Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/07/2001 01:37 PM Senate CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 88-METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
SENATOR PHILLIPS, bill sponsor, said that SB 88 would add one
Senate member and one House member to the Anchorage Metropolitan
Area Transportation Study (AMATS) policy committee. There are
currently 5 members of AMATS; one appointed by the mayor, two
elected members from the assembly and one each appointed from
Department of Transportation and Department of Environmental
Conservation. He feels that the policy committee would be more
responsive to its constituents if there were two more elected
officials present.
The Federal Highway Administration has raised no objection to this
change but the Anchorage Municipal Assembly has expressed
opposition.
KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, said he had no prepared
comments but the department doesn't support the legislation. Dave
Eberle, central region regional director and DOT representative on
the AMATS policy committee, was available to answer questions if
needed. He acknowledged that there is frustration with the AMATS
process but SB 88 doesn't represent a fix for the problems.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON expressed frustration that this legislation is
brought up every year and DOT opposes it every time but doesn't
offer solutions for a compromise.
MR. PARKAN said Mr. Eberle could speak to the specific issues.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that the State of Hawaii has legislative
representation on their version of the AMATS committee so this
isn't unusual. The members, most of whom are not elected officials,
make decisions and he must answer to his constituents for their
unpopular decisions. It's frustrating to receive the blame and have
no means to fix the problem. Adding the two Anchorage area
legislators doesn't lessen any current member's power so he doesn't
understand the opposition. There is a 5 to 10 percent local
contribution to the matched federal funds so there is direct
legislative responsibility to constituents for projects and there
should be input from local legislators.
Number 342
BILL CUMMINGS, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section,
spoke to the constitutionality of SB 88. He said it violates the
dual office holding provision of Article 2, section 5 of the state
constitution. Because this is a second office under the state where
policy and fiscal decisions are made about state programs,
legislators could not be AMATS committee members.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked about the Postsecondary Education Commission
that has two legislative members.
MR. CUMMINGS said "that can be distinguished. We do have that
example before us."
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked how Hawaii was doing the same thing.
MR. CUMMINGS said they have different provisions and that his
research from last year indicated the city of Honolulu was in
danger of losing federal highway dollars so they had to act quickly
to garner as much support as possible and this method seemed
expedient.
It's his understanding that the city of Anchorage is changing its
method of doing business so that AMATS may be dealt with
differently. He thought it was best to give this new process a
chance before taking "this obviously illegal approach."
SENATOR PHILLIPS commented that it's not illegal until it's judged
so in a court of law.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said this is a municipal board, not a governor's
board so the dual office restriction doesn't apply.
MR. CUMMINGS was pleased that point was raised because "under
existing practice, it is a municipal board. After the passage of
this legislation, it would make it, sort of, an adjunct to the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. This is a far cry
from what we have now and it gets into local control."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON respectfully disagreed. He asked for the will of
the committee.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move SB 88 with no changes to the
next committee of referral. There were no objections.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|