Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/01/2002 03:52 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 296-MUNICIPAL MERGER AND CONSOLIDATION
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR informed members that a committee substitute (CS)
had been prepared.
SENATOR COWDERY moved to adopt the Senate Judiciary committee
substitute (labeled Cook 5/1/02) in lieu of the original bill.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR announced that without objection, the CS was
adopted. He then took teleconference testimony.
MR. STEVE SCHWEPPE, testifying from Ketchikan, said he submitted
a written statement to the committee.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR acknowledged receipt and distribution of that
testimony and thanked Mr. Schweppe for his efforts. Mr. Schweppe
had no further comments to add and committee members had no
questions, so Chairman Taylor continued taking public testimony.
MR. KEVIN WARING, Local Boundary Commission (LBC), informed
members he submitted written testimony. He then went on to say
the LBC supports Section 1 of HB 296, which fixes an omission in
existing law. However, the LBC is opposed to Sections 2 and 3,
which would change the manner in which votes are counted in
consolidation elections for boroughs and cities. The current law
provides that consolidation proposals be approved by a simple
majority of the voters in the area that would be consolidated.
The proposed change would require separate approvals by a
majority of voters in each city to be consolidated and by a
majority of the voters in the borough area outside affected
cities. In the LBC's view, the present procedure basically
provides for one person, one vote, and majority rule, which fits
with the Alaska Constitution and legislative policy for the last
30 years. The proposed language would allow a minority of
residents to veto a consolidation proposal as installing a
weighted vote. He repeated the LBC is opposed to Sections 2 and
3.
MR. WARING said he would like to clarify what might be a drafting
error in the bill. Section 2 adds a new section to AS 29.06.100.
That section in law now deals with the content of consolidation
petitions. The proposed new section requires the petition to
include guidelines in the petition for how the outcome of
consolidation elections is decided. The LBC suggests that this
amendment to election procedures might be more appropriately
placed in AS 29.06.140, the section of statute that deals with
consolidation elections and election procedures. He noted the LBC
has statutory powers to amend petitions. If the committee decides
to include the changes in Sections 2 and 3 of HB 296, the LBC
believes a relocation of Section 2 would clarify legislative
intent and prevent any possible confusion.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thanked Mr. Waring and called Mr. Bourcy to
testify.
MAYOR TIM BOURCY, City of Skagway, informed members the City of
Skagway has a borough petition before the LBC at this time. The
City of Skagway is in support of HB 296 but is concerned that the
bill does not address annexation issues.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR informed Mayor Bourcy that a sentence was added
in the Senate Judiciary CS that provides for the same application
on annexation.
MR. BOURCY thanked the committee and said he would support that.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR read that sentence on page 2, line 26, as
follows, "This subsection is to be consistent with the voting
requirements for annexation specified in AS 29.06.040," and asked
Representative Whitaker to address the CS.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER, sponsor of HB 296, said he is in support
of the CS and hopes the committee does what it thinks is best.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Blasco if the CS needs to have a (1)
placed at the end of line 27, page 2.
MR. ROBERT BLASCO, attorney, replied, "Yes, Senator Taylor, if
that's possible. There are different sections to that portion of
Title 29 and the one that references the concerns that we've
raised as to annexation is actually Section 1."
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR moved Amendment 1, to add a parenthetical 1 after
".040" on page 2, line 27. There being no objection, the motion
carried.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted Amendment 1 should have read (c)(1).
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed and moved Amendment 2, to insert (c) after
".040" and prior to (1). There being no objection, Amendment 2
was adopted.
SENATOR COWDERY moved SCS CSHB 296(JUD) as amended from committee
with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR noted that without objection, SCS CSHB 296(JUD)
and its accompanying fiscal note moved from committee. The
committee then took up HB 52.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|