Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 106
04/02/2005 10:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB133 | |
| HB238 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 191 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 133-LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION REGS & POWERS 10:06:08 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to regulations of the Local Boundary Commission to provide standards and procedures for municipal incorporation, reclassification, dissolution, and certain municipal boundary changes; and providing for an effective date." 10:06:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS thanked the chair and vice chair of the boundary commission for their helpfulness and e-mail correspondence [included in the committee packet]. 10:06:48 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for the sponsor substitute (SS) for HB 133, Version 24-LS0512\F, as a work draft. No objection was stated and Version F was before the committee. 10:07:42 AM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Staff to Representative John Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 133 on behalf of Representative Coghill, sponsor. She said that under state law, in order for an area to be annexed, it has to be approved by a majority of the people who vote in the area that's being annexed. She stated, "This aggregate regulation undermines that intention. What it says is that the people within the existing borough and the people who live in an area to be annexed would all vote on the annexation .... All of the votes would be pulled together, and if a majority of that aggregate vote approves, then the area's annexed." She said Representative Coghill feels strongly that that's not legislative intent, nor is it the intent of the Alaska State Constitution. She added, "This piece of legislation says that regulations that are adopted by the local boundary commission have to be consistent with state statute. The commission has, in the past, said that they felt that the constitution gave them separate authority from the legislature to do as they want, but that is not Representative Coghill's contention." 10:09:24 AM MS. MOSS said that, at the request of the speaker [of the House], Section 1 was added during the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting, regarding the limitations of the local boundary commission. Ms. Moss said the constitution allows [the boundary commission] to consider petitions, but does not give it authority to amend a petition or impose additional conditions on the incorporation. She said Section 2 was added to the sponsor substitute, which specifies that, even if the local boundary commission wants to bring a proposal for incorporation to the legislature, there still has to be two public hearings and an election of the people. 10:11:05 AM MS. MOSS noted that Representative Coghill has recommended an amendment [to be labeled Amendment 1] for the committee to consider, which would bring annexation in line with how service areas are formed. When a service area is altered, there is an election of the people in the service area and, separately, the people in the proposed annexed area hold an election. Both elections require a majority vote of the people. This serves two purposes: it allows people in an area to be annexed to voice whether or not they want to be in a new municipality, and it also avoids what could be termed as a hostile takeover. She offered an example. 10:12:38 AM CHAIR SEATON directed attention to [lines 11-12 as numbered on Amendment 1], which read: (1) a proposed annexation must be approved by a majority of votes on the question cast by voters residing in the annexing municipality; CHAIR SEATON said that is the language that establishes a separate vote for the municipality, and he asked where the language was regarding the proposed vote in the area being annexed. 10:13:15 AM MS. MOSS replied that that language [is now found in paragraph (2)], which read as follows: (2) a proposed annexation or [AND] detachment must be approved by a majority of votes on the question cast by voters residing in the area proposed to be annexed or detached; 10:14:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS asked if [HB 133] deals only with annexation, not unification or consolidation. 10:14:29 AM MS. MOSS answered affirmatively. 10:15:51 AM MIKE BLACK, Director, Division of Community Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development, testified on behalf of the department in opposition to HB 133. He stated that the proposed legislation would encumber [the Local Boundary Commission's] ability to perform under its job description in the constitution and regulations. In response to Chair Seaton, he said he has no response to Amendment 1. 10:16:59 AM JACK COGHILL testified as a former Representative in the Alaska Territorial Legislature, Senator in the Alaska State Legislature, and lieutenant governor of Alaska. He reminded the committee that he was also a member of the Alaska Constitutional Convention, as well as the chair of the committee that ran the convention. He said his position is that the first Article in the constitution is clear: all government originates with the people and is instituted solely upon the people as a whole. He said the legislature is the defender of the constitution to ensure that government structure does not override the will of the people. The government structure has to have a legislative approval or vote of the people in order to be able to establish people within a government unit. 10:19:13 AM MR. COGHILL directed attention to Section 12, Article 10 of the Alaska State Constitution, which says the commission or boards subject to law may establish procedures whereby boundaries may be adjusted by local action. He stated, "It's the local action that refers back to Article 1 of the constitution, which establishes under Section 2 that all government is created by the people, and by the people solely." He explained that, on that basis, he has lobbied for many years with the legislature and now with his son [Representative John Coghill] to ensure that this provision gets established within the state government's procedure to allow the people that are going to be annexed to have the vote. 10:20:15 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS thanked Lieutenant Governor Jack Coghill for testifying, and congratulated him on his upcoming award as "Man of the Year." 10:20:47 AM CHAIR SEATON expressed his appreciation of Lieutenant Governor Jack Coghill's past service. 