Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/09/2003 01:40 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2003
1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Legislative Directive for Unorganized Borough Review:
Local Boundary Commission
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
Darroll Hargraves
Local Boundary Commission (LBC) Chair
Department of Community & Economic Development
550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3510
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the LBC Report
Dan Bockhorst
Staff to the Local Boundary Commission
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110800
Juneau, AK 99811-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on LBC Report
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-10, SIDE A
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. Present
were Senators Gary Stevens, Lincoln, Elton and Chair Wagoner.
He announced the business before the committee was the Local
Boundary Commission borough review.
Legislative Directive for Unorganized Borough Review:
Local Boundary Commission
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Local Boundary Commission Chair from Wasilla,
reported commission members Robert Hicks from Seward, Georgianna
Zinnerle from Ketchikan and Fairbanks member Dr. Anthony
Nakazawa were also in attendance. Robert Harcharek from Barrow
wasn't able to attend. He gave the following report:
The commission is here today at the invitation of the
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee to
present information about the recently completed
review of the unorganized borough.
Last year, the legislature passed SB 359 by unanimous
vote among all members of the Senate and House that
were present. The legislation was signed into law as
Chapter 53, Session Laws of Alaska, 2002.
The law directed the LBC to review the unorganized
borough in terms of the standards for borough
incorporation. It also directed the LBC to report to
the 2003 Legislature those unorganized areas that meet
the standards for borough incorporation.
Four members of the commission that participated in
the review of the unorganized borough are no longer on
the commission. It is fitting that I recognize the
hard work of those former commissioners regarding this
matter. Those former members are Kevin Waring, Allan
Tesche, Ardith Lynch, and Myrna Gardner.
The commission began its review shortly after the law
took effect on September 17 of last year. The
commission endeavored to promote broad public
awareness about and participation in the review.
The commission met six times concerning the
unorganized borough review: October 22, 2002, November
13, 2002, December 9, 2002, January 22, 2003, February
8, 2003 and February 11, 2003.
During the February 8 meeting, the commission held a
statewide hearing on the matter and received testimony
from residents of twenty-seven communities. 110
individuals and organizations submitted written
comments on the matter to the commission.
All written comments, along with a transcript of the
commission's meetings of December 9, January 22,
February 8, and February 11 are part of the record
reviewed by the commission.
The commission filed its report with the Legislature
on February 19 of this year. A copy of the report was
provided to each legislator. The report and a copy of
the correspondence and transcripts have also been
provided to the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief
Clerk of the House.
Again, four of the five current members of the
commission did not participate in the review of the
unorganized borough. However, the currently appointed
members of the commission have had the opportunity to
fully review the February 19 report on the unorganized
borough. The commission met two days age to address
the matter at length.
Chapter 53, SLA 2002 imposed on the commission a duty
only to make a determination as to which unorganized
areas meet borough standards. The law was clear that
the commission's report to the legislature did not
constitute a formal recommendation for incorporation
of boroughs in any areas under Article X, Section 12
of the constitution. As such, the commission's duties
under Chapter 53 have been fulfilled. The commission
will address any future directives by the legislature
regarding in accordance with the law.
Dan Bockhorst, staff to the commission, is prepared to
provide a summary of the commission's review of the
unorganized borough. The summary that he will provide
reflects the current views of the commission.
Mr. Bockhorst will provide you with a summary of the
study and report.
CHAIR WAGONER announced that no public testimony would be taken
that day.
SENATOR KIM ELTON asked where previous members Ardith Lynch and
Myrna Gardner resided.
MR. HARGRAVES replied Ms. Lynch was from Fairbanks and Ms.
Gardner was from Juneau. He added he is the member-at-large and
therefore serves as chair.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked if SB 359 required this to be a
continuing process.
MR. HARGRAVES said it is his understanding this is a one-time
event.
He reported the group was economical and conservative in their
approach and much of the $50,000 appropriated for the report was
not spent.
