Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/09/1998 01:33 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken , Vice Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Randy Phillips
Senator Lyman Hoffman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 204
"An Act providing the commissioner of natural resources with the
authority to make grants of state land to municipalities for the
construction and operation of sport and recreational facilities and
structures."
- MOVED CSSB 204(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to municipal service areas and providing for voter
approval of the formation, alteration, or abolishment of certain
service areas."
- MOVED SB 208 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 204 - No previous action to record.
SB 208 - No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Robin Taylor
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SB 204
Ms. Mel Krogseng
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information on SB 204
Doug Russell, President
Prince of Wales Sportmen's Club
Craig, AK 99921
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 204
Dick Mylius
Division of Land
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C St., Suite 1122
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined department's concerns with SB 204
Kevin Ritchie, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 2nd St.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 204 & SB 208
Senator Sean Parnell
State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor of SB 208
Dan Bockhorst
Division of Municipal & Regional Assistance
Department of Community & Regional Affairs
333 W. 4th Ave., Suite 220
Anchorage, AK 99501-2341
POSITION STATEMENT: Department does not support SB 208
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-2, SIDE A
Number 001
SB 204 - STATE LAND FOR MUNICIP. SPORT FACILITIES
CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the Senate Community & Regional Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 1:33 p.m., and noted all members were
present. He then brought SB 204 before the committee as the first
order of business.
SENATOR TAYLOR, prime sponsor of SB 204, said the legislation
provides for recreational and sports facilities in communities and
it offers them an alternative to finding other activities for the
young people. He said that our youth are too often left unattended
after school, at night, and on weekends with little to do. If
there are facilities to use, kids, and adults as well, are less
likely to become involved in those other activities.
SB 204 proposes to give state land to municipalities for the
purpose of using them for sports and recreational facilities. The
legislation will grant land to local governments, but the grant
will not count against the local government's entitlement. Senator
Taylor said the feasibility of developing these facilities will be
economically enhanced through this process, and he thinks the
legislation is a way of the Legislature sending a message that it
is willing to participate and help in the development of these
recreational facilities and activities.
Senator Taylor directed attention to a proposed amendment to the
bill which would address reversionary interest concerns raised by
the Department of Natural Resources in their fiscal note. He
clarified that the amendment says that if the land is not utilized
for the intended purpose it reverts back to the ownership of the
state unless it has been traded for private land.
Number 054
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if this legislation would prevent leasing of
the land, and SENATOR TAYLOR responded that the legislation would
not prevent the municipalities in any way from leasing the land out
for sports and recreational facilities.
Number 072
SENATOR WILKEN commented that he thinks this is a good idea but he
wondered if maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to get a sense of what
is going to be done with the land before granting it to a local
government. SENATOR TAYLOR replied the legislation limits this to
solely recreational activities with the intent that it provide for
youth activities. He added that he thinks it should be up to the
community to make the decision on what is the best use for the
land.
Number 125
DOUG RUSSELL, President of the Prince of Wales Sportsmen's Club
testified via teleconference from Klawock in support of SB 204.
Mr. Russell said his group is trying to acquire some property to
build a shooting range for Prince of Wales Island. This is
something they have tried to do in the past, but most of the land
near the Craig/Klawock area is either Native owned or federally
owned. There is a section of state land in the Control Lake area
which is approximately 720 acres, and if SB 204 goes forward, they
would try to acquire some of that property to build a shooting
range. This could also incorporate other types of family-oriented
activities such as canoeing, kyaking, and various winter sports.
Number 175
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if these facilities would be funded through
private donations and other programs that are available for sports
groups. MR. RUSSELL acknowledged that was correct. He also
acknowledged that his group would have liability insurance through
their affiliation with the National Rifle Association.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Mr. Russell if he has had any discussions
with any municipalities on Prince Wales Island on this particular
approach because the legislation would allow for a grant to a
municipality. MR. RUSSELL said he has talked to the Municipality
of Craig and was told to go forward and they would help out as best
they can. They have not had any positive results in trying to
secure privately-owned Native land, and no attempt has been made to
move forward with federally-owned land.
Number 212
SENATOR PHILLIPS noted that in the early 1960s, the Eagle River
Lions Club negotiated a 50-year lease for a 40-acre section of
state land, and he asked if the sportsmrn's group has ever had
discussion with DNR about leasing state land MR. RUSSELL replied
that he hadn't contacted DNR until just recently when he spoke to
Andy Pekovich who felt pretty positive if the group can get the
City of Craig to sponsor them.
Number 250
DICK MYLIUS, Chief of the Resource Assessment & Development section
in the Division of Land, Department of Natural Resources, stated
DNR is unsure as to whether or not SB 204 is needed because they
can already convey lands to municipalities under existing statute,
and that's even if they don't have a remaining municipal
entitlement.
