02/06/2001 08:08 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2001
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andrew Halcro
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act relating to cities incorporated under state law that are
home rule communities; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 16(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 16
SHORT TITLE:HOME RULE COMMUNITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)DYSON
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/08/01 0028 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00
01/08/01 0028 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/08/01 0028 (H) CRA, FIN
01/25/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/25/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
01/31/01 0211 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
01/31/01 0211 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/31/01 0211 (H) CRA, FIN
02/06/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 104
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SSHB 16.
TAM COOK, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on SSHB 16.
JOHN PEARSON, Hyder Economic Development Planner
Hyder Community Association
PO Box 149
Hyder, Alaska 99923
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Hyder Community
Association supports SSHB 16.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 16.
SARA FELIX, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division(Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Relayed the concerns of Margie Vandor,
Department of Law.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR CARL MORGAN called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m.
Representatives Morgan, Meyer, Scalzi, Guess, and Kerttula were
present at the call to order. Representative Murkowski arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 16-HOME RULE COMMUNITIES
CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that first order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 16, "An Act relating to
cities incorporated under state law that are home rule
communities; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0072
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
informed the committee that the constitution includes a
directive to the legislature to promulgate legislation that
would encourage communities to organize under state law. That
process was never really completed. He noted that the Local
Boundary Commission's reports illustrate the "spotty" record in
this area. Furthermore, more communities have disorganized
themselves in recent years. He pointed out that the current law
contains many disincentives to organization. For example, if a
community organizes as a first class borough, that borough has
to perform education financing and planning functions.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained that SSHB 16 would allow second
class cities to organize as second class communities and such
communities would be able to write its own charter. The goal is
to allow communities to organize in, virtually, any way desired
and to assume the responsibilities the community desired.
Therefore, Representative Dyson indicated his hope that
communities would choose innovative ways of organizing.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON informed the committee that the sponsor
substitute is a more comprehensive piece of legislation [than
what was offered last year] because SSHB 16 does a better job of
identifying all the statutes that speak to communities this
size. He also informed the committee that last year's
legislation passed the House 37-0, but was stalled in the Senate
during the last days of the session. Representative Dyson noted
that in Senate Finance last year, someone objected to the
legislation because it didn't force these communities to have a
tax base. However, Representative Dyson didn't share that
objection. He noted that the Alaska Municipal League and the
Southeast Conference have endorsed SSHB 16.
Number 0597
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS inquired as to how SSHB 16 related to
Senator Wilken's bill that deals with the Local Boundary
Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said, "In one sense, it only relates in
that it provides ... another, and I think, a very attractive,
option for smaller communities to organize under."
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to the difference between home rule
communities, home rule cities, and home rule boroughs.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON answered that currently, second class
cities cannot write their own charter, which SSHB 16 would
allow. This legislation would extend most of the privileges and
options of a first class borough or city to a small community.
However, he deferred to Ms. Cook for the specifics.
Number 0755
TAM COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, explained
that the home rule community proposed in SSHB 16 would be a type
of city distinct from a borough. Currently, there are the
following city classifications: home rule city, first class
city, and second class city. The first and the second class
cities are referred to as general law cities as they can
exercise "the powers that are specifically conferred by statute
upon them." The home rule city, by charter, is able to decide
what authority it will assume. With respect to home rule
municipalities, there are fewer statutes that are mandatory.
Under SSHB 16, the home rule option is, essentially, extended to
the smaller community that would not have to meet the population
requirements. She explained that currently, the home rule
community has been held as a more sophisticated municipality in
Alaska in that Alaska's home rule communities tend to be larger
with a more complex form of government. Ms. Cook said, "The
notion behind this bill, as I understand it, is that there is no
inherent reason why you couldn't have a charter that ...
provided for a simpler, more fundamental form of government
rather than a more complex form of government. So, the notion
is that we extend the right to individuals to largely form the
sorts of government functions that they want to see performed
through the charter option." She presumed that [the home rule
community's] charter would be much more limited than a charter
of an area such as Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON added that SSHB 16 does not require the
same auditing requirements as those required of first class
cities and boroughs. This legislation only requires an annual
statement of accounts, which significantly reduces the burden on
the community.
Number 0983
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked Representative Dyson how important he
believes the [requirement to have a] tax base is.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON related his belief that mandatory taxes and
mandatory responsibilities are a major disincentive [to
organization], which is in opposition to the constitution's
[directive].
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if these communities without a tax base
would be financially dependent on federal and state funding.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied, "By and large." Under the
existing law, a couple of different classifications of
organizing would lose some of the state and federal funding.
