Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/22/1994 01:00 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 22, 1994
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative Ed Willis
Representative John Davies
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ALASKA LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTATION
*HB 427: "An Act relating to compensation for
members of the Local Boundary Commission."
PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 393: "An Act relating to the unincorporated
community capital project matching
grant program; and providing for an
effective date."
PASSED FROM COMMITTEE AS COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
DARROLL HARGRAVES, Chairperson
Local Boundary Commission
3343 Denali
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 225-8090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
Local Boundary Commission
and HB 427
DAN BOCKHORST, Supervisor
Local Boundary Commission Staff
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
333 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 220
Anchorage, AK 99501-2341
Phone: 269-4559
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
Local Boundary Commission
H. TONI SALMEIER
Local Boundary Commission
P.O. Box 141345
Anchorage, AK 99514
Phone: 333-7692
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
Local Boundary Commission
MYRTLE JOHNSON
Local Boundary Commission
P.O. Box 608
Nome, AK 99962
Phone: 443-2842
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
Local Boundary Commission
FRANCES HALLGREN
Local Boundary Commissioner
403 Lincoln Street
Sitka, AK 99835
Phone: 646-6909
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
Local Boundary Commission
SHELLEY DUGAN
Local Boundary Commission, Vice Chairperson
219 Kody
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Phone: 453-8950
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the
Local Boundary Commission
KAREN BRAND, Staff
Representative Carl Moses
State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-4451
POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to Prime Sponsor of
HB 393
MICHAEL CUSHING, Research Analyst
Department of Community and Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100
Juneau, AK 99811-2100
Phone: 465-4890
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on CSHB 393
CHRYSTAL SMITH
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second Street, Suite 200
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-1325
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed CSHB 393
LAMAR COTTEN, Lobbyist
Lake and Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 103733
Anchorage, AK 99801
Phone: 258-7143
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSHB 393
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 427
SHORT TITLE: COMPENSATION; LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/94 2219 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/02/94 2220 (H) CRA, FINANCE
02/22/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 393
SHORT TITLE: UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRAN
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/94 2125 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/21/94 2125 (H) CRA, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/08/94 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/08/94 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-8, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:03
p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Toohey, Bunde,
Davies and Willis were present and noted that a quorum was
present.
Representative Bill Williams joined the committee at 1:04
p.m.
Number 034
HB 427 - COMPENSATION; LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION
DARROLL HARGRAVES, CHAIRMAN, LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION,
stated, "The Local Boundary Commission acts on petitions for
city and borough incorporation, annexation, detachment,
dissolution, merger and consolidation. The commission's
role is to objectively consider arguments for and against
such proposals, taking areawide and statewide needs into
consideration. The commission is one of five boards or
commissions with origins in Alaska's Constitution. The
commission consists of five members. One is appointed from
each of Alaska's four judicial districts; the fifth member
is appointed at large. Procedures used by the Commission
are designed to secure the reasonable, timely and
inexpensive determination of municipal boundary proposals.
These procedures include extensive public notice and
opportunity for comment, thorough study, public
informational meetings, public hearings, a decisional
meeting of the commission and opportunity for
reconsideration. A summary of these procedures is provided
on pages two through five of the commissions's January 19,
1994, report to the legislature. (A copy of this report is
on file.) Decisions of the commission are based upon
criteria or standards set out in statutes or regulations.
The Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)
provides staff support to the commission. During 1993, the
commission held 20 meetings. Annexations were implemented
or approved in Cordova, Palmer, Hoonah, Haines, Fairbanks,
Seldovia, Soldotna, Thorne Bay and King Cove. The
commission also denied one annexation proposal."
