Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/11/1998 01:35 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT MEETING
SENATE COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
HOUSE COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
February 11, 1998
1:35 p.m.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Mackie, Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Randy Phillips
Senator Lyman Hoffman
HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivan Ivan, Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
HOUSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
-- PRESENTATION BY LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-3, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN MACKIE called the joint meeting of the Senate Community &
Regional Affairs Committee and House Community & Regional Affairs
Committee to order at 1:35 p.m. All members of the joint committee
were present with the exception of Representative Kookesh.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE introduced Mr. Waring of the Local Boundary
Commission (LBC) and invited him to the table to begin his
presentation.
Number 025
KEVIN WARING, Chairperson of the Local Boundary Commission from
Anchorage, introduced the following Commission members who were in
attendance: Kathleen Wasserman, Vice-Chairperson, from Pelican;
Nancy Cannington, from Unalakleet; and William Walters, from
Fairbanks. Allan Tesche, who is from Anchorage, was out of state
and unable to attend the meeting. He also introduced Dan
Bockhorst and expressed his appreciation for his staff support to
the Commission. He also recognized Marjorie Vandor, an assistant
attorney general in the Department of Law, who provides legal
support to the Commission.
Mr. Waring made the following presentation to the joint committee:
"The Local Boundary Commission filed its annual report to the
Legislature on January 21 of this year. The Commission provided
each member of the House and Senate with a copy of the report at
the time it was filed.
The Commission's report addresses four major topics:
1. an overview of the Commission;
2. activities concerning the Commission in 1997;
3. significant developments concerning the structure for delivery
of municipal services in Haines; and
4. policy issues involving matters of concern to the Commission.
I will briefly address the high points of the report on each of
those topics.
Overview of the Commission:
Alaska's constitution established the LBC to ensure that proposals
to create and alter cities and boroughs would be dealt with
objectively and from a statewide perspective. The LBC is one of
only five state boards and commissions mandated by Alaska's
constitution.
Municipal matters that come before the LBC include proposals for:
incorporation; annexation; detachment; dissolution; merger of
municipalities; consolidation of municipalities; and city
reclassification.
The Commission consists of five members. One is appointed from
each of Alaska's four judicial districts, with the fifth appointed
at-large. Members serve at the pleasure of the Governor. They are
appointed for overlapping five-year terms. Commission members
volunteer their services. They receive no compensation.
The Department of Community and Regional Affairs provides staff
support to the Commission.
1997 Activities of the Commission:
The Commission met 21 times in 1997. The five members of the
Commission spent a cumulative total (that is, all 5 members
combined) of 84 days traveling and conducting its business.
Members of the Commission volunteered thousands of hours reviewing
and analyzing documents filed in the proceedings, traveling, and
conducting the business of the Commission. Specifically, during
1997 the Commission addressed:
z the petition for incorporation of Lake Louise as a city of the
second class;
z the petition for incorporation Gustavus as a city of the
second class;
z the petition by the Denali Borough to detach 992.5 square
miles from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and annex the same
territory to the Denali Borough;
z the petition by the City of Haines to annex 6.5 square miles;
and
z reconsideration of the 1991 petition for incorporation of
Pilot Point as a city of the second class.
Several other proposals are currently pending before the Commission
or are expected to be filed shortly. These include petitions for:
z annexation to the City of Palmer;
z annexation to the City of Thorne Bay;
z annexation to the Lake and Peninsula Borough;
z annexation to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough;
z consolidation of the City of Haines and the Haines Borough;
z incorporation of Talkeetna as a home rule city.
A number of other proposals now under consideration by
municipalities and voters throughout Alaska are also noted in the
report.
Developments Concerning the Structure for Delivery of Municipal
Services in Haines:
Since statehood, the Commission has filed 119 recommendations with
the Legislature to alter the structure or boundaries of municipal
governments in Alaska. All but three of those recommendations have
been approved. One of the three involved a 1984 annexation to the
City of Haines. Last November, the Commission approved another
petition for annexation by the City of Haines that was very similar
to the annexation the Legislature rejected in 1984. Ordinarily,
the Commission's recommendation on the recent annexation would now
be before the Legislature. Instead, on January 21 of this year,
the Commission voted to defer submittal of its recommendation for
the City of Haines annexation to the Legislature for one year.
This action by the Commission was highly unusual and deserves
explanation.
At the time of our November decision, four of the five Commission
members voted to approve the annexation by the City of Haines.
However, all five members of the Commission expressed support for
governmental consolidation by local initiative as a preferable
alternative to annexation.
