Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/17/1994 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 18 An Act relating to police protection service areas in municipalities. HB 18 was HELD in Committee for further discussion. HOUSE BILL 18 "An Act relating to police protection service areas in municipalities." REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE explained that the bill would authorize residents within a borough or municipality to petition for the formation of a service area with defined boundaries, for the purpose of police protection. Police services would be provided by the Department of Public Safety. Property owners within service areas would be assessed for the contract amount by their local governments, who would in turn reimburse the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He added, the possibilities for police protection service areas within boroughs under HB 18 are practically limitless. Residents in any geographical location within a borough could petition for a service area, and if the majority of residents within the area voted favorably on the measure, they would get the police service. Representative Bunde continued, residents of boroughs that already provide police protection on an area-wide basis could presumably take advantage of the opportunity created by the bill, on the grounds that they want more or less police protection than the borough is providing. Most residents of municipalities and boroughs that are currently without a local police department are currently serviced by the State Troopers at no cost to the residents. There is always the possibility that enactment of HB 18 would create 3 an incentive for the DPS to hasten the process of withdrawing from areas without local police service that have property tax resources. That is, in response to budgetary belt-tightening, the Department might reduce services to areas with property tax resources with the expectation of obtaining a reimbursement contract with a new service area. Many communities will probably want to compare the costs and benefits of forming a local police force with that of trooper service through a service area. HB 18 would give DPS the opportunity to shift the cost of services it now provides from its general fund appropriation to the beneficiaries of its services. If that were to happen, more service areas might be formed that would otherwise be the case. Representative Bunde added, the fiscal note that accompanies the packet is highly questionable. The Department of Public Safety has ignored the statewide ramifications of the legislation, and has chosen to direct the fiscal note at only the Hillside area in Anchorage. There would be less than 10,000 residents in that area effected by the legislation although Girdwood currently has a trooper both patrolling and living in the area. The Department would assume a level of service that has not been requested in any agency. The Department would be unable to statistically support the number of additional personnel they would deem necessary to accommodate the fiscal note. Discussion followed amongst the Committee members regarding options of residents of specific areas and those increased costs associated with the services which would be made available through the legislation. (Tape Change, HFC 94-4, Side 2). C.E. SWACKHAMMER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, advised that the Department of Public Safety would not support the proposed legislation. HB 18 would allow residents of a municipality to form a police protection service area in which the Department would provide a specified level of police protection funded by assessments upon the residents. He added, it has been the position of the Governor and the Commissioner of Public Safety to withdraw Troopers from urban areas which are authorized to provide police protection on their own, and then concentrate the Department's resources in rural and unorganized areas of the State. The proposed legislation would run counter to that position, allowing residents of organized municipalities to require police protection from Troopers. The areas forming 4 service areas would have a contractual right to a certain level of service from Troopers that rural citizens would not share. Many rural communities have never had a local Trooper, and other communities have lost the Trooper Posts as budget cuts have forced the Department to reduce services. The Department is concerned by potential problems raised by HB 18: 1. The process for establishing a service district, including the requirements that such contracts may impose on the Department to hire employees by passes the Legislature; 2. The bill would not provide any information on what happens if the assessment accepted by the voters is insufficient to fund the level of service contracted; 3. There would be a loss of local control over police protection as there would be no local setting of policies, and no enforcement of local ordinances; 4. The Department could experience a highly variable demand for Troopers as municipalities adopt and reject service areas, requiring hiring and training efforts in some years and layoffs in others; 5. Individual Troopers could find that employment with the Department was less predictable, less stable, and therefore less desirable due to the uncertainty that any given service area contract would be extended; 6. Because of the long lag time in selecting, hiring, and training Troopers, adoption of service area contracts could mean reduced services to the rest of citizens served by the Department. Deputy Commissioner Swackhammer continued, the Task Force on Governmental Roles, formed under SCS CS HCR 17 (CRA) by the 17th Legislature examined the functions of state, federal and local governments and made recommendations as to the appropriate roles and relationships of the different levels of government with respect to several governmental functions. The Task Force was composed of House and Senate members, representatives of the executive branch, representatives from the Municipal League, and a representative from the unorganized borough. In their final report the Task Force made the following recommendation: 5 "....To encourage and facilitate the implementation of police protection and to generate economies of scale, the Task force advocates a change in Title 29 to permit assemblies of unified municipalities and home rule boroughs to establish service areas for police protection, not withstanding charger provisions that place restrictions on the service area formation process. Authority to form service areas for police protection should also be given to general law boroughs. This would resolve the Hillside problem and prevent similar situations in other municipalities....." The Department accepts the approach recommended by the Task Force as better public policy, which would avoid several of the potential problems raised by HB 18. Mr. Swackhammer reiterated that the Department opposes the proposed legislation. HB 18 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|