Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/17/2004 02:08 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 260-METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
The committee took up SB 260.
CO-CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER moved to adopt the [proposed] CS,
version Q, [labeled 23-LS1493\Q, Utermohle, 2/17/04] for
discussion purposes.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS, sponsor of SB 260, said that the CS was an
improved version of the original bill; he began his testimony by
explaining that the bill itself relates to metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) for urbanized areas of at least 50,000 in
population. Essentially this bill adds two members to the
policy committee of the Anchorage Metropolitan area transit
system, which is the Anchorage MPO. Those two members, one
person from the House and one from the Senate, would each have
at least 50 percent of his/her district residing within the
Anchorage metropolitan area boundary. He emphasized that this
was the third attempt at getting this through the Legislature.
The first attempt passed this body and ran into a time
constraint in the House; the second attempt passed both bodies
and was vetoed by the prior administration.
SENATOR STEVENS continued that the intent and language of the
bill is to open up the AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study) policy process. The existing AMATS policy
committee consists of five people: three from the municipality
and two from the state. The committee oversees the expenditure
of federal and state money within the Anchorage metropolitan
area for the maintenance, upgrade, and re-surfacing of both
state and local roads. The process is convoluted and obscure
and "neither the public nor we understand how that process works
very well." Legislators receive a transportation improvement
plan (TIP) approved by the policy committee and can either
approve of it or not. Motivation behind supporting SB 260 is to
enable the Legislature to have a better understanding of
projects, to further Anchorage area residents to have a better
understanding of the prioritization of projects, and for the
Legislature to possibly express a wider view of the
prioritization process within the AMATS policy committee. SB
260 comes with a great deal of opposition from the people
currently on the policy committee. He remarked, "That doesn't
surprise me at all because they control that process." He noted
that although it's been said that this is an attempt to take
over control, "that's not what this intent is at all."
SENATOR STEVENS referred to the graph - included in committee
packet - as he outlined the changes in the [proposed] CS,
beginning with Section 1, AS 19.20.200. The CS eliminates
language from the original bill that requires the Legislature to
establish each MPO. This allows the MPO to be established when
required by FHWA (Federal Highway Administration, "Federal
Highways") with no involvement by the Legislature. He added
that this is a conforming change with FHWA regulation.
SENATOR STEVENS continued that the next change adds "policy
board" under Section 1 [AS 19.20.210] to clarify the membership
of the MPO decision-making body for a metropolitan area with
more than 200,000 residents. Again, this is consistent with
federal code. The third change adds language to expand the
makeup of the policy board to include additional members
representing other agencies operating major modes of
transportation, to be appointed by the governor. Again, this is
consistent with federal code. This gives the ability, if other
modes of transportation are created or come into play in the
future to "have a seat at the table." The fourth change adds
language to expand the makeup of the policy board to include
additional non-voting members to be appointed by the governor.
Again, this conforms to DOT and federal policy. The fifth
change adds language allowing the governor to approve of the TIP
or TIP amendment that is prepared by the MPO policy board,
organized in accordance with [AS] 19.20.210. Senator Stevens
pointed out that this was a major change to the bill.
SENATOR STEVENS said the next [sixth] change in language
reflects the policy board makeup of an MPO. It also maintains
the intent language in the original version that the changes
implemented by this bill do not constitute a re-designation of
the MPO. The last change extends the effective date from
October 1, 2004 - which corresponds to the federal fiscal year -
to now coincide with the introduction or the adoption of the
next TIP [July 1, 2005].
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT asked if Anchorage Municipal Assembly's
resolution [AR No. 2004-37], which refers to this legislation as
a re-designation, was passed prior to the drafting of the CS.
He also referenced Senator Stevens' indication that this was not
a re-designation.
SENATOR STEVENS acknowledged this issue as one of the conflicts
in interpretation of the language; the MPO states that this is a
re-designation while we (as the sponsor of the bill) are saying
that this is not a re-designation. He said he understood from
FHWA that this does not constitute a re-designation as long as
there's an agreement between the two entities. The Assembly and
the Municipality are saying "it does" and that's the reason why
they are not going to agree with it. "So, it's an
interpretation."
