02/15/2005 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| HB27 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 15, 2005
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas, Co-Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Woodie Salmon
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to consolidating or abolishing certain service
areas in second class boroughs."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal
property taxes on certain residences of law enforcement
officers."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 121
SHORT TITLE: SERVICE AREAS IN SECOND CLASS BOROUGHS
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
02/02/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/02/05 (H) CRA, STA
02/15/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 27
SHORT TITLE: MUNI PROP TAX EXEMPTION FOR POLICE HOMES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT, GRUENBERG
01/10/05 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/10/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/10/05 (H) CRA, FIN
02/15/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KACI SCHROEDER, Staff
to Representative Thomas
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 121.
RENE BROKER, Attorney
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 121, answered
questions.
BONNIE WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 121, provided
information related to Fairbanks.
RANDY FRANK, Chair
Road Service Area Committee
Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 121, answered
questions.
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Chair
Road Commission
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 121.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 121.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the co-prime sponsor of HB 27.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04:16 AM.
Representatives LeDoux, Neuman, Olson, and Thomas were present
at the call to order. Representatives Kott and Cissna arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 121-SERVICE AREAS IN SECOND CLASS BOROUGHS
8:04:50 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 121, "An Act relating to consolidating or
abolishing certain service areas in second class boroughs."
8:05:18 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt CSHB 121, Version 24-LS0396\Y, as
the working document. There being no objection, Version Y was
before the committee.
8:05:33 AM
KACI SCHROEDER, Staff to Representative Thomas, House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that when the state revenue sharing
program was in place, residents of subdivisions outside of city
limits were allowed to establish local service area road
commissions. The commissions were funded with revenue sharing
funds. Now the revenue sharing program doesn't exist and these
local service area road commissions don't have the funds to
adequately maintain the roads. Therefore, these roads are
deteriorating and passage is becoming difficult. Ms. Schroeder
reminded the committee that these service areas are part of the
borough, which means that the borough bears the ultimate
financial responsibility for these road service areas. However,
the boroughs can't assess a boroughwide tax and apply it to a
specific road service area. This legislation allows second
class boroughs to consolidate or dissolve service areas that
aren't functioning or are functioning below minimum standards,
while protecting service areas that adequately tax themselves
and maintain their roads.
8:07:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if this legislation will do anything
to ameliorate the situation in which the road [service areas]
don't receive funds to [maintain] the roads, which leads to
unsafe conditions.
MS. SCHROEDER opined that the intent is to work with the road
service areas to get services out there, but when that isn't
possible the borough wants to alleviate its liability for those
[unsafe] roads.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the legislation alleviates the
borough's liability for the safety hazards in the roads; or is
the purpose of this legislation to not allow the road service
area to contract for services, not pay for those services, and
leave borough on the hook for payment of those.
MS. SCHROEDER deferred to Rene Broker.
8:08:43 AM
RENE BROKER, Attorney, Fairbanks North Star Borough, explained
that the borough has a number of sources of liability when a
road service area isn't functioning and doesn't have funds. She
informed the committee that there are service areas that don't
have commissioners, and therefore can't legally conduct
business. Furthermore, there are safety issues when roads
aren't maintained or aren't properly maintained. The
aforementioned are two primary sources of liability that the
[Fairbanks North Star Borough] hopes to address.
8:09:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the borough will be able to
take over the maintenance of these road service areas if the
road service areas are abolished.
MS. BROKER replied no, and clarified that currently the borough
only exercises road powers through the service areas. The
aforementioned is why [the Fairbanks North Star Borough through
this legislation] is seeking the right to dissolve and
consolidate service areas. She mentioned that dissolution would
be a last resort.
8:10:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to who would ultimately take
care of these roads if it isn't the borough's responsibility.
BONNIE WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Fairbanks North Star
Borough Assembly, informed the committee that currently there
are over 300 miles of roads inside of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough that aren't in road service areas, but are outside of
the city [limits] and aren't state roads. These roads are
maintained happenstance by those living along the roads. If a
road service area were dissolved, whatever length of road in
that road service area would be added to the 300 miles. Those
roads wouldn't be maintained unless someone volunteered to do
so, she said.