Mr. Mylius related the department has concerns with some provisions
in the bill although Senator Taylor has prepared an amendment
relating to how the reversionary clauses would apply to a land
exchange. However, there is no provision in the bill for making
exceptions for the reversionary clause as is provided for in
current statute.
Another concern is that the bill mandates that sport or
recreational facilities be built within four years after the grant,
but DNR has avoided getting into being the land police to make sure
that municipalities follow through in specific time frames. The
department believes that with that strict of a provision in the
bill, it might necessitate coming back to ask for exceptions or
having to take back title to the land even though a project is
likely to be built.
Concluding his comments, Mr. Mylius said the department has no
objection to giving lands to municipalities for public recreational
facilities, but they think that can be done under existing
statutes. He questioned if there is a specific problem that this
bill was designed to address.
Number 300
MEL KROGSENG, staff to Senator Taylor, said what is different about
SB 204 from the existing statute that Senator Taylor wanted to try
to impart is that the legislation is also an encouragement for the
municipalities to pursue the development of sports and recreational
facilities in the communities. It is a good alternative to crime
and some of the other activities that young people, as well as
adults, get involved in because in many of the communities there
isn't a whole lot to do.
Ms. Krogseng said the point of leaving the reversionary interest in
place is so that it wont' count against the entitlement, and the
requirement that these facilities be built within a four-year time
period was put in so that these projects will move forward. The
trade provision was put into the bill because in some cases there
may be another piece of land that is more suitable for a particular
project.
Ms. Krogseng noted there was concern raised on the fiscal note
about the reversionary interest remaining with the state, however,
the proposed amendment would correct that problem.
Ms. Krogseng said it is her understanding from talking with Jane
Angvik of DNR that when the municipalities submit an application
they have an idea already in mind for a specific type of facility
that they want to develop.
Number 327
SENATOR WILKEN asked Mr. Mylius if when DNR does a land grant like
this under current law, does it still count against the
entitlement. MR. MYLIUS responded it would count against a
municipality's entitlement if it still had an outstanding
entitlement. SENATOR WILKEN noted that the sponsor's statement
says that SB 204 would take it outside the entitlement, but that it
is not specifically addressed within the bill. MR. MYLIUS agreed,
and he said he thought it should be added into the bill. MS.
KROGSENG related that she spoke to the drafter of the bill and
specifically asked if that language needed to be in the bill, but
she was told that because the bill has the language "the
commissioner shall retain a reversionary interest on each grant..."
it cannot count against their entitlement. SENATOR WILKEN
suggested that to make it clear, that language should be part of
the bill.
Number 378
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked Mr. Mylius if he thought this should be
limited to a certain amount of acres, or should it just be taken
case by case. MR. MYLIUS answered that he didn't think there would
have to be a specific acreage figure in the bill. Currently, land
grants are usually done on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE requested a motion to adopt Senator Taylor's
proposed amendment.
SENATOR WILKEN moved the adoption of the following Amendment No. 1
to SB 204. Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the amendment
was adopted and would be incorporated into a C&RA committee
substitute.
Amendment No. 1
Page 1, lines 8 - 9: Delete "The commissioner shall retain a
reversionary interest on each grant of land under this subsection."
Page 1, line 11, following "structure." insert: "The commissioner
shall retain a reversionary interest on each grant of land under
this subsection, but if that land is traded for other land, the
commissioner may release the reversionary interest on the granted
land when the commissioner receives a reversionary interest on the
land received in trade."
SENATOR WILKEN moved a conceptual amendment that the land grants
provided for in SB 204 would not count against municipal
entitlements. Hearing no objection, the Chairman stated the
conceptual amendment was adopted.
Number 410
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
testified that the League's land and resources committee discussed
the bill and they endorse any kind of partnership between the state
and municipalities.
Number 422
SENATOR WILKEN moved CSSB 204 be passed out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
SB 208 - VOTER APPROVAL OF SERVICE AREA CHANGES
CHAIRMAN MACKIE brought SB 208 before the committee as the final
order of business.
SENATOR SEAN PARNELL, prime sponsor of SB 208, said the legislation
establishes the mechanism by which service areas are created,
altered and abolished. Special services, by statute, include
services not provided on an area wide or non-area wide basis or a
higher or different level of service than that provided on an area
wide or non-area wide basis. He pointed out that throughout Alaska
there are approximately 200 service areas, and in these areas, the
local residents assess themselves to pay for a particular service.
SB 208 amends AS 29.35.450 to strengthen local control by
prohibiting a borough or municipality from altering or abolishing
service Ares without a majority vote of those people most affected.
