Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
03/16/2005 09:00 AM House RULES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 121 | |||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2005
9:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative John Coghill
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lesil McGuire
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to consolidating or abolishing certain service
areas in second class boroughs."
- MOVED CSHB 121(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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
02/15/05 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/24/05 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 1DP 5NR
02/24/05 (H) DP: THOMAS;
02/24/05 (H) NR: CISSNA, NEUMAN, SALMON, LEDOUX,
OLSON
02/24/05 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/24/05 (H) Moved CSHB 121(CRA) Out of Committee
02/24/05 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/01/05 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/01/05 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/05/05 (H) STA AT 9:30 AM CAPITOL 106
03/05/05 (H) Moved CSHB 121(CRA) Out of Committee
03/05/05 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/07/05 (H) STA RPT CS(CRA) NT 4DP 1NR
03/07/05 (H) DP: LYNN, RAMRAS, GRUENBERG, SEATON;
03/07/05 (H) NR: GATTO
03/16/05 (H) RLS AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
KACI SCHROEDER, Staff
to Representative Bill Thomas
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 121 on behalf of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 121 and
suggested that the committee adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Amendment 1 to CSHB
121(CRA).
SALLY SADDLER
Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During discussion of HB 121, answered
questions.
MARGORIE VANDOR, Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed constitutional concerns with HB
121.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 9:07:55 AM. Representatives Rokeberg,
Harris, Coghill, Kohring, Berkowitz, and Kerttula were present
at the call to order.
HB 121-SERVICE AREAS IN SECOND CLASS BOROUGHS
9:08:06 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 121, "An Act relating to consolidating or
abolishing certain service areas in second class boroughs."
9:08:22 AM
KACI SCHROEDER, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that when state revenue sharing was in
place, residents living in subdivisions outside of city limits
were able to establish service areas and relied on revenue
sharing funds to function. However, now the state revenue
sharing program has ended and some of these road services areas
aren't taxing the area adequately enough to provide service to
the area. Therefore, the lack of service is leading to unsafe
roads in these service areas. Ms. Schroeder reminded the
committee that these service areas are not separate legal
entities from the borough and thus the borough bears the
ultimate financial responsibility for these service areas.
However, a borough can't assess a boroughwide tax and apply it
to specific service areas. She highlighted that although the
borough bears the ultimate financial responsibility for these
service areas, it lacks the power to dissolve or remedy the
problems that exist when service areas don't adequately maintain
the roads. This legislation allows second class boroughs to
consolidate or abolish service areas not providing adequate
services while protecting those service areas that are providing
adequate services.
9:10:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved that the committee adopt Amendment
1 [labeled 24-LS0396\Y.5, Cook, 3/14/05], which read:
Page 2, line 9:
Delete all material.
Insert "or more service areas if the
(1) borough's population in 2005 was less
than 65,000 or more than 75,000; and
(2) assembly first determines that the
abolishment or"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected for discussion purposes.
9:11:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, informed
the committee that he represents the largest home rule
municipality that is also a second class borough. Service areas
have been very effective in areas such as the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough because the area can tailor the level of service.
Representative Stoltze related that he wants to excise out the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, which doesn't have the problems
[expressed in earlier testimony] with services areas. He urged
the committee to hold harmless [the Matanuska-Susitna Borough]
from the good intent of this legislation. Representative
Stoltze said he hesitated to tie [the proposal in HB 121] to
population.
9:13:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there is a service district in
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE stated that there are numerous types of
service districts, some of which provide road service,
recreational service, and erosion services. He characterized
service areas as an important tool.
9:15:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS turned attention to Amendment 1 and
inquired as to whether the amendment means to delete all the
material on page 2, line 9.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE confirmed that the amendment only deletes
the language on line 9, page 2.
9:16:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL recalled that in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough the problem is that after [revenue sharing funds weren't
available] the service area didn't tax itself and the service
area [didn't provide services], and others couldn't provide
services in that area either. He asked if the aforementioned
could happen in Representative Stoltze's district.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE replied no, and stated that the service
areas [in his district] work very well. He explained that
Amendment 1 would allow him to support HB 121, but not harm his
own district.
9:17:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA opined that if there are no problems in
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, an exemption wouldn't be
necessary. However, she suggested that perhaps the area will
need it in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE related his belief that any assembly with
an ordinance could say that there is a more cost efficient way
without the protection that current statute affords.
9:19:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ opined that if an assembly doesn't act
under the current proposed legislation, then [Amendment 1] isn't
necessary. Representative Berkowitz highlighted the concern
that this legislation runs afoul of the constitutional
prohibition against special legislation and Amendment 1 seems to
place the legislation even further afoul of the constitution.
Representative Berkowitz emphasized the need to protect the
constitution.
9:21:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE reminded the committee that, not with
standing constitutional concerns, the governor signed Senate
Bill 13.
9:21:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, related
his support as well as the support of members of the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough Assembly for Amendment 1. Representative Neuman
said that he supports HB 121, although it doesn't seem to work
for all communities. He related that a member of the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough felt that this bill wouldn't be good for the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
9:22:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to what would happen if the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough population increases to over 75,000.
He asked if the amendment merely speaks to a snap shot in time.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN deferred to Representative Stoltze.
