Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/29/2004 08:04 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 327-POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF Number 1127 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 327, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and repealing a requirement that public facilities comply with energy standards adopted by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM clarified that HB 327 is not a Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) bill, but was brought forth because citizens came to him wondering why a road was being built without a bridge to connect it. He noted that there is a companion bill in the Senate. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reminded committee members that, at the last hearing on HB 327, he had requested a copy of 23 U.S.C. 135, which is referenced in the bill. He said it is an extremely large document that is available to anyone who would like read it. The committee took a brief at-ease. Number 0973 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 327, Version 23-LS1135\U, Utermohle, 4/24/04, as a work draft. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN objected for discussion purposes. Number 0950 TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Holm, sponsor, offered a brief review. He stated that the bill originally would have eliminated the requirement for study of costs and benefits, but Version U reconfigures when that study would be required and under what circumstances. The intent is to stop frivolous lawsuits that halt projects that are in the middle of or nearly ready to go to construction. He noted that a list had been compiled of projects that could be stopped. Number 0851 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked why [paragraphs (14) and (15) in Section 2] were going to be deleted. MR. LARKIN explained that the energy performance standards were created in 1980, after a period of great concern over an energy crisis. Deleting them is a matter of house cleaning, because the authority for implementing these [standards] is no longer DOT&PF's. In response to a follow-up question from Representative Seaton, he clarified, "It's just redundant statute at this point; the concerns are being addressed." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked why the part of paragraph (15) that addresses providing planning assistance should not remain. MR. LARKIN indicated that school districts, through the use of state and federal monies, often through bonds, takes care of "this." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he doesn't want "somebody coming back and saying, 'Gee, we wish you still did this.'" MR. LARKIN indicated that, based upon the research that's been done regarding the bill, that would not happen. Number 0623 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON told Mr. Larkin that he would like to know "who is doing that in rural educational facilities, ... for those energy audits." Number 0593 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN directed attention to an e-mail from [Ann Flister, included in the committee packet], which expresses concern regarding a construction project that would affect [her home]. He asked Mr. Larkin to address her concerns. MR. LARKIN said the concerns of Ann Flister and her husband were in regard to the original bill version and, after a lengthy conversation with Mr. Larkin, they maintain their reservations to Version U. He noted that the cost benefit study had been done twice on the project and the project failed to rise to cost benefit status twice. He said, "In my mind, it is a perfect example of the less than usual nature of the cost benefit study. It is a totally separate document that stands on its own." MR. LARKIN stated that the bill would have no effect on [the Flister's situation], as unfortunate as that situation is. He indicated that [the Flisters] maintain their objection, based upon principle. He also indicated that people have a misunderstanding of cost benefits, because the word "cost" is used. He clarified that costs are considered in many ways during the process of getting a road project together; cost benefit studies just compare benefits with cost, dollar per dollar. MR. LARKIN emphasized, "We are not eliminating costs, we are only eliminating this specific comparison study and, in fact, we're not eliminating it, we're modifying it by this bill." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN thanked Mr. Larkin for his clarification. He noted that he is a real estate agent and if he were to list [the Flister's property], he would have to have a disclosure "about that thick," and he said he doesn't think anybody would want to make an offer on the property, because it is in limbo. He stated for the record that he is very concerned about "that one." Number 0248 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH [moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1], as follows: On page 4, lines 8, 10, and 13: Before "report" Insert "summary" CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to [Conceptual Amendment 1]. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 0130 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved Amendment 2, [labeled 23-LS1135\U.2, Utermohle, 4/24/04], which read as follows: Page 4, line 20: Delete "if the commissioner determines appropriate" Insert "except as provided in (e) of this section" Page 5, line 20: Delete "uniform" Page 5, line 23, through page 6, line 1: Delete all material. Insert "The regulations may provide for an exemption from the requirement to prepare an estimate of benefits for a specific transportation project if (1) the project is required for compliance with a federal or state statute or regulation; (2) the small scale of the project makes the preparation of an estimate of benefits for the project impractical; or (3) the cost of preparing an estimate of benefits for the project is excessive relative to the estimated cost of the project." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH moved to adopt an amendment to Amendment 2, such that lines 8-17 [as numbered on the amendment] would read as follows: Page 5, line 23: Delete all material. Insert "The regulations may provide for an exemption from the requirement to prepare an estimate of benefits for a specific transportation project if (1) the project is required for compliance with a federal or state statute or regulation; (2) the small scale of the project makes the preparation of an estimate of benefits for the project impractical. renumber accordingly TAPE 04-72, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated the amendment to Amendment 2. In response to Mr. Larkin, he said "the factors" would be the same, but the amendment to Amendment 2 "just makes it better in terms of this cost benefit issue." Number 0137 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection [to the amendment to Amendment 2]. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 0148 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 2, [as amended]. There being no objection, Amendment 2, [as amended] was adopted. Number 0173 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to page 5, line 14, regarding changing the requirement for a [construction] program from two years to one year. He asked if that would have an influence on the [Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)]. He expressed concern that projects already scheduled would get repeatedly "pushed off." Number 0332 MR. LARKIN clarified that the programs would be forwarded to the governor and legislature for review only, not as an option for the legislature to "rearrange them each year." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM said, "This isn't really a STIP reorganization." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested a report from the sponsor defining "the role of this in its relationship to the STIP." He said if it turns out that it would mean an annual review and reorganization of the STIP, he will object to that. Number 0486 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to page 3, [paragraph] (15). He noted that many rural schools are having problems because they have not been constructed to standards, and he doesn't think that the individual school districts are taking over "this function." He said he would like to leave [paragraph] (15) in the bill, until it is discovered that "there is someone ... else doing that." Number 0561 REPRESENTATIVE HOLM returned to the previously referred to [23 U.S.C. 135] and said, "That has all the appropriate oversights for those projects, because they're federal projects." Furthermore, he noted that the planning assistance no longer comes from DOT&PF. Notwithstanding that, he said it would be okay with him if Representative Seaton wanted to take out [paragraph (15)]. Number 0662 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Amendment 3 would maintain the language in [paragraph (15), beginning on page 3, line 28], which read as follows: (15) PROVIDE PLANNING ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ENERGY AUDITS AND RELATED TECHNICAL SERVICES, TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL ATTENDANCE AREAS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT (A) STANDARDS FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF RURAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITES; AND (B) ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR RURAL EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES; CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to Amendment 3. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 0684 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that he had made a motion to report [the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 327, Version 23-LS1135\U, Utermohle, 4/24/04, as amended, with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes]; and that Representative Lynn had objected. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN removed his objection. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated that there were no objections. Therefore, CSHB 327(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|