Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/17/1994 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 17, 1994
1:35 P.M.
TAPE HFC 94 - 3, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94 - 4, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94 - 4, Side 2, #000 - #344.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Foster
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Martin
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault
Representatives Hoffman, Brown and Parnell were not present
for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Nancy Slagle, Director, Division of Budget Review, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor; Shelby
Stastny, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor;
Representative John Davies; Representative Cliff Davidson;
Representative Irene Nicholia; Representative Jeannette
James; Representative Con Bunde; Representative Carl Moses;
Senator Suzanne Little; C. E. Swackhammer, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety.
SUMMARY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET - FY 95 BUDGET
OVERVIEW
HB 18 An Act relating to police protection service areas
in municipalities.
HB 18 was HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - FY 95 BUDGET OVERVIEW
SHELBY STASTNY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, provided the Committee with a copy
of the State Agency General Fund increases. [Attachment
1
the line" and was the same in nominal dollars as that
proposed in FY 94. There are some proposed increases with
equal reductions taken to balance the budget.
Mr. Stastny advised there is additional money available in
the proposed budget to cover added emphasis costs. Those
targetedbudget areas will be included in the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) for Wildlife Protection Officers;
Department of Law (DOL) for new prosecuting attorneys; and
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF) for highway maintenance. All other departments have
been encouraged to keep their request level parallel to the
FY 94 budget.
Although, he added, there can be adjustments made to the
Formula Program areas. These proposals could affect
reduction to municipal sharing, reduction to senior property
tax exemption, and a reduction for additional funding to
school districts anticipating a greater enrollment.
Mr. Stastny concluded, itemizing revenue raising measures
which would include adding an increase to fuel tax $.08
cents to $.25 cents per gallon; addition of an alcohol and
cigarette tax of a proposed fifty percent increase; adding a
royalty charge to resources used within the State, from two
percent increasing to five percent within five years; and an
additional employment tax of $100 dollars ofeach employed
person in Alaska.
Co-Chair Larson discussed the spending plan as proposed by
the Office of Management and Budget with the recommended
increases.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, explained the
increases would cover federal mandates necessary to generate
additional federal funding to the State. Committee members
proceeded to discuss concerns regarding budget cuts to
education, university costs and the public safety and
welfare.
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with a summary of
increments and decrements from each department proposed to
cover the costs in FY 95 budget in order to accommodate the
Department of Revenue's projected price of oil at $15.04 per
barrel.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-4, Side 1).
Co-Chair Larson noted that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee shows the State with $295 million dollars
2
unencumbered appropriations. Mr. Stastny understood that
the Administration and the Legislature would address that
information during FY95 fiscal discussions. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is not seeking unencumbered
funds in order to balance the budget.
Representative Martin introduced discussion regarding the
Governor'a hiring freeze. Co-Chair MacLean asked for
specific information addressing deleted and added positions
during the past four years. Mr. Stastny commented, one
thousand twenty positions have not been funded since the
beginning of the administration. He offered to provide
further information to the Committee.
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with a list of
specific programs which would need to be eliminated in order
to balance the $106 million dollar deficit. The Committee
agreed it will be a difficult process to provide the
necessary measures to compensate for the current budgetary
situation.
HOUSE BILL 18
"An Act relating to police protection service areas in
municipalities."
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE explained that the bill would
authorize residents within a borough or municipality to
petition for the formation of a service area with defined
boundaries, for the purpose of police protection. Police
services would be provided by the Department of Public
Safety. Property owners within service areas would be
assessed for the contract amount by their local governments,
who would in turn reimburse the Department of Public Safety
(DPS).
He added, the possibilities for police protection service
areas within boroughs under HB 18 are practically limitless.
Residents in any geographical location within a borough
could petition for a service area, and if the majority of
residents within the area voted favorably on the measure,
they would get the police service.
