Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/25/2018 01:30 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR17 | |
| HB178 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 178 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 178-NAMING PORTIONS OF VETERANS HIGHWAYS
2:24:56 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to recognition of
individual veterans along certain veterans' memorial roads and
on certain veterans' memorial bridges."
2:25:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature, said HB
178 was requested by Alaska veterans and affects the six
veterans' memorials that currently exist in Alaska.
2:26:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 178, [Version 30-LS0550\M], Bruce, 1/24/18, as a
working document. There being no objection, Version M was
before the committee.
2:26:55 PM
JERAD MCCLURE, Staff, Representative David Eastman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Eastman, sponsor,
presented the changes incorporated in Version M. He directed
attention to page 1, lines 6-12, and said language was added to
ensure the veterans' organizations submitting nominations are
recognized under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(19). On
page 2, lines 1-5, language was added to ensure if a living
veteran's name was selected, the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) would be required to seek permission
from the veteran before his/her name could be added to the list
of individuals to be honored. Also, on page 2, lines 22-25
require that the signs are funded or the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF) cannot proceed.
Language beginning on page 2, line 31, and continuing to page 3,
lines 1-3, establishes the order of priority for the signs.
Also, on page 3, lines 7-10 create a more specific definition of
"veteran" for the purposes of this legislation, and lines 11-14
clarify DOTPF is the sole department responsible for handling
donations, gifts, and grants for funding the signs.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the sponsor considered
expanding the definition of veterans in the bill to include
Hmong veterans.
MR. MCCLURE responded he did not believe so.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, speaking as the sponsor, said he was
amenable to such an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to the bill on page 3,
[lines 11-14], and asked whether this language expands the
sources of revenue that DOTPF can receive.
MR. MCCLURE explained the language grants de minimis authority
to accept gifts, grants, and donations so there is no need for
DOTPF to receive budget line item funds [for the purposes of HB
178].
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested asked an estimate of the funds
necessary to post a sign or marker in recognition of a veteran.
MR. MCCLURE deferred to DOTPF.
2:30:23 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:31:00 PM
MARK NEIDHOLD, Chief of Design & Construction Standards,
Division of Statewide Design and Engineering Services, DOTPF, in
response to Representative Parish, said a standalone sign,
meeting all necessary requirements to preserve the safety of the
traveling public, would cost approximately $2,500 per
installation. He said there could be economies of scale if
there is more than one sign, and/or if the sign is attached to a
preexisting structure.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether additional funds would be
needed for the maintenance and/or replacement of signs.
MR. NEIDHOLD opined the bill restricts DOTPF from performing any
repair or maintenance unless funds are available. Further, the
cost of a repair would depend upon the condition of the sign and
could reach the full replacement cost of $2,500.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD observed an existing sign honoring an
Alaska State Trooper killed in action is terribly weathered, and
she asked for the cost of replacing the sign.
MR. NEIDHOLD was unsure; sign blanks are approximately $250 per
square foot thus the six-square-foot sign mentioned by
Representative Reinbold could cost $1,500.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the sign in question is small and
the estimate [for replacement] seems very high.
MR. NEIDHOLD explained his estimate is an amortized cost that
includes traffic control, labor, and safety compliance whether
installation is by DOTPF staff or is bid out to a contractor.
He offered to confirm his estimate.
2:36:14 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked that comments relate directly to HB 178.
[A short discussion unrelated to HB 178 ensued.]
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the bill indicates the
size of the signs.
MR. NEIDHOLD advised the size of the sign is not identified in
the bill but would be subject to the Alaska Traffic Manual and
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway
Administration. In further response to Representative Rauscher,
he said the size of the sign is dependent upon the text, thus a
veteran with a long name would require a larger sign.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether remarks other than a
veteran's name would be allowed on the sign.
MR. NEIDHOLD said the bill does not specify; however, the bill
directs DOTPF to develop "that policy," and he offered to
provide more information at a later date.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether more than one name would
be allowed on a sign.
MR. NEIDHOLD said the bill is not specific on that, but it
directs DOTPF to produce a sign in accordance with the
legislative commendation; the Alaska Traffic Manual and the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices do not prohibit
listing more than one name on a sign.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether a person sponsoring a
veteran would provide the $2,500 for the initial cost of the
sign, and additional donations would be needed to cover the cost
of repairs if the sign were damaged.
MR. NEIDHOLD said language in Version M of the bill prohibits
DOTPF from acting unless funds are available.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER restated all of the funds would come
from a sponsor.
MR. NEIDHOLD restated the bill restricts DOTPF from any or all
of the stated activities - design, post, maintain, or replace -
unless funding is present.
2:41:43 PM
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX directed attention to the bill on page 2,
lines 21-23, which read [in part]:
... The Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities may not
(1) design, post, maintain, or replace a sign or
other marker unless there is adequate funding through
gifts, donations, or grants ...
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether grants would include grants from
the state.
MR. NEIDHOLD was unsure and deferred the question to finance.
VICE CHAIR LEDOUX noted the bill has a zero fiscal note [Fiscal
Note Identifier: HB178-DOT-COM-03-31-17] and expressed her
concern as to whether the legislature can act on a bill with a
zero fiscal note.
MR. NEIDHOLD explained DOTPF attached a zero fiscal note because
of the language prohibiting DOTPF from performing any activities
unless other funding is provided.