SENATOR ELTON asked about the process. He noted no one from the
unorganized part of the state was involved and he wondered what
kind of public process the commission went through to bring in
public comment from individuals in the unorganized borough.
MR. HARGRAVES said he would defer to Mr. Bockhorst.
DAN BOCKHORST, staff to the Local Boundary Commission, advised
he prepared a Power Point presentation. [Copy in bill file] The
outline is as follows:
SUMMARY ADDRESS
1. LBC's duty to review the unorganized borough &
study local government boundary problems
2. Key background information about establishment of
boroughs
3. Significant conclusions reached by the LBC
regarding borough establishment
4. Unorganized areas that meet borough incorporation
standards
Part I
· Last year the Legislature passed a law that stated, "The
Local Boundary Commission shall review conditions in the
unorganized borough. ....the commission shall report to the
legislature the areas it has identified that meet the
standards for incorporation."
· "The Local Boundary Commission shall make studies of local
government boundary problems..."
· "Shortcomings in the manner in which the borough concept
has been implemented" were studied by the commission in
2001
· "The commission considers the lack of a strong state policy
promotion the extension of borough government to be the
most pressing 'local government boundary problem' facing
Alaska."
Part II
· Borough government, as a concept for regional service
entity in Alaska was conceived during Alaska's
Constitutional Convention. The session lasted nearly 11
weeks beginning in November 1955 and ending in February
1956.
· The Committee on Local Government met 44 times before
presenting the Local Government Article to the Convention.
· Delegates formally considered the Local Government Article
on January 19, 20 and 30, 1956.
· The minutes show discussion about how the borough concept
would be implemented in Alaska. John Rosswog from Cordova
and Chair of the Committee on Local Government said, "...we
allow for the boroughs remaining unorganized until they are
able to take on their local government functions."
· Delegate Barrie White expressed concern whether the
provisions proposed by the committee didn't offer
incentives for areas to remain unorganized.
· Member Victor Rivers replied the state would create enough
inducements to cause areas to embrace government and
organize voluntarily.
· Member Maynard Londborg from Unalakleet added boroughs
could be organized on a voluntary or mandatory basis, with
voluntary being the best approach.
· Delegate James Hurley from Palmer asked, "Is my idea
correct that no organized borough will become effectuated
without the voice of the people in the area?"
· Secretary Vic Fischer responded, "The answer, I think,
would be 'no'. ...when a certain area reaches a position
where it can support certain services and act in its own
behalf, it should take on the burden of its own
government." He continued, "...we don't actually visualize
that the state will force boroughs to organize, since we
feel that they should be set up on such a basis that there
will be enough inducement for each one to organize."
· Article X was adopted by the convention on January 30,
1956.
· The constitution was ratified by a two to one margin by
voters on April 24, 1956 and took effect January 3, 1959.
· Provisions in the constitution dictated that the
Legislature would establish policy for the institution of
borough government in Alaska.
· Boroughs, organized or unorganized, must be
established throughout Alaska.
· All boroughs, organized or unorganized, must be
established according to standards and procedures
enacted by the legislature.
· The 1961 Legislature set the initial state policy regarding
establishment of boroughs.
· Procedures for incorporation of organized
boroughs by local option were enacted.
· Standards for incorporation of organized boroughs
were enacted.
· Independent school districts formed under
Territorial law, but not sanctioned under
Alaska's constitution, were given two years to be
integrated into boroughs.
· A single unorganized borough was established
encompassing all of Alaska not within organized
boroughs. The amounted to 656,000 square miles.
· Significant evidence indicates state policy makers
anticipated the Borough Act of 1961 would be generally
ineffective in promoting borough formation.
· Representative Jay Hammond said, "Attractive
enough on paper, in practice, the organized
borough concept had little appeal to most
communities. After all, why should they tax
themselves to pay for services received from the
state, gratis?"
· Affairs Agency Director, Roger W. Pegues wrote,
"It was generally believed that the 1963
legislature would adopt a mandatory incorporation
law."