MR. HARGRAVES continued, "The commission filed three formal
recommendations for annexation with the legislature on
January 19, 1994. Under provisions of the Constitution and
statutes, the legislature has 45 days to consider the
proposed annexations, or until the end of the session,
whichever occurs first. If the legislature takes no action,
the annexations gain automatic legislative approval 45 days
after the recommendations were filed by the commission. In
this case, the 45-day review period expires Saturday, March
5, 1994. Alternatively, the legislature may deny any one or
more of the annexations by adopting `a resolution concurred
in by a majority of the members of each house' on or before
March 5. The three recommendations for annexation are
addressed in moderate detail on pages 18 through 37 of the
commission's report to the legislature. However, I will
discuss them very briefly here. The first involves the
proposed annexation of 21 square miles to the city of King
Cove. King Cove is located 1,100 miles southwest of here in
the Aleutians East Borough. While the area proposed for
annexation is inhabited by only eight residents, it holds
substantial development. The area includes all of one
subdivision and part of another, the community's airport, a
portion of the city's landfill and the city's hydroelectric
project, currently under construction. The area also
includes sites proposed for the construction of a new port
facility and a new water utility system."
Number 179
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES asked why two regions were
excluded in the city of King Cove annexation.
DAN BOCKHORST, SUPERVISOR, LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION STAFF,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS, replied, "Those
areas were originally included within the petition. The
city did concur with the DCRA recommendation that those
areas not be included within the action taken by the
commission. They didn't really meet the standards for
annexation so they accepted the exclusion of that
territory."
MR. HARGRAVES said, "Oftentimes the hearing process, the
petition process does bring out factors that cause some
reconsideration of what the municipality first wanted. I
think, that was the case here." He then proceeded with his
presentation saying, "Seldovia, the second and third
recommendations involve the proposed annexation,
respectively of 42.8 acres and 1.8 acres to the city of
Seldovia. Seldovia is a community located 650 miles west of
here in the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Most of the territory
proposed for annexation consists of that portion of the
Seldovia airport not presently within the boundaries of the
city. Because the city's boundaries bisect the community's
airport, confusion and uncertainty exist with respect to the
levy of city sales taxes and property taxes at the airport.
The same holds true for the extension of municipal services
and other jurisdictional issues at the airport. The
remaining area proposed for annexation contains 13 enclaves
or holes in the area under the city's jurisdiction. Until
recently, those enclaves were believed to have been formally
included within the corporate boundaries of the city as such
those have traditionally been taxed by the city of Seldovia.
So it came as a surprise to them when they realized those
areas weren't in their boundaries. For the past 25 years or
so, the city has taxed those properties and has extended
full services to them. The enclaves are reportedly
inhabited by three individuals. Again, the third
recommendation proposes a separate annexation of 1.8 acres
to the city of Seldovia. That area consists of a segment of
the airport that the city had inadvertently omitted from its
petition. The commission filed a separate recommendation
for the annexation of that property for procedural reasons.
If the committee desires additional details concerning any
of the three recommended annexations, I can provide you with
a copy of the appropriate decisional documents..."
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE asked, "Why didn't you include the
area around the runway which, of course, would be
developable land at one time or another?"
MR. HARGRAVES said, "I think the original boundary that
you're looking at, that they requested, tailed off into kind
of a slough. This had to be filled and really there was
nothing that's going to be developed in those wetlands.
You're point's well taken. In many instances, we don't like
to see things shoot off like that, but in this instance I
guess there was an exception made for the airstrip."
Number 276
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "In this case, is the city of
Seldovia basically in support of these two actions?"
MR. HARGRAVES replied, "We have substantial support for
that. We did have opposition out there and there have been
subsequent actions, which no doubt have been launched
because of the prior actions..." He then continued with his
presentation, "There is legislation pending right now in
this legislative session that we'd like to call your
attention to. CSSB 164 makes technical amendments to the
law that has been sought by the Local Boundary Commission
(LBC) for the past several years. This bill is vital to the
mission of the Local Boundary Commission, we would
appreciate this committee's support in the House if that
bill gets to you. SB 291 is an Act whose express purpose
is, `to eliminate the unorganized borough by including all
regions of the state in an organized borough or unified
municipality.' The commission recognizes that there are
legitimate arguments on both sides of that very thorny
issue. In the commission's view, this matter is a political
issue to be addressed by the legislature. The commission
feels that a neutral stance is critical to maintaining the
integrity of its mission - to objectively consider arguments
for and against the establishment or alteration of specific
municipal boundaries. We went through the long process of
the Model Borough Boundary creation. That was never, and we
always went on record as saying, that was not in any way our
way to step into mandatory boroughs. Since that bill has
been introduced this year, there's been some attachment of
it to the actions of this commission and we just want that
in the record. HB 427 is one that's been before you in
prior years, introduced by your committee, provides
compensation for the commission. While the commission
recognizes that today's economic climate is less than ideal
for such a proposal, it feels strongly that the measure
deserves serious consideration. Some of us just happen to
be at a point in time in our life when we're able to do this
kind of work, so we volunteer and do it, but there are some
ramifications of not paying this commission anything. One
of things is simply that sometimes we may not be able to get
the people that have to leave a days work so they can serve
on it. The DCRA has issued a position paper in support of
the measure...you have the fiscal note."