However, he believed those disincentives had been eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI turned to the issue of pass through
grants. He asked if the [home rule community] would be the
entity that would accept grants or would the grant go to the
borough that the community was inside.
Number 1130
MS. COOK specified that it depends upon the program. Once there
is a municipal form of government it becomes easier for the
state, in some ways, to make specific grants to that area
because they have a formal structure. There are a number of
grants that go to municipalities that are outside of programs.
There are also programs that provide an ongoing source of
revenue and aid to the various classes of municipalities.
Furthermore, there are statutes that address grants to
incorporated entities. She explained that [home rule
communities] would be incorporated under state law and would
qualify for special grants. As an aside, Ms. Cook pointed out
that a second class city may or may not be located within a
borough. Currently, there are a fair number of second class
cities that are outside of boroughs, which would be the only
government that would exist in that area. She noted that some
accommodations have been made so that other groups can
participate in state aid, although that can become awkward.
MS. COOK turned to the programs of state aid that exist. Many
of these programs are formula programs, such that the borough
receives the money and distributes it, per its prerogative, to
the cities. She indicated that the aforementioned process may
be how it would work if a home rule community existed within a
borough. However, not every program is like that. For
instance, some programs offer [funding] to each individual city.
In such programs, the aid going to the borough is based upon the
population of the borough minus the residents of the cities.
Ms. Cook noted that currently, there is revenue sharing,
municipal assistance, and the capitol project program. The
capitol project program is also available to unincorporated
communities. She noted that there are several programs that
provide aid to unincorporated communities. Therefore, those
areas that would seek home rule community status would forfeit
some aid in exchange for qualifying for a slightly different
program. Ms. Cook presumed that all these matters would have to
be considered as part of a local decision as to whether or not
to incorporate.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI clarified that he was primarily referring
to federal pass through grants. He assumed that if a borough
still has to handle pass through grants, the borough would
assume any liability from such. He said, "I was curious to the
follow through if this home rule community, with no tax base
presumably, was going to pick up these grants and have this work
performed, who would hold the liability on some of those
things." Representative Scalzi related his understanding that
Ms. Cook's answer was that [the liability] would be specific to
the type of grant.
MS. COOK indicated that with regard to federal programs, her
comments are largely speculative. Currently, the municipal code
is organized such that the powers assumed on an areawide basis
by a borough [cannot be exercised] by the city. She
acknowledged that there is always that question as to how the
powers and the jurisdictional obligation will be split between
two types of local government that share territory. She said,
"This bill doesn't particularly address that relationship nor
does it create the tension that exists now, with respect to
borough and any type of class of city that it has within its
boundaries." Ms. Cook informed the committee that there are
mechanisms by which the borough can shift responsibility to a
city, if it so chooses and vice versa. Generally, if a city is
located within a borough that is exercising a type of areawide
power, then the city doesn't have the authority to exercise that
power. Therefore, the grants dealing with such power would
[probably] have to go to the municipality that has the power to
perform the function. In summary, Ms. Cook stated that it
wouldn't be any different than the current relationship that
boroughs have with the cities within their jurisdiction.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON informed the committee that there are 75
communities that are not incorporated and are receiving aid. He
expressed his hope that many of these [unincorporated
communities] would choose to organize under state law.
Representative Dyson noted that he has been intrigued by the
innovation of some communities around the state. He used
Quinhagak as an example.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN pointed out that SSHB 16 has an effective date
of July 1, 2002, and that the bill necessitates conforming
legislation if this bill passes. He asked if the conforming
legislation would be cumbersome or is it a housekeeping matter.
MS. COOK said she didn't believe that [the conforming
legislation] would be cumbersome nor did she believe that the
conforming legislation would be voluminous. Ms. Cook explained
that Sections 1 and 2 of SSHB 16 include the two definitions
that she felt had to be dealt with in this bill. However, the
bill does not address the numerous areas, outside of Title 29,
where there are references to municipalities, their relationship
with cities, and, in some cases, their participation in various
programs. She said that she needed to review those statutes
[outside of Title 29] and determine how this new type of
municipality can participate in those programs. She informed
the committee that due to the sponsor's desire to keep the bill
focused, the additional sections [outside of Title 29] would be
technical in nature. Therefore, if SSHB 16 were to pass, the
effective date would be delayed in order to allow time for a
conforming bill to amend all the relevant sections outside of
Title 29. She pointed out that Section 24 of SSHB 16 does not
give Legal Services any discretion regarding how to amend those
sections because the language specifies that [these home rule
communities] will be treated like second class cities. The
conforming legislation will be submitted to the House and Senate
Rules Committees for introduction and the legislature will
review those technical amendments. The legislature may elect to
make some policy choices and request changes. Therefore, this
approach allows the legislature to debate SSHB 16 on the basis
of its merits, without the weight of how these municipalities
will be impacted by the other provisions. Then the legislature
could review the conforming legislation next session. Ms. Cook
indicated her belief that these communities, because of their
small size and limited resources, probably ought to be treated
as second class cities rather than first class cities or home
rule cities. Thus, she guessed that the legislature would not
want to change 90 percent of the bill.