10:20:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the copy of the constitution that he carries around with him has one autograph on the front. He added, "And I'm going to not have to tell you whose autograph that was." 10:21:49 AM MR. COGHILL responded, "Time tells that this document that we have is a good document; it's a breathing document and it lives everyday." He noted that there are only five [participants in the Alaska Constitutional Convention] still living, and 2005 marks the convention's 50th anniversary. CHAIR SEATON asked Lieutenant Governor Jack Coghill if Section 1 of HB 133 would have been acceptable to those in the constitutional convention. MR. COGHILL answered affirmatively. 10:24:03 PETE ROBERTS, President, Citizens Concerned About Annexation, told the committee that he was "intensely involved with the hostile annexation in Homer." Regarding HB 133, he said he thinks the bill is a very good change; it goes a long way to take out the anti-constitutional bias by the LBC that has existed for years. Mr. Roberts said, "They cram down annexations in surrounding areas to cities, they claim that the state constitution has a preference for cities and a bias against service areas, and they are talking apples and oranges here." He indicated that the LBC was talking about utility districts before there were municipalities in Alaska, and the service areas the LBC talks about today have nothing to do with those old utility districts; they're merely an area function of the boroughs. MR. ROBERTS concurred with Mr. Coghill. He said, "The problem here is that small groups of people with vested interests - a city administration or a city council - can hijack their neighbors, and the LBC lets them choose the method in which they do it. And the only last resort is if those people can garner enough support in the legislature to have it voted down; otherwise, the annexation rides through." He said Homer was hijacked. He continued as follows: We effected the process greatly with our fight with the LBC. We're still in court; we won one ... [Alaska] Supreme Court case and we're probably headed for another .... So, in a general sense, I have to say that I think that this bill should be passed. The LBC should not get to operate as the commissar of boundaries in Alaska. The idea that, in general, a city and a small area surrounding it could have one vote, even, is likely to hijack the people in the surrounding area. In the case of the Homer annexation: if the city had been willing to put it to a vote of the people in the city -- it became such a divisive issue here, it would have been voted down, and they didn't dare let it go to a vote. 10:27:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Moss for her opinions regarding the constitutionality of the bill. 10:28:12 AM MS. MOSS said there have been differences of opinion over the intent of the Constitutional Convention; it's a gray area. That is why, she explained, Representative John Coghill was asked to testify. She said she would provide those opinions to the committee. In response to an observation that the bill would not be heard by the House Judiciary Standing Committee, she said she thought it should be, because of the amount of contention and disagreement. 10:28:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated, "I have no problem in passing the bill out, but I will make a motion that we, in writing, request that this be referred to [the House Judiciary Standing Committee]." CHAIR SEATON asked if the sponsor would have any objection to that. MS. MOSS interjected, "I think it would help the whole case." 10:29:29 AM ROBERT KALLIO, testifying on behalf of himself, referred to Article 1, Section 2, of the Alaska State Constitution, which read as follows: SECTION 2. Source of Government. All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole. MR. KALLIO stated that it is clear that the founders of Alaska did not intend that a borough could annex additional areas or "be created by a state employee or five unelected commissioners." He urged the committee to pass HB 133, to protect the rights of residents in unincorporated areas against being annexed into any borough against their will. He said Lieutenant Governor Coghill stated this sentiment much better than he ever could; he was there at the convention and understood the intent. He stated his belief that [the legislature] is bound to, and thus must follow, the state constitution. 10:31:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he concurs with Mr. Kallio and the intent of the bill. 10:31:36 AM CAM CARLSON testified on behalf of herself. She stated the following: I am definitely not in favor of annexations that are proposed where we're going to take in large quantities of the state, not because we can provide them with anything, but just because we can pick their pockets. It comes off to me as totally immoral. The moment I heard that this was even being proposed by the Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor, I was just absolutely appalled. I agree with all the previous speakers that the people should be able to vote on their future and what happens to them, [and] that people that are employees of government and not elected by the people have frequently in the past and are still going way beyond what they are supposed to be doing to us and for us. So, I'm very much in favor of this being a vote of the people that reside in the areas before they get annexed to anything, and I am very opposed to what is happening currently and being proposed by some of our officials, statewide. And I am very much in favor of HB 133, and also the amendments to it. I think it's a good idea to have a vote of both areas - the existing area and that proposed to be annexed - and that if both don't pass it, it doesn't happen. 10:34:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a possible scenario in which a municipality wants to annex a large area that is only populated by five people. He asked if those five people would be able to "scotch the whole thing." 