hardship on
existing boroughs. It appears that part of the problem is that
the proposed annexation includes two areas that have
difficulties in covering basic costs. She inquired as to
whether the aforementioned may be a continuing problem and also
inquired as to the LBC's part in that.
MR. CHRYSTAL clarified that the amount of funding the Prince of
Wales Island schools would lose is $1.2 million and the $9
million mentioned earlier would be for the entire area. He
reminded the committee that originally the Alaska State
Constitution was set up to encourage the formation of boroughs,
which the LBC must take into consideration when reviewing
petitions. With regard to the National Forest receipts, Mr.
Chrystal said he didn't want to down play the significance of
the loss of receipts because one job or budget is very
important, especially in a small community. However, he
highlighted that the loss of National Forest receipts would
amount to a decrease of about 1 percent of the Prince of Wales
Island's budget. He opined that this will be an ongoing issue
and other cities will likely come forward with petitions. Mr.
Chrystal emphasized that the LBC is acting on a petition
presented from the Ketchikan area.
7:39:24 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if Ketchikan wanted to annex Hyder.
MR. CHRYSTAL said that Ketchikan didn't include Hyder in its
petition. In fact, the LBC rejected the 1999 proposal by
Ketchikan based on the fact that it didn't include Hyder. Mr.
Chrystal specified that the only logical place for Hyder is
within the Ketchikan Gateway Borough.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to the reasons Ketchikan wasn't
interested in annexing Hyder.
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that Hyder depends on communications,
transportation, and services from Canada. The LBC has
encouraged the development of communications and transportation
between Hyder and Ketchikan over the course of the next five
years. If Ketchikan doesn't come forward with a petition
[including Hyder], the LBC is going to direct the department to
do so, she indicated.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX surmised then that the inclusion of Hyder isn't
a given. Therefore, five years from now, the process could
start over and there could be a discussion regarding Hyder.
MS. MCPHERREN indicated agreement.
MR. CHRYSTAL pointed out that the LBC specified that the
relationship between Hyder and Ketchikan would occur within five
years.
7:42:30 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether Ketchikan would've continued
with its proposed annexation if it was necessary to include
Hyder and pay for its schools.
7:42:50 AM
SCOTT BRANDT-ERICHSEN, Attorney, Ketchikan Gateway Borough,
related that at time the 1998 petition was pursued, the LBC told
Ketchikan that if it included Hyder and Meyers Chuck, the
petition would be approved. Based upon protests from residents
of Hyder, the Ketchikan Assembly elected not to amend its
petition to include Hyder and Meyers Chuck. From a financial
standpoint, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough could provide those
services to Hyder, but whether it would've elected to do so to
ensure approval of the petition, Mr. Brandt-Erichsen couldn't
answer.
7:43:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised that the Hyder situation seems to
illustrate the LBC's desire to have a governmental element in
annexation. "We are looking at expanding boundaries where
there's a benefit that is specific to needing to annex the
boundaries without there being a governmental need and that
plays a part in this, in my mind," she said. Only a marine road
separates the two islands. She then asked if boundaries have
been expanded in existing boroughs without the areas to be
annexed having any communities attached to those lands.
MR. CHRYSTAL related his belief that there have been, but
perhaps not to the extent in the proposed Ketchikan annexation.
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that different standards apply to
borough annexations versus city annexations. Borough
annexations don't necessarily imply that the area that's being
annexed or incorporated into the borough has any current or
future need for government. There have been supreme court
decisions regarding what the founding fathers meant to encompass
in creating regional governments in Alaska.
MS. VANDOR interjected that the framers mention in various spots
in the constitutional minutes that the entire state is to
eventually be organized into boroughs and a regional government.
To accomplish the aforementioned, territory isn't going to meet
all the criteria in every situation. The borough concept was
chosen over the county concept as it's a regional government
with smaller governments within it.
MR. CHRYSTAL related that on at least three occasions within the
last year, two of the framers have attended LBC meetings and
have provided insight into the intent of the portion of the
constitution [related to the state organizing into boroughs].