8:11:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if there has been a history of
problems with transportation due to the inability to [maintain]
the roads.
MS. WILLIAMS said it depends upon one's perspective. She
recalled when she lived on a road that was not in a road service
area. In that neighborhood a couple of people had a backhoe and
a snowplow and when they felt like it, they plowed. In the
beginning those in the area did okay, but as time passed and
usage continued the roads began to deteriorate. Therefore, the
neighborhood eventually joined an existing road service area.
She noted, "Some people in our borough are extraordinarily
independent-minded and they may have lived on roads like this
for 20, 30, 40 years and they think it's just fine, and so we
leave them alone."
8:13:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to how many people this would
impact. He also inquired as to any negative impacts of this.
MS. WILLIAMS explained that if HB 121 passes, in an unusual
circumstance in which there are no active commissioners and no
tax approved by the voters in the road service area, [the
borough] will give the area one last chance to consolidate with
another road service area or to tax itself. If one of those
options isn't chosen, the borough would dissolve the [road
service area]. At the moment, the borough can't dissolve a
[road service area] and thus the liability is that [of the
borough].
8:14:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if HB 121 could force one road
service area that wants to continue as it is to consolidate with
another road service area that wants to tax itself in order to
improve its roads.
MS. WILLIAMS opined that the joining of two road service areas
should be undertaken carefully.
8:15:31 AM
RANDY FRANK, Chair, Road Service Area Committee, Fairbanks North
Star Borough Assembly, confirmed that such would be a
possibility were HB 121 passed. However, part of another piece
of legislation would change the way in which a road service area
can tax itself, which alleviates that problem because it allows
for differential taxation between different parts of a service
area.
8:16:58 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON asked if this is being handled as a local
improvement district (LID) with the borough participating or is
it 100 percent from the road service area.
MS. WILLIAMS explained that the road commissioners work with
neighbors and, through an election, independently decide the
mill rate. The road [service area] prepares the budget, the
assembly approves it, and the road service area works with
borough purchasing to select a contractor(s) and oversee what is
done.
CO-CHAIR OLSON surmised then that the borough provides no
matching funds.
MS. WILLIAMS confirmed that the borough provides no matching
funds, but merely provides administrative assistance.
8:17:59 AM
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Chair, Road Commission, related that the road
commission with which she is affiliated works quite well. This
legislation was introduced because, by statute, the legislature
placed a liability on boroughs for road service areas. The
language in HB 121, she highlighted, was written to protect
those service areas doing their job correctly.
8:19:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed concern with the language at the
end of [Section 1]. She related her understanding that the
aforementioned language seems to specify that it takes "a
majority of the people who live in both the area that is taking
in the service area and the people that live in the service
area." "So, in other words, you can be forced, if in fact you
happen to be in the minority of the service area, but not
otherwise," she surmised.
MS. MOSS suggested that Representative Cissna is confusing HB
121 with HB 133 regarding the Local Boundary Commission. Ms.
Moss clarified that HB 121 deals with road service areas that
could be dissolved by the borough assembly without an election
when a road service area isn't functioning properly.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA directed attention to the language "voters
reside".
MS. MOSS explained that the new language, the underlined and
bold language, specifies that such an election doesn't have to
occur if the road service area isn't functioning.
8:22:13 AM
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), echoed earlier comments that municipalities and
assemblies must address the road system as a whole. This
legislation provides the [borough the ability to take action] if
there is a problem within the service area that causes a problem
for the entire road system.
8:24:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised then that if there is a
dysfunctional service area that's abolished, the borough uses
taxes from throughout the entire borough to fix the problem in
the road service area.
MR. RITCHIE deferred to Ms. Broker.
8:24:57 AM
MS. BROKER clarified that the borough is prohibited from
spending areawide and nonareawide tax dollars on road service
areas. Therefore, if a road service area is dissolved, it would
join the 300 miles of area in the Fairbanks North Star Borough
that aren't maintained or maintained only by private citizens.
8:25:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she didn't understand what HB 121
does to take anyone off the hook for liability when it comes to
inadequately maintained roads.