Representative Bunde continued, residents of boroughs that
already provide police protection on an area-wide basis
could presumably take advantage of the opportunity created
by the bill, on the grounds that they want more or less
police protection than the borough is providing. Most
residents of municipalities and boroughs that are currently
without a local police department are currently serviced by
the State Troopers at no cost to the residents. There is
always the possibility that enactment of HB 18 would create
3
an incentive for the DPS to hasten the process of
withdrawing from areas without local police service that
have property tax resources. That is, in response to
budgetary belt-tightening, the Department might reduce
services to areas with property tax resources with the
expectation of obtaining a reimbursement contract with a new
service area. Many communities will probably want to
compare the costs and benefits of forming a local police
force with that of trooper service through a service area.
HB 18 would give DPS the opportunity to shift the cost of
services it now provides from its general fund appropriation
to the beneficiaries of its services. If that were to
happen, more service areas might be formed that would
otherwise be the case.
Representative Bunde added, the fiscal note that accompanies
the packet is highly questionable. The Department of Public
Safety has ignored the statewide ramifications of the
legislation, and has chosen to direct the fiscal note at
only the Hillside area in Anchorage. There would be less
than 10,000 residents in that area effected by the
legislation although Girdwood currently has a trooper both
patrolling and living in the area. The Department would
assume a level of service that has not been requested in any
agency. The Department would be unable to statistically
support the number of additional personnel they would deem
necessary to accommodate the fiscal note.
Discussion followed amongst the Committee members regarding
options of residents of specific areas and those increased
costs associated with the services which would be made
available through the legislation.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-4, Side 2).
C.E. SWACKHAMMER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, advised that the Department of Public Safety would
not support the proposed legislation. HB 18 would allow
residents of a municipality to form a police protection
service area in which the Department would provide a
specified level of police protection funded by assessments
upon the residents.
He added, it has been the position of the Governor and the
Commissioner of Public Safety to withdraw Troopers from
urban areas which are authorized to provide police
protection on their own, and then concentrate the
Department's resources in rural and unorganized areas of the
State. The proposed legislation would run counter to that
position, allowing residents of organized municipalities to
require police protection from Troopers. The areas forming
4
service areas would have a contractual right to a certain
level of service from Troopers that rural citizens would not
share. Many rural communities have never had a local
Trooper, and other communities have lost the Trooper Posts
as budget cuts have forced the Department to reduce
services.
The Department is concerned by potential problems raised by
HB 18:
1. The process for establishing a service district,
including the requirements that such contracts may
impose on the Department to hire employees by
passes the Legislature;
2. The bill would not provide any information on what
happens if the assessment accepted by the voters
is insufficient to fund the level of service
contracted;
3. There would be a loss of local control over police
protection as there would be no local setting of
policies, and no enforcement of local ordinances;
4. The Department could experience a highly variable
demand for Troopers as municipalities adopt and
reject service areas, requiring hiring and
training efforts in some years and layoffs in
others;
5. Individual Troopers could find that employment
with the Department was less predictable, less
stable, and therefore less desirable due to the
uncertainty that any given service area contract
would be extended;
6. Because of the long lag time in selecting, hiring,
and training Troopers, adoption of service area
contracts could mean reduced services to the rest
of citizens served by the Department.
Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer continued, the Task Force on
Governmental Roles, formed under SCS CS HCR 17 (CRA) by the
17th Legislature examined the functions of state, federal
and local governments and made recommendations as to the
appropriate roles and relationships of the different levels
of government with respect to several governmental
functions. The Task Force was composed of House and Senate
members, representatives of the executive branch,
representatives from the Municipal League, and a
representative from the unorganized borough. In their final
report the Task Force made the following recommendation:
5
"....To encourage and facilitate the implementation of
police protection and to generate economies of scale,
the Task force advocates a change in Title 29 to permit
assemblies of unified municipalities and home rule
boroughs to establish service areas for police
protection, not withstanding charger provisions that
place restrictions on the service area formation
process. Authority to form service areas for police
protection should also be given to general law
boroughs. This would resolve the Hillside problem and
prevent similar situations in other
municipalities....."
The Department accepts the approach recommended by the Task
Force as better public policy, which would avoid several of
the potential problems raised by HB 18. Mr. Swackhammer
reiterated that the Department opposes the proposed
legislation.
HB 18 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M.
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 17, 1994
1:35 P.M.
