Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
03/14/2024 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB345 | |
HB347 | |
HB151 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 345 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 151-FORMATION OF BOROUGHS 9:14:48 AM CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act relating to proposals for borough incorporation submitted to the legislature by the Local Boundary Commission." 9:15:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, prime sponsor, presented HB 151. He paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Unfortunately, and hopefully through simply oversight, the public process and the "Will of the people" failed to be included in a 2005 piece of legislation that became codified in 2006. ( AS 29.05.115.) HB 151 simply corrects the deficiency by requiring that a full public process be carried out before the legislature receives a proposal from the Local Boundary Commission under Title X, Section 12 of the Constitution. As laid out in Article I, Section 12 if the legislature receives a proposal by the Local Boundary Commission, there are only two options. First, the legislature may reject the proposal with a majority in the House and the Senate. Second, the legislature can choose to take no action, in which case the proposal remains law. Under this method of forming government the LBC without any legislative public hearings, establish a new Borough unless rejected by the legislature. It is extremely important under present law that the legislature know the "Will of the people" contained in any proposal submitted. Presently the LBC is required to hold two public hearings in the area being proposed and under no obligation to follow the opinions of those giving testimony at the hearings. HB 151 ensures the legislature will know the level of public support before making any decision concerning a proposed Borough. 9:16:53 AM DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor of HB 151, presented the sectional analysis [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1: Adds new language to existing statute AS 29.05.115 (a) Ensures that before the Legislature takes action on incorporation of a Borough, they will know that voting age residents within the area support it. MR. STANCLIFF expounded on the Alaska Constitution and emphasized that the legislature is within its rights as an elected body to determine how the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) would act and conduct its procedures. CHAIR MCCORMICK sought questions from committee members. 9:21:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked how to best determine that a majority of residents of voting age within the area support the proposal. He opined that a public hearing may not be the best method. REPRESENTATIVE CRONK deferred to Mr. Stancliff. MR. STANCLIFF explained that the LBC can hold two hearings and is under no obligation to take directive from the opinions provided by testifiers. 9:25:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT pointed out that the second way to form a borough the local option - is through signature gathering. She asked whether this option is suggested in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE CRONK deferred to Mr. Stancliff. MR. STANCLIFF gave further historical context. He explained that the committee's options would be to return to the public process or stick with the language that requires a majority. The language could be made more "open," he said, to avoid a "precise number." He acknowledged that the process could be a lot more public than it is now. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT sought to confirm that per [AS 29.05.115 subsection] (b), the LBC should not initiate the action of forming a borough. She asked what would cause [subsection] (a) to occur. MR. STANCLIFF recounted an attempt to force a borough where it was not wanted. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked whether it would be an "insane idea" to remove [subsection] (a) all together. MR. STANCLIFF explained that if subsection (a) were removed entirely, nothing would change, so the LBC would not be required to involve the public in the creation of a borough aside from two public hearings. REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT clarified that if subsection (a) were removed, the local option would remain intact. MR. STANCLIFF shared his belief that the bill sponsor would be open to that idea. He emphasized that the goal was to involve the public as much as possible. 9:33:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE described the formation of a local improvement district (LID). Similarly, he shared his understanding that the LBC would have to determine how they know that the majority of voting age citizens support the proposal. REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asserted that the legislature is responsible for determining the role of boards and commissions. In response to Representative Ruffridge's previous question, he said if it were up to him, a majority would be determined by a vote of the people. 9:37:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE MEARS sought to confirm that the current public process involves two required public meetings of the LBC and any public legislative hearings. MR. STANCLIFF said that is partially correct. If the LBC receives a request from a government entity or anyone to form a borough, two public hearings are held, and the commission alone makes the decision by a vote of all five members. The LBC is then required to submit the request to the legislature. Unless the legislature votes down the proposal by a majority in both bodies, the request becomes law. REPRESENTATIVE MEARS expressed concern that obtaining "a majority of residents of voting age" would create a very high bar in terms of participation. MR. STANCLIFF said maybe someone on the committee could come up with a better way to assess the community's preference. He suggested that the list of permanent fund dividend (PFD) applicants could be polled. 9:42:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE spoke to the difficulty of determining the will of a people group and advocated for a multi-faceted approach that includes an educational component. He opined that currently, there is no way to determine whether the process was done "rightly and well." MR. STANCLIFF made reference to a commissioner who is politically active. He agreed that the process should be long, detailed, and unrushed, and that the members should be unbiased, adding that the legislature may find a biased, five-member board with constitutional authority very difficult to deal with. 9:46:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he could see where this particular law needs some "massaging" to ensure that the board is not politically motivated. He opined that control should be given to the citizens. REPRESENTATIVE CRONK emphasized that the voice of the people should be prioritized. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified that his point was that the LBC knows how survey the will of the people instinctively. He added that the bill would just put that sentiment "in words on a piece of paper." MR. STANCLIFF reflected on the actions of a recent LBC meeting. 9:53:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT recalled a similar scenario in which the state Board of Education took action without prior notice on a consequential matter. She requested an explanation of the local option process and whether certain aspects pertaining to citizen input could be replicated in the bill. 9:55:15 AM SANDRA MOLLER, Director, Division of Community and Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), described the local option process, which involves a vote of the people in the affected areas through the Division of Elections (DOE). 9:57:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT shared her understanding that the local option involves an election and asked whether a similar election could be implemented in HB 151. MS. MOLLER answered yes, a similar process would be acceptable. 9:59:41 AM CHAIR MCCORMICK announced that HB 151 would be held over.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB151 Sect. 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
HB151 Sponsor Statement 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
HB151 Version B 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
HB 345 Ketchikan Harbor Board Stories in the News 5.11.21 - 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 345 Fishermen's News 9.1.23 - 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 345 Northern Harbors and Small Ports 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 345 Sectional Analysis 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 345 Sponsor Statement 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 345 State AK Epidemiology bulleting drowning 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB0345A.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 151 Fiscal Note 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
HB 345 Fiscal Note 1 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
CSHB347.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
HB 347 Fiscal Note 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
HB 347 Public Testimony 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
HB 347 Sectional Analysis (CR&A) 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
HB 347 Sponsor Statement (CR&A) 3.12.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
HB0347A.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 347 |
HB 345 Supporting Document #1 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |
HB 345 Written Testimony 3.14.24.pdf |
HCRA 3/14/2024 8:00:00 AM |
HB 345 |