Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
05/01/2006 01:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB278 | |
| HB378 | |
| HB133 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 378 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 278 | ||
CSSSHB 133(JUD)am-MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CHANGES/ COMMISSION
1:39:36 PM
CHAIR BERT STEDMAN announced HB 133 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Sponsor, introduced HB 133 with the
statement that the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) has a
constitutional and statutory charge to organize areas and change
boundaries in Alaska. He opined that government from the bottom
up is best whenever possible and language supporting that notion
is established in the Alaska State Constitution. To that end, HB
133 starts with getting people involved in local governance.
Section 1 establishes that the LBC must provide public notice
for each proposed amendment and or condition and an opportunity
for public comment before it can amend a petition or impose a
condition on an incorporation. In Alaska there's a disconnect
stemming from the forced boroughization of some areas and the
idea of expanding boundaries without public comment.
Section 2 adds a new section requiring that the LBC hold two
public hearings in the area that is proposed for incorporation.
He noted that the new fiscal note reflects those costs.
Section 3 addresses the fairness issue and acknowledges that
some areas don't want to be annexed. The LBC regulatory scheme
says that an area may be annexed with an aggregate vote and the
aggregate vote says that a large area can always overtake a
smaller area by aggregating the vote. It's only fair, he said,
that the people in the annexed area have a chance to vote. For
that reason Section 3(c)(1) establishes that "a proposed
annexation must be approved by a majority of the votes on the
question cast by voters residing in the annexing municipality."
Representative Coghill reiterated that government on the local
level should start at the local level and work up.
To ensure that statutes keep the process fair in a public policy
arena Section 4 establishes that the LBC regulations providing
standards and procedures are subject to Title 29. Certainly, the
LBC has a constitutional responsibility, but the Legislature
does too and it ought to be exercised here.
The new fiscal note indicates that public comment will take more
money, but they should already be providing that and if that's
not the case, then that demonstrates the need for this
legislation. He noted the fiscal note did contain a typo because
travel and contractual services wouldn't run $11 million. A more
likely figure would be $11,000.
1:45:37 PM
CHAIR STEDMAN stated that public comment at the local level
ought to be encouraged. HB 378 would ensure that and force the
LBC to visit remote communities and hold public hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed with the interpretation and added
that the Model Borough Act doesn't allow for much comment and
that has been cause for complaint.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS asked the sponsor to comment on the
constitutional goal to organize the state and whether this would
"throw sand in the wheels" of that effort.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said quite the contrary; HB 133 places
responsibility with local residents, which is where it belongs.
Most of the boundary changes to date have resulted in court
battles and HB 133 seeks to address that tension by asserting
legislative authority. Section 2 of the bill cites Article 10,
Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution that says the Legislature
has the right by law to assert the local governance issue in
concert with the LBC. That section changes the public hearing
requirement from one to two and that's a big change.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL responded to a question from Senator Gary
Stevens he said that after an extensive reading of the minutes
from the Constitutional Convention, he believes he's well within
the bounds of the constitutional intent on this issue.
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Chair, Local Boundary Commission (LBC)
mentioned the written statement he sent to the committee earlier
in the day and related that the LBC had objected to an earlier
version of HB 133. Although considerable improvements have been
made, the LBC continues to have concern. First, he said, the
bill may not do what the sponsor and supporters purport.
Furthermore it might not be in the best interest of the State.
Referencing Section 3 relating to the aggregate vote issue, he
observed that most annexations are initially objectionable to
those who are being annexed. That doesn't mean that the annexing
borough or municipality is wrong. It may be totally appropriate
to do the annexation, "yet a vote in the aggregate would never
allow that to happen," he said. However, once an annexation has
occurred, it becomes clear that it was the appropriate action to
take.
MR. HARGRAVES described a recent annexation that had been very
controversial, but with the passage of time it became apparent
that the decision to annex was correct. "People in the annexed
area got on the council, people in the annexed area began to see
the benefits of being annexed in the city proper." He
acknowledged that in that particular instance a couple of people
have continued to fight the annexation, but it stands on the
record that by and large the annexed area welcomes what has
transpired.
Viewed from the State perspective you've got to keep in mind
that you'll never get a majority vote from the population that
is being annexed even though it could be the best situation. It
might even be a required situation because adjacent areas
oftentimes draw upon the services of the larger organized
borough or city. "Just be sure that the aggregate vote is really
what we think is going to be the best thing for everyone when it
happens," he said.
MR. HARGRAVES said his final point relates to cost for the
additional hearings and that $10,000 or $11,000 sounds about
right.
1:56:56 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS cited current law that says that an
annexation or detachment must be approved by a majority vote of
the voters residing in the area proposed for annexation or
detachment and that the vote takes place in that area. He asked
Mr. Hargraves about his interpretation of aggregate vote as it
relates to the proposed change.
MR. HARGRAVES replied his interpretation of the change is that
it would require a majority vote in the area to be annexed.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS disagreed with the interpretation. Under
current law, the area to be annexed must have a majority vote
and HB 133 says the annexing area must also have a majority
vote. He asked what's wrong with that and he'd like examples of
why a larger area would vote against annexing an outside area.
MR. HARGRAVES related his understanding:
The intent is to try and get it set up so that the
area being annexed would have to vote - and they would
have to do it - but a larger municipality would have
to vote also to do it. It would take both votes to
make it happen. As it stands right now, of course,
annexation can take place by a vote of the aggregate.