· A later study indicated Alaskans were not
generally induced to voluntary borough
incorporation.
· Then Attorney General John Rader said, "...the
moment [a proposed borough] began to have an
immediate tax equalization feature, the borough
had two chances for success - slim and none."
· Arguments against boroughs in the early 1060s were similar
to those voiced today.
· "School district officials wanted to avoid loss
of autonomy, city residents saw no need for a new
layer of government and taxation, and Alaskans
outside cities and school districts wanted to
preserve their tax-free status."
· As anticipated, the Borough Act of 1961 proved to be
generally ineffective in promoting borough formation.
· In the two years allowed, none of the nine
regions containing independent school districts
had formed boroughs.
· The deadline for integration of independent
school districts into boroughs was just months
away when the 1963 Legislature convened.
· John Rader said, "...the greatest unresolved
political problem on the state was the matter of
boroughs. ...A great opportunity to create
something of value could be lost."
· In 1963, Representative Rader sponsored HB 90
mandating that the nine election districts
encompassing independent school districts must
incorporate boroughs by January 1, 1964.
· HB 90 was amended to exclude one of the nine
areas.
· Ch. 52, SLA, 1963 mandated boroughs in:
Ketchikan, Sitka, Juneau, Kodiak Island,
Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, Mat-Su, and
Fairbanks. Icy Strait/Lynn Canal was
excluded.
· When the Legislature directed the eight areas must
organize, they expressed their intent.
· "It is the intention of the Legislature to
provide for maximum local self-government
with a minimum number of local government
units and tax-levying jurisdictions."
· "...No area incorporated as an organized
borough shall be deprived of state services,
revenues, or assistance or be otherwise
penalized because of incorporation."
· In 1964, the Alaska Supreme Court characterized the
1963 Mandatory Borough Act as a means of accomplishing
a constitutional objective of establishing borough
government.
· John Rader said, "It was only after a series
of repeated failures that in 1963 the State
Legislature finally exercised the authority
which had previously been delegated to
others."
· Despite the proven ineffectiveness of the local option
approach, the state returned to the policy of delegating
borough establishment to local residents after 1963.
· In 44 years of statehood, boroughs have formed
under the local option process in areas
encompassing just 4 percent of Alaskans.
· In contrast, the eight boroughs formed under the
1963 Mandatory Borough Act encompass 83 percent
of Alaskans.
· Incentives to incorporate boroughs were generally
inadequate in the early 1960s.
· Since then, borough incentives have diminished
dramatically.
· The Alaska Municipal League expressed some of the same
concerns the commission has raised.
· The state has failed to continue the evolution of
local government as intended under the Alaska
Constitution.
· Alaska is the only state in the nation that has
voids in terms of regional government.
· "Article X of the constitution also states, 'The
purpose of this article is to provide for maximum
local self government with a minimum of local
government units.' In the Unorganized Borough the
opposite is true. There is currently a minimum of
local self-government with a maximum of local
government units."
· "Adding borough government would not be a new,
expensive layer of government. Local services are
currently provided by the state and a patchwork
of over 400 separate [entities]. Current service
delivery is neither inexpensive or efficient, due
to the lack of coordinated service delivery."
Part III
Significant Conclusions Reached by the Commission Regarding
Establishment of Borough in Alaska
· Fundamental provisions in the constitution remain
unfulfilled
· Lack of standards for establishment of
unorganized boroughs as called for
· Procedures for establishment of unorganized
boroughs have not been enacted
· The single unorganized borough has highly
diverse interests, not common interests as
required in the constitution
· Boroughs promote equity among Alaskans
· Art. 1, Sec. 1 is referred to as the equal
protection clause and should also be the
equal responsibility clause
· Local contributions required of municipal
school districts under AS 14.17.410 reduce
education foundation funding that would
otherwise be paid by the state to boroughs
and home rule & first class cities in the
unorganized borough.
· Reduction of funding conflicts with the 1963
Act
· "...No area incorporated as an
organized borough shall be
deprived of state services,
revenues, or assistance or be
otherwise penalized because of
incorporation."