MS. BROKER reiterated that the borough has the liability because
the service area exists. The borough, through the road service
area, has undertaken the duty to maintain and construct roads in
the road service area. Once that road service area dissolves,
that duty also dissolves because the [Fairbanks North Star
Borough] doesn't have areawide or nonareawide road powers.
8:26:05 AM
MR. FRANK added that another part of the problem is that some
property within road service areas don't use the road service
area road, but are taxed by the road service area. The
aforementioned people would like to [not be included in those]
road service areas because they don't use the road service area
roads. In order to alleviate that concern, there must be a
positive vote by the existing road service area and the property
owner. Mr. Frank predicted that the road service area wouldn't
allow such because the road service area needs all the money it
can obtain. Therefore, he said he would like the ability for
those property owners to be released from the road service area
by an action of the assembly.
8:27:31 AM
MR. RITCHIE suggested that it's also important to be in the
hands of the assembly when a small road service area can't
afford to maintain itself and may need to consolidate.
Sometimes the assembly, acting with [specified] criteria, can
serve the good of the entire community.
8:28:50 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON pointed out that [the committee packet should
include] two letters of support from the mayor and the presiding
officer of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
8:29:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the latitude of the road
service area to exist, if it so wishes, when the larger
community doesn't want it to exist.
MS. BROKER explained that if a road service area is taxing
itself and functioning as it should, the borough assembly has no
ability to effect that road service area. The borough assembly
can only effect or dissolve a road service area if the road
service area is not performing its services and duties, which
passes on the liability to all borough taxpayers.
8:30:54 AM
MS. BROKER, in response to Representative Cissna, clarified that
when a road service area votes to become such it undertakes the
duty and responsibility of constructing and maintaining roads in
that road service area. The aforementioned has to be performed
in a safe manner, she commented.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to who decides the standard.
MS. BROKER opined that the standard is negligence. The intent
is to only protect the liability of the borough, she specified.
8:32:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if HB 121 leaves recourse for the
road service area at odds with that interpretation. Can a road
service area sue in an attempt to resolve the conflict, she
asked.
MS. BROKER reminded the committee that this will be an action by
ordinance by the borough assembly. Therefore, there would be a
public hearing and work session, which would provide many
opportunities for residents to testify.
8:34:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the borough has any existing
taxing mechanism to address this. Representative Neuman stated
that his concern is in regard to public safety and the ability
for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to traverse over
the roads that aren't maintained.
MS. WILLIAMS highlighted that under state statutes and voter-
approved initiatives [the Fairbanks North Star Borough] has a
tax cap. Therefore, if those in a road service area choose not
to tax themselves, the borough is prohibited from providing
funds from other sources to fund the necessary maintenance. She
explained that in order to eliminate the [borough's] liability,
the borough needs a mechanism by which it can dissolve the road
service area.
8:35:34 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON inquired as to how many of the 100 road service
areas are currently functioning.
MS. WILLIAMS specified that [in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough] there are 107 road service areas, of which two are
without commissioners. She noted that at an upcoming election
two road service areas will be voting on whether to implement a
tax.
CO-CHAIR OLSON surmised that there isn't a significant number of
[problem road service areas].
MS. WILLIAMS agreed, but emphasized that it's a real problem.
She related that it would take only one accident in which the
borough is the "deep pocket" with an outstanding liability.
8:36:25 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS inquired as to why the road service areas have
become defunct.
MS. WILLIAMS reminded the committee that the road service
commissioners are volunteers. In practice, someone volunteers
and ends up doing [road maintenance] for 10-20 years. After a
while, those volunteers burn out or move away and no one else
volunteers.
MR. FRANK interjected that most of these road service areas were
formed in early 1980s when a lot of state money was available.
Now that the state funding isn't available, the [residents of
the] road service areas may choose not to tax themselves. He
noted that Fairbanks has an anti-tax history.
8:38:01 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS related that he comes from an area that was
afraid to tax itself for a fire service area, until a few houses
burned and the City of Haines refused to send firemen to a
service area without insurance and protection for the firemen.
Co-Chair Thomas stated that he supported service areas.
MR. FRANK agreed that service areas are a good tool for people
who want to help themselves.
8:39:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she had no problem with the abolition
of a service area not acting as such. However, she expressed
concern that HB 121 allows for consolidation of two service
areas. If one service area wants to function while another
doesn't, she said she wouldn't force the two to consolidate.
