Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/07/1994 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice-Chair
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Ed Willis
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Davies
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 502: "An Act relating to mandated municipal activities
or services."
PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS AS CSHB 502
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHELLE TOOHEY, Legislative Staff
Representative Mark Hanley
Capitol Building, Room 515
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4939
POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to Prime Sponsor of HB 502
DANIEL MOORE, Capital Budget Officer
Municipality of Anchorage
632 W. 6th Street
Anchorage, AK 99519
Phone: 343-4496
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 502
SCOTT BRAND-ERICKSON, Attorney
Municipality of Anchorage
632 W. 6th Street
Anchorage, AK 99519
Phone: 343-4496
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 502
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 502
SHORT TITLE: MANDATED MUNICIPAL SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/14/94 2382 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/14/94 2382 (H) CRA, FINANCE
03/22/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/05/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/07/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-16, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:05
p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Willis,
Williams, Toohey and Sanders were present and that a quorum
was present.
HB 502 - MANDATED MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Number 035
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS moved that the amendment
brought forth by Representative Hanley's staff be adopted.
There were no objections.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE joined the committee at 1:07 p.m.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG then referred to the bill substitute brought
forth authored by the municipality of Anchorage folks. (A
copy of this bill substitute is on file.)
DANIEL MOORE, CAPITAL BUDGET OFFICER, MUNICIPALITY OF
ANCHORAGE, introduced Scott Brand-Erickson.
Number 060
SCOTT BRAND-ERICKSON, ATTORNEY, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,
testified via teleconference. He said, "The proposed
substitute that I believe you have copies of, we've put
together responding to some of the questions that were
raised last week and also adding in some information and new
provisions relating to the municipality of Anchorage.
Specific things that we tried to address...it was
reorganized to add some definitions and some implementation
provisions. One of the questions that Representative Davies
had was (to) differentiate between fundamental local
government requirements and mandates. And that is attempted
through differentiating with when the municipality does
something that's either voluntary or does something that's
in proprietary capacity. For example, the example last week
was, if you decide to have a swimming pool, the requirement
that you have some sort of chlorination system is kind of a
secondary mandate that's carried with it because you decided
to have a swimming pool. That secondary requirement would
be something (we) would remain responsible for. The
definitions that are used are adapted in part from
Massachusetts and California provisions. The main thrust of
the original bill is set out in what is subsection `b' in
the substitute bill. Included in that is an outlet for an
escape valve so that if the legislature has a particular
mandate that is so important that it shouldn't be subject to
this restriction, they can so designate. Subsection `c'
would be the section requiring an initial fiscal note on the
bill indicating whether it included a mandate or not.
Subsection `d'- if for example a municipality disagrees with
the characterization, it provides a procedural vehicle for
them to speak in review of that. We're trying to keep those
sorts of issues out of the courts as much as possible...
Subsection `e' is one that we cut generally ourselves and
the reasoning behind this was, if a mandate, maybe not be
fully funded but partially funded, allowing the local
communities to go ahead and do what they can with the money
provided towards the policy goal that are set up by the
legislature by deleting them the cost of the program that's
now funded. Subsection `f', is to address the situation
where perhaps there is a program fully funded in the initial
year, but the next year the funding is cut in half. It
addresses what would happen allowing the local municipality
to adjust the level of services provided."
Number 154
REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked, "Provision `e' of the
proposed substitute, what effect would that have on for
example, the property tax exemptions for disabled veterans
and seniors. How would it play out?"
MR. BRAND-ERICKSON replied, "The way the bill would be
effective... if the programs were fully funded, say for
example, it would cost for the municipality of Anchorage
three million dollars to provide that exemption... If the
amount appropriated for that purpose was only one million
dollars, then, the municipality of Anchorage would be able
to either adjust the exemption valuation or adjust the
amount of tax exemption that would be provided under the
program. With the policy still being providing a tax break
to the seniors and the disabled."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS continued, "But the funding source
then would be exclusively from the state or whatever the
state chose to fund at that particular year?"
MR. BRAND-ERICKSON confirmed, "Yes, that is correct."
Number 180
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS questioned, "And presently, the
municipality would have to pick up the difference, under the
present law?"
MR. BRAND-ERICKSON said, "Without this bill, that is
correct. And that raises a policy issue that may have some
differences between them, between the original version and
this proposed substitute and that is the impact on the
existing programs. As drafted, the proposed substitute
would be intended to impact existing mandates to the extent
that those become unfunded in the future, allowing the
insiders to adjust the services they provide according to
the funding available. In the initial proposal it wasn't
clear exactly what effect there would be if something was
funded and then in subsequent years it was not funded."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS concluded, "Then the effect of this
proposed amendment would actually act as a repealer to the
present law."
MR. BRAND-ERICKSON agreed, "To the extent that the program
was not fully funded, that is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS said, "Would the sponsor of the
bill accept this proposed committee substitute?"
Number 215
MICHELLE TOOHEY, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY, PRIME
SPONSOR OF HB 502, testified, "If you look at our version of
the legislation it clearly says `a law enacted after the
effective date of this section.' It was not intended to
affect any existing programs and I think that Representative
Hanley would feel more comfortable keeping it to new
legislation after this bill goes into effect."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think I would feel more comfortable
with that... I think that anything that exists in statute
now needs to be specifically addressed rather than try to
broad brush everything..."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed, "The idea of going back and
doing it retroactively is, I don't think, do-able. But, I
had another question, if I might, there have been some
concerns brought up about the reimbursement mandate
requirement and in the sponsor statement (says) many other
states have adopted and successfully implemented some form
of this. Could you give us some information about what
states, what form and how it's working."
MR. BRAND-ERICKSON said, "I've looked at the Massachusetts
and California statutes more than some of the other states.
My understanding is that there are some eight or so states
that have statutory or constitutional provisions regarding
state mandates. And there's a report put together by, I
think it was the General Accounting Office...about state
mandates. The two states that I have looked at:
California, it was through proposition 13 in 1979... In
Massachusetts, there was a statutory provision that included
some review of whether a particular proposal includes
additional burdens on local government and then allows for a
local option where they decide if they're going to carry
through with it or not... One additional comment I'd like
to offer regarding the concerns expressed about the
decreased funding. A provision was put in that if funding
in later years is decreased, that it would gut whatever
programs were there. That was something that was not
reflected, but something I put in that the municipality
would prefer to see, if it's the intention of the committee
to not include that, it would be fairly simple to delete
that effect in the proposed substitute by revising the
definition of the increase in level of activity or service
by deleting the reference to decreased funding and
eliminating subsection `b' and put a statement to the effect
that reductions in the level of state funding when they
aren't accompanied by a change in statute setting up a
program, don't trigger rendering the statute ineffective.
And finally, deleting subsection `f' in its entirety."
Number 304
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I'm afraid this is a dark suit
bill. ...it gives you a warm feeling but not much happens
(and) nobody else notices. And as we're well aware, nothing
we do binds a future legislature."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "State statute does Representative
Bunde, they can change it granted. I would think a wise
municipality, in view of turned revenue projections, would
be reluctant to start new programs that had any relationship
to state funding quite frankly..."
Number 338
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS moved to pass HB 502 as amended out
of committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified that the amended version of HB 502
was the sponsor's version of the bill and not the proposed
substitute from the municipality of Anchorage.
There were no objections to the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 1:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|