Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/01/2001 08:07 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 2001
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Carl Morgan, Co-Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to
establishment of a metropolitan planning organization for the
Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED SB 88 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 88
SHORT TITLE:METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/13/01 0356 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/13/01 0356 (S) TRA, CRA, FIN
02/20/01 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
02/20/01 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/21/01 0451 (S) TRA RPT 3DP 1DNP 1AM
02/21/01 0451 (S) DP: COWDERY, WARD, WILKEN;
DNP: ELTON;
02/21/01 0451 (S) AM: TAYLOR
02/21/01 0451 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/07/01 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/07/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/07/01 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/09/01 0596 (S) CRA RPT 2DP 1NR
03/09/01 0596 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PHILLIPS; NR:
AUSTERMAN
03/09/01 0596 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/22/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) FIN AT 6:00 PM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/26/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/26/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/27/01 0819 (S) FIN RPT 3DP 2DNP 2NR
03/27/01 0819 (S) DP: DONLEY, GREEN, LEMAN;
03/27/01 0819 (S) NR: KELLY, WILKEN; DNP:
HOFFMAN, OLSON
03/27/01 0819 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
04/04/01 0933 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 4/4/01
04/04/01 0943 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/04/01 0944 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/04/01 0944 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 88
04/04/01 0944 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 E1
04/04/01 0944 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/04/01 0944 (S) OLSON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/04/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
04/04/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/05/01 0960 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
04/05/01 0961 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12
N7 E1
04/05/01 0961 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) Y19 N- E1
04/05/01 0962 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/05/01 0962 (S) VERSION: SB 88
04/06/01 0875 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/06/01 0875 (H) TRA, CRA
04/17/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/17/01 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/01 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/19/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/19/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
04/24/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(TRA)
04/25/01 1200 (H) TRA RPT 1DP 2DNP 1NR 1AM
04/25/01 1200 (H) DP: KOHRING; DNP: SCALZI,
KOOKESH;
04/25/01 1200 (H) NR: MASEK; AM: WILSON
04/25/01 1200 (H) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
05/01/01 1426 (H) CRA RPT 6NR
05/01/01 1426 (H) NR: GUESS, SCALZI, HALCRO,
MURKOWSKI,
05/01/01 1426 (H) MEYER, MORGAN
05/01/01 1427 (H) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
05/01/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of SB 88.
BILL CUMMINGS, Assistant Attorney General
Transportation Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the department's opinion that
legislators sitting on the AMATS Policy Committee would be in
violation of the dual office holding provision of the Alaska
Constitution.
ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Member
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
PO Box 771112
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Anchorage Assembly
opposes SB 88.
DICK TRAINI, Chair
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
2020 Dimond Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that SB 88 is bad public policy.
TOM BRIGHAM, Director
Division of Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Announced that the administration does not
support SB 88.
ALLAN TESCHE, Member
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
1032 G
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to oppose SB 88.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 88.
DOUG VAN ETTEN, Member
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage
3052 North Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 88.
DICK TREMAIN, Member
Anchorage Assembly
Municipality of Anchorage;
AMATS representative
16251 Chasewood Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the problem is there is not
enough funding coming to Anchorage.
DAVID MILLER, Division Administrator
Alaska Division
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
PO Box 21648
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1648
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 88 and the
consequences of redesignation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-25, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR KEVIN MEYER called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:07 a.m.
Representatives Morgan, Meyer, Scalzi, and Guess were present at
the call to order. Representatives Halcro and Murkowski arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
SB 88-METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
CO-CHAIR MEYER announced that the only order of business before
the committee would be SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to
metropolitan planning organizations and to establishment of a
metropolitan planning organization for the Anchorage
metropolitan area; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0089
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
the sponsor of SB 88. Senator Phillips informed the committee
that this is "Round 6" for this bill. He explained that this
would only apply to Anchorage for now, although Fairbanks and
the Mat-Su Valley may be impacted in the future. The Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) has two
components, one of which is the technical committee that makes
recommendations to the policy committee. This bill, SB 88, only
refers to the policy committee, which consists of two appointed
positions by the governor, the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), and three [municipally] elected
officials, two assembly members, and one mayor. This
legislation will add two additional members, one will be
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
other by the President of the Senate. Those two legislators
have to be from the [Anchorage] community. Senator Phillips
expressed the hope that there would be an understanding between
the Speaker and the President so that these two legislators will
represent all of Anchorage not just a select portion of
Anchorage.
