Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/26/1997 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 88 - ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Number 016 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business to be HB 88, "An Act relating to ferries and ferry terminals, establishing the Alaska Marine Highway Authority, and relating to maintenance of state marine vessels; and providing for an effective date." He stated that the bill has been before the committee three times and he would like to adopt an amendment that the committee has been working on with the administration. Number 157 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 0- LS0399\E.2, Utermohle, 3/25/97. Number 195 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON objected for discussion purposes. Number 211 PETER ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill Williams, stated that through discussions with the Marine Highway System, they have reworked the section that dealt with the interport differential. In the amendment, Section 22, page 16, lines 26-30, the entire section (c) would be deleted. Page 17, line 5, has been modified to better reflect some of the Marine Highway Systems concerns. He stated that we have also added language which stated that, the Marine Highway System shall make available to the different interested parties the calculations that went into making up the interport differential. He stated that the new Section (c) will give the Marine Highway System the authority to adopt regulations concerning responsibleness of doing maintenance and repair work in the state. It further states that, the Marine Highway Authority will adopt regulations concerning the interport differential and we have given them guidelines concerning some of the things that we think should be included in the interport differential. Number 400 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked the department to talk to the amendment. Number 430 MIKE DOWNING, Director, Division of Engineering and Operations, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, stated that the bill with the amendment has improved from what it was but there are elements of it that the department doesn't like. He stated that the operational constraints that are prescribed in the amendment are counter to what he has heard in testimony as the intent of the bill. He stated that the department's understanding of the intent is to give the system the opportunity to function with a freer hand, more like a business, and the amendment is fairly prescriptive and counter to that intent. He stated that considerable time and effort has been devoted to working throughout this one issue, which is a minor issue, in terms of all the things that come up under the bill. The department's feeling is that if it is this difficult to work through one item, working through all the issues in the bill, if it were to pass, will be a difficult thing for the Marine Highway System to do. He stated that the department remains opposed to the bill for the reasons previously stated in Commissioner Perkins testimony, prior to the amendment. Number 564 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked for some examples of where the criteria of interport differential, relating to this amendment, might be at odds with good management in maintaining the fleet. Number 591 MR. DOWNING stated that Section (c) puts a finer box around the system in terms of the base port and the re-delivery port. He stated that the department has a lot of parameters imposed on the system, such as the constraints of the vessel configuration, the distance between ports, the labor contract, et cetera. This is just one more item on a list of similar constraints on the system. Number 645 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that since various vessels may have different home ports, which you would make the determination of the added costs. He asked if it would be better for the system if Ketchikan were designated as the home port for all vessels in Southeast Alaska and Seward or Kodiak were designated for the vessels in the north. He stated that we are trying give Alaskans every opportunity to work on their own vessels and make certain that all of the costs are fully considered. He stated that there could be some problems if a vessel on its way to Bellingham ran into problems, and it would be cheaper to go into the yard in Bellingham. He asked if it is laid out in contract where each vessel is going to be taken well in advance, except for in emergency purposes. Number 799 MR. DOWNING stated that the work put out for competitive bids are with the assumption of where the vessel is going to come off line. He stated that the existing policy states that for the purposes of making that calculation, that the ship will come off line in Ketchikan for the six Southeast vessels and in Seward for the two Southwest vessels. He stated that he does not see that, in the process of adopting the regulation for the base port to comply with Section (c), that we would change those two ports. Number 841 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that maybe the adoption of Section (c) and the definition of interport differential, in a formal expanded definition of what should be factored in, really creates the problem. He stated that he could see where there could be some problems with trying to develop the authority generally and broadly. He stated that the conceptual adoption right now is the thing for us to do. Number 904 MR. ECKLUND stated that in the area that Mr. Downing was talking about, in the amendment, line 11, "The commissioner shall designate by regulation the designated base port for each vessel operated by the department", the designated based port is already in their policies and procedures, we further went on to the next line, "A vessel's designated base port is the vessel's delivery and redelivery port." He stated that this is important because we have a protest with the Matanuska where the Federal Highway Administration is not happy with the existing policies and procedures. Adoption of that sentence would clear up any future problems such as the ones with the Matanuska and alleviate some concerns of the Federal Highway Administration. He stated that we do not want to jeopardize any federal funding of any projects. Number 964 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if this problem with the federal government, adds on any additional costs. Number 978 MR. ECKLUND replied that if the federal government has a problem with the existing policies and procedures regarding how the contracts are awarded, they could pull out their funding of a job, which would create a problem for us. Number 994 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if this amendment precludes it or facilitates it. Number 1000 MR. ECKLUND stated that the amendment would make the federal government feel easier about our policies and procedures. Number 1013 MR. DOWNING stated that the department's position is that, it is not that significant, it is just the accumulation of parameters that we have a problem with. The Federal Highway Administration will impose on us, the rules that they operate under and he rather them do that and not put in statute requirements that parallel their requirements. Number 1050 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the administration is satisfied with the definition distinguishing between minor and major repairs and if this was a problem. Number 1070 MR. DOWNING replied that it was not a problem. Number 1078 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if there were problems with the administration in the criteria to establish who serves on the board. Number 1090 MR. DOWNING stated that he has not had a discussion with the commissioner or anybody else from the administration on that subject. Number 1110 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he did not support adding the interport language in the first place and asked which language is worse what is already adopted in the bill or the amendment that is now in front of us. Number 1137 MR. DOWNING stated that this amendment is the result of long discussions between himself, Mr. Ecklund and others from the marine highway and it is a great improvement over the first amendment, given the options this is what we would like to see done. Number 1160 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that there is some dissonance here. He said that we are creating an authority to allow them to independently manage and yet we are adding this prescriptive language to it and taking away some of the authority that the authority would otherwise have. Number 1199 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if Representative Elton still held his objection. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied no. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated hearing no objection Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1233 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move Amendment 2, 0- LS0399\E.3, Utermohle, 3/26/97. Number 1238 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected to the adoption of this amendment. He stated that this is an extremely important piece of legislation to all of the communities of Southeast and Southwest Alaska. We are establishing a whole new regime of authority and within the bill there is a reference to experience in maritime affairs as it is a maritime operation. He stated that rather than do harm to the amendment, his preference would be to hold the amendment until we hear the bill again next time. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Representative Elton if that was acceptable. Number 1313 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that was acceptable and he would encourage it. He stated that his concern was the proscriptive nature of maritime experience with no definition of what the experience is. He withdraw the motion. Number 1350 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that he would withdraw his objection. Number 1362 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated that after the recess the bill will be brought up again.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|