In the aftermath of the commission's November decision, local
government officials and local citizens quickly renewed earlier
discussions to explore consolidation as the more comprehensive
solution to city and borough governmental issues. These
discussions were productive, thanks to the outstanding leadership
of local government officials and citizens and their legislative
representatives. Throughout these local discussions, Senator
Mackie and Representative Kookesh encouraged local leaders to take
a positive, forward-looking approach to long-standing local
governmental issues. Officials of the City of Haines, the Haines
Borough, and the local group Haines Borough Citizens Against
Annexation demonstrated courage and civic leadership in determining
to work together to resolve these issues.
These local discussions resulted in a joint request by all
principal parties in the annexation - the City of Haines, the
Haines Borough, and the Haines Borough Citizens Against Annexation
- that the Commission defer its annexation recommendation to the
Legislature for one year. They wanted an opportunity to pursue
immediately consolidation of the first class City of Haines and the
third class Haines Borough, undistracted by the diversion of
annexation. If their efforts were successful, the outcome, would
be consolidation of the first class City of Haines and the third
class Haines Borough into a consolidated home rule municipal
government. If, however, consolidation were not locally approved
before the next Legislature meets, the Commission's recommendation
for annexation would move forward - unopposed by the local parties
- to the 1999 Legislature.
The Commission met to consider the request for deferral on January
21 of this year. Based on the unity shown by the local parties and
evidence of their good-faith commitment to seek consolidation, the
Commission agreed to defer its annexation recommendation for one
year.
Matters are now in the hand of the local governments and local
citizens. Consolidation of the local governments in Haines by the
end of this year will take great commitment and effort on the part
of all concerned. Local officials sought and have accepted the
challenge. Together, they are moving ahead with purpose and energy
and their progress to date is impressive. Within days of the
agreement to defer the annexation, the mayors of the City of Haines
and the Haines Borough appointed a 13-member commission to prepare
the consolidation petition and home rule charter. The Haines
consolidation commission has already held five formal meetings.
They plan two weekly meetings until the petition is completed. The
two local governments have pledged in-kind support, including staff
time, meeting supplies and facilities. The City of Haines and the
Haines Borough have donated $10,000 to the cause. A local citizen
has donated an additional $2,000. The media in Haines - KHNS
radio, the Chilkat Valley News, and the Eagle Eye Journal - are
serving the public effort by extensive reporting of the
consolidation effort. For example, KHNS is broadcasting all
meetings of the Haines consolidation committee and plans to
broadcast public forums on the matter.
DCRA has also extended its full support to the effort. At the
invitation of the Haines consolidation commission, DCRA staff
attend each of the consolidation commission meetings either in
person or by telephone. To date, DCRA's assistance has included:
z $5,000 in financial aid, matching the individual financial
contributions of the City of Haines and the Haines Borough;
z providing consolidation petition forms and model materials,
including 10 home rule borough charters, sample transition plans,
model assembly apportionment plans, and sample briefs;
z providing information about the schedule, procedures, and
standards for consolidation;
z analysis of the financial impacts of consolidation of the local
government in Haines;
z development of technical papers on matters such as areawide,
nonareawide, and service area provisions;
z preparing research papers on matters such as optional structures
for a home rule borough planning commission.
Tentative plans call for the Haines consolidation petition to be
filed with the Local Boundary Commission no later than April 2 of
this year. The Local Boundary Commission would then hold hearings
on the matter this summer. That schedule will allow an election on
consolidation to be held on November 3, 1998.
POLICY ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
I will conclude my prepared remarks by calling your attention to
three policy issues addressed in the Commission's report.
First, the report notes that the Commission plans to undertake a
comprehensive review of its regulations during 1998 to address any
unduly burdensome provisions, resolve ambiguities, and make other
improvements.
Second, the report notes again the Commission's belief that various
disincentives to borough formation are inhibiting the voluntary
incorporation of new boroughs, even though several unorganized
regions of the State have resources that are superior to those of
some organized boroughs. Prominent among these disincentives is
the current system that funds local education in the unorganized
borough.
Lastly, the report concludes by addressing the concern that greater
compliance with the Common Interests Clause of Article X, Section
3 of Alaska's Constitution could be achieved with respect to the
unorganized borough if AS 29.03.010 were amended to divide the
single unorganized borough into multiple unorganized boroughs, with
each embracing an area and population with common interests to the
maximum degree possible. The foundation for such an effort already
exists in the form of model borough boundaries established by the
Commission a few years ago.
That concludes my prepared remarks. If you have questions, I and
other members of the Commission will do our best to respond."
Number 278
CHAIRMAN MACKIE explained that the reason Mr. Waring gave detailed
information in regards to Haines is because the Commission made a
departure from its normal policy and held off on an annexation in
Haines which was very controversial. He said it was likely that
the Legislature would have been drug into that battle and this was
an effort by all parties involved to avoid that and to do what's
best for the overall community in the long run. He expressed his
personal thanks to Mr. Waring, the other Commission members, and
Mr. Bockhorst for taking the time to address and listen to the
concerns of the Haines community.