· The local contribution requirement is, in
effect, a $160 million annual state tax
levied only on organized boroughs and home
rule & first class cities in the unorganized
borough.
· In the absence of standards and procedures
to determine whether unorganized areas have
the capacity to take on responsibility for
their own government, the current disparate
treatment isn't rational.
· Organized boroughs promote maximum local self-
government
· Attorney General, Representative and Senator
John Rader: "...A great opportunity to
create something of value could be lost."
· Legislative intent to provide maximum local
self-government
· The 1974 Alaska Supreme Court reviewed an appeal of a
borough incorporation proposal
· They favored upholding the organization of
boroughs wherever the LBC determined the
standards had been met
· They indicated the constitution encourages the
creation of organized boroughs
· Boroughs promote maximum local self-government
· Provide capacity to supplement funding for
essential services like education (REAAs are
dependent upon the state)
· Establishing an entity with ability to issue
bonds to construct to rebuild regional facilities
such as schools (REAAs have no authority to issue
bonds)
· Creating a government to levy taxes to provide
services not otherwise available (borough
governments are the only regional entity with
taxing power)
· Borough governments have authority to act as a
municipal platting authority (The state is
responsible in the unorganized areas)
· Offers a mechanism to provide alcohol control on
a regional basis (currently available only on a
community basis in the unorganized borough)
· Providing the capacity to participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program (currently
limited in the unorganized borough to areas
within city government boundaries)
Part IV
· Unorganized Areas That Meet Borough Standards:
· Aleutians West, Upper Tanana Basin, Copper
River Basin, Prince William Sound, Glacier
Bay, Chatham, Wrangell-Petersburg
· Standards for Incorporation
· Population Size and Stability: The
seven regions had populations in 2000
ranging from 1,354 to 6,964; each
region exceeded the presumptive minimum
population standard of 1,000; 1980-2000
population trends were reasonably
stable in all regions except Aleutians
West; when adjusted for base closures,
Aleutians West population was
reasonably stable
· Regional Commonalities: Natural
geography; social, cultural & economic
characteristics; transportation
facilities; communications and
exchange; consideration of REAA
boundaries; and presence of multiple
communities
· Economic capacity: Mandatory powers of
boroughs; anticipated borough expenses;
projected borough revenues; ability to
generate income; economic base, land
use, & development; property valuation;
personal income; and prior borough
feasibility studies
· Broad public interest: maximum local
self-government; promoting a minimum of
local government units; and relieving
the state of responsibility for local
services
MR. BOCKHORST concluded the establishment of borough government
is often acrimonious and difficult, but when boroughs have been
established they have proven themselves to be efficient and
effective in delivering service.
CHAIR WAGONER asked if there were any questions.
SENATOR ELTON restated his question regarding the manner of
decision-making. His concern was that people from organized
boroughs made decisions about the Unorganized Borough.
MR. BOCKHORST explained there are five commission members and
statute directs that one member is selected from each of the
four judicial districts while the fifth member is appointed from
the state-at-large. Arguably, each member reflects 20 percent of
Alaskans and the Unorganized Borough represents 13 percent of
the population. The commission encouraged participation and
received considerable written testimony, but in that instance,
no commission member was a resident of the Unorganized Borough.
SENATOR ELTON found it startling that the LBC concluded that, by
not shrinking the Unorganized Borough, the Legislature was
assessing a tax on the organized borough that equated to $160
million for school services. He asked whether the Commission
ever discussed TL874 funds that come from the Unorganized
Borough and flow into the foundation program.
MR. BOCKHORST replied the commission is aware that both the
Unorganized and the Organized Borough receive TL874 money.
SENATOR ELTON asked how much money comes from the Unorganized
Borough into the foundation program.
MR. BOCKHORST said the commission didn't get that information,
but there was information in the report regarding the levels of
TL874 money that flowed from the seven areas.
SENATOR ELTON asked that he be provided with that information.