SENATOR THERRIAULT referred to the stated concern that passage
of this legislation would potentially jeopardize federal funds,
and said, "You don't believe that this jeopardizes federal
funds, and if there was any credibility to that argument, it
would be something that they would control. If they refused to
agree, that would be a decision that they would make. And if
that caused any problem with the federal funds, that would be
something that they would control." He asked if this was
correct.
SENATOR STEVENS responded that an MPO was established between
the municipality and the administration, DOT. The TIP is
developed by the MPO and submitted to DOT; DOT can either
approve it or not, then sends it to us, and we either approve it
or not. The language to add legislative members to the MPO,
from FHWA's perspective, will not jeopardize funding. Section
1, AS 19.20.220 - the fifth change - gives the governor the
authority to approve or disapprove of the TIP amendment
developed by the MPO, as long as there is compliance with this
piece of legislation. He said his answer to Senator
Therriault's question of whether this would jeopardize funding
from the FHWA, was no. But does it give authority to DOT to
approve of a TIP developed by an MPO that does not include the
makeup [suggested in] this bill? The answer is yes. He asked
Mr. Otteson if this was correct and received confirmation that
it was.
SENATOR GEORGIANNA LINCOLN said she had a number of questions
and asked if there would be other testimony today. CO-CHAIR
COWDERY responded that one person [Mr. Craig Lyon] was online.
Senator Lincoln stated that she had just received the CS
[version Q]. She commented that the previous member had asked
if the resolution - which she noted had been in her folder but
other members didn't have - referred to SB 260 and not the
amended version because the resolution was passed on February 3,
[2004]. She referred to the seven outlined changes in the
[proposed] CS, and wondered about Anchorage Assembly's concerns
or the concerns of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce's one
committee that had expressed opposition. In looking at the
resolution and the attachment from the Municipality of
Anchorage, concern regarding local control had been mentioned.
She said she would like to hear the sponsor's response to
tilting the balance away from local control, "and if anything in
the amended language has changed that aspect."
CO-CHAIR COWDERY offered a response, "I'm locally elected there
too. In fact, in my district, I got more votes than the mayor
got - considerably more votes - and so I figure that I'm just as
much local as anybody on the AMATS or anybody else." He said
when he goes back to his district, he hears complaints about the
decisions made by AMATS, and "we have no say in it."
SENATOR STEVENS responded to Senator Lincoln by saying first of
all, the issue - taken up by the subcommittee of the Chamber of
Commerce - elected not to endorse the resolution to the full
chamber. Unless something has changed in the last week, the
executive committee of the Chamber has not taken this up.
SENATOR LINCOLN directed attention to page two of the
"Municipality of Anchorage, Position on State Senate Bill 260
[2/6/04]" and referred to the heading of "Municipal opposition."
SENATOR STEVENS mentioned that Mr. Lyon had been at the meeting
and could speak to this. He reiterated that this involved a
subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce; the full Chamber of
Commerce did not endorse this.
SENATOR LINCOLN read, "...the State and Local Government
Committee of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce voted for the
board of directors not to support SB 260."
SENATOR STEVENS said, "That's correct, but it was not the full
chamber or the executive committee of the Chamber." He said it
was referred to the Chamber's subcommittee on Transportation and
Government Policy, and "that's where it's been, that's where it
sits." He said he didn't want to argue semantics with Senator
Lincoln, but the executive committee of the Anchorage Chamber
has not voted on this issue.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she understands that, she was just pointing
out "this committee was the one that voted no."
SENATOR STEVENS said, moving to the issue of local control,
"We're not asking Senator Olson from Nome to serve on a local, a
decision-making body within the Anchorage MPO. We're not asking
Senator Wagoner from Kenai to serve on a local management body
within the Municipality of Anchorage. Nor does the bill say
that somebody from Anchorage will serve on the Fairbanks MPO.
This is a local issue." It is an issue pertaining to locally
elected officials within the MPO, or within the Anchorage
boundary. As Co-Chair Cowdery stated, he has to answer
questions about AMATS that have been approved by the
Legislature, yet there is no understanding of that
prioritization process.