CHAIR ROKEBERG noted that Representative Stoltze, in response to
Representative Harris, nodded his head in the affirmative.
9:24:01 AM
SALLY SADDLER, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), offered to answer any questions from the committee.
CHAIR ROKEBERG returned to Representative Harris' earlier
question regarding the snap shot in time, and asked if DCCED
publishes population figures for the various boroughs so that
there would be a baseline point at which this [legislation]
would be effective.
MS. SADDLER said that she wasn't sure with regard to the date,
although she confirmed that the department does publish
population figures on an annual basis.
9:24:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if any other boroughs would be
impacted by the population specifications in Amendment 1. He
asked if any boroughs would even come close to the population
specifications.
MS. SADDLER replied no to both questions.
9:25:08 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that due to the sentence structure, the
borough's population in 2005 would be a specific date in time
and wouldn't evolve or change over time. He then asked if DCCED
has a position on this legislation.
9:25:26 AM
MS. SADDLER stated that the department endorses any measures
that provide flexibility to local government for the delivery of
services. However, she informed the committee that DCCED
highlighted in the House State Affairs Standing Committee that
HB 121 would provide more flexibility to second class boroughs
than home rule boroughs. The aforementioned is merely a point
for the committee to consider, she said.
9:26:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that after reading the Department
of Law's opinion on the Senate companion bill to HB 121, she is
concerned about HB 121, particularly with the adoption of
Amendment 1, running afoul of the home rule powers for boroughs
as well as the restriction on special legislation. She
requested that the Department of Law representative speak to the
aforementioned concerns.
9:26:59 AM
MARGORIE VANDOR, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,
first addressed the special legislation issue. She said that
Amendment 1 would make the legislation more specific to a
particular area by specifically exempting another area without
any rational reason. The aforementioned is special legislation.
She explained that the test for special legislation is whether
there is a rational basis for exemption from the requirements
specified in the legislation. Furthermore, population doesn't
seem to be the basis upon which to allow a more strict
exemption, she said.
9:28:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to what other boroughs might
have in the service district makeup. Although he related his
understanding that the second class borough in Fairbanks has a
specific issue that it's trying to address, he asked if the
legislation could be broadly applied to all service area
districts. Representative Coghill asked, "If you had a service
area that was abandoned for some other reason, is there legal
issues that they would also need the flexibility to say if you
have a service area designed and then refuse to manage it, that
they could consolidate it?" He further asked whether other
boroughs fall into the aforementioned category.
MS. VANDOR replied, "Yes, they would." She reminded the
committee that the power [being discussed] is given to a
borough, service areas don't have any powers except as "voted
in." Service areas aren't the legal representative that can be
sued, and therefore [the responsibility] ultimately lays with
the borough. Why [this legislation] only restricts the proposed
flexibility to second class boroughs, a general law borough, and
not home rule boroughs is the Department of Law's other concern.
Home rule boroughs are meant to be independent and powerful
municipalities for which one looks to the home rule borough's
charter, rather than Title 29, for its organic law. She noted
that the Department of Law has always held the position that to
restrict how home rule boroughs deal with their local service
areas is a matter of local concern. When this statute became
law in 2001/2002, the population restriction was taken out
because of the concern that it was special legislation.
9:31:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that Title 29 uses the
language, "the borough by ordinance", to conduct certain
actions. However, Amendment 1 and the legislation use the
following language: "if the assembly determines". He
questioned the shift in language and noted that he wasn't sure
of the definition of "determines".
MS. VANDOR pointed out that a second class borough can only take
action by ordinance, and therefore by default any action would
have to be by ordinance.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ questioned what would happen if there
is no assembly. He inquired as to the definition of
"determines", and highlighted that the legislature may make
informal determinations. Representative Berkowitz expressed
concern with changing the terms that are usually used in Title
29 to those proposed in Amendment 1.
9:33:34 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kohring, Harris,
Coghill, and Rokeberg voted in favor of adopting Amendment 1.
Representatives Berkowitz and Kerttula voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
9:34:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee adopt
Amendment 2, as follows:
Line 6 as numbered on Amendment 1;
Delete "first determines"
Insert "the borough by ordinance determines"
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the legislation should
use the same language used in Title 29.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:35:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to report CSHB 121 (CRA), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected and commented that perhaps
legislation of general applicability could be written so that
all boroughs have the authority proposed in HB 121. She opined
that HB 121 is special legislation, which is made even more so
with the adoption of Amendment 1. Therefore, she said she
believes it's unconstitutional.
9:36:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ predicted that [if this legislation
passes] the legislature will end up appropriating a lot of
money, money that could be appropriated to education or other
worthy causes, to attorneys to fight this matter in court.
9:36:56 AM
CHAIR ROKEBERG indicated the need for the sponsors and those
interested to seriously review the legislation regarding whether
the legislation requires further work before it's calendared.
9:37:17 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Harris, Coghill,
Kohring, and Rokeberg voted in favor of reporting CSHB 121(CRA),
as amended, out of committee. Representatives Berkowitz and
Kerttula voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 121(RLS) was
reported out of the House Rules Standing Committee by a vote of
4-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:37:49 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|