MR. HARGRAVES proceeded, "I will end my prepared remarks
with a brief summary of proposals currently being
contemplated for presentation to the LBC. These are based
upon reports from the DCRA. In nearly all cases, the
reports stem from direct contact between the department and
local officials or residents. However, in a few cases, the
accounts may stem from unsubstantiated reports. While it is
not possible to accurately predict how many of these
proposals will be formally presented to the commission, the
length and diversity of the list suggest that 1994 will be
another active and interesting year for the commission. The
list of prospective activities includes proposals for
incorporation of eight boroughs, and six cities, annexation
to one borough and eight cities, detachment from four
boroughs and two cities, dissolution of twelve cities and
one borough, and merger or consolidation of municipal
governments in three regions."
Number 412
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Is there presently the ability to
incorporate a city and borough as a single entity?.. to
city-boroughize an existing city? I'm thinking of my
hometown, Delta Junction, which is a third class city. Does
it have the capacity to become the City and Borough of Delta
Junction?"
MR. BOCKHORST said, "It does not under current law however,
SB 164, would provide for the incorporation of a unified
municipal government, so that would facilitate or allow that
to occur."
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked, "What is a city
dissolution?"
MR. HARGRAVES said, "You simply dissolve the city, municipal
government and it just becomes a nonentity. In some cases,
there could be a group of people on the side of a borough
that would want to break off and dissolve."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Why is Seldovia doing that, is
there any reason, other than they don't want to pay city
taxes?"
MR. HARGRAVES said, "Keep in mind, that we haven't seen a
petition from those folks. There have been inquiries..."
Number 451
MR. HARGRAVES introduced the other LBC Commissioners, who
spoke briefly.
TONI SALMEIER introduced herself, and MYRTLE JOHNSON spoke
briefly.
FRANCES HALLGREN said, "One thing we have seen as necessary,
is the passage of (CSSB) 164. It's going to enable some of
these communities to reclassify, to go from second class
into home rule in a one step process, rather than having to
be this, dissolve that, form this, do the whole works, and
it addresses several other different reclassification type
issues. The second thing I'd like to address is (SB) 291.
It's putting the fear into the hearts of those and they're
scrambling to put together single city boroughs and things
like that. Until (CSSB) 164 is addressed, I definitely
think that SB 291 is premature."
Number 545
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "The City of Girdwood which I
used to be a resident in, they were a first class city of
their own, and they were incorporated into the Municipality
of Anchorage against their wishes and against their will.
The vote in Girdwood was `No, we don't want it.' Does any
of this 164 address that?"
MR. BOCKHORST said, "No, it does not. That occurred through
the process of unification. Girdwood, under the law does
have the opportunity to detach from the Municipality of
Anchorage, so the option exists."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked about the minimum population of a
borough.
MR. BOCKHORST said, "There is no statutory standard that
governs incorporation of boroughs, with respect to
population. The commission has what's called a rebuttable
presumption that there would be at least a thousand people
in any area in order to form a borough. However, it is a
rebuttable presumption and upon a showing of good cause, the
commission can allow an area that has area fewer than a
thousand people to incorporate."
Number 580
SHELLEY DUGAN, COMMISSIONER, LBC, said, "In the process of
doing the Model Borough Boundary study, one of the biggest
issues that we had to deal with up front, before we could
even get people to participate in the process, was to assure
them that we were not out to do any mandatory boroughs.