SENATOR STEVENS continued, "It's all done with five people on an
obscure board that meets once a month, and the agenda has
already been determined, and the outcome and the tables are
already approved before the board meets." He agreed that it's a
local issue, adding, "I'm representing the constituents from my
locality who are asking me to go into that policy committee and
say, 'show us how it works. How do they come up with these
prioritization processes? Why are these projects ranked? Why do
they go through a ranking process where a project can be on the
list for seven years and in one meeting, have it knocked off?
And then another project is funded instantaneously.' So it is a
local issue, Senator Lincoln, and I'm from that locality and so
are the people that I represent."
SENATOR LINCOLN suggested that Senator Stevens look at the
Municipality of Anchorage's position on this issue, reiterating
that she was solidly behind local control. She then asked about
the suggestion that SB 260 would be inconsistent with federal
regulations that govern MPOs, and questioned whether it was in
compliance.
SENATOR STEVENS replied that he had answered this earlier. The
Municipality and the Assembly, and Mr. Lyon - who works for
AMATS - stated all along that this constitutes a re-designation.
Senator Stevens said it was his understanding from meeting with
FHWA that it does not constitute a re-designation as long as the
two entities having the bylaws of the MPO agree that it doesn't
constitute a re-designation. "It's difficult to understand, but
the MPO and the state have an agreement, and then the FHWA says
yes or no to the agreement." If both of those parties agree to
the change, then the FHWA says it's not a re-designation. From
FHWA's perspective, if there is an agreement, there won't be a
re-designation; it would be an amendment to the MPO. "They have
to be in agreement."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked, "Who has to be in agreement?"
SENATOR STEVENS replied, "The Municipality and the state."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked, "The state, being us?"
SENATOR STEVENS replied, "DOT." He remarked that before this
bill was even heard in Senate CRA [meeting of 2/9/04], the
Assembly had passed resolution [AR No. 2004-37, February 3,
2004]. He said that things change as they go through the
process, and before there was even a public hearing, this
position had been taken. He drew attention to the sentence on
page 2 of Mr. Lyon's testimony and read as follows: "In a
January 2004 conversation between U.S. Transportation Secretary
Norm Mineta and Mayor Mark Begich, Secretary Mineta expressed
support for retaining the current composition of AMATS."
Senator Stevens said, "I've asked Mr. Lyon for support
documenting that statement, and he hasn't ... and this is not,
in my mind, support of that documentation."
2:30 p.m.
SENATOR LINCOLN commented that it is not unusual for
organizations or government entities to have resolutions on
legislation as a way to have input into amended versions. She
asked how the bill's amended version conforms to AMAT's
objections.
SENATOR STEVENS stated that the [amended version] does not
address those concerns and that "they will not like the
changes." He added, "they may like one of them, but my money
will be that they will not like the changes. They didn't like
it from the beginning, and they won't like it now."
SENATOR LINCOLN said, "Well it's your community, Senator Stevens
and it's something you're going to have to deal with." She said
her other question was the objection that adding legislators
"confuses, politicizes the process" and it had been mentioned
that legislators would not be there for five months of the year
to attend meetings.
SENATOR STEVENS responded that if involving more elected
officials with the spending of public money is politicizing the
process, then "that's an oxymoron." He said the intent is to
open the system up for involvement, to determine how this
process works. He said he didn't think of this as politicizing
the process, but of opening it up to more public input and
public debate.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER pointed out that legislative representatives
would be away for four months, not five, and that there's no
reason why participation couldn't take place via teleconference.
For the record, he brought the committee's attention to the
previous CRA meeting during which three or four people from the
public testified on SB 260 who were fairly upset with AMATS; all
testified in support of SB 260 because of the desire for more
equitable representation. One woman testified that it was
difficult to track the projects because things jumped around too
much. He pointed out that it was interesting that the public
testified in favor of the bill while people from the
municipality opposed the bill.
2:35 p.m.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON asked if adding two members would bring the
committee from five to seven [members].
SENATOR STEVENS indicated confirmation.
SENATOR OLSON asked about the qualifications of new members.
SENATOR STEVENS replied that this information was in the bill.
SENATOR OLSON asked about legislators who own property and pay
taxes in Anchorage.
SENATOR STEVENS referred to the language on page 2, lines 7 -
18: "elected from a district," emphasizing the word "elected."
