Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/21/1997 02:00 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 1997
2:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chairman
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Al Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project
Authority; relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS, Cowdery
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/03/97 923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/03/97 923 (H) TRANSPORTATION
04/21/97 (H) TRA AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 208
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2689
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement to HB 227.
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant
to Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227.
KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6977
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 227.
HENRY SPRINGER, Executive Director
Associated General Contractors
4041 B Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-5354
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-4149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-22, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS called the House Transportation Standing
Committee to order at 2:00 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Williams, Masek, Cowdery, Hudson,
Sanders and Elton. Representative Kookesh arrived at 2:01 p.m. and
Representative Masek arrived at 2:04 p.m.
HB 227 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
Number 022
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business to be HB
227, "An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project
Authority; relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an
effective date", and stated that Representative Gail Phillips would
present the bill.
Number 035
REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS read the following sponsor statement
into the record: "The purpose of HB 227 is to increase public
involvement, stability and discipline in capital project planning
for the state of Alaska.
"Planning for Alaska's capital improvement projects is presently
carried out by the Planning Division of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, DOT/PF. Research and
planning is carried out by three regional planning teams, Central,
Northern and Southeast. The Regional Planning Teams coordinate
with the local governments, including AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan
Area Transportation Study) and FMATS (Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study), in their regions, Anchorage and Fairbanks.
They feed their regional plans into the Statewide Planning Team in
the Juneau headquarters. Headquarters Juneau consolidates the
local and regional plans into statewide plans. Statewide plans are
required for internal management and to meet requirements of
federal funding.
"House Bill 227 comes into play at the level of statewide
prioritization and funding alternatives. It would not change the
basic planning process now in use. It will change the method by
which projects are rated, prioritized and submitted to the governor
and legislature.
"Whereas currently, DOT/PF sets up a Project Evaluation Board (PEB)
to prioritized projects, HB 227 establishes an independent
Authority, the Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority, ACIPA,
to perform the functions that lead to finalizing our capital
spending priorities. The authority will have all the expertise
available form DOT/PF's Planning Division. It will have greater
public participation and community sensitivity built into it by
virtue of the diverse composition of its members. And, it will be
more independent of political influence by virtue of the staggered
tenure of its appointees.
"Despite efforts by DOT/PF over the years to make the planning
process more inclusive and transparent to the public, capital
project planning remains a dark science to most Alaskans. We don't
know how or why Project A gets funded before Project B, and why
Project C doesn't get funded at all. Part of the problem is that
there are several different plans arrived at by different methods.
All are subject to political intrigues between the governor and
legislature.
"Planning is hindered by a lack of continuity at the executive
level. DOT/PF Commissioners have an average tenure of under two
years. The permanent professional planners get committed to the
projects they work on and the people they work with.
"The provisions in HB 227 are intended to make the capital project
planning process more comprehensive, coherent to the public and
stable in its role of building Alaska's infrastructure. The
authority will have a single purpose mission rather than be
entangled with the multi-purposes of the governor, the legislature
and DOT/PF.
"This bill also vests in the authority the power to set tolls on
toll facilities and to establish signing standards and speed limits
for Capital Improvement Projects.
"The sponsors of HB 227 look forward to the constructive critique,
and changes where necessary, of this legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS stated that Representative Cowdery and his
staff will be carrying this bill and questions should be directed
towards them.
Number 372
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked which authority would be pre-eminent in
the case of capitol projects that effect the Marine Highway System.
Number 397
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative John
Cowdery, contemplated this authority to be pre-eminent, all other
transportation plans would be components of a single state wide
plan that is approved by this authority.
Number 436
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY stated that he just received the fiscal
note and asked Mr. Pignalberi to comment on it.
Number 464
MR. PIGNALBERI replied it is a matter of assumptions that had to be
made to come up with a fiscal note, which are different then the
assumptions of the creators of the legislation. He stated that the
$375,000 for personal services could be decreased by $236,000. He
stated that supplies and equipment could be decreased by $38,000 to
$40,000 and travel decreased by $20,000. At the first glance about
$295,000 could be cut from the fiscal note.
Number 559
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that it was his understanding that we
were going to utilize DOT/PF's expertise in what they are now
spending on their own plans and asked Mr. Pignalberi how it would
interface with this legislation.
Number 618
MR. PIGNALBERI replied that of the many levels in the planning
process, the one that would be supplanted with this authority is
the evaluation board, which does the final prioritization and
identifies funding sources. That is the activity that the planning
authority will execute, consisting of public citizens from around
the state as opposed to officials in the DOT/PF. He stated that it
is only the expenses associated with this, that changes. DOT/PF
was using five or six people in house to do it where the authority
would be using a seven member board of people around the state, as
a result the difference of cost should not be that great.