Senator Parnell said SB 208 prescribes a majority vote mechanism
under three scenarios:
(1) When a governing body wants to abolish a service area,
the decision is subject to the approval by the majority of the
voters residing in the service area.
(2) When a governing body wants to abolish and replace a
service area with a larger service area, it must be approved
separately by a majority of voters inside the existing service
area and by a majority of the voters in the proposed service
area, but outside the existing service area.
(3) When a governing body wants to alter a service or combine
it with another service area, this action must be approved
separately by a majority of the voters who vote on the
question and who reside in each of the service areas or in a
proposed service area affected by the proposal.
Senator Parnell advised that the bills is supported by many service
area boards around the state, and he urged the committee's support
of the legislation.
Number 460
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked for an example of the kinds of services
within a service area that would have to approved before they could
be abolished or changed. SENATOR PARNELL said the two primary
service areas around the state are road service areas and fire
service areas.
Number 488
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked Senator Parnell if this legislation was an
attempt to opt out of the present police protection. SENATOR
PARNELL responded that right now Anchorage has area wide police
cover and powers and there is nothing that can be done at this
point to change that short of a majority vote of the whole area.
His interest is the road service areas. He said his goal is to
maximize local self control and maximum self determination, while
maintaining the current number of local governmental units.
Number 528
DAN BOCKHORST, a local government specialist with the Department of
Community & Regional Affairs in Anchorage, testifying via
teleconference from Anchorage, stated the department views SB 208
as being inconsistent with four fundamental principles of local
government in Alaska. These relate to not just urban areas but
rural areas as well, and not just unified municipal governments but
other types of borough governments.
Mr. Bockhorst said Alaska's Constitution provides for maximum local
self-government with regard to both home rule and general law of
municipal governments. In the department's view, SB 208 diminishes
local self-government by imposing restrictions under state law on
the manner in which service areas may be formed, altered and
abolished. He said evidence shows that Alaska's Constitutional
Convention delegates intended that jurisdiction over service areas
was to be vested in the assembly to assure a unified overview of
all functions exercised by service areas.
Addressing the second issue, Mr. Bockhorst said Alaska's
Constitution calls for minimum numbers of local government units
and these include service areas. SB 208 limits the ability of
local governments to abolish, combine, or otherwise alter certain
service areas which in turn restricts the ability of local
governments to comply with the constitution.
Alaska's Constitution prohibits the creation of new service areas
if the desired new service can be provided by an existing service
area. This provision applies to consolidation and expansion of
service areas, not just the addition of new powers to be exercised
within existing service areas. SB 208 would restrict the ability
of local governments to apply with that constitutional provision.
The last concern relates to the provision in Alaska's Constitution
for home rule municipal governments. Alaska's provisions for
municipal home rule are broader than those of any other state, and
the Alaskans that drafted the municipal home rule provisions of the
Constitution believed that the Legislature should have the
authority to deny local exercise of specific powers when there was
an overriding state interest. They also assumed, however, that the
Legislature would not act to limit home rule powers except under
such special circumstances. Mr. Bockhorst said the department does
feel that in this case there is an overriding state interest in
this matter.
Number 553
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if passage of this legislation would create
any problems with the proposed Haines annexation, and MR. BOCKHORST
responded that it would not.
TAPE 98-2, SIDE B
Number 586
SENATOR PHILLIPS commented that there about 30,000 people in his
district that are mostly satisfied with the way the service area
concept is working, and their biggest fear is the Anchorage area
taking over these service areas.
SENATOR PARNELL related there are 18 road service areas in his
district and each one of them has a board. If the assembly were to
come in and assert its own road powers, it would put the residents
on a different fee structure and take it out of their hands for
controlling the costs and the quality of the road service
maintenance that is now being provided.
Number 540
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if by a vote of the assembly they could
automatically take over these services, or is there a mechanism in
the charter right now that would require a vote or some sort of
approval within that service area should the assembly attempt to do
that. SENATOR PARNELL responded that it was a good question, but
he didn't know the direct answer to it. SENATOR PHILLIPS added
that he thought if the assembly decided to that, it would have to
go on the ballot for an area wide vote, and that's where the
problem comes in because there aren't a sufficient amount of
numbers to stem the tide if they really want to do it. SENATOR
WILKEN concluded that the legislation before the committee would
preclude the problem Senator Phillips was talking about.
Number 522
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, stated
the League does not have an opinion on the legislation. He said it
is a very complex issue and the League has not had time to poll all
its members on the pros and cons of the legislation, but they hope
to have that completed soon. He added that when a home rule power
is taken away it is a very serious thing to do and it needs a lot
of consideration.
Number 505
There being no further testimony on SB 208, CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked
for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DONLEY moved that SB 208 be passed out of committee with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the
meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|