7:49:45 AM
PETER CAFFAL-DAVIS, in response to Co-Chair Fairclough, recalled
that the impact to individual schools within the Southeast
Island School District amounts to 15-39 percent. He noted that
when Ketchikan discussed taking over the school in Hyder it
discussed utilizing correspondence, which is must less
expensive.
7:50:41 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH recalled testimony that the $1.2 million
loss represents 1 percent [of the school distinct]. She
inquired as to the impact the loss of the National Forest
receipts would have on the school district as a whole.
MR. CAFFAL-DAVIS said he would try to obtain that information
for the committee.
MS. MCPHERREN clarified that the $1.2 million loss is for all of
the school districts on Prince of Wales Island and Metlakatla,
not just Hyder that's in the Southeast Island School District.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH surmised then that the loss of National
Forest receipts may be more of an impact on an individual school
in Hyder, as far as a percentage of its budget. She inquired as
to the meaning of $1.2 million being 1 percent.
MS. MCPHERREN answered, "Overall, ... the average loss to all of
the school districts in the region would be about 1.1 percent."
7:52:39 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH noted that [Mr. Rolfzen] provided the
committee with a chart titled "Impact of Wrangell Incorporation
and Ketchikan Annexation Upon Distribution of National Forest
Receipts Revenues in Southeast Alaska as a Percent of Total
Education Expenses" representing each individual school [and its
loss].
7:53:22 AM
MR. ROLFZEN interjected that he provided the committee with a
chart that illustrates that the $1.2 million impacts every
municipality, including municipal school districts, in the
unorganized borough in Southeast. [The loss of National Forest
receipts] also impacts Hoonah, Petersburg, Wrangell, Pelican,
and second class cities. Forest receipts are restricted to
schools and roads. He explained that for a second class city in
an unorganized borough, National Forest receipts are provided to
those cities based on the miles of roads the city maintains.
7:54:14 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH requested hard numbers in regard to the 1
percent impact.
MS. MCPHERREN confirmed that some communities will suffer a
greater loss than others. She said that Petersburg and Wrangell
will likely suffer the greatest loss. Because of Hydraburg's
low student population, it will fall within the 2-3 percent
range. Ms. McPherren clarified that the 1.15 percent [loss]
discussed was an overall average loss to the school district.
She offered to provide specific percentages to the committee.
7:55:48 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX, referring to the aforementioned chart, related
her understanding that the Hoonah school is losing $74,000. She
asked if that $74,000 is just 1 percent of Hoonah's school
budget.
MR. ROLFZEN clarified that the chart he provided specifies the
sum total lost to the City of Hoonah. Since the City of Hoonah
is a first class city it receives National Forest receipts for
both schools and roads, and therefore the $74,000 loss is a
combination of school and road funds.
MS. MCPHERREN acknowledged that many of the witnesses have
testified that although the numbers may seem small, they are
significant to the communities.
7:58:15 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH recalled testimony last week that the LBC
doesn't take into account the financial impact or consequence of
the decision [on the proposed annexation]. She opined that the
state will have to fill the [loss of National Forest receipts]
because there's no desire to have communities adversely impacted
by the [proposed annexation]. Communities are apprehensive to
change when it's unknown whether the state will step up to that
responsibility.
MR. CHRYSTAL said that the LBC does take [any financial impact]
into account. Still, the bottom line is that the National
Forest receipts are funds that aren't guaranteed. Mr. Chrystal
remarked that since the proposed annexation would be cast in
stone but the National Forest receipts aren't, not as much
emphasis is placed on the National Forest receipts.
8:00:03 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to when there will be knowledge as
to whether the Secure Rural Schools program will be
reauthorized.
MR. ROLFZEN explained that a one-year extension was received for
fiscal year (FY) 2008. In the last three to four months,
Congress has reauthorized the program. However, the
reauthorization was attached to war funding or troop withdrawal
bills that were ultimately vetoed by the president. Mr. Rolfzen
related that there is much bipartisan support for
reauthorization and the president's recently released budget
includes reauthorization at a reduced funding level. Recently,
U.S. Senator Ted Stevens relayed that the bill would likely not
be voted on until August or September of this federal fiscal
year. In further response to Co-Chair LeDoux, Mr. Rolfzen
related that the Secure Rural Schools Program went into effect
in 2000, sunsetted in 2007, and extended for one year in 2008.