TAPE HFC 94 - 3, Side 2, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94 - 4, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 94 - 4, Side 2, #000 - #344.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson Representative Foster
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Martin
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Navarre
Representative Grussendorf Representative Therriault
Representatives Hoffman, Brown and Parnell were not present
for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
6
Nancy Slagle, Director, Division of Budget Review, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of the Governor; Shelby
Stastny, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office
of the Governor;
Representative John Davies; Representative Cliff Davidson;
Representative Irene Nicholia; Representative Jeannette
James; Representative Con Bunde; Representative Carl Moses;
Senator Suzanne Little; C. E. Swackhammer, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Public Safety.
SUMMARY
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET - FY 95 BUDGET
OVERVIEW
HB 18 An Act relating to police protection service areas
in municipalities.
HB 18 was HELD in Committee for further
discussion.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - FY 95 BUDGET OVERVIEW
SHELBY STASTNY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, provided the Committee with a copy
of the State Agency General Fund increases. [Attachment
the line" and was the same in nominal dollars as that
proposed in FY 94. There are some proposed increases with
equal reductions taken to balance the budget.
Mr. Stastny advised there is additional money available in
the proposed budget to cover added emphasis costs. Those
targetedbudget areas will be included in the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) for Wildlife Protection Officers;
Department of Law (DOL) for new prosecuting attorneys; and
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF) for highway maintenance. All other departments have
been encouraged to keep their request level parallel to the
FY 94 budget.
Although, he added, there can be adjustments made to the
Formula Program areas. These proposals could affect
reduction to municipal sharing, reduction to senior property
tax exemption, and a reduction for additional funding to
school districts anticipating a greater enrollment.
Mr. Stastny concluded, itemizing revenue raising measures
which would include adding an increase to fuel tax $.08
cents to $.25 cents per gallon; addition of an alcohol and
cigarette tax of a proposed fifty percent increase; adding a
royalty charge to resources used within the State, from two
7
percent increasing to five percent within five years; and an
additional employment tax of $100 dollars ofeach employed
person in Alaska.
Co-Chair Larson discussed the spending plan as proposed by
the Office of Management and Budget with the recommended
increases.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BUDGET REVIEW, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, explained the
increases would cover federal mandates necessary to generate
additional federal funding to the State. Committee members
proceeded to discuss concerns regarding budget cuts to
education, university costs and the public safety and
welfare.
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with a summary of
increments and decrements from each department proposed to
cover the costs in FY 95 budget in order to accommodate the
Department of Revenue's projected price of oil at $15.04 per
barrel.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-4, Side 1).
Co-Chair Larson noted that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee shows the State with $295 million dollars
unencumbered appropriations. Mr. Stastny understood that
the Administration and the Legislature would address that
information during FY95 fiscal discussions. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is not seeking unencumbered
funds in order to balance the budget.
Representative Martin introduced discussion regarding the
Governor'a hiring freeze. Co-Chair MacLean asked for
specific information addressing deleted and added positions
during the past four years. Mr. Stastny commented, one
thousand twenty positions have not been funded since the
beginning of the administration. He offered to provide
further information to the Committee.
Co-Chair Larson provided the Committee with a list of
specific programs which would need to be eliminated in order
to balance the $106 million dollar deficit. The Committee
agreed it will be a difficult process to provide the
necessary measures to compensate for the current budgetary
situation.
HOUSE BILL 18
"An Act relating to police protection service areas in
municipalities."
8
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE explained that the bill would
authorize residents within a borough or municipality to
petition for the formation of a service area with defined
boundaries, for the purpose of police protection. Police
services would be provided by the Department of Public
Safety. Property owners within service areas would be
assessed for the contract amount by their local governments,
who would in turn reimburse the Department of Public Safety
(DPS).
He added, the possibilities for police protection service
areas within boroughs under HB 18 are practically limitless.
Residents in any geographical location within a borough
could petition for a service area, and if the majority of
residents within the area voted favorably on the measure,
they would get the police service.