Number 688
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Pignalberi's what is happening to
the bill on the Senate side.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied that the President of the Senate has
introduced the bill and it has two committee referrals,
transportation and finance.
Number 728
KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, apologized that
the commissioner was not able to be here and provided the committee
with the commissioner's written comments. He stated that the
department does not support the establishment of this authority.
The current process for prioritizing and selecting projects is
stable and meets the states needs. He stated that the process is
subject to extensive public review and comment. He felt that the
program is not broken and does not need to be changed. He stated
that the fiscal note is the best estimate they had, given the way
the bill was written, and based on what the department thought was
the intent of the bill. He stated that the authority can add staff
without restrictions on the number of people or on the amount of
travel. He stated that the section that talks about the
authority's ability to review, revise as appropriate and approve
the following plans and programs, indicated that they were going to
need adequate staff, that had some expertise in the different modes
of transportation, therefore just a director and administrative
assistant would not be enough to meet their needs. In regards to
travel, the department estimated that they would need to meet once
a month to review and approve modifications to any projects. He
stated that it is a concern, that the authority would not be as
responsive with the Alaska's short building season. The department
is concerned that the funding would only be general funds and with
the staff, federal funds would not be available for the authority
and general funds would have to come out of a portion of the DOT/PF
budget. The department is concerned with the impact it would have
on the biggest general fund portion, which is maintenance and
operation. He stated that the bill refers to the authorities power
to deal with construction and maintenance programs, the department
feels that would mean that the authority would have the power to
determine what kind of maintenance is done on the roads and
airports throughout the state. He stated that the department is
not sure what impact the bill will have on Metropolitan Plan
Organization, MPO's such as AMATS, whether the Anchorage
municipality will have to get approval of the authority. He
referred to Representative Elton's question and felt that there are
conflicts between what the responsibilities of the authority would
be and the Alaska Marine Highway Authority, because the bill
requires the authority to approve plans for the marine highway.
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to Mr. Parkan's statement that the
current process was working and stated there have been the problems
in the department for at least the 15 years. He stated that the
department is opposed to any changes. The private sector is in
support of the bill and there are employee's of DOT/PF that feel
that current process is not working. He stated that priorities
are interrupted to serve the party in control. He stated that if
the current process was working there wouldn't be any one
interested in the bill. He stated that he did not understand his
comment on federal funds not being available to do the projects and
asked him to elaborate on that.
Number 1171
MR. PARKAN responded that his comment was not that the project
would not be available but that the funding for the authority with
the staff that they need would not necessarily be available for
federal funding because it is a duplicate department.
Number 1194
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if Mr. Parkan could provide a written
statement of the amount of funding it would take to make this work.
Number 1221
MR. PARKAN asked for more clarification.
Number 1243
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied that Mr. Parkan stated that the
fiscal note may be lower now that he had heard Mr. Pignalberi's
statement.
Number 1256
MR. PARKAN stated that the fiscal note is pretty good as it is
right now and he was referring to the way the bill was written to
allow the authority to hire any staff that is necessary to do its
job to revise projects, the fiscal note reflects this.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Parkan if he is saying that if
this bill becomes law, he envisions DOT/PF to remain the same as it
now and the authority would just be another layer on top.
Number 1319
MR. PARKAN replied that the bill adds another layer of government
that the department would have to respond to as well as to the
legislature and the governor. He stated that the department is
interested in improving the public comment and public process
programs. The department now has a set of criteria that is used so
everyone can see how projects compete across the state. He
referred to the representation that the authority has on the four
judicial districts, there would be two from each judicial district
except one judicial district would just have one person
representing it. This bill would not give equal representation
across the state.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked that Mr. Parkan could work with his
staff on his concerns.
Number 1430
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if he could show on the page two
of the Organization Charts of AASHTO Member Departments, where the
authority would fit.
MR. PARKAN replied that he could not answer that question, he was
not sure where it would link in.
Number 1472
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to Section 2 that states "The
department shall annually prepare a capital improvement project
construction and maintenance program for state-owned airports and
air navigation facilities", and asked if the department does annual
reports.
Number 1522
MR. PARKAN replied that the way airport projects are approached is
that there is a set of criteria that are scored on a statewide
basis. He stated that every year projects are submitted in the
capitol budget and that is the reporting that the department does.
There is also an ongoing planning process for statewide aviation.
Number 1581
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that under the departments stip plan,
projects are rated on safety and how much support there is on the
local level and asked if there are any problems with how the
projects are rated.
