Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/25/1996 08:20 AM 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
April 25, 1996
8:20 A.M.
TAPE HFC 96-137, Side 1, #000 - end.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:20 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin
Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder
Representative Brown
Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell
Representative Kelly Representative Therriault
Representative Kohring
Representative Navarre was absent from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Steve Rieger; Del Smith, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety.
SUMMARY
SB 80 An Act relating to police protection service areas
in unified municipalities; and to police
protection provided by the state in certain
municipal areas.
SB 80 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SCR 29 Objecting to the Department of Administration's
settlement with certain employees of the Alaska
marine highway system.
SCR 29 was rescheduled to another time.
SENATE BILL NO. 80
An Act relating to police protection service areas in
unified municipalities; and to police protection
provided by the state in certain municipal areas.
SENATOR RIEGER, SPONSOR, testified in behalf of SB 80. He
1
explained that SB 80 would provide a mechanism to allow
residents of a municipality that have not formed a local
police protection service area to pay for the state police
protection that they receive. The legislation would require
a petition, vote and an assessment on the area affected.
The Department of Public Safety would be authorized to
charge for the total cost of providing the service plus 15
percent. He emphasized that the legislation could reduce
hard feelings by residents paying for local police
protection against those who are not paying for these
services. He noted that a survey contained in the back-up
(copy on file) shows that Southeast Anchorage residents are
willing to pay for these services.
Senator Rieger noted that a vote in the last local election
is being contested. If the election is upheld the
legislation would not be needed.
Representative Brown questioned if language should be added
to clarify that only residents of an area in a unified
municipality that is not presently in a police service area
is effected.
Senator Rieger noted that the legislation only makes sense
if there is no local police service. Representative Brown
noted that Hillside would be paying for Anchorage city
police coverage if the vote is upheld. Representative
Rieger stated that he did not anticipate the legislation
would be needed if the vote is upheld.
In response to a question by Representative Kelly, Senator
Rieger explained that Anchorage's unification charter
contains a provision which states that services are not
annexed into outer areas except by the vote of the area
being annexed. The issue is whether an area wide vote could
annex an outlying area in defiance of this provision. If
the election is held to be valid the area will be annexed.
Representative Mulder questioned if an area of Anchorage
could vote to dissolution themselves from the Anchorage
police department and use the provisions of the legislation.
Senator Rieger stated that there is no provision in the
charter for dissolution of a service area. The legislation
would not affect the charter.
Representative Mulder stated that he did not understand why
a wealthy portion of town would chose to not join in the
organization and fixed cost of an organized police
department, but is willing to buy their own protection.
Senator Rieger stressed that the commercial tax base
subsidizes the residential tax base. He noted that the area
2
in question has almost zero commercial tax base.
Senator Rieger did not know the mill rate paid by the area
in question.
Representative Grussendorf expressed concern that the
Department of Public Safety's budget not be adversely
affected by the legislation.
Senator Rieger noted that a contractual relationship would
not exist. He emphasized that individuals assigned patrols
would be free to respond to emergencies anywhere in the
State.
Representative Therriault asked the average yearly cost per
trooper.
DEL SMITH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
testified that $76.0 thousand dollars would be the average
cost for a trooper, benefits and equipment. The cost for
the trooper alone would be approximately $60.0 thousand
dollars a year.
Senator Rieger emphasized that the primary concern is to
receive good protection. He noted that officers assigned to
the area were responsive. He maintained that there was a
good cooperative relationship.
Representative Mulder noted that Departments must operate
within budget caps. He questioned if the addition of
program receipts to the Department of Public Safety's budget
would result in a decrease in services to other parts of the
State.
Senator Rieger argued that the fiscal gap, not budget caps
is the real financial picture. He stressed that the
legislation would decrease the fiscal gap. He maintained
that program receipts should not be ignored in the setting
of caps.
Representative Mulder noted that program receipts do fall
within budget caps in the House.
Representative Martin expressed concern that Anchorage has
binding arbitration with the police department. He asked if
private police services, other than state troopers, would be
allowed in Anchorage.
Senator Rieger stressed that the use of a private police
force raises questions regarding the immunity of officers.
He stated that a private police force would not be practical
due to the liability that accrues with the use of force.
3
Mr. Smith agreed with Senator Rieger's comments.
Representative Martin emphasized that the troopers have a
monopoly. He asserted that there should be competition.
Mr. Smith clarified that troopers can make arrests under
municipal ordinances. He stated that individuals arrested
under the legislation would generally be arrested under
state law if there is an applicable state law, since they
would be prosecuted by the State.
Representative Mulder questioned if there should be a fiscal
impact note with the legislation. He pointed out that
arrests would be under municipal ordinance instead of state
law if there was a regular police service area. He noted
that the State would be responsible for prosecution in areas
covered by the legislation.
Mr. Smith explained that the legislation has a zero fiscal
note because it is viewed as enabling legislation. The
Department of Public Safety would receive funding if the
legislation is passed and an area elects to use this option.
He noted that arrests are currently prosecuted by the State
in the Hillside area. He stated that the Administration is
opposed to the legislation. The administration does not
feel that this is the best police solution. He noted that
the Department of Public Safety would be able to fulfill
contractual obligations if the legislation is enacted.
Representative Brown stressed that the legislation can be a
tool to unify municipalities. She noted that some of the
core areas of Anchorage are interested in supplemental
service. She maintained that budget policy should be
adjusted to allow program receipts to be received for
services provided without regards to the bottom line of the
budget. She questioned if subsection (c) should be modified
to include prosecution costs. She asked if there are any
other areas in a municipality exceeding 50,000 residents.
Senator Rieger stated that there are no other areas of this
size within a municipality outside of Anchorage.
Representative Brown noted that Fairbanks could be covered
if the City and Borough were unified.
In response to a question by Representative Martin, Senator
Rieger stressed that the legislation is not intended to be
far reaching.
Representative Parnell noted that the City and Borough of
Anchorage were unified on the third vote. The first two
votes failed due to contention on police issues, management
of ATU, and labor issues. The Commission came to an
agreement on the third vote after provision was made for
4
police issues. He noted that a ballot question on the last
election asked if the police service area should be
dissolved and reestablished incorporating the entire
municipality of Anchorage. The ballot question was adopted
by a majority of voters. If the vote is upheld the
Constitution will likely prohibit the Hillside Area from
contracting with troopers. He noted that Article X, section
V of the Constitution states that a new service area should
not be established if the new service area can be provided
by an existing service area. He stated that if the election
is rejected by the Court there is nothing wrong with local
determination and control. He expressed support for the
legislation.
Representative Mulder asked if the sponsor would support the
inclusion of a provision to allow areas to have a greater
assessment for greater protection. Senator Rieger stated
that he would be adverse to the addition if there were a
constitutional question. He pointed out that this addition
would raise different issues. He stated that he would
support separate legislation that might include a
constitutional amendment to address the issue.
SB 80 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 a.m.
5
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|