SENATOR OLSON asked if owning property and paying taxes would
make one eligible.
SENATOR STEVENS reiterated, "You have to be an elected official
from that area." Senator Stevens distributed a letter in
response to Senator Lincoln's concern. He said the letter
pertained to the piece of legislation that passed out of both
bodies but was vetoed by the prior administration. He
referenced the last three lines of the letter from FHWA
[February 22, 2001] [original punctuation provided], "...Federal
regulations do not preclude the participation of State
legislators on the AMATS Policy Board." He said this doesn't
trigger a re-designation.
SENATOR LINCOLN said, "To that point, but you failed to read the
whole sentence." She read: "Providing the provisions of Title
23 [CFR] Section 450 are followed," [Federal regulations do not
preclude...].
SENATOR STEVENS suggested that Mr. Otteson address the
requirements under which an MPO must operate, "which we are in
full compliance with."
MR. JEFF OTTESEN, Director of Program Development, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), told members he
wanted to point out what the U.S. code says about MPOs. He
said, "MPOs are the creation of the federal government. In
Title 23, Section 134, and very briefly, the designation of an
MPO shall be done by agreement between the governor and units of
local government." There will be a signature from the governor
and a signature from key members of local government, which in
Anchorage's case is the Municipality of Anchorage. He said, as
an aside, that throughout the country MPOs are often very
complex, sometimes having hundreds of different local
governments involved, and in some cases crossing state
boundaries, like St. Louis and Portland, Oregon, etc. "So we've
got a fairly simple one by comparison."
MR. OTTESEN continued, "They also shall be done in accordance
with procedures established by applicable state or local law."
Clearly state law can have an influence on the structure of the
MPO. "The structure of the MPO board, the policy board, shall
have three classes of membership: local, elected officials;
officials of public agencies that administer or operate major
modes of transportation in the metropolitan area - and that
might be a transit agency, DOT, a railroad, airport or seaport -
and there's provision here for all of those possibilities to be
included; and finally, appropriate state officials." He said
there is no definition of whether that's an appointed or an
elected state official, adding that "it does not say who should
have the lion's share of the seats in the federal law, it just
says three classes of membership, all to be determined by
agreement between the governor and local elected officials,
subject to state law."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he referenced Section 134.
MR. OTTESEN said "Yes, of the U.S. code." He clarified that
[FHWA's] letter referenced the CFR, the regulations and not the
U.S. code.
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the letter of February 22, 2001,
which mentions Title 23 CFR Section 450, and said, "Providing
the provisions of that section are followed, federal regulations
do not preclude the participation of state regulators on AMATS
policy board." She asked if this was consistent with what Mr.
Ottesen had just read regarding the three classes of membership.
MR. OTTESEN replied that the CFR are the regulations promulgated
by the U.S. DOT and have to be promulgated under the authority
of the U.S. code. One is statute and one is regulation. He
said, "So yes, I believe the statute really is a governing body
of law, and I would add that other MPOs around the country do
have elected state legislators as a part of their organization."
He pointed to Honolulu as an example.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Ottesen if Title 23 CFR [Section] 450
was consistent with what he had just read.
MR. OTTESEN replied that he would like to have a copy of "450"
to be absolutely certain, but believed that what was being said
was that providing 450 was followed, it seems consistent with
the overarching Title 23 in U.S. code. He added that it seems
consistent with practices of MPOs around the country, noting
that Honolulu has had legislators on its board since the mid-
70s.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she would like Mr. Ottesen to take a look
at this and get back to [her].
MR. OTTESEN said that at the right time, he would be happy to do
that.
MR. CRAIG LYON, AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study) Coordinator, Municipality of Anchorage,
testified via teleconference that he had not received a copy of
the [proposed] CS so it was difficult to comment on all of the
changes.
AMATS was established in 1976 as a multi-agency team
set up to work together to plan and fund the
transportation system in the Anchorage and Chugiak-
Eagle River areas when federal funds are being used.
Federal funding accounts for about 90 percent of
public monies being spent to develop Anchorage's
transportation system and averages about $40 million a
year in Anchorage.
Basically the metropolitan planning organizations were
established by the federal government for the purposes
of prioritizing the expenditures of these federal
dollars. And the idea was to tilt the balance toward
local controls so that the local officials would be
able to determine what they thought was best for the
local communities.