Number 0239
SENATOR PHILLIPS pointed out that the committee packet includes
a letter from the Mayor of Anchorage in support of the concept
put forth in SB 88. Senator Phillips explained that he
introduced SB 88 out of frustration. Having a Representative
and a Senator on the committee compliments the AMATS process.
Senator Phillips said that he has watched the AMATS process over
the years and, for him, it came to a head last Fall when two of
[Anchorage's] projects moved down. Since the legislature
appropriates 10 percent of the funds for AMATS, he felt that the
people in "our" district should have a direct say on that policy
committee in regard to the ranking of the road projects within
the AMATS process. Senator Phillips pointed out that those
outside the Anchorage area don't have to deal with the AMATS
process, which is just another layer to proceed through in order
to get projects to DOT&PF. Those outside of Anchorage deal
directly with DOT&PF.
SENATOR PHILLIPS mentioned that there will be testimony
asserting that SB 88 is dual office holding and thus is contrary
to the Alaska State Constitution. He pointed out that Hawaii
has similar provisions in its state constitution and they have
allowed legislators to be on their version of AMATS.
Furthermore, Senator Phillips pointed out that the Alaska
[Commission on Postsecondary Education] has two elected
officials on its 14-member commission, which is similar to
AMATS. In conclusion, Senator Phillips reiterated that having
two Anchorage legislators on the AMATS Policy Committee
compliments the policy committee.
Number 0511
CO-CHAIR MEYER noted that SB 88 has an effective date of July 1,
2002.
SENATOR PHILLIPS explained that he wants to have about a year's
transition in order to give the Speaker and the President time
to confer with the members of the Anchorage caucus so that the
best representatives are chosen. Furthermore, it would provide
the policy committee time to adjust to the idea of having two
legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if Senator Phillips had considered
making the legislative members ex officio members in order to
circumvent the problem of dual office holding.
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied no. He reiterated that Hawaii already
does this. Furthermore, the committee packet should include a
letter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) saying
that there is nothing wrong with having two legislators on the
AMATS Policy Committee.
Number 0637
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO directed attention to a letter from George
Schoener, Director, Office of Metropolitan Planning and
Programs, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, that is included in the committee packet. Mr.
Schoener's letter includes the following statement: "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 23 USC 134." Therefore, Representative Halcro
asked if this is the letter Senator Phillips was referencing.
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied no. He provided the committee with a
letter from David Miller, Division Administrator, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, dated
February 22, 2001.
Number 0742
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS noted her amazement that no public members
sit on AMATS but that all members are elected officials or
employees of elected officials. She asked if Senator Phillips
had given any thought to having members from the Anchorage
community.
SENATOR PHILLIPS replied no and noted that he would entertain
such. However, he wasn't sure whether that would be in
opposition to FHWA rules and regulations or state laws. He
asked if Representative Guess was suggesting placing a public
member on the policy committee and allowing that member to have
a vote. He said that he would entertain such, but he
recommended asking DOT&PF, the Municipality of Anchorage, and
FHWA how they feel about a public member.
CO-CHAIR MEYER remarked that theoretically, the public is
represented on AMATS through their elected representative.
Number 0890
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO returned to the FHWA letters, which seem
to be contradictory.
SENATOR PHILLIPS informed the committee that the administration,
DOT&PF, and the Municipality of Anchorage have been opposing
this legislation, which is why this [has been heard six times]
and there will probably be a few more times before this is over.
Senator Phillips felt that it is up to the legislature to make
this policy decision. Additionally, he pointed out that eight
out of nine Senators voted for SB 88. Senator Phillips said, "I
just think that we make the policy decisions, we appropriate the
dollars. I think, as directly elected officials, we should have
some say on those priorities. This is not meant to take
anything away from the policy committee; it's to add something."
He wasn't sure where the fear is coming from.
Number 1063
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI noted that the House Transportation
Standing Committee heard SB 88 and fleshed out many points. In
regard to the dual office holding argument, he pointed out that
Article II, Section 5, Disqualifications, of the Alaska
Constitution says: "No legislator may hold any other office or
position of profit...." He informed the committee that before
he became a legislator he confirmed that his membership on the
International Pacific Halibut Commission would not be in
violation of this provision because it is not for profit.