Number 1946
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what would happen if there is
conflicting legislation.
MS. COOK explained that the statutes provide the Revisor of
Statutes with a considerable amount of discretion in rewriting
the law. The revisor is not supposed to rewrite the law in a
manner that changes the effect. However, when there are
conflicting statutes [the revisor rewrites them to the extent
they can be resolved]. In the case of an absolute conflict, the
revisor creates a revisor's bill and offers the legislature the
opportunity to make a resolution, which is done by enactment of
law. She noted that [the revisor] cannot fix legislation that
is seriously in conflict.
MS. COOK turned to SSHB 16 and the possibility that SSHB 16
would pass without subsequent passage of conforming legislation.
In such a case, Ms. Cook said she believes that the home rule
communities would qualify as home rule municipalities for
purposes of most of the other statutes [outside of Title 29].
Although that may not be the desired result, it may not be a
conflict either. Ms. Cook remarked that it would be unfortunate
to have this classification of municipality treated in ways that
would have policy effects that no one had thought of, which
would be the worst [result] of not having a piece of conforming
legislation. She related her belief that some of the other
statutes that apply to home rule cities, in particular, ought to
be extended to these sorts of small communities that might not
have the taxing ability to carry out the function. Therefore,
she felt that there is a need for a second piece of legislation
in this case and hopefully, conflict will be avoided. If the
second piece of legislation [the conforming legislation] doesn't
pass, then the solution would be to delay the effective date of
SSHB 16 one additional year. Therefore, SSHB 16 would be law
and the effective date could be amended if the conforming
legislation was problematic. Ms. Cook informed the committee
that SSHB 16 doesn't conflict, in any way that she is aware of,
with Senator Wilken's bill.
Number 2138
JOHN PEARSON, Hyder Economic Development Planner, Hyder
Community Association (HCA), testified that the Hyder Community
Association supports SSHB 16. He mentioned that in Southeast
Alaska there would, from his count, be about 13 communities that
would qualify to [organize as prescribed] under the bill,
although he indicated that maybe only two or three communities
other than Hyder that would take advantage of this legislation.
Mr. Pearson informed the committee that Hyder, the most eastern
point in Alaska, is a small community of 131 residents. Hyder,
a true boarder town, shares the border with Stewart, British
Columbia, Canada.
MR. PEARSON informed the committee that Hyder has no form of
government and the responsibilities for the general welfare of
the community is under the oversight of the Hyder Community
Association, which is an extremely active group. The Hyder
Community Association, a nonprofit 501-3C, provides fire
services, emergency services, a library, and maintenance of
about 12 miles of road per a contract with the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). Furthermore, the
community takes care of plowing the snow on side streets. The
Hyder community also operates a visitor's center and a small
museum in the summer months. The community also oversees a
small harbor [with] float plane facilities. He noted that the
community fully participates with the Community Overall Economic
Development Process. The [community] also applies and seeks
funds from various sources.
Number 2416
MR. PEARSON indicated that he would use Hyder as an example of
the potential of small communities in Alaska. He informed the
committee that in the past three years Hyder has aggressively
attempted to create year round jobs. During this time, the
Hyder Bottled Waterworks was developed and is now in the process
of employing the first of 41 new jobs in the community. He
explained that Hyder Bottled Waterworks will manufacture the
bottles, fill the bottles, and build the pallets [that the
bottles will be shipped on]. This has been done with community
funds and some help from the Economic Development
Administration; there has been no help from the state.
MR. PEARSON said he felt that SSHB 16 would provide Hyder with
the opportunity to organize and take on new responsibilities as
well as take on major responsibilities, such as the creation of
facilities to receive small cruise ships, barges, and perhaps
marine ferries. However, there is one problem [with SSHB 16],
which is the reference to schools. This year Hyder started a
one room schoolhouse that has 12 students. Mr. Pearson
reiterated that SSHB 16 provides an excellent opportunity for
small communities, such as Hyder, to improve life. He offered
to work with Representative Dyson on SSHB 16 and urged the
committee's support of the bill.
Number 2639
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to the source of funds that Hyder
receives.