MR. FRANK informed the committee that in the past, the assembly
had the ability to consolidate service areas no matter the
desire of the service area. However, that was problematic
because of money from the existing service area being spent on
the annexed service area, which is a classic case of income
redistribution. The aforementioned was addressed with a law
allowing differential taxation levels.
8:42:16 AM
MR. FRANK, in response to Representative LeDoux, clarified that
the aforementioned law passed a few years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX posed a situation in which one road
service district that taxed itself and was spending prudently
was consolidated with a road service that didn't. In the
aforementioned situation, the money could go for projects in the
service area that didn't [tax itself or spend prudently].
MR. FRANK said that he didn't believe so and highlighted the
ability for there to be differential taxation.
MS. BROKER maintained that those service areas that don't want
to be such won't be consolidated. However, those small service
areas without a tax base still wanting to be a service area will
probably consolidate in order to share expenses. She reminded
the committee that the commissioners of the service areas are
making the decisions regarding where to spend the money.
8:45:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA expressed interest in knowing how service
areas work in communities besides Fairbanks. Representative
Cissna said that she wouldn't want to pass a law that effected
one community in a way that took away options in other
communities.
8:46:47 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON related that his district consolidated into one
boroughwide road service area, which has seemed to work well.
8:47:01 AM
MR. RITCHIE informed the committee that at AML's subcommittee of
its legislative committee meeting, a number of communities were
represented. He related that the road service areas don't
impact all boroughs the same. The two boroughs that are most
dependent on road service areas are the Fairbanks and Mat-Su
boroughs. With regard to whether this legislation could be used
to treat people inequitably, Mr. Ritchie related the need to
trust in the local governing authority. However, at the moment,
the boroughs' hands are tied, and therefore HB 121 allows the
assembly to step in, under certain cases, for the good of the
community.
8:50:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if the borough can [stop providing
service] to those road service areas from which it feels it
isn't receiving enough money.
MR. RITCHIE reiterated earlier testimony that currently the only
way road powers can be executed in Fairbanks is through road
service areas. In the case in which a road service area is at
the end of a road and the road service area can't afford to tax
itself, the road service area might look to another with which
to consolidate in order to reduce costs to the extent it could
afford to provide services. In response to Representative
Neuman, Mr. Ritchie said he didn't believe such an area could be
treated unfairly.
MS. MOSS clarified that HB 121 is about a liability, involving
service areas, that the state has placed on boroughs. If those
in a service area won't tax themselves and don't keep the roads
safe, the borough is held liable for that road service area's
negligence. The legislation specifies that if a road service
area is negligent, the borough can come in and dissolve the
service area in order to dissolve the liability.
8:53:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether HB 121 would be as effective
if the legislation said the borough "may dissolve" the service
area without "consolidation" language.
MS. MOSS related her belief that the consolidation language is
desired because there are many small service areas that could
function properly when receiving state money. Therefore,
without the state funds consolidation may ease the pain.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX surmised "I guess it would alleviate the
pain because somebody in some other service area that gets
consolidated with it would be having to pay it." She asked if
that would be correct.
MS. MOSS answered that she believes it to be more of a case of
consolidating administration.
8:55:20 AM
MR. FRANK added that some service areas [in the Fairbanks North
Star Borough] are very small, and therefore consolidation would
address a portion of the borough fee. Furthermore,
consolidation would allow [a service area] the ability to go out
to bid in order to obtain a better contract price for the work
on the roads in the area.
8:56:52 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that HB 121 would be held over.
HB 27-MUNI PROP TAX EXEMPTION FOR POLICE HOMES
8:57:04 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to an optional exemption
from municipal property taxes on certain residences of law
enforcement officers."
The committee took a brief at-ease from 8:57:14 to 9:04:10.
9:04:29 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt CSHB 27, Version 24-LS0182\F,
Cook, 2/14/05, as the working document. [No objection was
stated, and therefore Version F was treated as adopted and
before the committee.]
