Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
02/08/2022 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
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 | |
| Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Commissioner | |
| Overview: Executive Order 122 | |
| HB296 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 296-DONATIONS/GIFTS FOR DOT&PF SIGNAGE
1:50:42 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 296, "An Act relating to program receipts; and
relating to the acceptance of gifts, donations, and grants for
the purpose of providing signage for assets under the control of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities."
1:50:58 PM
The committee took a brief at ease at 1:51 p.m.
1:51:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 296. He paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Part of the job of being a State Senator or a State
Representative is to acknowledge those people, groups
or organizations that have contributed to their
community or state or country in a unique way that
provides that recognition. One of the ways we do that
is to name a geographic location, structure, event or
even a bridge after those previously named entities
through legislation.
When doing so, one of the most common points of
discussion is the cost to name that structure. I have
never seen one to vote on that doesn't have a fiscal
note attached and that alone has caused a few
legislators to vote no on the legislation.
HB 296 provide a mechanism for funding a commemorative
name to a project by allowing receipt authority to the
Department of Transportation so that the department
can collect donations for signage. It does not require
these costs to be paid by outside groups but instead
helps to codify a process that will not be reliant on
state funds.
1:53:44 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, provided the sectional analysis for HB 296 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: AS 37.05.146(c) Page 1, Lines 5-7
This section adds gifts, donations, and grants
received by DOT & PF to the definition of program
receipts and non- general fund programs receipts found
in the Fiscal Procedures Act in accordance with
section 2 of this bill.
Section 2: AS 44.42.060 Page 1, Lines 8-14, Page 2,
Lines 1-3
This section adds that the department may receive
gifts, donations, and grants in accordance with a
memorandum of understanding with the donor party. This
section also outlines that the funds may not be used
until the necessary funds have been collected from the
donor.
1:55:47 PM
MR. MCKEE, in response to a question from Representative Hannan,
clarified that the money is collected up front.
1:56:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER added there would be an expectation of
whether the naming of a bridge would be done through donations
or "through the legislature and the money process here at the
state." It could be either, he said, and it would be designated
within legislation put forward.
1:57:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to questions from
Representative Stutes, explained that there is a number assigned
to a bridge, but until the money is collected, the name would
not go up on a sign at that bridge.
1:59:34 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS proffered that if the legislation was moved
forward and passed, the physical sign wouldn't go up until the
state receives the money.
2:00:24 PM
MR. MILLS, in response to a question from Chair Hopkins, walked
the committee through the process. First, a bill would come
before the legislature requesting the naming of a bridge, and
the bill would signify whether the funds would be from a donor
or be paid by the state. If the money were to come from a
donor, then the state would designate [the donor] in state
designated program receipts (SDPR) that the department would
expect to collect, and there would be a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that would be signed with that party. Mr.
Mills cited the language on page 1, line 14, through page 2,
line 1 of HB 296, as pertaining to this process and protecting
DOT&PF from having to pay for the signage with its own funds.
In conclusion, he confirmed the sign for the bridge would not be
placed until the funds were collected. In response to a follow-
up question from Representative Stutes, he said if a donor died
after making a commitment to pay for a sign on a bridge, then a
new MOU could be drafted. He then suggested that designating
that the money would come from a third party would be one way to
"get around that issue."
2:04:09 PM
MR. MILLS, in response to Representative Hannan, offered his
understanding that "the sweep" [that occurs at the end of a
fiscal year] does not affect statutory designated program
receipts. To another question, he replied that DOT&PF would
collect the funds only when the full amount was available. He
added that a "boiler plate" MOU would be available.
2:05:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed his understanding of the
mechanism proposed under HB 296.
2:06:59 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS noted that he agrees with the mechanism.
2:07:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said HB 296 basically would give the
receipt authority for DOT&PF to collect the funds.
2:07:46 PM
MR. MILLS, in response to Chair Hopkins, clarified that a donor
could gift the actual sign rather than the funds for one to be
made, as long as the sign itself met the standards of DOT&PF.
He then responded to follow-up questions. He said the
department does not "presuppose" price as affected by inflation,
and "would work to make that difference up." He explained that
the authority given would be to spend down to zero, so the
fiscal note would be zero, but would not be "a true zero fiscal
note."
2:09:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to Representative Hannan
regarding the need for this legislation to dedicate bridges,
shared that "one or two votes have not happened because it costs
the state money."
2:10:41 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS offered clarification that HB 296 would not
[preclude other forms of funding].
2:11:12 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS expressed appreciation for the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked the committee.
2:11:45 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that HB 296 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| exor0122.pdf |
HTRA 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM |
Executive Order 122 - Transfering Certain Duties from DOA to DOTPF |
| HB 296 Sectional Analysis 1.31.2022.pdf |
HTRA 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Sponsor Statement .pdf |
HTRA 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| Ryan Anderson Resume 2021_Redacted.pdf |
HTRA 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM |
Confirmation Hearing - Ryan Anderson Commissioner-Designee DOTPF |