The two together would prevail.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said you certainly would want the people
in an annexing municipality to have a majority vote because that
municipality would be taking on the responsibility, but you also
want the people in the area to be annexed to have a vote.
MR. HARGRAVES interjected to question whether the sponsor's
intent is that the area being annexed would need to vote in the
affirmative for the annexation to go through.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued with his explanation. Statutory
language says the area that is proposed for annexation must vote
in the affirmative before the annexation can go forward. HB 133
adds the requirement that the proposed annexation must be
approved by a majority of votes cast by the voters residing in
the annexing municipality. Representative Coghill said he
decided on this course of action because he disagrees completely
with the aggregate vote issue, but you do want both responsible
parties to agree on the issue. That would require a public
dialog and campaign asking whether or not it's in the best
interest of the local area. Rather than having the LBC make the
determination, HB 133 leaves it up to the people. Using the
aggregate vote, as set forth in regulation doesn't get you there
fairly, he said.
SENATOR ALBERT KOOKESH observed that if this were adopted there
would be a two-step process. First it would take a majority vote
of the voters residing in the annexing municipality and then it
would take a majority vote of the voters residing in the area to
be annexed. If the first vote were to fail then nothing would
happen, but if the first vote were to pass then the area to be
annexed would vote. If this language were to be adopted then
there would be two ways to stop an annexation.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed.
2:02:06 PM
DAN BOCKHORST, Staff to the LBC from the Department of Commerce,
Community, & Economic Development, verified that the fiscal note
should reflect $11,000 in estimated fiscal impact rather than
$11 million. He further clarified that under the existing laws
governing the LBC process, there are three venues for public
input. Once a petition is filed with the LBC, extensive public
notice is given and individuals have a minimum of seven weeks to
submit supporting or opposing comments. Staff to the LBC
conducts an investigation and prepares a report on the proposal
including findings and recommendations. That report is published
and public comment is solicited. Individuals are given four
weeks to submit written comments regarding the findings,
conclusions and recommendations that the staff made on the
proposal. Third there is the public hearing conducted by the
LBC. That public hearing is required to be held in or near the
area that is proposed for annexation. He asserted that during
the course of that public hearing there is ample time for
comment.
HB 133 would further expand the already ample opportunity that
is available for public comment. In the event that the LBC
decides to make amendments or add conditions, then further
hearings would be required. If the commission decides to present
a legislative review borough incorporation then multiple
hearings would be required.
He agreed with the point about protecting and assuring the
interests of the local voters within the municipal government.
But in that vein there is no provision for similar treatment for
detachments. As currently worded HB 133 would require voters in
the existing municipality to agree to an annexation, but if an
area in that same municipality were proposed to be detached then
the voters in the area to be detached would have a vote, but
voters in the existing municipality would not be accorded the
same treatment.
Article 10, Section 12 provides that annexation decisions made
under the legislative review process provide no opportunity for
voter participation. He suggested that as more hurtles are
placed relating to boundary changes and involving voter
participation, more proposals will be shifted into the
legislative review arena where there is no voter participation.
SENATOR WAGONER stated support for Representative Coghill's
efforts and observed that this is a good fix.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL informed members that when the LBC was
established in the constitution, the Legislature was only given
the ability to reject a proposal so it is important that the
public process is conducted at the local level.
2:08:58 PM
DORIS KABANNA, Homer, reported that working with the LBC on the
annexation in her area was unsatisfactory and she continues to
be unsatisfied. She said she would like a fix so that a vote of
the people would not be ignored.
2:13:15 PM
MARK HICKEY, Lake and Peninsula Borough, spoke in strong support
of HB 133 and noted that Section 3 is of particular interest
because of the two-step process. In a local action annexation or
detachment there would be an affirmative vote from the area
being annexed and an affirmative vote from the annexing
municipality.
He related that the Lake and Peninsula Borough is living proof
of the need for this new provision and explained that an
unorganized area to the west that is large enough to form as a
separate borough has, on at least two occasions, submitted
proposals to annex into the Lake and Peninsula Borough.
Describing this consolidating action as a hostile takeover, he
noted that Lake and Peninsula residents would have no vote. He
noted that more often than not it's a municipality that
petitions to annex, but that isn't the case in the instance of
the Lake and Peninsula Borough and the adjacent unorganized area
that includes Dillingham and the Nushagak River drainage. It's
not our idea, he said, and we don't support it.
2:16:10 PM
MR. HICKEY responded to a question from Senator Stevens and
clarified that under Section 3(c)(1) a local action annexation
must be approved by a majority of votes cast by voters residing
in the annexing municipality. Therefore a majority of the
existing municipality - the Lake and Pen - would have to
approve. Section 3(c)(2) is existing law and it says that the
annexation would also have to be approved by majority vote cast
by voters residing in the area to be annexed.
What happens now, he said, is that Lake and Peninsula has no
vote under local action. In the case of Dillingham and Lake and
Peninsula, the only people that would have to approve would be
the people to the west that aren't in the borough. The
Dillingham area has a population of about 2,500 compared to the
Lake and Peninsula Borough population of about 1,700 so an
aggregate vote wouldn't help either because Lake and Pen is
outnumbered. To me, he said, it's almost a loophole to be able
to use the annexation provision to do what amounts to a
consolidation or hostile takeover. He reiterated that HB 133
says that Lake and Peninsula Borough voters would also have to
approve.
2:18:51 PM
SENATOR GARY STEVENS motioned to report CSSSHB 133(JUD) am and
attached and corrected fiscal notes from committee with
individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|