Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/11/1998 01:11 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 2267 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the next order of business would be 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 Representative Phillips. Number 2271 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1, amending Version LS0789\F, Utermohle, page 14, lines 13 and 14, to read: provide information requested by the Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she understands there is a new committee substitute before them. She referred to page 14, lines 16 and 17 in the new version, CSHB 227(TRA), LS0789\H, Utermohle, 3/6/98, and said the conceptual amendment would delete "assistance, information, staff, and other support." Number 2394 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to provide information on HB 227. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a motion to adopt the proposed CSHB 227(TRA). REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed CSHB 227(TRA), LS0789\H, Utermohle, 3/6/98, and conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection, CSHB 227(TRA) and Amendment 1 were adopted. MR. PIGNALBERI indicated his reading of the amendment is that the DOT/PF would not be able to provide assistance and staff to the authority. He asked it that's the intent. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK reiterated it just strikes out "assistance, information, staff, and other support" and would be replaced with. "provide information requested by the Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority." Number 2454 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY remarked we discussed that we didn't want to add or take away from staff. TAPE 98-13, SIDE B Number 0030 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied, "It just asks that the Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority provide the information and how they do it, I don't know. I believe this does not have to be there - the assistance, information, staff, and other support." MR. PIGNALBERI indicated the way he would view the impact of this, and he is seeking concurrence with the sponsor of the amendment in his understanding, is that because the statewide planning group from DOT/PF, Headquarters, would be, in effect, transferred over to the authority, that will provide the staff function. He stressed that he wanted to make sure that the amendment isn't meant to gut that arrangement because then the authority would be left with absolutely no staff. Otherwise, if that's not the intent, if it is the intent to allow the Headquarters Planning group to move over to the authority, then he doesn't think there is a problem with the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK noted DOT/PF would provide the information requested by the authority, it has nothing to do with deleting or adding staff. Number 0102 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he supports the amendment. He stated he believes the amendment prevents the bifurcation of staff accountability. If it is left in, it would seem that the authority has as much control over DOT/PF staff as the commissioners office does. He doesn't read it as prohibiting what some may want to accomplish, but reads it as prohibiting the authority from directing any other DOT/PF staff to accomplish authority business rather than departmental business. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she agrees with Representative Elton. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he agrees as well. It eliminates the legislature, through this bill, directing the department to provide staff. They're still going to provide the information that is requested, and he's sure they'll continue to be of assistance because it has to work that way. It will not be, as his colleague said, bifurcation of responsibilities. It will delineate that the two are separate but they work together. Representative Hudson stated he doesn't have anything to do with Mr. Pignalberi's question of staff. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY remarked at this time he wouldn't object to this amendment. Number 0188 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated there being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0198 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move proposed Amendment 2, amending CSHB 227, Version LS0789\H, Utermohle, 3/6/98: Page 4, line 25 after "hire" Delete: "the minimum of staff, including a director," Insert: "only a director and secretarial staff" Page 4, line 29, after "AS 37.07." add a new sentence to read: "The legislature shall appropriate money from the general fund sufficient to provide the authority with funds to pay the authority's salaries, per diem, travel, hearings, and administrative costs." Number 0237 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out this gets to the issue that Mr. Pignalberi spoke to just a moment ago, and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we're not setting up competing bureaucracies. If we are going to enter into this new arena of creating a separate line of authority for some of the DOT/PF Capital Projects, that he thinks what we don't want is to establish competing bureaucracies. What we want to do is we want to ensure that we take a small step rather than a big step and determine what is needed. The net effect of this amendment is that, to begin with, the authority will be staffed by a director and the appropriate secretarial staff. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said to further ensure that the legislature doesn't completely give up control, by adding to line 29 a simple statement that, "The legislature shall appropriate money from the general fund sufficient to provide the authority with funds to pay the authority's salaries, per diem, travel, hearings, and administrative costs." He stressed that's important because we don't want to be taking money from existing operations and existing agencies within the department to support something. We want to make sure that the legislature, when they create something, is willing to spend the money necessary to do that without taking the money away from somebody else. Number 0299 MR. PIGNALBERI indicated he sees a serious problem with this amendment. He spoke on the second half of the amendment on page 4, line 29, having to do with the funding. The problem with this language is that it tends to bind future legislatures and really the authority, under the current scenario, would have to come forward for funding just like any other agency or department. He thinks that's the way the legislature would want to keep it. Secondly, the language really prevents the alternative funding sources, if the authority staff (if you would accept the first half of the amendment), could be funded by federal highway funds, or program receipts, or any other fund. This would prevent it because it so narrowly defined. MR. PIGNALBERI concluded, as to the first half of the amendment, on line 25, requiring that the authority hire only a director and secretarial staff. It may be that the DOT/PF even would wish for a planner or a planning engineer to be part of the authority's staff. That's the kind of thing that should be allowed to develop as the relationship between the authority and the department evolves, and this takes that opportunity away. Number 0356 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he appreciates the concerns that we might be able to use federal dollars for part of the operation, but he would suggest that we can use those federal dollars in other ways also. We don't need to use those federal dollars to support a bureaucracy. What we need to do is use federal dollars to build roads or improve harbors. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the other thing that he would note, as to the first part of the amendment, is this induces cooperation, this essentially means that the authority and the department are going to have to cooperate to get the job done. Representative Elton said he believes anything that we can do to induce cooperation is good. MR. PIGNALBERI said, "I would only say that it has the effect of killing the 'baby in the manger.' If we're undertaking a new organization within state government, we want it to have the flexibility to evolve in the most constructive and positive way it can to do its job and by placing these kinds of limitations on it, before it's born, will not allow it to grow and develop." Number 0402 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated he is hesitant to sign onto something in the statutes that essentially dictates that they can only have a director and secretarial staff because he's pretty convinced that this operation is going to have to go through the Executive Budget Act, which means that probably it will have to have some sort of an administrative assistant, probably an administrative officer III at least, or I or II, in order to get the job done. Secretaries, by their normal description, don't have that kind of a background, and the director he thinks probably, while you can hire someone with that kind of background -- there's going to be some travel, there's going to be some additional expenses. With that in mind, he is not inclined to support the amendment. Number 0446 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK spoke in support of Amendment 2. She said Representative Elton made some good points because, even if this bill were to go out in a fashion, it's still going to require travel and other costs are going to occur. Representative Masek reiterated even if this amendment isn't adopted, there's still going to be those costs occurring. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked for a vote on the amendment because he has to catch a flight in 30 minutes. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON responded he would consider a friendly amendment if it's offered. But secondly, as to the comment about the "baby in the manger," which made him shiver a little bit, he believes what they are trying to do here is to make sure the baby can walk before we make it run. Number 0496 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if they could split the question. He said if you took line 25 and left the minimum staff including the director, he would feel comfortable with that. But then leave the second part of that as the second part of the question which would beg the question of whether or not we should require that the legislature, if they want to do this, put the money in the budget. Number 0524 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was an objection to dividing the amendment. There being no objection, Chairman Williams explained page 4, line 25, will be referred to as Amendment 2B which adds a new sentence, the lower half of the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked for clarification. He asked if the amendment on page 4, line 29 is Amendment 2, and the amendment to page 4, line 25 is 2B. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied page 4, line 29 is Amendment 2B. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked for clarification of the top section of the amendment. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied Amendment 2A. He asked if there was an objection to Amendment 2A. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY objected. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 2. Representatives Elton and Masek voted in support of the amendment. Representatives Hudson, Sanders, Cowdery and Williams voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 2 to 4. Number 0600 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was an objection to adopting Amendment 2B. There being none, Amendment 2B was unanimously adopted. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced CSHB 227(TRA), Version H, as amended, was before the committee. Number 0617 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated, for the record, when this bill moves to another committee that the fiscal note from DOT/PF be included in the new Version H. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied the fiscal note was adopted at the last meeting. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if there is going to be DOT/PF fiscal note attached to the bill when it goes to the Finance Committee. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied no, this is a [House] Transportation Committee fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated she feels it's important that DOT/PF submit a fiscal note. She asked if there is any way they can get one attached to the bill when it gets to the [House] Finance Committee. Number 0669 PETER ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Chairman Williams, Alaska State Legislature, explained DOT/PF's fiscal note assumed that the authority was going to hire certain people at certain pay range levels. There's nothing in the bill that says the authority "shall hire any staff," it just says "may." So DOT/PF's fiscal note is just perspective or it's speculation. In the future, if the authority does want to hire staff, they'll have to go through the legislative process like any other state department. Number 0697 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would like to see whatever fiscal note that proceeds to the Finance Committee carry intent language. He read the House Transportation Committee's Letter of Intent: "No funds in this fiscal note shall be expended for the transfer of positions out of Juneau. Positions allocated to this authority are to remain in current offices or close proximity to the current headquarters to provide maximum interaction with other DOT/PF headquarter functions." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated, "My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that if we don't have some criteria you could end up pulling a whole transportation planning section off into totally new offices and we're running into their inability to work with the operations of planning the design and construction and I don't think that's the intentions." He made a motion to adopt the letter of intent and attach it to the fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected for the purpose of discussion. He said he would like to know what the effect of this is, this carries no effect of law, this is just a notation on a fiscal note that was not prepared by DOT/PF. He asked if that is correct. Number 0765 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated it is the intent of the committee to move the letter of intent. He said, "We don't think that this portion of the Administration is going to move out of Juneau, or move anywhere." He asked if there was an objection to the adoption of the letter of intent. There being none, the letter of intent was adopted. Number 0788 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 227, Version H, dated 3/6/98, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations, attached fiscal notes and with the letter of intent. Number 0817 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected. She said, "With this bill here, and all the process it's run through in the Transportation Committee, Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that it would be amended and as it moves through the committee process, I'm hoping that Finance will take a look at some of the issues that were brought up in this committee based on a lot of issues that I brought up and concerning the fiscal note with DOT/PF, and I'm hoping that will surface somewhere. And I understand the intent of the sponsor and the committee in trying to move this forward. I'm just hoping that it will get some more good testimony and more changes to it as it moves along." Number 0860 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote on HB 227. Representatives Sanders, Cowdery, Masek, Hudson and Williams voted in support of moving the legislation. Representative Elton voted against moving the legislation. Therefore, CSHB 227(TRA) moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|