The current process allows local citizens the
opportunity to discuss transportation issues with
their local representatives, in opposition I guess, to
what some people have said. While you yourself and
all the members of the committee are locally elected
officials, it's our understanding in the federal
government's eyes, the Federal Highway
Administration's eyes, a state legislator is not a
local representative. They are a state
representative, though they may be locally elected.
That's our understanding from Federal Highways ... as
I've said in the past, Federal Highways has stated in
the past, both in writing and in testimony that the
actions suggested in the bill would be inconsistent
with federal regulations that govern MPOs.
th
I do have the letter that's dated October 29 that
talks about whether or not legislators can serve on a
policy committee. And we have stated in the past that
there's absolute truth that legislators can do that,
they've done that in Hawaii for quite some time. The
question is how do they get on there, and if a
Legislature unilaterally decides that they should be
on there, that's when you get the sticking point. And
th
the April 5, 2001 letter from the director of the
Office of Metropolitan Planning and Programs from the
Federal Highways says they have been asked to comment
on similar legislation in other states and in each
case they bring the same general observation. An
action by the Legislature without the consent and
support of local officials and the governor would
appear to be inconsistent with the federal
regulations. And it would then indeed be a re-
designation.
So it's not whether they can be on there, it's how
they actually get on there that is the key. In the
past I have - in the CRA Committee I mentioned a
meeting with a conversation between [indisc.] for Norm
Mineta and Mayor Mark Begich - where the [U.S.
Transportation] Secretary expressed support for the
current composition of AMATS. Senator Stevens has
asked for documentation of that. And we are working
on that. As soon as we have information from the
Secretary, we will forward that on.
So I just want to clear up the part about the
municipal Assembly. The Anchorage Assembly did vote
on February 3rd to oppose this particular bill - they
did not see the CS obviously because it just came out.
And the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, their board of
directors asked the State and Local Government
Committee to look at this piece of legislation and to
decide whether or not they should pass it on to the
full board for their support. The vote was 6 to 4 at
that State and Local Government Committee, not to
forward it on to the board of directors for support.
I guess the executive committee or the board - I'm not
sure exactly how they're made up - but they asked if
they could look at that piece of legislation again.
The State and Local Government Committee formed an ad
hoc committee to deal with transportation issues.
They have not, we have not met yet to discuss that
bill or to discuss any transportation-related issues
at all. So Senator Stevens is correct in that ...
that it was just the State and Local Government
Committee.
In conclusion, it's our understanding from Federal
Highways, and we haven't seen anything to suggest
otherwise, that re-designation, which is what this
bill would do, in the form we looked at it, which is
the original version of SB 260, a re-designation would
be inconsistent with their statutes, their federal
regulations, and if a re-designation occurs, then they
would consider that there was not a functioning MPO
process in Anchorage. If there's not a functioning
process, then federal dollars are in jeopardy. I
believe that it might have been Senator Therriault who
suggested that if the local Assembly just agrees to it
then the non-agreement would not be there. They just
accepted it. I guess the key is that what we're
looking for is local control and I'm sure we can all
agree that your local control ... people from
different sections of the state may not be the best to
decide on these prioritizations of federal dollars,
but the local groups should be.
The Federal Highways have determined, as far as we can
tell, that a locally elected and state representative
or state Senator is not a local official, they're a
state official ... I haven't had a chance to look at
the CS and I guess I would request that at the very
least to hold the bill over until we get a chance to
take a peek at it and see if any of our concerns have
been addressed.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked Mr. Lyon if his position as AMATS
Coordinator was an elected position.
MR. LYON responded that the mayor had appointed him. He said he
was the division manager of a group of three transportation
planners.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY asked if he lived in Anchorage.
MR. LYON replied, "Born and raised here."
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the three transportation planners were
elected.
MR. LYON said he believed they were not elected, but were all
municipal workers.
SENATOR STEVENS asked, "Appointed by the mayor?"
MR. LYON replied, "No they aren't, actually. They've been
there, collectively, for about 60 years."
SENATOR OLSON asked, "Why can't a state official also be a local
official?"
