Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/04/1998 01:15 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 227 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY Number 0367 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 227, "An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority; relating to the powers and duties of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Speaker Gail Phillips is before the committee. He said the committee has heard this bill several times and indicated he would like to move HB 227 today. Number 0376 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would like to hear from the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the department while they're here. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted he would first like to hear from the sponsor who is currently attending another meeting. Chairman Williams called for an at-ease at 2:50 p.m. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the meeting back to order at 2:51 p.m. He asked Mr. Pignalberi to tell the committee what has transpired. Number 400 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, brought the committee members up-do-date on the changes made. He referred to Version LS0789\F, Utermohle, 2/27/98, page 6, lines 24 through 27. He said the drafter was asked to make that sentence easier to understand. TAPE 98-12, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. PIGNALBERI continued, "...that leaves this committee. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned to the committee that on page 5 of the bill, on line 14, the words 'construction season,' at the end of line 14, it had been suggested to us by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) that we change construction season to 'fiscal year.' And Representative Elton was kind enough to point out that splitting the fiscal year splits the construction season, it could be problematical so we discussed this matter with people at DOT/PF and with Federal Highways, and amongst staff, and the drafter of the bill and decided that -- I tried to reach Mr. Simpson, I believe is on line now to let him know that we would not be recommending that as a change, and prefer to leave construction season as it is." MR. PIGNALBERI referred to page 2, line 15, the section of the bill that has the findings and the intent of the legislature. He said the subparagraph is added at the suggestion of Mr. Simpson, FAA. It reads the authority will: (4) Evaluate and prioritize projects with a method that is consistent with criteria required by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and other funding sources. MR. PIGNALBERI asked that be incorporated as an amendment also. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to the amendments as F.1 and F.2. Number 0026 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move proposed Amendment F.1, Utermohle, 3/3/98 and asked for unanimous consent. Page 4, line 1: Delete "facilities" Insert "facility procurement" Page 16, line 24: Delete "its" Insert "the commissioner's [ITS]" Page 16, lines 26 - 28: Delete "approval and for submission of the findings, plans, and recommendations, as approved, to the governor and to the appropriate state agency to facilitate the development of agency capital improvement budget requests." Insert "approval [GOVERNOR AND TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET REQUESTS]." Number 0028 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He said, I've gotten to the first two things that this amendment accomplishes, and so far I would describe them as technical amendments. I would like to have that confirmed by the maker of the amendment." He also asked the third component, beginning on line 7, be explained. MR. PIGNALBERI asked if he was asking for an explanation of lines 8 through 13 means. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied yes, what that change through the amendment accomplishes. MR. PIGNALBERI referred back to Version F, Utermohle, 2/27/98, page 16, subsection 6, lines 24 through 28. He said, "The reason why this sentence was so convoluted is because it was trying to do, in one section of the bill - this section having to do with what the commissioner shall do, it was also trying to say what the authority shall do in the section that says what the commissioner shall do, and so it resulted in a very convoluted sentence." Mr. Pignalberi explained the drafter had to put part of the language in different sections of the bill. He said, "The gist of it is that the approval and submission of findings, plans, and recommendations, is being done by the commissioner in this section." PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams, Alaska State Legislature, explained the amendment cleans up confusing sentences in Version F, line 24, subsection (6), the commissioner is going to: submit his findings, plans and recommendations to the authority for their review, revision and approval. PETE ECKLUND reiterated that they took a convoluted sentence and tried to clarify it. It is saying that "the commissioner is going to submit his findings, plans, and recommendations to the authority for their review, revision and approval." He then referred to Version F, 2/27/98, page 4, lines 14 and 15 of Version F: the authority shall be submitted to the governor for inclusion in the state capital projects budget and to the legislature. Number 0062 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON for clarification stated the commissioner submits to the authority and the authority submits to the governor. PETE ECKLUND replied for the findings, plans and recommendations in this section is correct. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON withdrew his objection. Number 0067 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was any other objections. There being none, Amendment F.1 was adopted. Number 0070 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to proposed Amendment F.2, page 2, line 15. (4) Evaluate and prioritize projects with a method that is consistent with criteria required by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and other funding sources. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment F.2 and asked for unanimous consent. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were objections, there being none, Amendment F.2 was unanimously adopted. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Pignalberi if he would like to discuss the fiscal notes that he signed a few minutes ago. Number 0081 MR. PIGNALBERI explained the fiscal notes simply takes the amount of money that is in the FY 99 budget, for statewide planning BRU (Budget Review Unit), and moves it under a new BRU called the "Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority." He said the organization chart, the (indisc.) from the budget, gives a more vivid picture of what is paid for by the money, basically this is the statewide planning BRU - and the DOT/PF that would, under this bill, would simply be transferred to the authority. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was expecting to see a fiscal note from the department and indicated this seems to be a little bit unusual. He asked if the department has had a chance to review the fiscal note that was prepared today for this transfer. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS mentioned they will hear from the department. MR. PIGNALBERI added that they went over the approach to our fiscal note with the department last evening and even made some suggestions that they correct theirs now that they understand how it works. He said, "But the department cannot admit how this bill works because they simply don't like it, and they're not going to prepare a fiscal note to reflect how it really works. ... There was a statement put on the record at our last meeting that this authority would be federally funds ineligible and we checked with both the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, both of them I believe have representatives on- line. ... Basically the Federal Department of Transportation is mandated to work with whatever setup the various states come up with. And among the 50 states, there are a variety of planning organizations and authorities that are eligible for federal funds of which this will just be one. They are concerned that there be no redundant overhead expense and redundant activities so they wouldn't have to pay for the same thing twice. And that obviously is not the case because we're simply taking an existing BRU and putting it under the new authority and there is no redundancy in that. So, the information that was put on the record, was based I believe on an honest misunderstanding of the intent of the bill but we need to have that corrected." Number 0114 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said this not only transfers the money, but it also transfers all the positions out of DOT/PF into the new BRU. He asked if it stipulates where these positions will be located if we approve this. MR. PIGNALBERI replied no, there's no reason why they can't remain where there are. He said he supposed something would be worked out with the department rather than putting them in a separate building. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated there wouldn't be any major transfer of positions to new offices or setting up a new quasi-agency with all of these positions. He said he assumed that all the positions remain the same. MR. PIGNALBERI replied, "It's my own vision and I can't speak for the sponsors of the bill directly in this because they have probably their unique vision on their mind, but I think we're roughly on track with minor differences that the authority would probably have an administrative office in Anchorage and that they would have some minimal administrative support there. But in terms of actually moving all of these positions you see on the organizational chart out of Juneau, I don't think - that's not contemplated." Number 0128 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would not support it if it positions were moved out of Juneau because he believes the interrelationship between the planning and the development side, and the operational side is a very important element. He indicated he does see value in the bill of establishing continuity within the planning mechanism, but he doesn't want this thing to become a hindrance or a harm to the department and the rest of its functions. He reiterated that he is not about to vote to move this out of committee until there are very good assurances. MR. PIGNALBERI stated he is sure that the sponsors recognize and desire the authority to be an independent body for the purpose of making the selections and doing the rating so that it's external and there is more accountability that it's an external check on the DOT/PF, recognizing that they absolutely must have a continued working relationship at the staff level - with other people in DOT/PF and that's been a given in the whole process. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that he's not sure that he's was reassured. He said it sounds like we're still "putting lipstick on the hog" and we don't know where these positions are going to be (indisc.--laughter). He referred to the organizational chart and asked who hires these people. Representative Elton stated, "If we're taking these positions, my assumption is that they would report to the director that's hired by the authority." MR. PIGNALBERI responded that's right, the chairman of the authority. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON continued, "This director gets the positions, but I would imagine would have the authority to fill them with whomever he or she wants. They get the positions, they don't necessarily get the people. So this director could say, 'well, I don't want this planner..." MR. PIGNALBERI interjected, they are state employees still. Number 0151 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON remarked they are. He said he is assuming the director is going to have the hiring authority on whom they want reporting to them. He asked if the director is mandated to keep the people that they're getting, or is he only getting the PCN'S (Position Control Numbers). MR. PIGNALBERI responded there is no mandate in the bill for the director or the authority to keep anyone as an employee. He said he didn't know if there was much choice in the matter and didn't know why the desire would be there. He added these positions are classified. Number 0157 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, are we assuming that the director is going to be a range 26. MR. PIGNALBERI replied yes - whatever it is now. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it doesn't look like he's going to be able to get this bill out of here today, so it will be held over until Monday. Chairman Williams asked Mr. Moreno to come forward since he will not be available to testify on Monday. Number 0169 STEVE MORENO, Administrator, Alaska Division, Federal Highway Administration, said his purpose in being here is to register some concerns he has about the wording that's in the bill and noted FHA is neutral on the proposal. MR. MORENO stressed that he is concerned with HB 227 because there are words that could get us in trouble here. He said he knows we're talking about a situation in which you have a director who reports to the authority, and the bill as it's written, also has a commissioner in there as well. He noted, because he hasn't seen the organizational chart, he doesn't know who's in charge of DOT/PF in that sense. Mr. Moreno stated, "My relationship is one with typically, and it is in all states, with either the commissioner or the secretary of transportation, depending on what the state is. So now I see we now have a director and we have a commissioner, so who's in charge, I don't know. So I would have a concern about that, whom am I supposed to deal with as an organization." MR. MORENO also noted there were words that were previously in the bill that the authority would review, revise as appropriate and approve capital improvement projects - budgets, and programs, and projects, and those kinds of words. Mr. Moreno told the committee his concern is whether or not the authority would insert or delete projects or programs of projects from the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program document, which is a federally required item. He said those words appear to still be in here. There was an attempt to put other words in. He referred to page 8 of Version F, lines 11 through 15: The authority may make amendments to an approved program that affects projects for construction or maintenance of highways approved by the Federal Highway Administration only if the amendments are adopted in accordance with the program review, revision, and approval process established by the authority. MR. MORENO asked is that the same process that the balance that DOT/PF uses, or is that a new process that just the authority uses. Do we have two processes now, or one? He stated it's not clear to him. MR. MORENO concluded those are basically his concerns. He said they're similar to what he had earlier, it was whether or not the authority, or the authority's staff, in this case would substitute their judgement for all the processes that came into play to get to the final list of projects. MR. ECKLUND said, "We did include language in the bill that talks about the authority maximizing the use of federal funds and not doing anything to make our program federally ineligible. The amendment process he was talking about on page 8, we envision the authority working with the federal government to come up with an amendment process that meets both the federal requirements and that the State can live with. We don't envision the authority just card blanche changing things and making projects federally ineligible. We've included language to try to make that clear." Number 0206 MR. MORENO gave a specific example, he said, "If the authority put in a project in year one of the document and said, all right this is now the DOT/PF's highest priority - we the authority stick it in there. Our first reaction would be that that was not an eligible project. What would have to happen is that project would have to go back through the entire process again, the STIP (Statewide Transportation Improvement Program) process, and if it was in Anchorage, the AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study) process, and be ranked according to the standard procedure that the department uses. So I don't know how long that takes, whether that's a full legislative season so that it's not until year two that the thing actually becomes eligible for federal aid. Again, it's going to depend on what this modification process is." MR. ECKLUND explained some of the problems we had in drafting is, a lot of these things that he's talking about are policies, they're not in statute now, they're not in regulation now, and so we had to give the authority some guidance - not to break federal law, to apply with federal law, but also given the latitude to come up with their own policies with the federal government to address these issues. Because it's not in statute now, it's not in regulation now, it's hard to put into a bill. We tried to craft it to give them some leeway, but also make sure that they would follow federal requirements and not make our program ineligible. MR. MORENO mentioned the last time he was here there was a comment made to the effect that we haven't built any new roads for a long time in Alaska. He referred to two national charts, federal fiscal 1992 to 1996. Mr. Moreno said, "If you look at it in terms of the number of miles that are under construction in any given fiscal year, for the five-year period that I just mentioned, only about 3 percent, that's this little dark slice of the pie here, only about 3 percent of the roadways that are under construction are new roadways on new alignment. Alternatively, if you look at that and say, well forget about the mileage, let's look at out of eight billion dollars a year that's under construction, nationally, how much of that is new roadway. That number for those same years is in the range of 13 to 17 percent. So again, it's a relatively small piece of the pie, the rest of it is going toward system preservation and capacity improvements." Number 0229 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK stated for the record that she is concerned and would like answers regarding questions Mr. Moreno asked - who is in charge since we didn't put in the commissioners and address his comment regarding page 8 as well. Number 0234 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS commented, "With this, you're referring to a mature road system which we don't have here in Alaska." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "Down town Anchorage don't need more streets or more roads, there's no new roads down there, but certainly some new roads in rural Alaska. And Alaska is maybe more unique than the others." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 227 will be held over until Monday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|