9:04:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, co-prime
sponsor, explained that the purpose of HB 27 is to encourage law
enforcement officers to live in [high crime areas]. If [law
enforcement officers] live in the area, law enforcement is
better, he opined. Very few law enforcement officials live in
areas where additional police protection is most necessary.
This legislation allows municipalities to pass an ordinance to
exempt a small amount of assessed valuation from the primary
physical residence of the law enforcement officer. He specified
that a $10,000 exemption will equate to about $150 a year, which
is a modest amount. Because of the hold harmless language there
will be no cost to the state.
9:07:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned to the difference between HB 27
and Version F. He pointed out that the language "occupy as
permanent place of abode" on page 1, line 8, of the original
legislation [was changed in Version F to refer to "primary
permanent place of abode"]. He explained that the intent was to
be sure that the exemption wasn't sought on a vacation home that
wasn't the primary place of abode. He noted that some of the
language was taken from AS 29.45.050(r) that deals with
volunteer firemen and emergency medical services.
9:08:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT opined that there seems to be confusion with
the use of the language "primary permanent". He questioned
whether there is a nonprimary permanent [place of abode].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that one could have a place
of abode at say, Big Lake. Although it's permanent, it's not
the primary place of abode.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if one can have two permanent
residences. Representative Kott said that "primary place of
abode" seems to make sense while "primary permanent place of
abode" seems confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that it makes no difference if the
language "permanent" is eliminated. He explained that the terms
"resident" and "domicile" are legal terms. However, in this
statute someone may interpret it as "residence" in the ordinary
sense rather than the legal sense. He specified that the intent
is to only allow an individual one physical place for which the
exemption could be claimed. He noted that later Version F
ratchets down the exemption further by specifying that one may
only receive a maximum of two exemptions if [two law enforcement
officers were married].
9:12:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested that on page 1, line 8, the word
"two" should be deleted. He inquired as to who decides these
exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that sentence: "If two or more
individuals are eligible for an exemption ...." is taken from
AS 29.45.050(r). If a third person moved in [to a property
where two law enforcement officers live], there would already be
two exemptions. In that case [the individuals] first in time
would receive the exemption. If three people move in at the
same time, then it would be up to the municipality to determine
who receives the exemption.
9:14:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN then turned to page 2, line 1, which
refers to eligibility requirements under federal programs, and
inquired as to what programs those are.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that these are well-recognized
federal programs such as "Renaissance zones," "weed and seed
programs," and neighborhood revitalization programs. He noted
that a number of areas in Anchorage qualify for these programs.
The local municipality determines how its ordinance will be
crafted, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN questioned whether the law enforcement
exemption offsets the higher insurance rates [the residents in
the area] would experience.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied no, which is why there is no
desire for the ordinance to refer to a "high crime rate" [area].
He informed the committee that the areas of interest in
Anchorage have already been publicly designated as "weed and
seed areas." Representative Gruenberg turned attention to the
third paragraph of Mayor Begich's letter, which relates that the
incentive may need to be increased. Representative Gruenberg
said he would consider an increase a friendly amendment.
9:19:18 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON inquired as to the Anchorage Police Department's
view of this.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that anecdotally the Anchorage
Police Department likes this legislation. In further response
to Co-Chair Olson, Representative Gruenberg said he didn't know
the rough numbers of those law enforcement willing to move.
9:20:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that HB 27
allows municipalities to decide whether they want to implement
this program that provides a local government incentive to
encourage law enforcement officers to live where they might not
choose to live.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with that understanding.
9:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT turned to the Muldoon area in Anchorage. He
said he knew of very few properties that would qualify to
receive the $150 exemption. Representative Kott expressed the
need to reevaluate the exemption amount in order to attract law
enforcement officers to these [high crime] areas. He then
turned attention to page 1, lines 8-9, regarding two or more law
enforcement officers being eligible for the exemption at the
same property. He posed a situation in which two female law
enforcement officers purchased a four-plex and both lived in one
of the [units], although one law enforcement officer was married
to another male officer. He inquired as to who would qualify
for the exemption in the aforementioned situation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that a duplex would be
considered one parcel, one assessment. However, if the property
was a zero lot line, each owner would be entitled to an
exemption. The maximum allowed for the exemption of those
living in a duplex is two exemptions. In regard to
Representative Kott's first comment, Representative Gruenberg
reiterated that he would consider an increase in the exemption
amount as a friendly amendment.