He found that statement to be inflammatory because he thought
the ability to pay should be evaluated. Several times throughout
the presentation it seemed as though the commission was
comparing the success of borough governments created in the
early 1960s and assuming that same level of success could be
reached in the Unorganized Borough. As the report noted, the
original boroughs encompassed 83 percent of the population and
clearly, that must be a factor in the success of those local
governments.
CHAIR WAGONER said his questions ran in the same vein as Senator
Elton's. He noted the population of one of the models was just
1,354, which seemed rather small to form a successful borough
government.
He asked why there wasn't a record of the October and November
meetings held by the LBC.
MR. BOCKHORST explained the commission adopted a work plan at
the first meeting and he could provide a transcript for that
meeting. The second was a presentation to the Municipal League
and there was no transcript. All the other meetings dealt with
the topic and were transcribed.
SENATOR LINCOLN acknowledged the commission's task was difficult
because of the staff turnover, which was one of her concerns.
Because four of the five commission members were new and the
continuing member wasn't present, she felt it was unlikely that
the new members could answer her questions. She noted much of
the unorganized areas were in her district and many of the model
boroughs were in her district as well. She firmly believes that
when an area is able to meet the qualifications for borough
formation it would step forward. The Denali Borough, the North
Slope Borough and the Haines Borough are examples of that.
Skagway, too, is ready to assume the responsibilities of a
borough, but the LBC did not embrace that decision and she was
interested in the explanation of that judgment.
Her second question was in regard to a letter from previous
commissioners, Nancy (Cannington) Galstad and Kathie Wasserman.
They wrote to suggest the report was flawed because some of the
data that was used was from 1989 and not from 2000 as indicated.
She asked for clarification.
MR. HARGRAVES responded to the second question regarding the
economic capability and population for borough formation saying
the criteria would have to be evaluated separately regardless of
how the petition was presented to the commission. A borough
could be mandated and the commission would apply the standards
at that point so he thought there were a number of ways the
commission would have a say in the new boroughs. The difference
would be how the Legislature approached mandating or requesting
that new boroughs come into existence.
MR. BOCKHORST advised the commission used the latest data
whenever possible and, for the most part, they used year 2000
federal census data, which was released on September 25, 2002.
He was unaware of the allegation that data from 1989 was used,
but he assured her they used the most recent data available in
every instance.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she misspoke; the economic data came from
1986 rather than 1989.
MR. BOCKHORST replied the commission did examine borough
feasibility studies for areas under consideration and some of
the studies might have gone back to 1986.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the data from that time was used.
MR. BOCKHORST said it was not; in every case, the commission
examined year 2000 federal census data. In addition, the
commission reviewed any borough feasibility studies, but didn't
necessarily rely on that data to make the determination.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked what census data was used.
MR. BOCKHORST replied it was employment, personal income,
poverty, and percentage of employment for an area data.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked for a copy of the data that was used.
MR. BOCKHORST agreed and said much of the information could be
found in the report.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he could understand why communities
might not want to become part of a borough, but in terms of
equity, each case needed to be carefully examined. He asked
about combining geographically proximate areas into existing
boroughs rather than creating separate ones. He used the example
of the Aleutians East and West as a possibility.
MR. BOCKHORST said that could happen in a couple of ways. The
existing East Aleutians Borough could annex the unorganized
territory to the west or an Aleutians West borough could be
incorporated and the two boroughs could consolidate. Starting
small with the presumption that consolidation would occur is
difficult to achieve once the status quo is set. The Bristol Bay
borough is the smallest borough in Alaska and is surrounded on
three sides by the Lake and Peninsula Borough, which meets
inside the Bristol Bay Borough. In fact, their administrative
headquarters is in the Bristol Bay Borough, but the two have
resisted efforts to voluntarily consolidate.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS added the school district is also
headquartered in another borough.
CHAIR WAGONER returned to the Skagway decision and asked for
additional explanation.
MR. BOCKHORST stated the Skagway circumstance is quite clear.