10:34:41 AM MS. MOSS answered yes. 10:34:45 AM GARY PETERSON testified on behalf of himself in support of HB 133. He stated that he would like two points outlined specifically: The first is that the people living in proposed annexed areas should have the exclusive right to decide whether or not they want annexation. The second is that the people in the city limits who are proposing annexation should not be allowed the aggregate vote to impose annexation in areas outside their city limits. He stated, "I believe that 'annexation' is a dirty word." He indicated that the rights of people who come to Alaska to enjoy their freedom, the wilderness, and the wildlife have eroded. Annexation imposes rules and regulations and, additionally, heavy taxation. He said he would like the staff of the local boundary commission fired and the governor to close it down. 10:37:35 AM VI JERREL, Ph.D., testified on behalf of herself and Alaskans Opposed to Annexation. She stated support of having a vote by the people in the area proposed to be annexed, but voiced opposition to having a vote by the people in the city or area that files the annexation petition. She also stated opposition to aggregate votes, and to giving the LBC the authority to "amend a change or change a petition." Dr. Jerrel stated, "Public funds cannot be used to deny a person due process of law. Rights guaranteed by the state and U.S. Constitution guarantee that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." She stated objection to the State of Alaska's using public funds for misrepresentation and wrongful procedures by the current LBC. DR. JERREL said she and Doris Cabana formed Alaskans Opposed to Annexation and hired Robert C. Erwin - a former Alaska Supreme Court Justice - to represent them in the "wrongful and illegal - in our opinion - Homer annexation." 10:41:24 AM CHAIR SEATON asked Dr. Jerrel to focus specifically on HB 133. 10:41:46 AM DR. JERREL posited that the subject before the committee is in regard to authority of a local boundary commission, and she is talking about authority and lack of authority by the LBC. She reported that [the LBC] did not get the 26 square miles it asked for [in Homer] because "we fought for it." The case is currently in the Alaska Superior Court. In response to a request for clarification from Chair Seaton, she reiterated that she supports HB 133, but not the amendment that would allow a dual vote. CHAIR SEATON clarified that the amendment would not allow an aggregate vote; it would be two separate votes. DR. JERREL indicated that she had been advised by Mr. Erwin to say, "We want a vote only of the people in the area proposed to be annexed," not an aggregate vote. 10:43:03 AM DR. JERREL, in response to a question from Representative Lynn, revealed that her Ph.D. is in administrative leadership and human behavior. She offered further personal history. 10:43:45 AM ALAN LeMASTER, testifying on behalf of himself, stated that he is impressed with the testimony heard thus far and the support of the bill and its amendment. He offered his recollection that, during a hearing of HB 133 in the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, Commissioner Hicks said he felt that the bill was "objectively unconstitutional" and he didn't know of any attorneys in the state who could effectively defend it. Mr. LeMaster said he is especially cautious about the constitutionality of the bill and is happy to hear that the committee will be referring it to the House Judiciary Standing Committee. 10:44:58 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like the citation for the recent Homer case. 10:45:19 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. 10:45:34 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she had not been, until today, aware of the pending issue regarding annexation and Homer, Alaska. She asked if there are other pending cases that she is aware of across the state. 10:45:54 AM MS. MOSS answered that there is a related issue regarding Whittier and Valdez. She added that Delta [Junction] is "in the process of petitioning for a borough to have an election." Additionally, she noted that the Fairbanks North Star Borough is looking at annexing everything to the south bank of the Yukon River, including Pogo Mine, which is part of the land that Delta is petitioning to annex. She said, "The big concern with that whole situation is the fact that the borough mayor ... publicly said that he intended to use an aggregate vote that was created by regulation that is, without a question, inconsistent with state law." 10:47:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG requested that any other court opinions be sent to him. 10:47:33 AM MS. MOSS agreed to research to find any past decisions. She said: We have been pressing this bill on the issue of equity and constitutional intent. Because the constitution is quite clear that the people are the power. And the Local Boundary Commission on several occasions has stated that the constitution has given them independent authority to create law. And the constitution is quite clear that the term - and I'm looking at Article 12, Subsection 11 - the term "by law" and "by legislature" are interchangeable. So law is what the legislature enacts. Ms. Moss, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, she said Article 12 is about general provisions. 10:49:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG read that subsection. 10:49:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report CSHB 133(CRA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. CHAIR SEATON objected to note that the committee had not yet proposed or adopted Amendment 1. 10:50:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS, as a point of order, withdrew his motion. 10:50:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt Amendment 1 [text provided previously]. 10:51:14 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for discussion purposes. MS. MOSS, in response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, affirmed that the sponsor approves of Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated for the record, "We'll look at this with the rest of bill in [House Judiciary Standing Committee]." He removed his objection to Amendment 1. 10:51:32 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that, there being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 10:51:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report CSHB 133(CRA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 10:52:31 AM CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that the bill has been assigned an additional referral to the House Judiciary Standing Committee, and that referral has been agreed to by the sponsor. 10:52:33 AM REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS revealed that he came into the meeting today agreeing with the chair of the Local Boundary Commission, but after the testimony of everyone, he changed his position. 10:53:13 AM CHAIR SEATON announced that there being no objection, CSHB 133(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee. 10:53:22 AM MS. MOSS thanked the committee, in particular Representative Gruenberg for his efforts to allow the bill the scrutiny of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. The committee took an at-ease from 10:54:00 AM to 10:59:55 AM. 10:59:58 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|