What we were doing in 1989, there were three petitions that
were filed fairly close together, all reaching outside their
existing boundaries fairly obviously to enhance their
revenue base, and what that made us aware of is that there
was going to be a trend as state revenues declined, we were
going to see more and more of this sort of thing, and we
could see ourselves getting into a situation where we needed
to stop the process, take a look at the state
comprehensively and we did that. And, so the only thing I
want to make clear today, is that the language in SB 291
that references about boundary study has nothing to do with
it, there is no connection with (SB 291 and) the boundary
study that we have already done. They're not connected in
any way. And we think it's real important for the public to
know that we did that study for exactly the reasons that we
said we did it. We, the commission wanted that to be on the
record."
Number 638
There was discussion regarding the Constitution and whether
it prescribes boroughs for the purpose of taxation.
There was discussion as to the motives behind municipal
dissolutions.
MR. HARGRAVES said, "One of the things that I've observed
since I've been on this commission is that, it appears that
whatever it is today the grass will be greener on the other
side of the fence tomorrow, and this hopping back and forth
and trying to reconfigure and seek advantage through the
different options that are available."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked, "Is there a statute of
limitations, so that if they were actually able to dissolve
a city can they next year now petition to reform the city?"
MR. HARGRAVES said, "You could have a petition going forward
to dissolve and you could have another group running a
petition to reconstitute at the same time, and we'll listen
to petition from any source or group."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "Perhaps there's a need to
address that. These folks are having to meet 25 times a
year now, and if you've got three different factions in a
community, maybe there's some sort of `you change now, you
don't get to change for the next five years'."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Is any of this addressed in SB 164?"
MR. BOCKHORST said, "No it is not. The commission has
adopted it's own regulations kind of in that same sense,
that if somebody comes before the commission with a petition
and either the voters reject it or the state
legislature...they reject it, then they're precluded from
coming back to the commission for a period of 24 months.
But there's no provision if you dissolve, and then you are
permitted to reincorporate. Obviously you couldn't have
concurrent petitions to dissolve and incorporate. If you
dissolve, you have to have a city government to exist
already. Certainly there is a potential of these
overlapping, interrelated proposals coming quickly upon one
another, but I don't really see that as a problem in a
practical sense."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE clarified, "If a city petitions for
some boundary change of some kind and it's denied, they
cannot petition for another 24 months. If it's approved
however, they can repetition immediately?"
MR. BOCKHORST said, "There are threshold standards that have
to be met in order for people to qualify as petitioners. I
don't want to leave the impression that there's opportunity
for frivolous petitions. There are standards that have to
be met and there's a lot of work that's put into petitions."
TAPE 94-8, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "Is there any sharing of costs
on this?"
MR. BOCKHORST said, "Yes, there is. The petitioner is
required to pay for a portion of the cost of the notices.
The expense to the petitioner could be as high as $600 for
publicational notices."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about other costs incurred by the
petitioners.
MR. BOCKHORST said, "The petitioner is totally responsible
for publication of the notice of the filing of the petition,
which is required at least three times. They have to pay
for production of copies of the petitions to go to the LBC,
as well as copies of the petitions to be sent out to
interested parties that are designated to the department.
So they are responsible for notice and preparation of
documents upon the filing of the petition and our acceptance
of the petition. So they pay...probably a third of the
cost."
Number 080
There was discussion regarding state monies in dissolutioned
cities.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG clarified, "I think perhaps Representative
Bunde was just sending a message that we wouldn't
necessarily encourage dissolutions at a time when there's
obviously a movement afoot to organize everybody and I think
he's right...people see dissolutionment as a means of
avoiding payment of something. I don't think anybody sees
it as revenue enhancement. All communities will be treated
the same under the Constitution and the statutes. There's
no penalty for dissolving a city government."
Number 100
MS. SALMEIER asked, "Isn't there paperwork to keep (the
cities) in the proper line of being a city?"
MR. BOCKHORST said, "There is a requirement for annual
elections, and five of the eleven communities listed there
who are being considered for dissolutionment are, in DCRA's
view, inactive cities. And under the statutes our agency
has the duty and responsibility, the mandate to investigate
inactive city governments. We're doing that now."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "The point I was trying to make
is, when you dissolve local government, I think you should
expect a decrease in services. The state's not going to
pick up the tab entirely."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out that there are some
incentives for not incorporating as a city.