2:44:22 PM
MIKE LESMANN, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
DOTPF, stated DOTPF's understanding that activities related to
design, maintenance, posting, or replacing [signs] are
prohibited without funding to DOTPF outside of funding from the
state or federal government, which is the reason for a zero
fiscal note. However, for its Southcoast, Northern, and Central
Regions, DOTPF has statutory designated program receipt
authority which provides the mechanism for DOTPF to accept gifts
and grants. Mr. Lesmann suggested the question about grants
should be directed to the bill sponsor. In response to Vice
Chair LeDoux's question about [Fiscal Note Identifier: HB178-
MVA-OVA-1-19-18], he deferred to the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs.
[Vice Chair LeDoux returned the gavel to Chair Tuck.]
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ surmised the intention of Version M is
DMVA would work with private nonprofit organizations which
support and advance veterans' interests and recognition in order
to secure nominations and funding for said memorials.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked:
The intention of the bill comes from the requests from
the veterans' organizations themselves who have
identified funding for some signs that they would like
to go ahead and put on these veterans' memorials. And
the, the process and the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs can certainly speak to their
analysis, but the process is such that those, those
veterans' organizations have current established
relationships with the department. They're already
recognized by (indisc.) as veterans' organizations,
they already have those relationships, and they simply
submit a document with a name. Then that is simply
passed on to the legislature by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said from her experience working with
veterans' organizations, a veterans' organization interested in
recognizing a nominee would put forth a person's name with the
understanding that it would likely fund that specific memorial
sign.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ observed the bill would allow DOTPF to
work with DMVA in placing signs at six specific veterans'
memorials in the state; this would be done in collaboration with
the private nonprofit veterans' organizations which would fund
the projects.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified DMVA would be an intermediary
between the veterans' organizations and the legislature, and the
legislature would decide whether or not to recognize veterans.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ confirmed funding would come from
private nonprofit organizations working with DMVA to make
recommendations to the legislature regarding memorial signs. If
the recommendations are approved, the signs would be installed
by DOTPF. She asked for the location of the six veterans'
memorials that would be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the bill amends AS 35.40.035 which
identifies six veterans' memorials designated on portions of
highways in Juneau, Eagle River, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
and Fairbanks, and on two bridges. In further response to
Representative Spohnholz, he said he would provide the locations
of the memorials to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he likes the intent of the bill and
that Alaskans would honor a fallen comrade in a self-reliant
manner. He asked whether there are any limits to the number of
memorials, other than those imposed by the veterans'
organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out the legislature has
established the existing memorials and new legislation would be
required to change the number of memorials. Further, the
legislature would decide on the number and frequency of
designated names.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the six existing
memorials are identified by a signpost - or encompass a certain
area, such as an intersection - so to envision the physical or
procedural limitations on the number of individual signs that
might be posted.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said individual veterans' memorials can
be unique; therefore, the legislature has allowed DOTPF latitude
to determine their location and size, and if more than one
person's name would be included.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised the amount of money generated
may affect the size of the memorial thus signs may be very large
or very small depending upon the veteran's popularity. Further,
he asked where the bill establishes standards on what would
qualify a veteran for commendation or recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the legislature ultimately decides
who is recognized under this program; the bill does not provide
criteria to guide the legislature in its decision.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER concluded a recommendation - even though
funded by a veterans' organization - could be denied by the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained denial of a recommendation
would occur through inaction by the legislature.
2:55:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged the value of recognizing
veterans, however, DOTPF's primary responsibility is for
infrastructure and public safety. Further, she estimated there
are 75,000 veterans in Alaska, and asked how [one nomination]
would be prioritized as more important than another.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said veterans' organizations desire to
highlight one or more veterans over a certain period of time,
but not permanently. He stressed the legislation currently
before the committee relates to whether the legislature will
respond to that request.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed her appreciation of veterans'
memorials and their purpose. She inquired as to whether there
are additional messages of support for the bill, and questioned
how the legislature would recognize all of the thousands of
veterans in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted there will be public testimony from
veterans in support of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH returned to the concern of equity, and
pointed out the bill directs the initial placement would be done
in the order of the most recent commendation, and if donations
have not been linked to a specific veteran, DOTPF could use
those funds for others; however, if there were veterans
commended by the legislature without funding, and all available
funding is associated with other names, there would be a
conflict. In addition, if the signs are not meant to be
permanent, he surmised [veterans' organizations] would need to
raise funds for their eventual replacement or removal of the
signs. He directed attention to the bill on page 2, lines 18
and 19, which read [in part]:
... A donor may request that a gift, donation, or
grant be used for a specific veteran's memorial, ...
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH gave an example of a partial donation
directed to a specific memorial and asked what the accounting
burden would be if DOTPF is expected to hold a donation for a
specific veteran and await additional funding.
3:01:04 PM
CHAIR TUCK announced that HB 178 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR017 Sponsor Statement 1.20.18.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 17 |
| HJR017 Supporting Document- S.1179. 1.20.18.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 17 |
| HJR017 Fiscal Note 1.24.18.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HJR 17 |
| HB178 ver M.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 178 |
| HB178 Supporting Document-Support Letters 1.24.18.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 178 |
| HB178 Fiscal Note-MVA 1.19.18.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 178 |
| HB178 Fiscal Note-DOT 1.19.18.pdf |
HMLV 1/25/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 178 |