Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
03/18/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB226 | |
| HB261 | |
| HB262 | |
| HB257 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 261 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 261-TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DISCLOSURES
1:31:56 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 261, "An Act requiring the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to publish on the
department's Internet website reports regarding contracts
awarded for transportation projects."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 261, labeled 26-LS1129\R, Kane, 3/17/10,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version R
was before the committee.
1:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked staff to present the bill.
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 261 would consolidate information
on DOT&PF's website to provide some details on projects. He
explained that initially the sponsor wanted all of the
information on projects posted to the website. However, much of
the information is technical information, which is of little
interest to the public. The proposed committee substitute,
Version R, provides a list of the information that will be
posted that is of interest to people. He characterized Version
R as a collaborative effort between the DOT&PF and the bill
sponsor.
1:34:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that several of
Representative Keller's bills should be combined into a single
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the bills are two different
bills, with one directed at DOT&PF to make information
accessible, and the other about the DOT&PF structure. He added
that the DOT&PF has been very cooperative in working on HB 261
and has actually started to implement the process of posting
project information to its website. This bill would direct the
DOT&PF to enhance that process.
1:35:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that he did not track the
differences between the two versions of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the original bill asked for
complex information, including technical specifications and all
subcontractors involved in the construction project. He
explained that the specific information of interest to the
public would provide such items as the status of a project and a
timeline with percentage of project completion.
1:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to page 2, line 2, of Version R
and to the expenditures in subparagraph (E). She asked if the
reporting requirement would be onerous for the department.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained the DOT&PF requested that the
updates to the website be made on their normal update schedule,
which was satisfactory to him.
1:37:09 PM
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
explained the DOT&PF shares the goal with the bill sponsor to
have information easily accessible to the public. One issue
that needed to be addressed was the project status after funding
is appropriated, but before the "shovel" or piece of equipment
moves. The environmental authorization and utility, right-of-
way, and design phases can take years. The DOT&PF likes to
provide the information to the public in a well thought out
manner. The DOT&PF currently lists the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) project information on its
website, but the DOT&PF project information is limited to the
construction costs so the information would not contain pre-
construction details. She reiterated that the DOT&PF desires to
provide the information and hoped it will be helpful to
constituents and to the legislature.
1:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to page 2, line 4 of
subparagraph (F), which read, "future funding needed to complete
the project;" which he said can be "a moving target." He asked
whether that would be difficult to accurately fulfill.
MS. SIROKY answered that the DOT&PF should be able to identify
the funding. She explained that usually a funding obstacle
means reducing the scope of the project. This subparagraph
should allow the DOT&PF to identify the additional cost. She
did not think it would be onerous. She related the DOT&PF
should be able to pull some information from its current
databases. She acknowledged that project descriptions will
require staff to write "in plain English" and not in "engineer-
speak." She explained that some tasks cannot be automated, but
the DOT&PF believes this process is important. Additionally,
the DOT&PF is would like create a timeline so people can get an
idea of the percentage of the project completed in relation to
the overall project.
1:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked if the work is done in-house,
whether this would include the costs of the environmental stage.
MS. SIROKY stated that the DOT&PF will develop a project website
after the bill and capital budget is passed and funding is
appropriated. In further response to Representative T. Wilson,
she also explained the DOT&PF would identify the expenditures
and update the website every six months. The website would show
the expenditures incurred internally but would not list the man-
hours, she stated.
MS. SIROKY, in response to T. Wilson, explained that the DOT&PF
would identify the prime contractor, but would not provide
information on contracts prior to construction; so it will not
cover survey, utility, or environmental (EIS) costs. This bill
would identify contractor costs beginning with the construction
phase, she stated.
1:44:32 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether costs would be broken down for
right-of-way permitting and design.
MS. SIROKY clarified that the timeline would identify when the
project is in the EIS phase and if that phase lasts two years,
the "bar would move every six months." However, the website
will not identify a list of contractors and if the phase since
only the prime contractor would be listed once the project moves
to the construction phase.
1:45:29 PM
MS. SIROKY, in response to Representative Petersen, stated that
the information will not speak to the actual road conditions.
The DOT&PF will independently update the DOT&PF's "511 system"
with a new road traffic awareness system that will provide
information such as "This road is closed."
1:46:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the state of Utah
received numerous awards and one of two states to receive an "A"
rating since they provided good information to the public. He
thinks this bill is good step in the right direction. He asked
whether the list in the bill should be published by regulation,
to avoid coming to the legislature each time something changes.
He further asked whether the bill should have the flexibility to
allow the DOT&PF to publish regulations.
MS. SIROKY stated that the DOT&PF has the authority to do
provide future information. The DOT&PF did not believe that
writing regulations would be beneficial. The DOT&PF is not
seeking others to comply, just to act as an agency to provide
additional information to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the name of a
contracting company should also list a contact number and the
name of the person at the DOT&PF should be listed, along with
their contact information.
1:49:33 PM
MS. SIROKY stated that the DOT&PF always provides contact
information and she anticipated the name and contact number for
the DOT&PF person would be listed on the website. She expressed
concern in terms of listing a phone and e-mail for a
construction contractor, since that person may not want to field
public comments.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested including that the
information for a contractor would likely be in the phone book.