Number 162
MR. HARGRAVES brought up HB 427, "We're talking less than
$15,000. I know that some of these folks have lost days of
work. We had a professional person on here in times past,
he billed for his services at a rate of $120 an hour, so
maybe he could afford it; but the point is being away from
his job cost him dearly and he was a good commissioner. I
think that's the kind of people you need on this
commission."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG formally brought HB 427 before the committee
and reminded the committee of the fiscal note amount and the
committee's sponsorship.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I support the idea of
compensation, obviously these people are meeting 25 times a
year, and to expect them to do it totally as volunteers is
expecting too much. They...have a thankless task as it is
and it shouldn't have to cost them. It still may cost them
money, but at least this would, in part, reimburse them for
their cost. Having said that, I support the idea; however,
facing the fiscal realities we're facing, I would also then
express my intent that the $15,000 come out of current DCRA
budget and not be additional general funds."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "My position is the same as yours, up
until that last part where...I am perfectly willing to
support HB 427 and carry it to Finance and see if somewhere
within the system there isn't $14,805. But your point is
well taken. It is a tight year, but why didn't we do this
while we had money is always the question."
Number 248
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY moved that HB 427 be passed from
committee with individual recommendations with the fiscal
note attached.
There were no objections.
HB 393 - UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY CAP PROJECT GRAN
CHAIRMAN OLBERG called an at ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:06 p.m
when HB 393 was brought forth. He said, "I think there was
some degree of consensus that perhaps all small communities,
similarly situated within the state, be treated the same and
there was some reading of the original HB 393 that it was
treating similarly situated communities somewhat
differently, because they're connected to the rest of us by
road versus the not connected by road aspect," and he asked
if the amendments provided to the committee address this.
Number 298
KAREN BRAND, STAFF TO REPRESENTATIVE MOSES, SPONSOR OF HB
393, stated, "Amendment number one...there was talk about
having the borough sign off on or approve any projects that
unincorporated communities within them wanted. So that is
addressed in amendment number one. All it says is that the
borough has to sign off the project. And amendment number
two simply omits the sections that we had included in the
bill that would make the requirement contingent on being off
of the road system. So that just omits that part. In fact,
what it does is simply open it to now 60 eligible
communities instead of the 24 that used to be just off the
road system. Between those two amendments, I think the
concerns that were brought up in the last meeting are
probably addressed. The other concern that Representative
Davies brought up regarding the population data on the last
page of the bill, we had written a memo to Representative
Davies simply explaining that to add a qualifier...that
would simply be redundant because that section is already
referring to statute that says that DCRA has authority over
the population data that's used."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that the determination of
population is found somewhere else in statute.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "There's a fiscal impact. Not by way
of a fiscal note so much as a redelineation of who gets
what."
MICHAEL CUSHING, RESEARCH ANALYST, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, testified, "With regard to the fiscal
impact, basically we're looking at three situations under
the current law there are 68 eligibles and if the program
were fully funded we would have $1.7 million for that
program. With the amendments that we have before us here,
we're estimating our best conservative guess would be, we'd
have 60 new eligible unincorporated communities. If the
funding in that unincorporated account would remain the same
at $1.7 million, there are provisions in the current law
that provide for prorating. So that you'd now have 128
communities sharing $1.7 million and instead of getting the
$25,000 each per community, each would get about $13,281.
The other option would be to fully fund the unincorporated
account. It would require a funding level of $2.2 million,
an additional $1.5 million what's currently in the account."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "So it will have the effect of
diluting but, what we're trying to do is make sure that
small unincorporated communities within boroughs are treated
the same as incorporated cities. And I don't see anything
wrong with doing that, but we do need to recognize that the
incorporated cities within boroughs and the boroughs
themselves are going to supply the funds for this to happen
in theory."
MR. CUSHING said, "In theory, it could happen a number of
ways: If the overall capital match funding levels were to
remain the same, say $20 million, then you have the choice
of either funding the unincorporated account out of the
municipal account or leaving it at its current level and
prorating it. But in theory you could add, you could have a
$21.5 million program and everybody could be pretty much in
status quo."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG agreed.
