Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/03/1993 10:00 AM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 18: FEES FOR POLICE PROTECTION BY STATE CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take up HB 18 first. Number 021 REP. CON BUNDE, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 18, stated that HB 18 provided a mechanism for local communities without police protection or without a desired level of police protection to form service areas and obtain the desired level of police protection. Under HB 18, the service areas would be provided with a cost estimate by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The residents of a certain area would then vote to accept the costs before a service area was formed. At that point, DPS would begin providing services, and residents of the service area would be assessed fees. REP. BUNDE stressed that residents of a service area would determine the level of police protection provided to them. He stated his intention that all areas of the state have access to a certain level of police protection, or have the ability to augment existing services. He expressed his opinion that the fiscal note provided by DPS was inaccurate, because it was too early to determine the size and magnitude of the service areas residents would want. He also noted the pressing need for HB 18 because of anticipated budget cuts at DPS, including a 39% reduction of force in the Anchorage state troopers post. Number 151 COMMISSIONER RICHARD BURTON, from DPS, joined the committee to testify in opposition to HB 18. He stated that the fiscal note provided by his department was accurate, based on estimates for a force provided on the Anchorage Hillside. He stated that DPS was not providing an adequate level of service for the Hillside, as well as other areas of Alaska, but commented that HB 18 was not the solution in the administration's point of view. He stated that it was bad public policy for a portion of a home-rule, first-class municipality like Anchorage to refuse to pay for local service, but to try and compel the state to provide trooper service at a lower cost. He also noted two flaws in the bill, the first allowing residents in an area already with police service the opportunity to contract for state trooper service, the second being the ambiguity of language involving the level of service determinations. Number 258 REP. JEANNETTE JAMES asked if HB 18 might also be used to provide state trooper protection for the Healy area in the Denali Borough. Number 266 COMMISSIONER BURTON stated that Healy was an unincorporated area, with no structured government. He asked rhetorically who would sign the checks, collect the fees and assess the contract level in such an area. REP. JAMES asked if HB 18 might open the door to providing such service in the future. (CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the arrival of Rep. Kott and Rep. Davidson at 10:22 a.m.) COMMISSIONER BURTON stated that under the Alaska Constitution, the legislature could sit as an assembly for unincorporated boroughs, which he stated that the body ought to do, in his opinion. Number 296 REP. DAVIDSON asked if HB 18 was an attempt to allow Hillside residents to continue to receive police protection from DPS for free. Number 307 COMMISSIONER BURTON stated that he could not say that. He noted that the state could do the work cheaper than the City of Anchorage had estimated that an expansion in service would cost. (CHAIRMAN PORTER noted the arrival of Rep. Nordlund at 10:24 a.m.) Number 314 REP. DAVIDSON asked if a Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) styled program might be an option for areas like the Anchorage Hillside. Number 323 COMMISSIONER BURTON stated that the VPSO program would not apply to such an area. Besides that, in an unincorporated area, the barriers to collecting money for the service would still exist. Number 330 REP. PHILLIPS asked for a brief history of the Hillside police dispute for those who did not live in the Anchorage area. Number 338 COMMISSIONER BURTON outlined the history of the three areas within the state with unified governments (combined municipality and borough), and noted that some had claimed the right in their charters to establish police service unilaterally, and then assess taxes. In the case of Anchorage, when the governments were combined, no such claim was made to establish police services and assess taxes, and that it has never been done since. Number 374 CHAIRMAN PORTER, a former police chief in Anchorage, further explained that when the City of Anchorage and the borough combined, the city provided services within the city limits that were not provided in certain areas of the borough. He explained that the charter was written so that some areas were to be set aside as separate service areas and that the city could provide service if the entire municipality voted to do so, and if the service area agreed. He noted that the issue of police service in the Hillside and Girdwood service areas had gone to the voters at least three or four times, and had passed the borough, but not the service areas. Now, he said, the latest sales tax provision would provide for police service districts outside the Hillside, which meant that for Hillside residents to benefit from the area wide tax, they would have to vote in favor of the police service. Number 415 REP. DAVIDSON asked why the municipality always voted in favor of police service but the Hillside did not. Number 424 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that one reason was the "home-car" program, in which Anchorage Police Department (APD) officers were allowed to take patrol vehicles home, and that the Hillside benefited because many APD officers lived there. Number 450 REP. PHILLIPS stated that in her experience with municipal governments, she had noticed that when a referendum was taken on an issue involving permission, it usually passed easily, but when money was on the line, it did not. Number 459 COMMISSIONER BURTON had a final comment. He noted that DPS at one time had eleven patrol contracts in a number of Alaska cities, and that the arrangement proved to be inoperable. He stated that under this arrangement, troopers were being called before local authorities and told they were not expected to enforce certain laws against certain residents. He stated that DPS simply could not serve two masters. Number 492 REP. DAVIDSON stated that it appeared to him that HB 18 was addressing a local problem that should be addressed locally. He said that with the budget difficulty facing DPS, he could not support HB 18. Number 504 REP. JOHN DAVIES joined the committee to oppose HB 18. He said that HB 18 appeared to be unconstitutional under Article Ten, Section Eight of the Alaska Constitution, because that article prohibited the establishment of a service area if the area in question could have service provided through the annexation of an existing service area, or incorporation into a city. Number 521 REP. BUNDE rejoined the committee to clarify some points. He noted that HB 18 did not address just the Hillside, but that Healy, Wasilla, Juneau and other areas had similar problems. He noted that Girdwood was part of the Municipality of Anchorage, and had adopted only the services it wanted. Consequently, the area did not pay for many municipal services, including police services. Number 587 REP. DAVIDSON asked about the apparent constitutionality issue raised by Rep. Davies, and why a similar contract offer could not be made to the municipality. REP. BUNDE stated that HB 18 would provide residents with the greatest possible latitude to contract with whomever they wanted. He cited an Alaska Municipal League (AML) study on government roles. He explained the AML's support of a change to Title 29 to allow such contracts, and said that he did not see a problem in making such a change. Number 625 REP. DAVIDSON asked if a statute change was needed for the Hillside to contract with the municipality. REP. BUNDE stated that it would not be needed. REP. PHILLIPS concurred. Number 632 REP. DAVIDSON moved to hold HB 18 in committee in order to determine if there was a need from other areas in the state. REP. PHILLIPS objected. THE MOTION TO TABLE HB 18 failed by a 4-3 vote with Reps. Davidson, Nordlund and Porter voting to table and Reps. Phillips, Kott, Green and James voting not to table. Number 647 REP. PHILLIPS moved passage of HB 18 from the committee. HOUSE BILL 18 was PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE by a 4-3 vote with Reps. Green, Kott, Phillips and James voting yes and Reps. Davidson, Nordlund and Porter voting no.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|