MS. SIROKY related that it would not be a problem to have
contractor information available, but she suggested that it be
nested in the DOT&PF's database instead of manually added.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he did not want to hold the bill
up, but thought the public might appreciate the information.
MS. SIROKY agreed the DOT&PF could include any information can
be easily "pulled" into the database.
1:51:26 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that contractors may not want people
calling them while they are in the midst of working on a
project.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the DOT&PF consider the
concept, with a human contact. He thought it may reduce the
public's frustration.
1:52:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 1, line 10-11, of
HB 261 to the information to be reported. He related his
understanding that the DOT&PF undergoes a long process on
projects. Projects are reviewed during the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process and are
nominated by communities. He stated that the legislature has to
approve every appropriation included in the capital budget. He
pointed out the list of items in the bill is information already
compiled by the department. He further stated that he does not
have any problem with HB 261, but objects to the amount of money
DOT&PF says they need to accomplish the website enhancements as
reflected in the fiscal note. He said he does not want hold the
bill up.
MS. SIROKY responded that the fiscal note was written to reflect
the requirements in the original version of the bill. That
version of the bill had the DOT&PF collecting information not
readily available in its databases. The extensive information
requested included details for all contracts, planning, design,
and historical information.
1:56:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for the reason that the bill even
has a fiscal note.
MS. SIROKY explained that the administration's policy is to
prepare a fiscal note on bills for the first committee of
referral and to update the fiscal note once a committee
substitute has been adopted and passes out of the committee.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether she could project the DOT&PF's
needs to accomplish the website enhancements.
MS. SIROKY answered that the DOT&PF would likely need one person
and some initial consulting costs for the first year. She
related that the DOT&PF has not done any fiscal note projections
yet.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed most of the information is compiled.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed frustration that the committee
does not know the fiscal impact. He thought the policy slows
down the process, noting that members must decide matters
without having the full impact. He expressed his frustration
with the administration's policy.
1:59:06 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the DOT&PF retains a certain
amount of administrative costs and asked whether this bill would
increase the administrative project costs.
MS. SIROKY answered no. She stated that the fiscal note will
reflect funding for one additional person in the department.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with Representative Johansen
that he shared the concern on the fiscal note.
2:00:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked what information is not currently
provided.
MS. SIROKY offered that initially, the DOT&PF would create the
project schedule and geographic location at the beginning of the
project. The DOT&PF would expand on the project's description
and project status, pull information from other databases on any
appropriations or expenditures. The DOT&PF would also calculate
anticipated future funding and determine and input the project
phase. The DOT&PF would pull information from the Department of
Labor & Workforce Development's (DLWD) database to identify the
prime contractor.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON suggested that she does not think the
planned information provides enough project information, since
it only identifies the contractor. She offered that the bill
appears to provide transparency. She expressed concern that all
the steps are not listed, including the environmental, right-of-
way, and surveying costs that the public should be able to
access. She asked if the reason for limiting the details was
due to the cost of providing the details.
2:02:57 PM
MS. SIROKY agreed since that type of detail would require a
significant amount of manpower. Some work is performed in-
house. The DOT&PF looked at the construction contract as the
place that people may be most interested. The DOT&PF reviewed
the aspects of the construction process to identify the
information people may be interested in, such as who a person
would contact for a job.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding that this
bill is not really about providing information to the public,
but is another way for the DLWD to find people to employ in the
private sector.
MS. SIROKY reiterated the DOT&PF's interest in providing wide-
ranging information to the public. She offered that if the
legislature wants more information provided the DOT&PF's
interest is to do so. This bill, Version R, represents the
easiest way to provide information on projects on a regular
basis.
CHAIR P. WILSON imagined that the DOT&PF has a project manager
on projects who tracks the expenditures and timetables. She
related she is having difficulty understanding why all the
information is not currently contained in one place and the
necessity to contact numerous people to obtain it.
MS. SIROKY related her understanding that the DOT&PF can provide
the expenditures, but could not easily identify the individual
subcontractor's expenses. She offered to meet with the data
processing staff. She explained that the DOT&PF reviewed with
Representative Keller the items the public is most interested
in, not to track the project's expenditures each step of the
way.
2:07:03 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recapped her understanding that the DOT&PF has
different data bases for right-of-way, permitting, and
environmental processes until it comes together at the
construction phase as a project.
2:07:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON maintained that the project manager
should have the information compiled.
MS. SIROKY offered that the DOT&PF has a design team for some
projects, while other projects are handled in a more streamlined
manner. She offered to hold more discussions and provide the
information.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER appreciated the questions. He offered his
intent to stay at the "100,000 foot level", but not to hold the
DOT&PF accountable for detailed expenditures. He acknowledged
the diversity of the information and related the right-of-way
procurement may be the biggest cost associated with the project.
