02/13/2024 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB279 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2024
8:01 a.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative CJ McCormick, Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe, Vice Chair
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Thomas Baker
Representative Justin Ruffridge
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Representative Donna Mears
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 279
"An Act relating to the Local Boundary Commission; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 279
SHORT TITLE: LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
01/18/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/24 (H) CRA
01/30/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/30/24 (H) Heard & Held
01/30/24 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/13/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff
Representative Mike Cronk
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of HB 279, on behalf of
Representative Cronk, prime sponsor.
LARRY WOOD, representing self
Eagle River, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 279.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Issued closing comments on HB 279, as the
prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:01:30 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:01 a.m.
Representatives McCabe, McKay, Baker, Ruffridge, Himschoot,
Mears, and McCormick were present at the call to order.
HB 279-LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION
8:02:17 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 279, "An Act relating to the Local Boundary
Commission; and providing for an effective date."
8:02:50 AM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, gave an overview of HB 279, on behalf of
Representative Cronk, prime sponsor. He explained that the bill
would make minor changes to existing statute regarding the Local
Boundary Commission (LBC), a constitutionally required body that
operates under Alaska Statutes. The bill would require that one
of the five members represent an unorganized borough; in
addition, a clause would require the LBC to have data [from the
U.S. Census Bureau] at their disposal. The bill would also
clarify that each of the four judicial districts shall be
represented by a member who is domiciled, maintains a principle
place of abode, and is registered to vote in said district.
Lastly, the governor shall designate one member as the
"executive" on the commission.
8:05:33 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK opened public testimony on HB 279.
8:06:02 AM
LARRY WOOD, representing self, testified during the hearing on
HB 279. He informed the committee that he was the chair and the
"at large" member of the LBC; however, he was testifying in a
personal capacity. He paraphrased from written remarks
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Dear Chair McCormick and Members of the House
Community Regional Affairs Committee:
As you know, several amendments have been proposed to
HB 279. One amendment wisely eliminates costly
duplication of efforts related to census records.
However, none of the amendments confront the most
troubling aspect of this bill. I respectfully ask that
the bill not be passed on by your committee for the
following reasons.
My February 12, 2024, letter explained that HB 279
primarily proposes to replace the at large
commissioner position on the Local Boundary Commission
(LBC) with an individual residing in the unorganized
borough. I also explained that the legislation is
unnecessary. Simply stated, the governor may fire me
today, and appoint the at large LBC member from the
unorganized borough. Each judicial district includes
pieces of the unorganized borough, and each
commissioner represents one of these districts. The at
large position includes them all. Indeed,
gubernatorial appointments from the unorganized
borough have occurred throughout the history of the
Local Boundary Commission, and as recently as 2019.
Interestingly, the governor may appoint the ENTIRE
commission from the unorganized borough. Appointments
from Nome, Bethel, Valdez, Angoon, and a chair from
Adak would accomplish this result.
But, why has it made sense to appoint qualified LBC
commissioners based on their residency in judicial
districts rather than residency in boroughs, organized
or unorganized? It's done to ensure complete
representation of Alaska, to provide clarity in
appointments, to expand the pool of qualified
individuals, and to ensure broad, state-wide,
inclusive, and diversified perspectives.
2
In contrast, the unorganized borough is not a borough
or a local government at all. By circumstance or
choice, it foregoes any level of government structure.
Unorganized boroughs were intended to be transitory
mechanisms for the state to regionalize its services
provided to them. Today, the unorganized borough
contains just 10 per cent (75,000) of Alaska's
population, even though it is an immense area that
encompasses nearly half of Alaska's land area. From
the unorganized borough, cites and regional boroughs
are formed as populations grow, local leadership
matures, and resources coalesce to support local and
regional governments.
The Local Government Committee of the Constitutional
Convention observed that local political decisions do
not usually create proper boundaries and that
boundaries should be established at the state level.
The advantage ". . . lies in placing the process at a
level where area-wide or state-wide needs can be taken
into account. By placing authority in this third
party, arguments for and against boundary change can
be analyzed objectively."