Therefore, the program hasn't been officially reauthorized yet.
MS. MCPHERREN highlighted that President George W. Bush's budget
proposes that the Secure Rural Schools program or a similar
program be funded at less than half of its current level and
phased out over three years. The National Forest Receipts
Program will remain, she noted.
8:02:43 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if it would've been possible for the LBC
to approve annexation and specify that in five years Hyder will
be part of Ketchikan and direct Ketchikan to keep the Hyder
school open rather than utilize correspondence.
MR. CHRYSTAL said that he didn't know.
8:03:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to how many students are
enrolled in the Hyder school.
MS. MCPHERREN answered that at last count there were 18 students
enrolled in the Hyder school.
8:04:34 AM
MS. VANDOR, in response to Co-Chair LeDoux, explained that since
Hyder is an unorganized city, it was probably possible for the
LBC to direct the annexation of Hyder in five years rather than
reconsider it again. However, the Ketchikan petitioners could
object to such. Since [Hyder] wasn't included in the original
petition, analysis, hearings, and input would be necessary to
determine whether the minimum standards have been met.
Therefore, Ms. Vandor opined that [inclusion of Hyder] would
need its own petition. Now that the statute change allows the
LBC to specify contingencies, it was proper for the LBC to do
that.
8:07:14 AM
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that Hyder is opposed to being
annexed, and therefore she surmised that if the LBC had done
what Co-Chair LeDoux suggested the residents of Hyder would've
been very upset.
8:07:42 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH expressed the desire to know the impact [in
the loss of National Forest receipts] on each community with
regard to the government budget and school budget.
MS. MCPHERREN offered to work with the Department of Education
and Early Development (EED) to obtain that information. She
highlighted that the Joint Legislative Education Task Force is
also reviewing the sunset of the Secure Rural Schools Act. Ms.
McPherren informed the committee that the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough will receive nothing from the National Forest Receipts
Program or the Secure Rural Schools Act until FY 10 because of
the timing of the annexation and the way the funding mechanism
works under the regulations for boroughs.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the [National Forest receipts]
are used as part of the local contribution under the student
funding formula.
MS. MCPHERREN replied no, adding that they aren't part of the
basic need.
MR. ROLFZEN clarified that it doesn't play into the state
foundation aid formula, but a municipal school district can use
its National Forest receipts to meet the 4 mill local
equivalency. He noted that some communities do the
aforementioned and some don't.
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH expressed interest in receiving information
regarding [which communities use it to meet the 4 mill local
equivalency].
8:12:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern with the proposed
annexation of Hyder. She related her understanding from the
Alaska State Constitution that "you're growing your borough so
that you can grow your ability to give service to the people
that are going to be coming into that area." She related her
further understanding that areas proposed for annexation are
areas that could be inhabitable and where new communities and
schools could be created. Representative Cissna questioned
whether there's the attitude that embraces and welcomes new
responsibility and service to people.
MR. CHRYSTAL said he would hope that's the case. He then
mentioned the control destiny aspect in which a community may
want to control its destiny. He related his understanding that
Ketchikan already provides quite a few services to areas that it
hasn't annexed. In regard to the proposed annexation by the
Ketchikan Gateway Borough being a money grab, he said he
wouldn't have supported the annexation if he had thought that
was the case. "I really do not think this is a money grab, in
my own heart and mind," Mr. Chrystal opined.
8:16:38 AM
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that education is a mandatory borough
function, and therefore the Ketchikan Gateway Borough would have
to provide educational services to the students within its
boundaries. In response to Representative Cissna, Ms. McPherren
related her understanding that when there are 10 or more
students, a school is involved. She noted that she has only
heard the remarks regarding Ketchikan utilizing correspondence
for those students in Hyder only from the residents of Hyder.
She deferred to a Ketchikan representative.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN said that there wasn't discussion at the
assembly level regarding education. However, amongst the
interactions of staff with Hyder residents, there was discussion
regarding the services Hyder desired and the notion that the
easiest method to continue a school in Hyder may be to contract
with the Southeast Island School District to continue providing
services. The education services aren't something that the
borough assembly can control as the school board and
superintendent would make the actual decision. The current
superintendent has experience in rural districts in Northwestern
Alaska and thus wouldn't be new or difficult for him.