MR. LYON replied, "As far as we've been told, someone who has
been elected to a state body, in the Federal Highway's eyes, is
considered a state official and not a local official." A person
would need to serve on a local council or be mayor of the
municipality to be considered a local official.
SENATOR OLSON said this seemed to be somewhat restrictive and
asked, "Who indeed does make this edict that you can't be both?
It is like someone telling me that I can't be a pilot and a ...
reindeer herder at the same time."
MR. LYON said that he understood this was Federal Highway's view
and suggested that testimony from the Federal Highway could
clear this up.
SENATOR OLSON ascertained that there didn't seem to be a problem
with legislators being on the committee, "but your main
objection is the way it's chosen, is that correct?"
MR. LYON said there were two main disagreements. One was that
it's true that legislators can be on the board, the policy
committee of an MPO. The concern is that adding 'x' number of
legislators would tilt the balance so that the majority of the
board would be made of state rather than of local officials.
This would take away from a majority of the board being locally
oriented, and take away control of planning how to spend local
dollars. As stated earlier, Hawaii's MPO has state legislators;
however, Lance Wilber, director of traffic for the Municipality
of Anchorage, was asked to go to Hawaii because it's MPO was so
fraught with problems. It may not be the best solution when
there isn't a majority of local [officials.]
TAPE 04-3, SIDE B
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said, "I take offense that I'm not a local
official...but I think I am, anyway."
SENATOR THERRIAULT remarked that perhaps criticism of Hawaii's
system was a function of the contentious aspect of trying to
meet the general public's demands for traffic and highway
construction. He said he's heard criticism over the years that
Anchorage has traffic problems that don't seem to get corrected,
that a lot of money goes into street beautification, trails, and
so forth, and yet "you can't get across town in your car
sometimes." He questioned the truth of Hawaii's perception of
Alaska's process as being ideal. He then asked if FHWA has put
anything in writing indicating that the inclusion of elected
officials would cause problems, that it "would, in fact be
interpreted by them as causing difficulties."
MR. LYON replied that he does not have a recent letter from FHWA
and certainly does not have comment on the [proposed] CS, but
has a letter from 2001 that applies because of SB 260's
similarity to SB 88 that previously passed; the letter comments
specifically that an action by the Legislature without the
consent and support of local officials and the governor would
appear to be inconsistent with the intent of [Title] 23 U.S.C.
[Section] 134. Also, there is an earlier letter indicating that
there is no problem with having legislators on MPOs. He
responded to Senator Therriault's question, stating that he
wasn't sure why the process in Hawaii wasn't working. Mr. Lyon
mentioned that at the recent CRA hearing, Mr. Tremain of the
Anchorage Assembly commented that when he was on AMATS, an
attempt was made to open up the process to the citizens of
Anchorage to improve upon it. Mr. Lyon said attempts toward
improvement continue, and alluded to the MPO process as a
"Byzantine, archaic, brutal process."
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Lyon what basis of his concern was
regarding an elected legislator from within the boundaries of
the municipality not being as sensitive to the wishes of the
local people in reference to building and improving the
transportation infrastructure.
MR. LYON responded that he wasn't necessarily saying that
legislators wouldn't be sensitive to the needs of their
constituents. He maintained that FHWA was differentiating
between state and local officials, and if the majority of
members were state representatives, the balance would not be
leaning towards the local officials "which is what MPOs were set
up to be."
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that the letter indicates that if
the local entity was in agreement with the change, there would
not be a problem. He said he hadn't yet heard a justification
as to why "you would not be in agreement that a locally elected
official wouldn't be just as interested in satisfying the
transportation wishes of the community...." He said members of
[Anchorage's] Assembly - unlike Fairbanks North Star Borough's -
are elected from districts, elected by a subset of the
community's population. Senators and Representatives elected
from Anchorage are likewise elected by a subset of the local
constituency. "Why would one be more preferable than the
other?"
3:00 p.m.
MR. LYON responded this was due to the Assembly's indication
that there wouldn't be agreement, which is part of what's needed
to change an MPO. The other reason is the Federal Highway's
rule regarding state versus local officials.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER wondered if this legislation passed and
legislators from the House and Senate were appointed, would the
Assembly not approve of those additions to the MPO, thereby
jeopardizing the receipt of federal transportation funds.
