Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/02/1995 03:36 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSTA - 3/2/95
SB 80 MUNICIPAL POLICE SERVICES
CHAIRMAN SHARP calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
3:36 p.m. and brings up SB 80 as the first order of business before
the committee. The chairman calls the first witness.
Number 020
SENATOR RIEGER, prime sponsor of SB 80, reads the sponsor statement
on SB 80 to the committee.
Number 065
TIM ROGERS, Executive Assistant, Anchorage Mayor's Office,
testifying from Anchorage, informs the committee that the mayor and
his administration are adamantly opposed to SB 80. Mr. Rogers
lists reasons for opposing the bill. One of the reasons for
opposition is SB 80 would ensure that municipal laws will continue
to be unenforceable in special areas of the city. Mr. Rogers does
not believe SB 80 is in the best interest of Anchorage or Alaska.
Number 115
JUDY MORELEIN, Home and Landowners Organization (HALO), testifying
from Anchorage, explains the area encompassed by HALO and
introduces the next four witnesses.
Number 135
BOB BELL, Assemblyman from south Anchorage, testifying from
Anchorage, does not agree with Mr. Rogers' description of the
Hillside as a privileged area. Anchorage was organized under a
service-area concept. The concept is that each of the service
areas that agree to become part of the Municipality of Anchorage,
vote on the services to be provided to them. The Hillside area
includes approximately 35% of the assessed valuation in Anchorage.
Hillside residents feel their area is a rural environment, while
the Anchorage Police Department is an urban department; so Hillside
residents feel they would be better served by Alaska State
Troopers.
Number 200
PAUL LANCE, Member, Potter Creek Homeowners' Board, testifying from
Anchorage, also thinks the Anchorage Police Department is
overpriced, but the state troopers are not. Mr. Lance does not
thing the Hillside would get it's moneys worth from the Anchorage
Police Department.
Number 230
BARBARA WEINIG, Member, Board of Directors of Rabbit Creek
Community Council and HALO, testifying from Anchorage, informs the
committee that a survey done on the cost of Alaska State Trooper
coverage in the Hillside area for a two-month period in 1993 was
$4,200. Hillside residents were told that even if they elected
coverage by the Anchorage Police Department, there would not be
very much coverage of the Hillside area because the crime rate
there was so low. Ms. Weinig asserts there would be no Anchorage
Police Department Officers to serve the Hillside at this time,
because it takes two years to train officers. But she believes
there are currently troopers available who could serve the Hillside
area. Ms. Weinig also believes SB 80 will benefit other areas of
the state, such as Healy, Kodiak, and the North Star Borough.
Number 284
DICK WEINIG, testifying from Anchorage, states he strongly supports
SB 80, and asserts it is not just a bill for the Hillside area, but
is a statewide bill. It would offer self-determination to
communities across the state. Mr. Weinig repeats statements made
by Ms. Weinig, Mr. Lance, and Mr. Bell regarding the cost of
Anchorage Municipal Police versus the cost of Alaska State Trooper
coverage, and the Hillside area being a rural. He also addresses
non-enforcement of municipal laws by state troopers, and thinks
that would not be a problem. Mr. Weinig thinks the Hillside is
paying its' fair share already.
Number 365
PAT ABNEY, Assembly Member, testifying from Anchorage, states she
concurs with previous testimony, and thinks SB 80 is a good bill.
She thinks SB 80 would serve the people as they wish to be served
and urges support of the bill.
Number 375
JUDY MORELEIN, testifying from Anchorage, also thinks the Hillside
Area is paying its' fair share, and does not think divisiveness is
an issue that should be continuously thrown into the argument.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks if there is a position paper from the
Department of Public Safety.
Number 405
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety (DPS),
states the administration is neutral on SB 80. The governor does
not support SB 80; the governor has no position on the bill. There
is no particular action required of DPS by SB 80 at this time,
which is why there is a zero fiscal note. The department sees SB
80 as enabling legislation. Mr. Smith informs the committee that
hiring, training, and placing troopers on the street can take up to
eighteen months. So if there is a short time frame between when a
vote occurs and when the department is required to provide service
to an area, troopers would have to be withdrawn from other areas in
the state. Mr. Smith asks that consideration be given to allowing
build-up time for beginning service. Mr. Smith also asks for
consideration of more wind-down time than 120 days if an area
decides it no longer wants service. The department would need more
time than that to absorb personnel through attrition throughout the
state. He suggests approximately one year, because there are union
considerations, bargaining unit agreements, and redistribution of
personnel which must be taken into consideration.
Number 435
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if the troopers are currently providing service
to that area.
MR. DELL responds troopers are providing emergency service to the
Hillside area, but there are no routine patrols.
Number 440
SENATOR LEMAN asks if contracting with someone other than the
troopers would be possible. Could the Hillside area contract with
a private organization?
Number 445
MR. DELL is not sure if he has an adequate answer to that question,
but he has heard of some areas in California that contract for
security. He states a private person can make arrests. Mr. Dell
thinks there would probably be some problems with doing that, but
is not sure they would be insurmountable.
Number 450
SENATOR LEMAN wonders if private contracting would meet the need
without creating an ongoing obligation of the State of Alaska.
MR. DELL reiterates the administration's neutrality, but says if
the department is directed to contract trooper services, they would
do so.
Number 464
SENATOR DUNCAN notes some of the previous testimony stated there
were troopers available, and asks Mr. Dell to clarify whether DPS
would have to train additional troopers.
MR. DELL responds DPS does not have extra troopers. It would take
14 to 18 months to recruit, screen, train, and place troopers on
the streets if Hillside elected trooper coverage. If the
department is required to place troopers in the Hillside area in 60
days or 90 days, those troopers will be pulled from other places
around the state.
Number 475
SENATOR DUNCAN asks what the time frame in SB 80 is for beginning
trooper services.
MR. DELL replies he does not see a time frame in SB 80. He is
concerned there is not a specific time frame in the legislation.
Mr. Dell restates it will take 14 to 18 months before the
department would have troopers available to the Hillside area.
SENATOR DUNCAN comments the alternative would be for some other
area of the state to lose trooper service.
MR. DELL responds that is correct.
Number 489
SENATOR DUNCAN asks Senator Rieger what time frame the bill
addresses, or if there is another way to handle the time frame
issue.
SENATOR RIEGER replies he sees two ways the issue could be
addressed: one, lengthen the time frames in the bill for both the
wind-up and wind-down time; or two, the level of service could be
implemented in stages. Senator Rieger states he would be happy to
address the problem so that SB 80 is not a detriment to any other
area of the state.
CHAIRMAN SHARP adds he does not see any restrictions in SB 80 which
would preclude the commissioner of DPS from deciding when the
department would be able to begin providing services.
Number 514
SENATOR DUNCAN asks how subsection (e) would affect the time frame.
SENATOR RIEGER responds subsection (e) applies to the payments, not
to deployment of personnel. If there is concern over deployment of
personnel, that should be addressed before SB 80 reaches the floor.
Number 522
SENATOR LEMAN makes a motion to discharge SB 80 from the Senate
State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN SHARP notes, contrary to some testimony, SB 80 will only
apply to unified municipalities; it would not be applicable to the
North Star Borough, the Denali Borough, or any other place. The
only places where the bill would be applicable would be Juneau and
Anchorage.
CHAIRMAN SHARP, hearing no objection, orders SB 80 released from
committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|