Therefore, Representative Scalzi disagreed with the Department
of Law's conclusion with regard to dual office holding.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI turned to the comment that DOT&PF doesn't
have a problem with an official sitting on this policy
committee, which was confirmed in testimony to the House
Transportation Standing Committee. However, he recalled a
possible conflict with SB 88 due to the regulations saying that
the board has to nominate or vote on these members.
Representative Scalzi said that the board could choose to place
elected officials as members.
SENATOR PHILLIPS remarked, "That's not going to happen, that's
why the bill was introduced." He expressed his frustration with
being "beat up" from constituents regarding actions from a board
that consists of non-elected state officials. Beyond attending
meetings, Senator Phillips has no avenue. He indicated that he
would be amenable to the AMATS Board being directly elected by
the people in Anchorage.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS related her understanding that it would be
acceptable for the policy committee to include two legislators,
but it's not acceptable for the legislature, without consent, to
put legislators on the policy committee. She asked if there has
been a legal opinion in regard to whether Alaska's federal
dollars would be at risk.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that he hadn't asked Legal Services such a
question but rather he had asked Legal Services whether there
was anything in the constitution, state statutes, federal
regulations, et cetera that would address having a legislator on
this policy committee and the answer was no. Senator Phillips
didn't have anything in writing to that respect. Senator
Phillips offered to pursue that question.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed the committee that his community
council includes a very outspoken AMATS representative. This
representative has shared many stories in which she has arrived
at AMATS meetings and the meeting has been canceled or the
agenda has been changed.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said that he has experienced that first hand.
Senator Phillips expressed the need for these policy committee
meetings to be held when it's convenient for the public not for
the committee.
Number 1536
BILL CUMMINGS, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, confirmed
the Department of Law's position that SB 88 violates the
constitution's prohibition against dual office holding by
legislators. He explained that in the department's review of
this matter over the last 20 years, it doesn't matter whether
the person is paid a wage or not but rather it matters that the
person is holding a second office under state law. This
legislation will mark a fundamental change in how business is
done in regard to AMATS. Currently, AMATS is a municipal
creature, but SB 88 would change AMATS to be a state agency.
Therefore, he felt there should be some concerns regarding what
this does to local government, which is addressed in the more
recent FHWA correspondence [dated April 5, 2001]. He related
his understanding that, after review of "that statute" and the
more recent FHWA correspondence, the Metropolitan Transportation
Planning process under 23 USC 134 is to provide local input and
local control in regard to how these federal dollars are spent,
which would be changed by SB 88.
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked then if he would be in violation of
the dual office holding provision by being on the International
Pacific Halibut Commission.
MR. CUMMINGS said that he didn't know. He specified that he
didn't know the nature of the policy body Representative Scalzi
is on. It matters what is actually being done, that is whether
the legislator is collecting and disseminating information or is
the legislator making policy and managing activity.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if a legislator would be in
violation of this provision if he/she is a member of the Chamber
of Commerce or the Board of the Volcano Interpretive Center.
MR. CUMMINGS answered that if the membership was a matter of
collecting and disseminating information or a citizen's board
relating to a particular facility, then it [probably] wouldn't
be a problem. However, if the legislator holds a position in
which he/she is hiring and firing executive directors and making
capital budget decisions, there would likely be a problem.
Again, it is based on the specifics and thus is viewed on a
case-by-case analysis.
Number 1776
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI inquired as to who checks this for
legislators because legislators are members of various
organizations.
MR. CUMMINGS noted that this was addressed in his [March 14,
2001] letter to Senator Ward to which there were three formal
attorney general opinions attached. One of those opinions was
in regard to Christopher Cooke, a member of the Board of
Regents, and whether Mr. Cooke could continue to be a regent
during his appointment to Superior Court. The opinion said that
Mr. Cooke could not hold both positions because it would be dual
office holding because the University of Alaska is an organ of
the state. Mr. Cummings indicated that the attorney general
might take action in an appropriate case, which would be a
public spectacle. Therefore, such a situation can be avoided by
not having legislation that places legislators at risk. In an
extreme case, it could be argued that a legislator has forfeited
their legislative position and thus the legislator has to choose
whether he/she wants to maintain a seat in the legislature or on
AMATS. In further response to Representative Scalzi, Mr.