MR. LYON said that this particular Assembly indicated non-
support by passing the resolution opposing SB 260.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said this wasn't his question, and re-stated by
asking if the Assembly would "cut off their nose despite their
face."
MR. LYON said the only information he had was the Assembly's
resolution.
SENATOR STEVENS said he wanted members to understand that during
previous attempts at passing this legislation, prior municipal
administrations supported this bill and this concept. He said
he didn't believe that any other Assembly has passed a similar
resolution, adding that the prior municipal administration
supported this concept, which is why it went through so rapidly
in 2001.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Lyon if it was just the administration
that was in opposition to this.
MR. LYONS said the Anchorage Assembly had passed resolutions in
the past, opposing SB 88 [2001], which was the previous form of
SB 260. He said he believed Senator Stevens was correct
regarding there being support by the previous administration,
but he didn't know about prior to that.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she wasn't only talking about the
administration, as she had heard that it was also the Assembly
that had been supportive - but she didn't recall exactly - from
last year. She asked if the intent was to move the bill.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said yes.
SENATOR LINCOLN continued that that she had further questions,
noting that this was the last committee of referral.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said he would like to first introduce
amendments to the bill.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER moved to amend HB 260 [version Q] with the following
changes:
Page 2, line 18, delete "shall" and insert
"may".
Page 2, line 20, delete "public agency" and
insert "private entity".
Page 2, line 21, following "metropolitan
area" insert a period "." and delete the
remainder of the sentence.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he wasn't sure what the intent was of
dropping "public agency" and inserting "private entity."
SENATOR STEVENS responded that the changes recommended by DOT
make it consistent with federal code and provide for additional
members who represent a private industry administering a major
mode of transportation within a metropolitan planning area.
This "what if" situation is in compliance with federal codes and
says that if there is a privately managed light rail or
transportation system, the governor could appoint a member from
that system to the board. Some metropolitan areas have
privately managed transit systems that are used on a for-fee
basis and are part of the MPO, contributing to the transit
system within that MPO.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER asked if the Knik Arm Bridge [Toll Authority]
would qualify.
SENATOR STEVENS confirmed that it would qualify, asking for
verification from Mr. Otteson.
MR. OTTESON agreed, "That's correct." He said there are other
transportation providers already in Anchorage such as the Port
of Anchorage, the airport, transit authority, and the railroad;
all four are subdivisions of either state or local government
and have representation through the mayor and the governor's
appointees. In the future, if one of these were privatized or
if the Knik Bridge Authority took over a mode of operation, it
could ask for and be provided a seat on the board.
CO-CHAIR WAGONER said, "I think we're all out of order in
discussing this ... I move to adopt the amendment."
SENATOR LINCOLN objected.
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned language referring to an agency
not being a subordinate of or under the direct authority of a
state or municipal agency, and asked, "Are we precluding
somebody who is currently participating or are we just expanding
the language for what may happen?"
MR. OTTESON replied, "It's the later circumstance." A provision
is being created for the future. The railroad has asked to be a
voting member of the MPO and "the folks in Anchorage have
opposed that for the same reason they're opposing the bill
today; it would dilute local control." The thought is that
governor's appointees can represent the railroad - a state
entity - and likewise the Port of Anchorage and/or Anchorage's
transit authority are under the mayor's control, so the mayor's
appointees can represent those interests. But a private entity
does not have that representation, and [with this] it could, in
the future, gain representation.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked that Mr. Lyon stay on the teleconference
line because she had not finished with her previous questions.
She reviewed that with this amendment there would be four state
officials and three local government officials; two would be
appointed by the governor (one from the Senate, one from the
House, designated by the President and the Speaker of the
House). She asked for clarification of use of the permissive
word "may" and asked, "What if the governor chooses not to
appoint these - b and c - you then have one from the Senate and
one from the House and two local?"
SENATOR STEVENS said this was not how he read it, but maybe Mr.
Ottesen could explain further.