Representative Bunde continued, residents of boroughs that
already provide police protection on an area-wide basis
could presumably take advantage of the opportunity created
by the bill, on the grounds that they want more or less
police protection than the borough is providing. Most
residents of municipalities and boroughs that are currently
without a local police department are currently serviced by
the State Troopers at no cost to the residents. There is
always the possibility that enactment of HB 18 would create
an incentive for the DPS to hasten the process of
withdrawing from areas without local police service that
have property tax resources. That is, in response to
budgetary belt-tightening, the Department might reduce
services to areas with property tax resources with the
expectation of obtaining a reimbursement contract with a new
service area. Many communities will probably want to
compare the costs and benefits of forming a local police
force with that of trooper service through a service area.
HB 18 would give DPS the opportunity to shift the cost of
services it now provides from its general fund appropriation
to the beneficiaries of its services. If that were to
happen, more service areas might be formed that would
otherwise be the case.
Representative Bunde added, the fiscal note that accompanies
the packet is highly questionable. The Department of Public
Safety has ignored the statewide ramifications of the
legislation, and has chosen to direct the fiscal note at
only the Hillside area in Anchorage. There would be less
than 10,000 residents in that area effected by the
legislation although Girdwood currently has a trooper both
patrolling and living in the area. The Department would
assume a level of service that has not been requested in any
agency. The Department would be unable to statistically
9
support the number of additional personnel they would deem
necessary to accommodate the fiscal note.
Discussion followed amongst the Committee members regarding
options of residents of specific areas and those increased
costs associated with the services which would be made
available through the legislation.
(Tape Change, HFC 94-4, Side 2).
C.E. SWACKHAMMER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, advised that the Department of Public Safety would
not support the proposed legislation. HB 18 would allow
residents of a municipality to form a police protection
service area in which the Department would provide a
specified level of police protection funded by assessments
upon the residents.
He added, it has been the position of the Governor and the
Commissioner of Public Safety to withdraw Troopers from
urban areas which are authorized to provide police
protection on their own, and then concentrate the
Department's resources in rural and unorganized areas of the
State. The proposed legislation would run counter to that
position, allowing residents of organized municipalities to
require police protection from Troopers. The areas forming
service areas would have a contractual right to a certain
level of service from Troopers that rural citizens would not
share. Many rural communities have never had a local
Trooper, and other communities have lost the Trooper Posts
as budget cuts have forced the Department to reduce
services.
The Department is concerned by potential problems raised by
HB 18:
1. The process for establishing a service district,
including the requirements that such contracts may
impose on the Department to hire employees by
passes the Legislature;
2. The bill would not provide any information on what
happens if the assessment accepted by the voters
is insufficient to fund the level of service
contracted;
3. There would be a loss of local control over police
protection as there would be no local setting of
policies, and no enforcement of local ordinances;
4. The Department could experience a highly variable
demand for Troopers as municipalities adopt and
10
reject service areas, requiring hiring and
training efforts in some years and layoffs in
others;
5. Individual Troopers could find that employment
with the Department was less predictable, less
stable, and therefore less desirable due to the
uncertainty that any given service area contract
would be extended;
6. Because of the long lag time in selecting, hiring,
and training Troopers, adoption of service area
contracts could mean reduced services to the rest
of citizens served by the Department.
Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer continued, the Task Force on
Governmental Roles, formed under SCS CS HCR 17 (CRA) by the
17th Legislature examined the functions of state, federal
and local governments and made recommendations as to the
appropriate roles and relationships of the different levels
of government with respect to several governmental
functions. The Task Force was composed of House and Senate
members, representatives of the executive branch,
representatives from the Municipal League, and a
representative from the unorganized borough. In their final
report the Task Force made the following recommendation:
"....To encourage and facilitate the implementation of
police protection and to generate economies of scale,
the Task force advocates a change in Title 29 to permit
assemblies of unified municipalities and home rule
boroughs to establish service areas for police
protection, not withstanding charger provisions that
place restrictions on the service area formation
process. Authority to form service areas for police
protection should also be given to general law
boroughs. This would resolve the Hillside problem and
prevent similar situations in other
municipalities....."
The Department accepts the approach recommended by the Task
Force as better public policy, which would avoid several of
the potential problems raised by HB 18. Mr. Swackhammer
reiterated that the Department opposes the proposed
legislation.
HB 18 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:30 P.M.
11
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|