Cummings agreed that this would be complaint driven.
MR. CUMMINGS turned to previous comments regarding the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) and indicated that
the department objected to (indisc.-static). He noted that ACPE
is a different type of board because it is such a large board.
However, AMATS, under SB 88, is very small and the impact of the
legislative members could be quite profound in the way that it
operates in comparison to its current [operation] under current
law.
Number 1940
ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference. She said that the
committee should have the Anchorage resolution opposing this
action, SB 88. The Anchorage Assembly believes that AMATS is a
local process and should be maintained at the local level. Ms.
Fairclough noted that AMATS meetings are noticed as are all
assembly meetings so that people know the location. In the six
months that Ms. Fairclough has served on AMATS, she said that
the meetings have always been the Mayor's conference room.
Although the AMATS work sessions may experience time changes,
the major meetings occur at the same time and everyone is
welcome to testify at that time. Ms. Fairclough pointed out
that AMATS has to make some difficult decisions, and certainly
doesn't please everyone all the time.
MS. FAIRCLOUGH turned to the Hawaiian Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), which was hailed by Senator Phillips as a
good working MPO. She informed the committee that the [AMATS]
director, Lance Wilbur(ph) was sent to the Hawaiian MPO in order
to show them how to do a better job. She interpreted the
federal government's perspective to be that Alaska's process was
functioning and producing projects and road work improvements
more quickly than the Hawaiian process. In Hawaii, Mr. Wilbur
pointed out that because leadership is based on an elected body
that changes over the course of time, so does the priority
level. Therefore, as more elected officials were added to the
process, it became more parochial.
MS. FAIRCLOUGH addressed Representative Guess' comments
regarding citizen participation. She pointed out that at every
meeting of the AMATS Policy Committee, people can speak on every
agenda item at the time that item is heard. Although that
doesn't mean that each idea is incorporated, it does mean that
the committee listens and is receptive.
Number 2117
MS. FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to how the legislature believes that
it can improve the process. She mentioned that she appreciated
the 10 percent contributed by the state. Ms. Fairclough
emphasized that assembly members that serve on the AMATS Policy
Committee cannot seek their own political interest because they
have to answer to the Anchorage Assembly as a whole. She
explained that the Anchorage Assembly actually directs the votes
of the two assembly members that sit on the AMATS Policy
Committee.
MS. FAIRCLOUGH then turned to the issue of separation of power.
She reiterated appreciation for the 10 percent funding given by
the state to match the FHWA dollars. However, she related her
belief that there is a separation of power issue that is not
necessarily the dual office holding issue. She specified that
those appropriating the money [legislators] are now stepping
into the process politically and directing how the money is
spent.
Number 2238
DICK TRAINI, Chair, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference. Mr. Traini began by
saying that SB 88 is bad public policy and thus he opposes SB
88. He asked Co-Chair Meyer how many legislators he appointed
when he was Chair of the Assembly to AMATS.
CO-CHAIR MEYER answered that he didn't appoint any legislators.
MR. TRAINI turned to the sponsor statement which says,
"Legislators have a direct link to the constituents and
community councils where many of the needs are initiated, and
therefore, should have more input into the AMATS Policy
Committee." Mr. Traini took exception to that statement because
the people that attend the community council meetings are the
assembly members and "believe me, ..., if you don't listen to
the community council, they would knock on your doors and let
you know their opinion on AMATS-related issues." Mr. Traini
said, "When you take a look at this in total, the process works
now." Therefore, he didn't believe that the process should be
disturbed. Furthermore, he felt that "we" have a more direct
relationship with constituents than individuals in Juneau. In
conclusion, Mr. Traini expressed his desire that SB 88 would not
move forward because it is bad public policy.
Number 2338
TOM BRIGHAM, Director, Division of Statewide Planning,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, testified via
teleconference. Mr. Brigham announced that the administration
does not support SB 88 and "we" agree with the Anchorage
Assembly that this is bad public policy. Mr. Brigham pointed
out that since the creation of AMATS, there has always been one
more municipal vote than state vote. Therefore, the
municipality has the ability to out vote the state. However, SB
88 would shift the balance of power because there would be four
state votes and three municipal votes, which he believes results
in diminished local control.
