Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/12/2003 08:00 AM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 12, 2003
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Kim Elton
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Representative Carl Morgan, Chair
Representative Kelly Wolf, Vice Chair
Representative Tom Anderson
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Senator Robin Taylor
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Representative Ralph Samuels
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Local Boundary Commission Annual Report
WITNESS REGISTER
Sally Saddler
Legislative Liaison
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110800
Juneau, AK 99811-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced Gene Kane
Gene Kane
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110800
Juneau, AK 99811-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered Boundary Commission Report
Dan Bockhorst
Local Boundary Commission (LBC)
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110800
Juneau, AK 99811-0800
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on LBC Report
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-2, SIDE A [SENATE CRA TAPE]
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER called the joint meeting of the Senate
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee and the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee to order at
8:00 a.m. Present were Senators Wagoner and Elton and
Representatives Morgan, Anderson and Cissna.
The meeting was called to hear the Local Boundary Commission
Annual Report.
SALLY SADDLER, legislative liaison for the Department of
Community and Economic Development (DCED), introduced Mr. Gene
Kane who read the following into the record:
Good morning. I am Gene Kane, from the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
Kevin Waring, Chair of the Local Boundary Commission
asked me to convey his regrets that he could not
appear personally today due to previous obligations.
The other members of the commission are Myrna Gardner
from Juneau, Robert Harcharek of Barrow, Allan Tesche
of Anchorage, and Ardith Lynch of Fairbanks. Dan
Bockhorst, commission staff, is on line from Anchorage
to answer questions regarding the commission's
activities.
Annual Report Filed
The Local Boundary Commission filed its annual report
with the legislature on January 30 of this year. A
copy was provided to each member of the House and
Senate. The commission's report addresses three
principal areas.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the commission;
Chapter 2 summarizes the commission's activities last
year along with pending proposals; and
Chapter 3 discusses several important public policy
issues concerning local government in Alaska.
Overview
Alaska's Constitution established the Local Boundary
Commission to ensure that proposals to create cities
and boroughs or alter their boundaries would be dealt
with objectively and from a statewide perspective.
The commission's responsibilities include judging
proposals for:
· Incorporation of cities and boroughs
· Annexation to cities and boroughs
· Detachment from cities and boroughs
· Reclassification of cities
· Dissolution of cities and boroughs; and
· Merger and consolidation of cities and boroughs
CHAIR WAGONER called for the record to reflect Representative
Chenault joined the meeting.
The commission has other powers and obligations
established in law, including a duty to make studies
of local government boundary issues.
Commission members donate their time as a public
service. They receive no compensation for the time
they contribute to commission activities.
The Department of Community and Economic Development
provides staff support to the commission.
Boundary Decisions During 2002
The commission met 14 times in 2002. To minimize
costs, the commission tries to deal with several
issues at each meeting, and conducts meetings by
teleconference when practical.
Collectively, commission members spent many hundreds
of hours reviewing and analyzing documents filed in
proceedings and on other commission business.
During 2002, the commission addressed proposals for:
· Consolidation of the City of Haines and the
Haines Borough;
· Incorporation of a Skagway Borough;
· Annexation to the City of Wasilla
· Annexation to the City of Palmer
The commission approved the proposal for consolidation
of the City of Haines and Haines Borough. Voters in
Haines subsequently approved the consolidation
proposal. As of October 17, 2002, the two governments
were consolidated as the home rule Haines Borough.
The commission denied the Skagway Borough proposal
because it did not meet constitutional, statutory, and
regulatory standards for borough incorporation.
The commission approved an annexation of 314 acres to
the City of Wasilla. As this was an annexation by
local action, it is not subject to review by the
legislature.
Finally, the commission approved an annexation to the
City of Palmer, after reducing the area to be annexed
from the city's proposed 921.34 acres to 861.44 acres.
The Palmer annexation proposal is subject to review by
the Legislature.
The commission has presented its formal recommendation
to the legislature for the Palmer annexation under
Article X, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State
of Alaska. As provided by the constitution, "The
change shall become effective forty-five days after
presentation or at the end of the session, whichever
is earlier, unless disapproved by a resolution
concurred in by a majority of the members of each
house."
CHAIR WAGONER called for the record to reflect Representative
Wolf joined the meeting.
Changes to the Regulations of the Local Boundary
Commission
During the past two years, the commission has worked
to update and revise its regulations in Title 3 of the
Alaska Administrative Code. The last comprehensive
review of the commission's regulations occurred more
than ten years ago. Since then, there have been many
changes in state statutes that govern the commission.
The regulatory changes proposed by the commission also
address ambiguities in current regulations and
streamline procedures for non-controversial proposals.
The commission has also proposed a new requirement for
a local public hearing on legislative review
annexation proposals before they are submitted to the
Local Boundary Commission.
Pending Activities of the Commission
One petition is currently pending before the
commission:
Incorporation of Gustavus as a second-class city
Policy Issues
The commission presents three public policy issues for
consideration by the legislature. I am aware that the
commission will likely be meeting with the House and
Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committees later
this month concerning the commission's pending review
of the unorganized borough. Ideally, any discussion
of the policy matters could be reserved until then
Conclusion
Thank you. That concludes my prepared remarks. If
you have questions on any of these matters, Mr.