There are two levels of government recognized under the Alaska
Constitution: city governments and borough governments. City
governments are community based with constitutional limits on
the size and scope of that type of government. They serve a
community while borough governments serve a region. In the case
of Skagway, an area encompassing a city government wanted to
become a borough government with no expansion or change in the
size of the area in question. They simply applied to change the
City of Skagway to Skagway Borough. Both the department and the
commission find a city government is not the same as a borough
government and the consequences of ratifying the Skagway
petition would be very troublesome. Oftentimes there is interest
in areas within existing boroughs that want to detach and form a
separate borough. Not only is this inconsistent with
constitutional intent it would have many adverse consequences in
terms of detachment and formation of new, small boroughs.
CHAIR WAGONER recalled the borough and city government of
Anchorage merged and a borough government was formed for the
entire area.
MR. BOCKHORST agreed; the city governments of Girdwood,
Anchorage and Glen Alps were dissolved and the Municipality of
Anchorage was formed as a borough government.
CHAIR WAGONER added it was voted on as well.
SENATOR LINCOLN advised she had information from Skagway that
says the footprint is not the same; it was expanded in the
borough petition. She asked for an explanation of the difference
between what Skagway requested to do and Haines successfully
accomplished in 2002.
MR. BOCKHORST assured her the boundaries of the City of Skagway
and the proposed borough were identical. The boundaries of the
Haines Borough were much more expansive and included multiply
communities. Neither the commission nor the department believes
the Haines Borough was ideal in terms of boundaries. Compromises
were made to get voter approval and it actually took four votes
before the voters finally approved incorporation. One of the
evident deficiencies is that Klukwan isn't within the
jurisdiction of the Haines Borough even though it is
geographically positioned within the borough boundaries. It is
part of the Chatham REAA and receives education services from
Angoon on Admiralty Island even though there is a school at
Mosquito Lake several miles away. Both schools are underutilized
but that was one of the compromises.
SENATOR ELTON followed up on the Skagway issue and asked if the
"recipe" is outlined in the constitution.
MR. BOCKHORST explained the constitution provides that boroughs
are intermediate units of government and community units are
city governments. Both the statutes and the constitution are
very general with regard to a "recipe" but the LBC has defined
model boundaries to guide prospective petitioners. Those
guidelines have been adopted in administrative regulations,
which the commission has a duty to adopt under statute for
standards for borough incorporation. Therefore, the model
boundaries identified by the commission are reflective of their
interpretation of the constitution and statutes.
SENATOR ELTON asked if he meant there was a constitutional
prohibition against Skagway forming a borough along the lines of
their application.
MR. BOCKHORST replied the constitution clearly does not intend
for a city government and a borough government to be the same.
Skagway is a city government and they were proposing to become a
borough government with no change in jurisdiction or services.
The proposal was essentially a change in the name, which isn't
consistent with constitutional intent.
SENATOR ELTON said he had difficulty with the explanation
because there is no duplication of local and borough government
because there would be no more local government.
He also questioned the model borough encompassing Petersburg and
Wrangell because those two communities demonstrate dramatically
different types of culture. The economic and socio-demographic
differences are pronounced even though they are geographically
proximate. He could see a battle in the making over where the
borough manager lived. Because of this, he was curious what
difference it makes to the state on whether or not there are two
local governments, or a borough government and two local
governments, or a borough government and no local government.
Given their diversity, he couldn't imagine those two communities
relinquishing their local governments. As cited in the
presentation, it is the intention of the Legislature to provide
for maximum local self-government with a minimum number of local
government units. He couldn't understand how this would be
possible with the Petersburg/Wrangell proposed model borough.
MR. BOCKHORST responded there are three levels of school
districts serving that territory. They are: the Regional
Educational Attendance Area (REAA) that serves outside both
cities, the City of Petersburg school district, and the City of
Wrangell school district. With borough formation, there would be
a single school district serving the territory. The commission
would be willing to entertain another proposal to see whether it
met the standard, but this is what they determined based on
information gained through an extensive review over a period of
years in the early 1990s. He noted there were strong feelings
expressed, but the commission was guided by the idea that
borough governments are more than a large community government.