8:19:37 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH recalled testimony that Ketchikan's current
petition is the same as the one disapproved by the LBC in the
recent past. She asked if there was any change in the
composition of the LBC between the two different applications.
MR. CHRYSTAL confirmed that there was a complete change in the
membership of the LBC. In further response to Co-Chair
Fairclough, he acknowledged that different individuals have a
different view of things. However, during the time period in
[between Ketchikan's first petition and this most recent
petition] there were also changes in statute and regulation. He
related his understanding that 10 years ago a lot of political
play occurred. The staff was more or less directed to oppose
Ketchikan's first proposed annexation, whereas today staff were
given free reign to provide their honest opinion and no one was
directed to do anything. He further related that the
regulations were changed such that they refer to what's in the
best interest of the state. This LBC, he said, doesn't view the
Model Borough Boundary as cast in stone but rather as a
guideline.
8:22:55 AM
MR. CHRYSTAL, in response to Co-Chair Fairclough, reviewed the
document titled "A Number of Significant Differences KGB
Annexation Proceedings", which is included in the committee
packet.
8:23:38 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to why under Ketchikan's 1998-
1999 annexation proposal 17.9 square miles around Hyder was
excluded while in the 2006-2007 proposal 205 square miles around
Hyder was excluded.
MR. CHRYSTAL related his belief that it has to do with following
the geography.
MS. MCPHERREN noted her agreement that the current proposal uses
the natural geography, adding that the exclusion of the Hyder
area, not just the community of Hyder itself, is a short-term
exclusion.
MR. ROLFZEN said that there was no discussion directly related
to National Forest receipts when there was discussion regarding
the area around Hyder.
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that the National Forest receipts for
Rural Education Attendance Areas (REAAs) and city school
districts on Prince of Wales Island aren't based on acreage but
rather the average daily membership (ADM) whereas for boroughs
the receipts are based on acreage. Therefore, the Hyder
exclusion is based on the number of students in the Southeast
Island School District.
8:26:23 AM
MR. CHRYSTAL continued reviewing the document titled "A Number
of Significant Differences KGB Annexation Proceedings" and
highlighted the substantive amendments to regulations in which
new provisions referring to the best interest of the state as
well as a new procedure for legislative review of annexation
proposals. He also highlighted that the EED did oppose the 1998
petition but not the 2006 petition. As mentioned earlier, the
LBC's reliance on Model Borough Boundaries changed in that it's
now used as a guide. In response to Co-Chair Fairclough, Mr.
Chrystal specified that the change in use of the Model Borough
Boundaries was codified in regulation after a work session on
the matter.
MS. MCPHERREN clarified that it was originally codified in the
Skagway decision when it stated that the Model Borough
Boundaries was a tool rather than deterrent to the formation of
or annexation to boroughs. This was made clear in case law
prior to the codification in regulation.
8:28:16 AM
MR. CHRYSTAL, continuing his review of the document titled "A
Number of Significant Differences KGB Annexation Proceedings",
directed attention to the information regarding the department's
positions in which this time staff was free to do what it felt
was right and didn't receive any political pressure in the
matter. In regard to the National Forest receipts, Mr. Chrystal
related that the LBC certainly did review it.
MS. MCPHERREN pointed out that the LBC has brought the issue of
the use of National Forest receipts to the legislature
consistently in its annual report over the past 10 years.
Furthermore, when EED and the LBC were required to study the
issue of school consolidation in 2004, the National Forest
receipts were cited as an issue needing review.
MR. CHRYSTAL then highlighted another change in the LBC, which
is the new unit supervisor, Jennifer Abbott, for the LBC staff
in Anchorage.
8:30:14 AM
CO-CHAIR FAIRCLOUGH acknowledged that some have raised an issue
with the former unit supervisor of the LBC, Dan Bockhorst,
alleging that he was involved in the proposed annexation. Co-
Chair Fairclough then thanked everyone for coming today. Co-
Chair Fairclough noted that public testimony on HJR 30 is still
open.
8:33:49 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 8:33 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|