Bockhorst will respond.
CHAIR WAGONER called for the record to reflect Senator Lincoln
joined the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON referred to Chapter 3 of the LBC report
regarding acreage in the Palmer annexation. The initial request
was to add 921.34 acres. He asked for a summary of the reasons
for the reducing the request to 861.44 acres.
MR. KANE explained the commission excluded an area that was self
sufficient in terms of wells and road maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON referenced page 29 and asked for a
summary of the reasons for opposition to the annexation.
MR. KANE pointed out annexations are often controversial and
many associate the extension of municipal boundaries with a
reduction of local control. The commission repeatedly urged the
City of Palmer to take a pro-active rather than piece meal
approach to annexation to address the tremendous growth of the
Palmer area.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON asked two additional questions:
· Is there a disruption of services during the transition and
where does the tax comes from for the transfer?
· Will the assembly boundaries change for the October 2003
election?
MR. KANE explained residents would continue to pay the borough
area wide property taxes, but upon annexation non-area wide
taxes decrease. The city worked with the borough in developing
its petition as required by the Administrative Code and there
were no significant costs associated with the extension of
jurisdiction.
He was unable to answer the second question.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to pages 13 and 14 and noted Skagway
wasn't included in the list of areas proposed for borough
incorporation or examination of issues relating to borough
incorporation. She asked whether the Skagway petition, which was
denied for technical reasons, could be successful if those
deficiencies were met and a new proposal filed.
DAN BOCKHORST, Local Boundary Commission representative,
testified via teleconference. He explained the LBC narrowly
construes the direction it is given by the state legislature.
Skagway was excluded because the commission did not consider
areas that might meet standards for annexation of territory into
model borough boundaries and because the Skagway petition
proposed to incorporate a first class borough in place of the
first class City of Skagway. The commission asserts there are
fundamental distinctions between community based city or
municipal governments and the regional borough governments.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she would contact him for further
discussion, but his answer was sufficient for the joint meeting.
SENATOR ELTON noted the Skagway petition failed to meet 10 of 18
applicable standards for borough incorporation. He asked whether
those applicable standards were set in statute or regulation.
MR. BOCKHORST replied the Skagway proposal failed to meet
standards found in the Alaska State Constitution, Alaska
Statutes and the Administrative Code. The commission's detailed
statement of decision regarding the Skagway action was available
upon request.
SENATOR ELTON agreed that would be helpful.
CO-CHAIR MORGAN asked how many boroughs have received their land
entitlement from the state.
MR. BOCKHORST explained each newly formed municipal government
is entitled to 10 percent of the vacant, unappropriated, and
unreserved state land within its boundaries at the time of
incorporation. He said he would follow up with the program
administrator, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
CO-CHAIR MORGAN said he would appreciate a follow up because
this is an advantage to incorporation.
SENATOR ELTON noted he would like the commission to inform the
both Community and Regional Affairs Committees what 10 percent
of the vacant unappropriated state land would be in each of the
proposed eight boroughs.
MR. BOCKHORST agreed to ask DNR for the information.
SENATOR LINCOLN observed a number of the petition denials in her
district were for technical deficiencies and asked for a
definition for that type of deficiency. She asked for an
explanation of the difference between the Skagway petition and
some of the others that were incorporated as a single site.
MR. BOCKHORST characterized the commission's decision to reject
the Skagway proposal as a fundamental question about the nature
of borough government and not simply technical deficiencies. The
proposal was to convert the city government with existing
boundaries, population and powers into a borough government by
changing the name from the City of Skagway to the Skagway
Borough. Both the department [DCED] and commission find there is
a fundamental distinction between those two types of government.
The Yakutat Borough was recently formed and has a single
community in the borough. That decision was difficult for the
commission given its unique geographic circumstances. Skagway
has frequent interaction with Haines while Yakutat is isolated.
He agreed to provide LBC decisional statements for Skagway,
Yakutat and any others that members might desire.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER confirmed he should do so then asked whether
the commission had taken a position on SB 63.
MR. BOCKHORST advised members the commission reviewed a similar
proposal that dealt with legal ambiguities regarding the levy of
municipal property taxes following an annexation or detachment.
The commission unanimously endorsed that proposal thereby
endorsing the substance of SB 63 with two stipulations. First,
the legislation should be modified to include municipal
incorporations because the same rules should apply to
incorporation, annexation and detachment. Second, any provisions
in the legislation should not impact flexibility with respect to
how annexations and incorporations transition from a status quo
to implementing the annexation or incorporation.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how the LBC defines "economic base" with
regard to borough formation.
MR. BOCKHORST explained state statutes impose three specific
duties on any organized borough. First comes education, which
includes the obligation to make the local supporting
contribution. This is equivalent to a 4-mil property tax or 45
percent of basic needs whichever is less. Next there is the
obligation for planning, platting, and land use regulation.
Finally there is the requirement to assess and collect taxes.
The statutes in the Administrative Code list factors the LBC
must consider when evaluating the economy. This includes land
use evaluation, property values, and personal income of the
proposed borough, resource and commercial development, as well
as the anticipated functions of the borough. The commission
reviews proposed expenses and income to determine the economic
viability of the area.
There were no other questions.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER adjourned the meeting at 8:40 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|