MR. OTTESEN explained that these were extra seats in addition to
the seven that are actually named in statute. According to AS
19.20.210 paragraph (a), the municipalities will designate three
voting members. In addition, there will be two voting members
appointed by the governor, and then two members appointed by the
House and Senate, making seven. Then 'b' refers to additional
appointed members - meaning eight or nine or whatever the number
might be - representing a major mode of transportation that is
privately operated. The last paragraph adds ex-officio members.
3:12 p.m.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked, "So you've got a seven-member board for
sure, that's a 'shall'. Then the governor decides whether he or
she wants to make it a nine-member board. Is that right?"
MR. OTTESEN responded, "More than seven. It could be eight."
SENATOR LINCOLN said, "Mr. Lyon, I know your concern is that
there be four state officials and three municipal members to
this board. But now you've heard the discussion that there
could be five or six state officials and three municipal
governmental [officials]. Could you respond to that?"
MR. LYON responded that the same concern exists, that of tilting
the balance away from local officials and diluting local
control, while this pertains to dollars the federal government
has set up to be in local hands.
SENATOR LINCOLN said that although she was speaking to the
amendment, she still had questions regarding the body of the
bill. She maintained her objection.
A roll-call vote was taken. Senators Therriault, Olson,
Wagoner, and Cowdery voted in favor of the motion; Senator
Lincoln voted against it. Therefore the amendment [Amendment 1]
passed by a vote of 4 to 1.
SENATOR LINCOLN returned to [version Q] and directed her comment
to Mr. Lyon saying that she wanted to understand the Assembly's
concerns. She stated she would not vote for passage of the bill
because of the due process, "I just got the amended version as
well, and I know you don't have it in hand. And I think it
would be prudent for us to at least allow the community to
comment on it." Senator Lincoln stated, "If you feel so certain
that the Transportation Secretary would support your objection
to these additional state officials, I mean, this letter or
resolution was written or passed February 3rd and knowing that
it was going to be heard in just two committees, why haven't you
all pursued that aggressively?"
MR. LYON replied, "We have pursued. We have a letter that is
already there, and we're just waiting for an answer from the
Secretary."
SENATOR LINCOLN suggested that Mr. Lyon had run out of time and
requested, "I would like to see that letter that you wrote."
She pointed out that the committee did not have a copy of the
resolution or the justification, and asked if it had been
submitted to the CRA and TRA Committees.
MR. LYON said it had been submitted to CRA but he wasn't certain
if it was submitted to TRA.
CO-CHAIR COWDERY said TRA did not receive it.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked, "Why do you think that regardless of who
they appoint from - and I know it's been asked in other ways -
but, if the designee from the Senate and the designee from the
House - why would you think that they would do bad things?"
MR. LYON responded, "It's not that we think that they'll do bad
things. It's not that we think they're not going to be
responsive to the public." He reiterated that Federal Highways
doesn't view state officials as local officials; the majority of
MPO members are supposed to be local officials, otherwise "it's
against what the MPOs were set up for."
SENATOR LINCOLN said she didn't have any documentation to verify
what he was saying.
MR. LYON said, "As soon as I dig out the federal regulations and
find that specific part, I will send it to you."
SENATOR LINCOLN suggested that it be forwarded to all committee
members, and thanked him.
SENATOR STEVENS said, "I think Senator Lincoln just made the
point for me. I don't believe there is something that
designates a balance, by local officials." He asked Mr. Ottesen
for confirmation.
MR. OTTESEN responded, "Certainly in the U.S. code there is no
mention [that] a majority of the members should come from one of
those three groups that I talked about - local officials,
elected officials or state officials, or other providers of
transportation - it just says that all three of those groups
should be represented. The exact structure is wide open."
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved to report CSSB 260, version Q as
amended, with zero fiscal notes and individual recommendations
out of committee.
SENATOR LINCOLN objected. For the record, she said, "We just
received the amended version that the community that we're
speaking of has not had an opportunity to see that amended
version, and it goes to the Floor next, and I think that it
would be prudent for us to just allow them the courtesy to see
that version before we passed it out. It doesn't go anywhere
after this. It goes to the Floor."
A roll-call vote was taken. Senators Therriault, Wagoner,
Cowdery voted in favor of the motion; Senators Olson and Lincoln
voted against it. Therefore, CSSB 260(TRA) moved from the
Senate Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 3 to 2.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CO-CHAIR COWDERY adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|