9:27:07 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS referred to AS 29.45.050(i) and asked if
municipalities could add law enforcement to the list receiving
the [exemption in current statute].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended to use the format of the
legislation because it requires a certain geographic area. The
substantial subsections [AS 29.45.050(i) and (a)] require votes
of the people, which wasn't included in HB 27 because the amount
was smaller.
9:29:42 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted his agreement with Representative Kott
regarding the size of the incentive necessary to encourage
relocation [to a high crime area]. He suggested making the
incentive worthwhile for someone to take a risk.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he would consider [an
increase in the amount of the exemption] a friendly amendment.
9:30:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN suggested adding the language "with a vote
of the people through local ordinances" because the other
exemptions do so. Therefore, the communities would decide.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized such a change as a policy
call. Although a smaller incentive might not attract law
enforcement to move, he indicated that the [residents in the
area] may have concern with a larger incentive amount. In
further response to Representative Neuman, Representative
Gruenberg agreed that if the exemption is increased by a large
quantity such as $150,000, then [the locals should decide
whether to offer it]. However, a more modest increase in the
range of $30-$50,000 wouldn't necessarily require a vote of the
people.
9:32:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in further response to Representative
Neuman, advised that if [the incentive] was [increased] to $40-
$50,000, it wouldn't need a vote of the people. An amount
higher than that would require a vote of the people, he opined.
9:33:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if Representative Kott agrees with
the $50,000 level. She then stated that she would be willing to
propose an amendment to consider the aforementioned.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that he didn't have a problem with
$50,000. He related that he was trying to determine what amount
would entice him to move from his safe neighborhood to a
potentially less safe neighborhood. "Personally, if we're going
to do it, I would go to the max ..., $150,000, that we give to
the seniors and the disabled veterans," he opined. He
acknowledged that such a change would have to be approved by the
voters. He expressed interest in hearing from law enforcement
officers on this matter.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to obtain comments from law
enforcement.
9:37:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked whether the law enforcement already in
these locations benefit from this legislation as well.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related that it's unlikely that a
senior officer will move into one of these neighborhoods. He
expressed his desire to attract new police officers to these
areas and keep them in these areas. Therefore, he said he
wanted to provide an incentive to stay in these areas.
9:39:14 AM
CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted his agreement with Representative Kott
[and suggested the following language] "up to $150,000". He
said this is definitely worth it. He inquired as to the
possibility of attracting Village Public Safety Officer (VPSOs)
and Alaska Department of Fish & Game officers.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said those folks would qualify.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS related that some young police officers in rural
Alaska are looking at joining federal [law enforcement] because
of the lower retirement years. However, he surmised that this
exemption may entice some of these young police officers in
rural Alaska to stay in their area.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that HB 27 may not be drafted to
accommodate the areas in the Bush that are unorganized boroughs
because these areas wouldn't qualify for weed and seed and urban
development programs. He said he would consider an amendment to
include small communities under this legislation as a friendly
amendment.
9:42:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that the "law enforcement
officers" language could be problematic if there is a desire to
include VPSOs and rural areas. She related her understanding
that VPSOs are considered peace officers and there is a legal
distinction made between a peace officer and a law enforcement
officer.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG turned attention to page 1, lines 12-
13, which specifies that the ordinance can define "law
enforcement officer" in the manner desired. Therefore, he
opined that Representative LeDoux's concern is addressed.
9:43:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN turned attention the language "that meets
the eligibility requirements under a federal program" on page 2,
and questioned whether the VPSO programs would satisfy such
requirements. Therefore, he suggested rewriting the legislation
to include VPSOs. Representative Neuman also suggested that the
committee should hear from the municipalities regarding the
higher amount that has been discussed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to obtain the information
requested.
9:44:27 AM
CO-CHAIR OLSON announced that HB 27 would be held over.
9:44:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT inquired as to why paragraph (3) on page 2
was added to the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that [paragraph (3)] provides
a municipality more flexibility in that it allows the
[exemption] for a weed and seed area and/or a specified high
crime area.
[HB 27 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:45 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|