SENATOR ELTON asked whether anyone from that area came forward
to petition to create a Petersburg/Wrangell borough or was the
idea generated from outside forces.
MR. BOCKHORST acknowledged no petition was filed to incorporate
either a Wrangell borough or a Petersburg borough. A feasibility
study was recently completed that looked at several options for
Petersburg including city annexation and borough incorporation.
He understood there was an unsuccessful effort in Wrangell to
gather signatures to incorporate a Wrangell borough.
SENATOR ELTON stated, "The commission balanced the consolidation
of the school districts against the proliferation of regional
government layered on top of local government."
MR. BOCKHORST agreed; that is one of the factors the commission
applied, but if a petition were filed, there would be more
intensive evaluation and review.
SENATOR ELTON said the adage that says that the best government
is the government that is closest to the people would argue
against formation of a Petersburg/Wrangell borough. He remembers
an argument regarding where the school superintendent would live
if those districts were consolidated. Because of this, there is
another issue in addition to consolidation of school districts.
That is the philosophical issue of how close you want your local
government to be.
MR. BOCKHORST recognized that sentiment and said it was
reflected in the presentation. Pelican has fewer than 20
students and is interested in forming its own borough. There is
a structure for local government established in the constitution
that provides for city and borough governments and there is a
distinction. The commission often struggles with that
circumstance and there definitely are gray areas.
Several years ago the Legislature enacted a provision that set a
tone regarding efficiency, economy of scale and the creation of
school districts. Lacking compelling reasons, there wouldn't be
any more school districts created with fewer than 250 students.
Currently, about 35 percent of the school districts in the
Unorganized Borough are below that threshold. Ultimately, the
commission respectfully recognizes it is the Legislature's task
to set the policy for organization of boroughs.
SENATOR LINCOLN admitted she had a roster of questions. In
particular, she was baffled that a community that wanted to form
a borough was denied because the commission determined their
footprint was the same as the proposed borough. She returned to
the letter from the former boundary commissioners that stated
Skagway should be a borough because it meets the standards.
She assured the commissioners she meant no disrespect, in fact
she applauded them for taking the time to serve. However, she
felt the system was flawed due to the requirements placed on the
commissioners, the turnover rate for commissioners, and because
there were just two DCED staff members to do so much work. The
two previous commissioners voiced the same concerns in their
"Statement of Views" letter.
She asked commission members to keep an open mind, review the
model borough requirements, and determine ways to help
communities that want to become a borough as well as those that
say they are unable to do so. She advised her interpretation
regarding mandated boroughs throughout the state is different
than the presentation. She interprets the language to mean there
will be both organized and unorganized boroughs. It is
legitimate that unorganized areas remain that way if they are
unable to support a borough.
MR. HARGRAVES expressed opposition to changing the requirements
placed on the commission. He said he has served on the
commission before and changing the requirements would enhance
the potential for commissioners to become politicized. Having
served under governors of both parties, he advised he would not
serve on the commission if it were to become politicized. The
prohibition against ex-parte contact is a protection, not a
hindrance.
SENATOR LINCOLN stated that was not the intent.
SENATOR ELTON advised he had a 3:00 pm meeting and requested he
be provided with information from DCED regarding the anomaly in
the Haines Borough in which Klukwan was part of the Chatham REAA
rather than the Haines School District. If the net result is
supposed to be efficiency in government, that appears to be an
inefficiency that was allowed to persist while efficiencies are
sought in Petersburg and Wrangell.
MR. BOCKHORST advised he would be happy to follow up on those
issues and give a response.
SENATOR LINCOLN thanked the commission and staff for dedicating
their time and efforts.
CHAIR WAGONER acknowledged sitting on boards and commissions is
sometimes difficult but necessary for government to operate.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Wagoner adjourned the meeting at 3:15 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|