MR. PEARSON explained that Hyder would apply to state programs
that are available to nonprofits. There are many programs, such
as the block grant program, that Hyder would like to participate
in, but cannot at this time. He noted that Hyder has
participated in [DCED's] mini grant program as well as the U.S.
Forest Service's occasional funding. Furthermore, the Hyder
community building, which was built by the community, has space
that is leased to the U.S. Forest Service and thus revenue is
generated for Hyder. He informed the committee that the Hyder
Bottled Waterworks plant revenue will be directed to
improvements to Hyder, such as restoring some of the historical
buildings in the community. He also noted Hyder's desire to
match all of its federal dollars (indisc.).
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to how the Hyder Bottled Waterworks
facility was funded. He asked if people gave what they could or
did the funding came from taxation.
MR. PEARSON replied that there was no taxation. He explained
that every time that Hyder had extra money, it put it in the
bank. That savings amounted to about $300,000. Then Hyder
approached the Economic Development Association, who [offered
assistance]. The community pitched in and actually dug a 600
foot trench for the water line to the Hyder Bottled Waterworks
facility last Thanksgiving. Mr. Pearson noted the incredible
amount of volunteerism, even from the Canadians.
Number 2899
CO-CHAIR MEYER related his understanding that SSHB 13 would help
Hyder create jobs.
MR. PEARSON replied yes. Mr. Pearson informed the committee
that Hyder has had discussions with Prince of Wales Island
regarding an inter-island ferry, which could be possible with
the passage of SSHB 16 as it would allow Hyder to organize and
thus seek funding [bonding].
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to who would be liable if a volunteer
gets hurt.
MR. PEARSON answered that HCA would be liable. He noted that
HCA is well-insured. In further response to Co-Chair Meyer, Mr.
Pearson said that there is no sewer system in Hyder and thus
outhouses and septic tanks are still in use, which is still the
case with water.
CO-CHAIR MEYER expressed concern with bottling water and selling
it nationwide.
MR. PEARSON remarked that [the water industry] is closely
controlled and regulated.
TAPE 01-8, SIDE B
Number 3004
KEVIN RITCHIE, President, Alaska Municipal League, came forward
to testify. Alaska is a diverse place and there is not
necessarily a lack of governments in the unorganized borough;
however, the coordination between those governments is often
very important. This bill provides an option or tool that
communities can utilize to increase the ability to govern
themselves in a way that is appropriate for them, which AML
believes is important. In reference [to the notion that] a tax
base [is an important] condition for being a municipality, many
communities don't really have what is considered a tax base. A
community gets a tax base by becoming coordinated in the efforts
to develop one and thus increasing the ability to govern oneself
is important. From a purely economic standpoint, the
legislature is, under the constitution, the governing body, the
assembly, for the unorganized borough. Therefore, this is a
responsibility of the legislature. He said, "To the extent you
can promote local self government of any kind, you're [the
legislature] going to be ultimately assisting the state in being
able to most efficiently make sure those services are provided."
He pointed out that the economy of Alaska is so intertwined that
most of the urban areas are the center of commerce because they
provide services and goods to areas throughout the state.
Therefore, the extent to which those areas thrive, commerce
increases and everyone benefits.
MR. RITCHIE noted that most of the bill is placing the words
"home rule community" into various parts of Title 29. He
referred to page 3, where two sentences are inserted: "a first
class city may adopt a charter and become a home rule city; a
second class city may adopt a charter and become a home rule
city." He explained that for some reason, which [AML] could not
ever determine, if a second class city wanted to be a home rule
city, that second class city first had to become a first class
city and then become a home rule city. This [SSHB 16] simply
removes an impediment to a community deciding to come a home
rule city, which is a good thing.
MR. RITCHIE pointed out that there hasn't been much municipal
evolution, in his view. In 1963 the legislature dealt with a
controversial bill, a mandatory borough bill, by which
Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, and Kenai, were "[dragged] to the
borough table" and probably at that time somebody said "well,
we've got the rest of the state to worry about with local
government, what [when] do you want to deal with that ... and I
think somebody said, ... about the year 2000." Therefore, there
really hasn't been much thought towards the evolution of local
government in these types of issues and thus he is glad these
issues are being addressed. Mr. Ritchie indicated agreement
with earlier comments regarding [the belief] that the incentives
for small communities that are considering becoming a
municipality or a home rule community, in order to better work
with the tribal council and the other governing bodies, are
going away quickly. It almost doesn't pay to form as a
municipality and it certainly doesn't pay to form as a borough.
As the disincentives are growing, the incentives, like revenue
sharing, are to the point where they don't provide much support.