MR. BRIGHAM informed the committee that the MPO is charged with
reviewing areawide transportation problems and developing
solutions, it is not a parochial body. "With all due respect to
Senator Phillips, that is the kind of problem he's been talking
about and this is not the body to get that problem solved," he
said. Mr. Brigham then turned to the letters from the FHWA.
The first letter [from Mr. Miller] says there is no problem with
having legislators on AMATS. However, Mr. Schoener's letter
says that the legislature can't simply unilaterally appoint them
to AMATS but rather AMATS has to vote to have additional
representation. Passing legislation that places two legislators
on AMATS creates a train wreck because a redesignation is
created. He pointed out that a redesignation is something that
is done by the governor and local elected officials. Senate
Bill 88 says, "It is the intent of the legislature that the
membership of the current metropolitan planning organization for
the Anchorage metropolitan area (known as AMATS) be restructured
in accordance with this Act in a manner that does not constitute
a redesignation of the metropolitan planning organization under
federal law." However, Mr. Schoener's letter says that is not
possible. Mr. Brigham concluded by addressing the concerns
regarding public meeting times. He informed the committee that
AMATS has a federal grant to improve its public process, which
he believes AMATS is doing.
Number 2532
ALLAN TESCHE, Member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference. Mr. Tesche underscored
the importance of this matter because roads and transportation
systems are the backbone of neighborhoods. Mr. Tesche commended
the sponsors of SB 88 for their dedication to public service and
their willingness to take on additional responsibilities at a
local level. However, Mr. Tesche noted the temptation in
government to do someone else's job. For instance, Mr. Tesche
wondered how the legislature would view a long-range fiscal plan
for the state by the municipalities. He felt that one should
guard against one level of government taking on the work of
another level of government.
MR. TESCHE emphasized that SB 88 will shift the balance of power
and responsibility for decisions on local roads from Anchorage
to Juneau. Furthermore, merely because these legislative
members reside in Anchorage doesn't necessarily mean they are
local residents because these legislators are physically absent
from the community for half the year. These legislators would
not have the direct contact with private citizens that members
of the local governing body have on a constant basis. Mr.
Tesche said if the desire is to delegate the process of how
local roads in Anchorage are built and by whom, then SB 88
should be forwarded. However, the people of Anchorage need
access to the people that make these decisions.
Number 2733
MR. TESCHE turned to Mr. Schoener's letter and the advice of the
assistant attorney general and suggested that the committee
carefully review those. Mr. Tesche framed the issue as follows:
"Is this issue so important to the legislature that you're
willing to take the risk of a major restructuring of our local
policy on roads in Anchorage or run the risk of a confrontation
with the federal government?" In regard to Mayor Wuerch's
letter supporting SB 88, Mr. Tesche felt that Mayor Wuerch is
out of step because this is a legislative matter that is not
vested with the executive branch. Furthermore, Mr. Tesche felt
that Mayor Wuerch is out of touch with the Anchorage Assembly.
Although the committee could ignore the concerns of the
Anchorage Assembly and hold on to Mayor Wuerch's letter, he
urged the committee to proceed with caution because the presence
of five assembly members and the resolution in opposition to SB
88 illustrate Anchorage's strong sentiment that nothing needs to
be fixed with SB 88. Therefore, Mr. Tesche urged the committee
to oppose SB 88.
CO-CHAIR MEYER mentioned that this isn't the first issue on
which the assembly and the mayor have not agreed.
Number 2831
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO related his belief that there is a high
level of frustration. Furthermore, he expressed his amazement
at Anchorage's lack of planning as it relates to roads. There
is no reason why there shouldn't be more north-south corridors.
Although Representative Halcro agreed with the need to respect
local control, he said that he hears from constituents as well
as assembly members. Representative Halcro's constituents are
frustrated with the lack of decent roads as well as the fact
that it takes a person longer to drive between Sand Lake and
Muldoon than it does between Muldoon and Palmer. Therefore,
this is something that deserves serious consideration.
Representative Halcro said that he didn't believe the process is
working. Perhaps there should be discussion regarding the need
for the municipality to take responsibility for all of the
state-owned and maintained roadways in Anchorage.
Representative Halcro related his belief that there is a place
for the legislature in this process, although he wasn't sure
this was it.
Number 2965
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Special/Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, began by explaining why MPOs are here in the first
place. Twenty-some odd years ago at the federal transportation
appropriation process, large municipalities and urban areas
across the country wanted ...