He explained that posting this information becomes complex. He
said that he began the project at the same level as
Representative T. Wilson indicated, in terms of wanting details
posted. Ultimately, he decided that people could view a map of
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, could click on "Trunk Road," and find
out when a project was initiated, the budgeted amount, and the
projected costs. He related that the website would contain the
basics to describe "the big picture." He noted that some
numbers are continually changing, such as procurement costs.
Property values change from the initiation of a project until
the surveying and right-of-way is completed. He explained that
it can become complicated since so many issues are involved.
Therefore, he said he asked the DOT&PF to keep it simple. The
goal is not to track expenditures for a project, but just to
provide some basic construction information on projects.
2:11:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether it is possible to write a
program that automatically updates information to avoid manual
posting.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that it is complex since the
information is not all available on one screen.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN thought perhaps the technology is
available to do so and perhaps investing more initially later
may result in cost reductions to the overall website.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that state government is "pathetic with
this type of thing". Initially, a database program may be a
good program, but as technology advances, programming is
necessary and the cost to access information is unbelievable.
She recalled similar circumstances in the Department of Health
and Social Services system.
2:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the "big picture" is
currently available on the DOT&PF's website.
MS. SIROKY answered that not all projects are listed. In
further response to Representative Munoz, she explained that the
DOT&PF provides information on its website on some high profile
projects. She related her understanding that the goal of HB 261
is for the DOT&PF to provide a webpage for every construction
project that receives an appropriation.
2:14:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled the stimulus monies the state
recently received. She applauded the DOT&PF's efforts to
acquire the funds and manage the projects.
MS. SIROKY, in response to Representative Munoz, offered that
the DOT&PF hopes to provide "good solid information" to the
public, which she thought would ultimately reduce the DOT&PF's
workload. The DOT&PF would like the public to be able to access
the information on the website rather than for them to call the
office or the engineer to obtain the information.
MS. SIROKY, in response to Representative T. Wilson, offered to
discuss the scope of information to provide to the public. She
pointed out that until the pre-construction phase is completed
that the contractor's name would not be listed. She related
that the contractor information would be available once the bid
is awarded and the department could look at the cost of posting
certain "big chunks" of information.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON thought providing the information "in
chunks" could be a great tool, but she would not want the
department to spend a lot of money compiling the information.
2:18:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether the DOT&PF has a public
information officer on staff.
MS. SIROKY answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how the DOT&PF would track $30
million designated for a road without a single appropriation
source and the allocation.
MS. SIROKY referred to page 1, line 14 to subparagraph (D),
which would identify the fund sources of the appropriation.
Thus, a fund source would be listed by project. In further
response to Representative Johansen, she related that the
specific project would identify the fund source. She did not
envision that this project would list all fund source changes.
In order for a person to track the changes he/she would need to
know the initial source of funding, but this bill would identify
any funding source that changed on specific projects.
2:22:57 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled a project that began as the "Alaska BC
line" but stalled during the process. She asked whether such a
project would be listed on the website.
MS. SIROKY related that this bill would identify projects from
the effective date forward, but in the instance a project was in
the limbo phase that a balance would be associated with the
project. She anticipated that if the funding was used for
something else, the funds would decrease.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether it would show the funding shifted
to another project.
MS. SIROKY offered that this process has not been thought
through yet, but it seemed reasonable to assume that
reappropriation funds would identify the projects. She was not
certain how that would be handled.
2:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 1, line 6, which read,
"When an appropriation has been made to the department for a
transportation project..." He remarked that the DOT&PF has
large amounts of authorizations for projects so he was unsure if
the legislature is going to gain more information in this
process.
MS. SIROKY, in response to a question, related that the bill is
triggered by an appropriation, not an authorization. In further
response to Chair Wilson, said she was not sure the DOT&PF would
handle internal preliminary design work performed for projects
that it contemplates.
2:29:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to allocations in the state's
Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and asked whether the
legislature would be able to identify projects that have been in
the planning phase for five years, but never quite get built.
MS. SIROKY hoped this process would identify the information
taken during those five years in the planning phase.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he supports the concept for HB 261.
2:31:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked about road service area funding.
MS. SIROKY said she was unfamiliar with the road service area
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked if district funds were allocated
to road service areas whether the funds would be tracked.
MS. SIROKY asked whether the funds would be part of the state's
CIB or if the funds are appropriated not by the DOT&PF but
through Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development grants.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said she was unsure, but said she would
check.
2:32:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ move moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 261, labeled Version R, 26-LS1129\R,
Kane, 3/17/10, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON objected. She commented that she is
interested information on how projects are tracked.
MS. SIROKY agreed that she would provide the information no
matter what happens to this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON removed her objection.
2:33:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected. He remarked that he would
like to have someone in DOT&PF check into computer program and
modern technology to reduce the manpower needed to provide the
website information.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he is interested in
having contact information provided on the DOT&PF website.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN removed his objection.
There being no further objections, the CSHB 261(TRA) was
reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| hb 261 sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 261 |
| HB 262 sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 262 |
| HB226 sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB226 Backup.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 226 |
| HB262 Backup.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 262 |
| HB261 backup.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 261 |
| CSHB261ver R.pdf |
HTRA 3/18/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 261 |