Thus, LBC commissioners have always been drawn from
each of the Alaska's judicial districts. As a whole,
these commissioners represent the state's entire
739,000 population. Importantly, each district already
includes residents of organized boroughs and the
unorganized borough. These appointments promote
inclusivity and diversity of views and interests
pertaining to boundary changes including local
government formation. Parenthetically, state law
provides that LBC members must be appointed on the
basis of interest in public affairs, good judgment,
knowledge and ability.
However, the bill's sponsor wants to insure "that at
least one of the five Commissioners is from the
unorganized Borough." But, to what end? The bill has
no instructions explaining how and for what purpose
the new commissioner will determine the interests of
the residents of the unorganized borough or promote
those limited views on a commission charged with
acting on proposals from a state wide perspective.
Note that seven different municipal boundary changes
are involved in LBC proceedings such as incorporation
of municipalities, reclassification of city
governments. annexation to municipalities, and
dissolution, detachment, merger, and consolidation of
municipalities.
How would an individual represent a non-government
entity called the unorganized borough on the LBC? Will
he or she advocate for no or limited local self-
government? Will there be a shift in maximizing local
government participation and responsibility?
Moreover, since the unorganized borough crosses all
judicial districts, will any new commissioner also
represent each judicial district? Will commissioners
who represent judicial districts also represent
portions of the unorganized borough?
In fact, existing members of the LBC represent
residents of the organized boroughs and the
unorganized borough alike: necessarily, there is no
conflict in allegiances. Commissioners fairly and
objectively apply the standards established by law and
regulation for adoption of boundary changes.
3
Finally, the legislature is constitutionally directed
to "provide for the performance of services it deems
necessary or advisable in unorganized boroughs,
allowing for maximum local participation and
responsibility." How does this legislation comply with
a constitutional mandate for maximum local
participation and responsibility, particularly in
communities that are capable of it?
Removing the governor's flexibility to make broader
appointments seems to be an early step in
institutionalizing the notion that some communities in
the unorganized borough may never organize a local
government and thus contribute more meaningfully to
their own local participation and responsibility in
government affairs.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Please let me know if you have questions.
8:11:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether there were areas in the
state that would never bring 1,000 people together to make a
borough.
MR. WOOD did not know the answer. He said it depends on how the
state grows.
8:13:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT said she would like the voiceless 10
percent of the population in the unorganized borough to have a
voice. She asked who speaks for those people now.
MR. WOOD said it could be a matter of expressing interest to the
governor and asking for representation. He spoke against
"institutionalizing" the idea of a transitory entity that is
progressing towards organization. He questioned whether the
state was stepping way from rural formation or encouraging local
participation to the maximum degree and local responsibility for
services provided.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT commented on the importance of giving
the unorganized borough a voice until the entire state is
organized.
8:15:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS sought to confirm that people in
unorganized boroughs are still part of the judicial districts.
MR. WOOD said, "That is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked when the commission would meet next.
MR. WOOD said there was no regularly scheduled meeting;
nonetheless, special meetings could be called for specific
purposes.
8:16:33 AM
MR. STANCLIFF noted that the commission was a quasi-judicial
body. He added that the bill would not come into effect until
2025, so no one would be displaced. He emphasized that the bill
would simply change how the governor appoints and assigns the
chair position.
8:18:44 AM
CHAIR MCCORMICK closed public testimony on HB 279.
8:19:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, issued closing comments on HB 279. He disputed the
insinuation that people in unorganized boroughs are freeloaders
who don't pay for anything. He voiced the opinion that more
government does not fix things. Furthermore, he pointed out
that organized boroughs make up a majority of Alaska's land
mass.
8:20:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT added that unorganized boroughs host
much of the resource wealth in Alaska.
CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that HB 279 would be held over.
8:21:40 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 8:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 279 Testimony Received 2.13.24.pdf |
HCRA 2/13/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |
| HB 279 Testimony Boundary Commission Chair Recieved 2.13.24.pdf |
HCRA 2/13/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |
| HB 279 Document Commentary re Borough Formation 2005.pdf |
HCRA 2/13/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |
| HB 279 Document - About the LBC 2.13.24.pdf |
HCRA 2/13/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 279 |