TAPE 01-25, SIDE B
MR. POSHARD continued, "...large, many millions of dollars of
federal funds trying to get that money directly." The federal
government and the FHWA didn't want to establish relationships
with a thousand or more governmental entities and to have to
oversee and account for those relationships. Therefore, the
federal government developed the MPO as a compromise. He
explained that basically, the federal government would maintain
its relationships with the 50 states and the money will be given
to the states through the state DOTs and through the state
governments who can determine the amount of money the local
government will receive. However, once the money is given to
the MPO, the MPO determines how that money will be spent within
its boundaries.
MR. POSHARD stated that the department recognizes the
frustration that has been mentioned. He believes that AMATS and
the local assembly also recognize the problem and thus AMATS
sought and received a federal grant, a local planning grant, of
$250,000. That grant was used to perform a study of public
processes in order to develop suggestions regarding ways to
improve their own public process and communications. That study
is in the completion phase. He offered to provide members with
a copy of the draft study, which he believes contains some
excellent recommendations that the policy committee will likely
implement.
Number 2894
MR. POSHARD turned to the conflicting letters from the FHWA. He
agreed with earlier comments that it's not necessarily that
legislators can't serve on AMATS, "it's how they get there
that's the problem." Mr. Poshard concluded by saying that the
department feels that SB 88 is bad public policy and thus
opposes this legislation. He suggested that the committee
thoroughly research this and speak with the FHWA in order to
ensure that the federal funds aren't jeopardized before voting
for SB 88.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that Mr.
Poshard feels that SB 88 is ill-advised because how the
legislators would get on the AMATS committee. Therefore, she
surmised that Mr. Poshard, DOT&PF, is in agreement with Mr.
Schoener's letter in that SB 88 would be a redesignation of the
MPO.
MR. POSHARD replied yes. He recalled that Mr. Miller, FHWA, had
testified at the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting
that the FHWA agrees with Mr. Schoener's letter that the
legislators adding themselves to AMATS would not be consistent
with federal law and thus there could be some consequences to
those actions.
Number 2735
DOUG VAN ETTEN, Member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference. Mr. Van Etten related
his understanding that the AMATS process seeks local input and
constitutes local control, "local" being the operative word. He
also noted that AMATS is a year-round process. Mr. Van Etten
said that he would hate to have legislators who spend almost
half their year in Juneau to have to spend any more time than
necessary on the public process in Anchorage. There are already
many things that the local [government] can't deal with and
appreciate that the state does.
MR. VAN ETTEN said that if appropriations is the issue in that
10 percent of AMATS funding comes from the state, then perhaps
AMATS should ask if the federal representatives want to sit on
the committee since 90 percent of the money is from the federal
government.
MR. VAN ETTEN pointed out that the AMATS process has to be
consensus building. The more voices there are, the more
difficult it is to build consensus. Furthermore, those
representatives that represent particular constituent issues
rather than broad overall community issues make it more
difficult to build consensus. As Ms. Fairclough pointed out
earlier, she can't alone represent Eagle River but rather she,
as do other AMATS members, has to represent the overall best
interest of the community.
MR. VAN ETTEN then turned to an Anchorage Assembly resolution,
2001-79S, in which the assembly has asked DOT&PF to re-evaluate
its ranking criteria in order to more effectively reflect the
volume of traffic needs in Anchorage. Therefore, Anchorage
would actually be allocated more money, which would provide
AMATS with greater flexibility to make decisions on various
projects.
MR. VAN ETTEN noted his appreciation of Representative Halcro's
comment regarding local control versus state control on the
roads in Anchorage. Mr. Van Etten informed the committee that
the transfer of control is currently being researched and he
predicted that the transfer of responsibility agreements will be
forthcoming within the next few weeks or months. Such
agreements would outline the transfer of control from the state
to the municipality. Mr. Van Etten concluded by saying:
I think that AMATS, the assembly, and their workings
with the Department of Transportation have very
effectively shown that we're working for the best
interest of the overall community here and I don't
think that (indisc.) the balance of power [within]
AMATS needs to be shifted, as has previously been
pointed out, from the municipality to the state.
There's an adequate job being done here and a very
proactive job.