Number 295
SENATOR WILKEN referred to page 12 of the LBC report and asked the
motivation for the cities of Newtok, Tuluksak, Tununak and Ekwok to
dissolve. MR. WARING said he thought that in each case it was
dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of municipal government
framework compared to the alternative of traditional councils or
other councils, and their preference was to use that structure for
local governments rather than continue to use the municipal
government structure.
SENATOR WILKEN referenced page 18 of the LBC report and asked Mr.
Waring if he would discuss the proposed Lake and Peninsula
annexation. MR. WARING explained that it is a pending petition
and it has not been formally submitted to the department. He said
it appears that a number of communities to the west of the existing
Lake and Peninsula Borough are interested in annexing themselves to
that borough.
Number 321
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON observed that the Lake and Peninsula Borough
has apparently been doing an excellent job of using the borough's
resources to be a real asset to the small communities. He thinks
that because it is working so well within the borough, others are
wanting to be part of that borough.
SENATOR WILKEN referenced page 53 and the discussion on issues
relating to disincentives for borough incorporation and annexation.
He asked if legislation is required to enable unorganized areas to
organize solely for the purpose of paying their fair share of
education. MR. WARING replied that the Commission is concerned
about the interplay between the method of financing the schools and
the REAAs and the effect that it has on incorporating. The
Commission is concerned that whatever the Legislature would do does
not aggravate the problem of disincentives to incorporate because
of suddenly having to take on substantial expenses for service
delivery.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked if Commission has specific recommendations on
how the Legislature may be able to provide more incentives to areas
to incorporate versus disincentives which currently exist. MR.
WARING responded that they haven't had an opportunity as a
commission to focus on that issue.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN referred back to the petition for a proposed
annexation to the Lake and Peninsula Borough, and he questioned if
that population increase would shift the power base from the
present Lake and Peninsula area to the Dillingham area in as much
as that area has a larger population. MR. WARING responded that it
would rebalance it, but because that petition hasn't been filed
yet, he wasn't sure of the number of persons that would be involved
in this annexation. DAN BOCKHORST added that the population of the
Lake and Peninsula Borough is probably around 1,800 people while
the City of Dillingham alone has around 2,200 people. He estimated
that the population of the area proposing to annex is around 4,000
people.
Number 386
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN expressed his appreciation to the Commission
for the process they utilized in Akiak when it was contemplating
dissolution, although the community's final decision was to remain
incorporated. He also spoke to the frustrations experienced by
small communities and villages in the rural areas when they take
on the responsibilities of finances, police protection, fire
protection, etc.
Number 415
SENATOR HOFFMAN agreed with Representative Ivan, and said the
frustration was that there were city councils organized under state
statutes and then traditional councils that were organized under
federal statutes, so, in many cases, they didn't know where the
jurisdiction was. Many of them feel that they have a better
working relationship with the federal government than with the
services and powers that are provided when organizing Native tribal
organizations. He thinks the cities' decisions to dissolve is to
simplify the level of government and establish under federal law.
Number 425
SENATOR PHILLIPS questioned if Metlakatla could ever become part of
a borough under any circumstances. DAN BOCKHORST replied that
there was nothing to prohibit Metlakatla from forming a borough.
However, Metlakatla, because of its reservation status, has little
or no assessed value or taxable value of property, so there would
be very little if any required local contribution
Number 440
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented that in the interior villages of the
state he has seen our municipal form of government imposed upon
places that want a governmental structure as being the only
alternative. He has seen communities where they had liquor stores
raise the money to operate the government, much to the detriment
of the citizens of the community. He asked Mr. Waring if the
formation of traditional councils, IRAs, etc., is a prelude to
having an entity in place in case sovereignty were to come about.
MR. WARING replied that the Commission's experiences don't span all
of the localities and all of the communities where this might be
going on, and it has not come to their attention.
Number 454
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE spoke to the high sales tax residents in some
communities have to pay in order to have needed services, and he
said as the financial involvement decreases from the state, it
drives many of these communities to consider dissolution of their
municipal governments. He added that we've got to be careful that
we don't continue to disenfranchise people from rural areas,
because they do pay their fair share.
Number 514
CHAIRMAN MACKIE asked Mr. Waring if he had comments on the
Commission's funding. MR. WARING said their concern is that there
be adequate resources to enable them to do their business.
CHAIRMAN MACKIE thanked Mr. Waring for his presentation, and there
being no further business to come before the joint committee, he
adjourned the meting at 2:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|