For example, a small community could potentially receive under
$20,000 per year in revenue sharing, which is a minimal amount
of money to actually conduct any kind of business at all. Mr.
Ritchie informed the committee that although this information
hasn't been released yet, there is a study of how many
communities in Alaska are facing insolvency or the inability to
pay their bills; the number is very substantial. He indicated
that [the study says that] as many as 20 percent of the
municipalities in the state, largely the small ones, are having
a tough time just paying the bills.
Number 2723
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the debate on HB 13,
specifically the debate on the constitutionality of some of the
issues. That debate prompted Representative Murkowski to review
the constitution regarding the purpose of local government and
make sure SSHB 16 is okay, which she believes to be the case.
[The constitution] provides for maximum local self government
with a minimum of local government units. Obviously, this
[bill] is providing for a maximum of local self government.
However, she wondered if the problem of "the minimum of local
government units" would result by extending this to home rule
communities.
MR. RITCHIE responded that his opinion is no. He pointed out
that Vic Fischer, Secretary to the Local Government Committee,
has described the concept that boroughs fulfill a regional role,
at some point in the evolution of municipal governments, which
is a way of minimizing the number of local government units. He
noted that in the Northwest Arctic Borough, the North Slope
Borough, and the Lake and Peninsula Borough, the regional
government supports the organized cities and the communities or
villages, which is a good way of coordinating services in a
community. However, the constitution does provide for cities as
well within boroughs and thus those cities may be in boroughs
someday. However, "whether they're villages or potentially home
rule communities or municipalities, they ... all fit into the
structure ... in my opinion."
Number 2590
SARA FELIX, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division(Juneau), Department of Law, informed the
committee that she is present in place of Margie Vandor. Ms.
Felix said that she would be discussing a technical problem,
which was raised in reference to last year's bill, HB 255. She
pointed out that Ms. Vandor testified at the February 12, 2000,
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting
and noted that the constitution says that the local government
is to be in the form of cities and boroughs. Furthermore, the
constitution specifies that a city is to be governed by a
council and a borough is to be governed by an assembly. The
constitution does not seem to speak to a home rule community.
She informed the committee that Ms. Vandor's testimony from last
year is available on BASIS or she could review that testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if Section 2 of SSHB 16, which
defines "city" as including a home rule community, would come
close to addressing Ms. Vandor's concern.
MS. FELIX answered, "I think that's a good step." However,
there is a remaining problem in Section 21, where "council" is
defined.
Number 2444
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the deletion of the language
in Section 21, "regardless of the name of that governing body"
would make [Ms. Vandor] more comfortable.
MS. FELIX answered, "I'm not certain if that would be
everything, but I think that would ... go along way toward
alleviating the concern."
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON deferred to Ms. Cook in regard to [DOL's]
concern.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON, in response to Representative Murkowski,
answered that he didn't know why the aforementioned language in
Section 21 was included.
Number 2300
The committee took an at-ease from 9:10 to 9:22 a.m.
MS. COOK, in response to the concerns with Section 21, said that
she agrees that the constitution requires governing bodies to be
councils. However, SSHB 16 says that whatever name is used,
that "governing body" will be a council and thus all of the laws
referring to the council of a city refer to this group,
regardless of the name. She specified, "As a legal matter it
will be a council. So, I don't see that there's, particularly a
legal problem." However, she acknowledged that there may be a
semantic problem. Ms. Cook recalled the same type of testimony
last year in reference to the use of "community." Further, Ms.
Cook said, "I don't think, as a legal matter, calling something
a community and stating that as a matter of law it is a city; it
seems to me that that solves the legal issue."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI surmised then that if the governing
body of this home rule community was called a "quorum," then
that "quorum" - under Section 21 of SSHB 16 - would be
considered a "council" for the purpose of the constitution as
well as all the statutes. Representative Murkowski related her
understanding that Ms. Cook considered [DOL's] concern as a
matter of semantics.
MS. COOK indicated agreement.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked if SSHB 16 could be amended such that the
failure to pass the conforming legislation would automatically
trigger a delay in the effective for one year.
MS. COOK replied yes. The effective date could be drafted such
that SSHB 16, although it will be enacted, would not take effect
until conforming legislation takes effect.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked if the sponsor would be amenable to such a
change.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON replied yes.
MS. COOK informed the committee that it could do a committee
substitute, [or a] conceptual amendment and direct that the
legislation be prepared as previously stated.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN indicated the preference for a committee
substitute. He asked if the committee was amenable to that.
There was no objection stated. Co-Chair Morgan closed public
testimony.
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI moved to report CSSSHB 16 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSSHB 16(CRA) was
reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|