Number 2434
DICK TREMAIN, Member, Anchorage Assembly, Municipality of
Anchorage; AMATS representative, testified via teleconference.
Mr. Tremain identified the problem as there not being enough
funding coming to Anchorage. When there is a shortage in
resources, there is conflict over their use. Additionally, it
is a seven year process to build federal roads, which is a
federal problem not a state or local problem. Mr. Tremain
informed the committee that Anchorage has about 40 percent of
the people in the state, while only receiving about 20 percent
of the dollars. He agreed that there is congestion and he
suggested that "congestion is not a linear function of
population and vehicles, that there is something exponential
involved, especially when you have a community that is
geographically spread out as Anchorage is." Therefore, one
could argue that even more money is necessary because there are
more travel miles per vehicle per capita.
MR. TREMAIN noted his appreciation of the legislative intent to
help, but perhaps that should be focused on assisting [the
municipality] in obtaining more federal dollars and providing
Anchorage with a more equitable distribution of funds within the
state as well as upgrading roads. In regard to the notion of
transferring road responsibility from the state to the city, Mr.
Tremain pointed out that a large transfer of dollars will be
required to bring them up to snuff. Furthermore, there would
need to be ongoing operations and maintenance funding. Mr.
Tremain mentioned the numerous unfunded legislative mandates,
which have hurt the municipality tremendously.
Number 2272
MR. TREMAIN turned to the issue of legislative participation on
AMATS and pointed out that such is already sought as agenda
notices are sent out via e-mail. Mr. Tremain recalled a
statement by Senator Phillips when he was informed that [AMATS]
is having meetings every two weeks and that comment was, "I have
a life, I can't just show up at meetings in the middle of the
day." Mr. Tremain agreed that legislators are stretched thin.
Furthermore, Mr. Tremain said that membership on AMATS may not
be the way [for the legislature] to participate. On a lighter
note, Mr. Tremain informed the committee that he represents
South Anchorage, which has 52,000 people in that district. In
the worst case scenario, Mr. Tremain suggested that his district
could separate itself from Anchorage and thus would be the
second entity in the state eligible for a Metropolitan
Transportation group and four legislators could come to
Anchorage to discuss roads.
CO-CHAIR MEYER asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify. There being no one, the public testimony was closed.
Number 2165
SENATOR PHILLIPS noted that many of the committee members are
from Anchorage and represent a constituency every two years.
Furthermore, "we" live there. Although Anchorage legislators
are in Juneau for four months, they are in constant contact with
their constituency. Senator Phillips said that legislators are
essentially "camping out" in Juneau to represent the best
interest of Anchorage.
Number 2045
DAVID MILLER, Division Administrator, Alaska Division, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
acknowledged that the letters from the FHWA have caused
confusion and thus he offered to answer any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI related her understanding that Mr.
Miller's letter dated February 22, 2001, indicated that
participation by state legislators on the board is not precluded
by the federal regulations. However, there is the proviso,
"following Title 23 CFR Section 450." Mr. Schoener's letter
dated April 5, 2001, indicated that allowing state legislators
to sit on the AMATS board would constitute a restructuring and a
redesignation [without] a change in the by-laws to allow such.
Therefore, Representative Murkowski asked Mr. Miller to provide
his opinion regarding whether these letters are inconsistent.
MR. MILLER answered that he didn't believe the letters to be
inconsistent. The letter dated February 22, 2001, was in
response to a specific question regarding whether there is
anything in federal law that precludes the participation of
legislators on the AMATS Policy Committee. To that question, he
replied, "No there isn't." He continued, "The question is how
you get there." The letter dated April 5, 2001, addresses the
question of how the legislators come to be on AMATS. Mr. Miller
said:
If ... local units of government representing 75
percent of affected population and the governor agreed
and welcomed, invited the ... legislature to
participate in some part of the AMATS process is one
thing. To impose against their objections, is
another, in our view.
MR. MILLER, in response to Representative Murkowski, said that
Title 23 CFR Section 450 specifies the process. He agreed with
Representative Murkowski that the aforementioned provision says
that there must be consent from the local governing body. The
provision is specific in that the formation of the MPO is a
decision of units of local government representing 75 percent of
the population, such as the assembly, and the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there would be any
ramifications from the FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
if the consent of the local government is not obtained.