MR. CUSHING continued, "But given a fixed funding level,
your choices are either to prorate the unincorporateds or to
fully fund the unincorporated and take it out of the
municipal account."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Do we know which ones of these
are the new eligibles? It seems to me the one possibility
is that, if you looked at this thing at kind of a borough
basis, that adding the new eligibles might not necessarily
increase the total amount of money that would go into that
borough. It would simply allocate it differently."
MR. CUSHING said, "It's a case by case situation; in the
Lake and Peninsula Borough for instance, that borough
is...(getting) $35, $40 thousand, and when it's divided up
amongst the unincorporates, they're getting three, four
thousand dollars apiece, which is how they're appropriating
it out there now. Under the new scenario, they'd be getting
$25,000 per each of those ten communities. So you'd be
looking at $250, $300, thousand going into that borough as
opposed to the $35 or $40 (thousand) that's going into there
now."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I'm inclined to think that perhaps it
might be worthy of considering lowering the minimum. But
I'm not sure that's something we want to do... the dollar
minimum."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "I would agree that probably the
appropriate committee to deal with that issue would be the
Finance Committee. Perhaps this committee should just flag
that as an issue, that they think they ought to consider as
to what the effects are in redistribution under these
various plans."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "An accompanying memo of intent from
Community and Regional Affairs perhaps to (the Finance
Committee), State Affairs is also a committee of referral.
Number 443
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "To reflect my wishes, it would
be for reallocation rather than additional money.
Reallocation of the money that's available, rather than
additional money."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I think we're all thinking that
way...I don't think we're thinking of increasing the funding
of the Capital Matching Grants project as much as we are
reallocating."
MS. BRAND said, "I just want to put on the record that
Representative Moses would also like to see the same thing.
His intention was to suggest that the money simply be
reallocated, not necessarily an addition to the program."
Number 457
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to adopt amendment number one.
There was no objection.
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY moved to adopt amendment number two.
There was no objection.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG stated, "We are now dealing with committee
substitute of HB 393."
CRYSTAL SMITH, DIRECTOR OF MEMBER SERVICES, ALASKA MUNICIPAL
LEAGUE, testified, "I feel that the Municipal League needs
to go on record at this point, since you have indicated an
interest in this committee of reallocating the funds.
Apparently the total amount of funds which would cause a
definite negative impact on organized municipalities. The
Municipal League, and in fact I believe it's the basic
principal of many parts of the state government, are
committed to encouraging the incorporation of
municipalities. The Municipal League as an organization has
a commitment to making sure that there are incentives to
incorporation and incentives to organizing to provide basic
services at the local government level, so that the state
doesn't have to come in and provide a lot of services. I
would just like to say, that if, in fact you are to take the
entire pot, whatever size it is and spread it out to an
additional 60 communities and give those the same $25,000
minimum entitlement, then we're looking at additional
disincentives to incorporation."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "I think you did also mention
that you were encouraging looking at reducing the minimum
entitlement."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "That's one way it could be addressed,
and I agree with Representative Davies that probably Finance
is best equipped to do the actual nuts and bolts. But we
should certainly send on our thoughts about not adding to
the overall cost, and perhaps looking at a reduced minimum
as a way to more fairly treat the organized municipalities
at this point."
LAMAR COTTEN, LOBBYIST, LAKE AND PENINSULA BOROUGH,
testified via teleconference, saying, "We concur with the
comments made by Representative Moses's staff on this issue.
The other comment I would make is that, with reference to
Chrystal Smith's comment, I understand her concerns about
the incentives and disincentives for municipal
organizations. I would take it from a little different
tack, and that is we're talking about unorganized
communities within a borough. I think the fact that
boroughs that have unorganized communities within them, that
are treated differently than unorganized communities outside
a borough, is a disincentive for areas to organize as a
borough. So, I realize that's a small point, but I think
it's an important one with respect to other regional areas
of the unorganized borough that are looking at future
organization in the years ahead."
Number 534
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved CSHB 393 out of committee with
individual recommendations and an accompanying intent memo.
There were no objections.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 2:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|