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