Number 1830
MR. MILLER said that it is difficult to speculate on the various
scenarios that could occur due to SB 88. Normally, the local
government and the governor would work with the board. However,
in this case it would be a top-down approach. Mr. Brigham's
reference to [SB 88 creating] a train wreck is exactly what
would happen, in Mr. Miller's opinion. For instance, if SB 88
passes and the governor signs the bill, then [the federal
government] could interpret that as the governor agreeing on
part of the redesignation. However, if the governor vetoed SB
88, it would be an indication that he is not in agreement. Mr.
Miller reiterated the difficulty in speculating what the
legislature or the assembly would do.
MR. MILLER remarked that it would be fair to say that the MPO
and the planning process established in federal law would need
to continue in order for federal aide funds to be spent in
Anchorage. At what point it is determined that the process has
failed, he was unsure. Furthermore, he wasn't sure that would
even happen. Mr. Miller pointed out that it is interesting that
the [FHWA] would consider SB 88 to be a redesignation under
federal law. Under that federal law, the funds would continue
to flow into AMATS under the existing Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) until the redesignation occurred. However, in
another scenario, the governor and the assembly could abolish
AMATS, which would result in the termination of the federal
funds.
Number 1636
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI posed a situation in which SB 88 passes
both bodies and the governor signs it and the assembly approves
it. She surmised that it would not be considered a
redesignation and things would be okay. However, if the
assembly did not approve, then it would be construed as a
redesignation and federal highway funds could be jeopardized.
MR. MILLER stated, "We would consider passage of this
legislation as a redesignation, under federal law." In further
response to Representative Murkowski, Mr. Miller specified, "If
all parties consented after the fact, our process is in tact
[and thus] we'd continue on."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to the consequences
attached to a redesignation. She again asked if federal highway
funding would be jeopardized because [FHWA] determined this to
be a redesignation.
MR. MILLER replied, "Yes." If the redesignation occurs and
there is no formal action to the existing MPO, [the FHWA] would
proceed with the existing TIP and transportation plan, both of
which have a shelf life. At some point, something has to
happen. Depending upon the circumstances, federal funds could
continue or discontinue.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the CFR contains anything
specific regarding the [possibility] that a redesignation
without consent could have financial consequences to the state.
MR. MILLER answered that he didn't believe the CFR contemplated
such and thus doesn't specifically address redesignation without
consent, to his knowledge. He explained that if SB 88 passes
and there is no agreement, then there is no redesignation and
the MPO is not functioning.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO requested that Mr. Miller comment on the
process in Hawaii.
MR. MILLER said that he didn't have any knowledge of the
situation in Hawaii.
Number 1364
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS posed a situation in which AMATS decided to
place legislators on AMATS. Would such be considered a
redesignation, she asked.
MR. MILLER replied yes and said that 23 CFR accepts
redesignation.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS related her understanding then that
redesignation is okay. However, there is nothing in regulation
regarding a redesignation that doesn't have unanimous consent.
MR. MILLER explained that it is acceptable for the MPO to add
membership when the local government units and the governor
agree. Typically, a redesignation wouldn't be a redesignation.
In this case, the additional members are [being implemented]
from the state legislature and there is at least the appearance
that the legislature's will is being imposed on the MPO.
Therefore, such action would be viewed as a redesignation and
everyone would need to be in agreement. Without agreement, then
there isn't a functioning metropolitan planning process in the
state, which would have to be resolved. He noted the preference
for the legislature, the governor, and the assembly to resolve
the issues. Without resolution, the process is broken and
doesn't comply with Title 23 CFR. At that point, the funds for
Anchorage are in jeopardy.
Number 1151
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO turned to Mr. Tremain's comment that
Anchorage doesn't receive its fair share of federal highway
money. He then informed the committee that he had received a
copy of a letter on that point from Commissioner Perkins to
Senator Donley. He suggested that committee members read
Commissioner Perkins' response to [Mr. Tremain's comment].
Commissioner Perkins pointed out that there could be the
argument that Anchorage receives a smaller portion of federal
highway funds. However, there are projects outside the
municipality that directly improve traffic flows and the quality
of life in Anchorage. For instance, the proposed Palmer-Wasilla
Interchange helps people in Anchorage and the Valley.
CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to the wish of the committee.
Number 1023
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to report SB 88 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, SB 88 was reported from the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at an unspecified time.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|