CSSSHB 133(JUD) AM-MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY CHANGES/ COMMISSION  CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced HB 133 to be up for consideration. 1:38:51 PM RYNNIEVA MOSS, Legislative Aide to Representative Coghill, explained that HB 133 started as a single subject piece of legislation addressing aggregate votes. Existing regulation provides for annexation by aggregate vote. This means that votes from an area to be annexed and the votes from the existing area are counted in aggregate to determine whether or not an area will be annexed. Representative Coghill believes that is contrary to intent and statute because existing statute says the people in the area to be annexed must approve the annexation by a majority vote. Section 4 says that regulations providing standards and procedures are subject to state law, which is consistent with the constitution. The original draft required a public vote for the Local Boundary Commission (LBC) to bring a proposal to the Legislature. Legislative Legal said that would probably not stand up to legal challenge. The committee substitute requires two public hearings if the LBC comes to the Legislature with a proposal. Another change is the language prohibiting the LBC from changing or adding requirements to the petition. The current proposal requires the LBC to publicly notice the changes and provide time for public comment. The final addition to the statute is the requirement that the people in the existing municipality would have to approve an annexation by majority vote. The reason for this is that a large area could force itself into an existing borough through the annexation. As currently drafted, the bill requires two separate votes. One vote would be the area to be annexed and one vote would be from the existing municipality. Each would have to approve the annexation separately. 1:42:18 PM CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Senator Kookesh was present. He recapped and remarked this gives annexation veto power to what could be a very few people. MS MOSS replied that power already exists under existing law. The bill changes that by requiring the existing municipality to vote in favor of the annexation. STEVE THOMPSON, Fairbanks Mayor, stated three points opposing the bill: · Some of the earliest lawsuits in Fairbanks were over annexations and the same probably holds true in Anchorage. Nonetheless, local adjacent annexations do in fact work out to be the best for the communities. · Fairbanks has run out of property and is looking at adjacent areas amounting to between 500 and 1,000 acres areas to expand and grow the community. The borough would like to improve the area to the point that it could be developed as an industrial area or a housing subdivision. Under the proposed legislation, if there's just one person living in the area, he or she could vote no and that would be the end of the expansion. · In Fairbanks 30,000 people live inside the city limits, but 80,000 live in the immediate area. Jobs are inside the city limits so about 50,000 people travel into the community where they work every day. They expect to have police, fire and ambulance protection and they want the roads plowed and maintained. However, those 50,000 people provide none of the funding that it takes to provide those services. People coming into town to work in the community work for employers in buildings that are tax-exempt. The Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, the federal building, state court house, borough buildings, school district headquarters, and schools are all big employers of people that live outside the city and the city is left with no way to recover any costs. Annexing the immediate area around a town that really is part of the community would help solve the problem. HB 133 could be renamed the anti-economic development bill, he quipped. 1:47:23 PM CHAIR GARY STEVENS said it sounds as though you believe this bill would cause more trouble than you already have. MAYOR THOMPSON replied yes it would. It would slow down the ability to develop areas for economic development and it would be burdensome for the city if it were to try to expand. CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Mike Black with Department of Community & Economic Development (DCCED) was available for questions. 1:48:47 PM MS MOSS said she wanted to address Mayor Thompson's concerns. She explained that under current state statute, people living in the annexed area would have to vote on the annexation. HB 133 takes nothing away from the current process, but it takes away the concern that Representative Coghill has about a regulation that is inconsistent with state statute. That is a regulation that dilutes the voice of the people in the area to be annexed. She disagreed that people living outside the city aren't contributing to the services and facilities inside the city. Contribution examples include user fees, fuel tax, and driver's licenses. She also pointed out that the state puts a lot of money into facilities in the city. HB 133 won't slow down the city's process. It simply ensures there are not regulations that are inconsistent with state statute. CHAIR GARY STEVENS asked if it's correct that currently a majority of the aggregate vote rules. MS MOSS clarified it's currently a vote of the people in the annexed area. In Fairbanks, Mayor Whitaker made the statement that according to regulation he could do an aggregate vote to annex everything south of the Yukon River. The regulation is indeed on the books and Representative Coghill is concerned because that regulation is inconsistent with state statute. The LBC has said that it has never used the aggregate vote, but she hasn't verified that point. 1:51:48 PM CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted Senator Wagoner had joined the meeting. He announced he would hold HB 133 in committee.