Number 1621
MR. PARKAN stated that safety issues and communities willingness to
contribute to a project will add weight to the project. He stated
that generally speaking it is going very well.
Number 1664
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that she has some grave concerns with
how the authority would be set up. She stated that she did not
know how a board would sit in the state of Alaska being that it is
so diverse. She asked if there were any plans to put together a
report that deals with the state owned airports and highways,
regarding construction and maintenance.
Number 1720
MR. PARKAN replied that there is a construction plan and a
maintenance task force that is looking at ways of maintaining more
efficiently and cost effectively. He stated that there isn't a
plan that combines construction and maintenance as this bill
envisions. He stated that the department is concerned with how the
authority would deal with Alaska as it is a diverse state and is
one of the most multi-modal states in the country, with the
dependence that we have on aviation, marine highways and roads.
Number 1766
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if railroads, schools and court
buildings would fall under this authority. He stated educational
facilities are specifically mentioned in AS 44.42.055 page 3, line
8.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated that he would like to hear from the people
that are here to testify and then go through the bill.
Number 1818
BOB RUBY, Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration,
stated that it appears to him that the bill does a lot more than
select projects. The Federal Aid Highway program in this state is
about $200 million a year and can be administered under the
provisions of this bill, depending on how they are interpreted. He
stated that the majority of the states, 33 states, operate with
similar authorities, all 13 of the western states operate with
similar authorities. These authorities provide policy guidance to
the respective DOT/PFs. He emphasized the word policy, as they are
not a parallel management group to the DOT/PFs. He stated that a
major benefit of the program is continuity, provided by the
authority, as the average commissioner term since statehood is 1.86
years. He stated that the bill requires that members have
geographic diversity, staggered terms and expertise in the major
functions of the DOT/PF.
MR. RUBY stated that he is concerned with the provision that allows
the authority to submit proposals independently of the DOT/PF's
program. Proposals which are presented outside of the public
involvement transportation planning processes are not eligible for
federal aid funds. He stated that in most states the authority has
very little problem convincing the DOT/PF's commissioners to
carefully consider their proposals and desires for inclusion in the
overall program. He stated that he would have a lot of trouble
with an independent path. He stated that there is concern over the
provision of staffing of the authority, it is unclear as to what
the intent is. In most states the authorities have an executive
secretary, and the authorities rely on the professional staff of
the DOT/PF to address their concerns. He stated that it would be
difficult for federal highways to approve a program which involves
a separate professional staff reporting solely to the authority and
an additional professional staff reporting to the commissioner. He
stated that this would cause confusion as the administration deals
with one entity that speaks for the state on federal aid programs.
He would be reluctant and probably could not deal with two lines of
authority. He stated that the bill exempts the authority from
review of the operating budget. Since completion of the project
and program activities under the general policy guidance of an
authority, would depend on the department's operating budget to
perform the task, consideration should be given that the authority
would have some type of review role on the operating budget to
assure that there are funds to pursue their policies. He stated
that previous testimony had indicated that the intent of this bill
was to replace the PEB process. He stated that the bill does a lot
more than that, it talks about the long range plan, about design,
construction and maintenance of projects. He stated that the PEB
is an evolving process and is still improving, it might not be
efficient to jump in on top of that process. He stated that the
concept of an authority is very positive and reserves judgement on
the individual details and some of the provisions. He stated that
continuity is something that is worth pursuing as it has been a big
problem.
The gavel was turned over to Vice-Chair Masek.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if he could show on the page two of
the Organization Charts of AASHTO Member Departments, where the
authority would fit.
Number 2105
MR. RUBY stated that the commissioner would go to the authority for
review and approval of all plans and programs and once that
approval is received he would continue though the governor and the
legislative session. He stated that in most cases the commissioner
would be off to the side of the transportation authority and in
direct line with the governor. The authority would not be between
the commissioner and the governor.
Number 2135
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that he would think the authority would
be between the commissioner and the governor's office because on
page 3 line 16, it states, "The capital improvement project budget
approved by the authority shall be submitted to the governor for
inclusion in the state capital projects budget." He stated it
sounds like this is not advisory to the commissioner but instead
would submit the budget that they have revised and approved
directly to the governor's office.
Number 2165
MR. RUBY stated that it is correct that it is not an advisory role
and it is an approval that the commissioner needs before he goes to
the governor. He can not bypass the authority or do something
contrary to their desires.
Number 2181
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked in that case it would put the
authority between the governor and the commissioner.
Number 2187
MR. RUBY stated that for approval of projects that is a step that
the commissioner needs before he can go directly to the governor
but it does not put them in the authority for all actions between
the commissioner and the governor.
Number 2202
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated that he was trying to figure out the
practical application of this having been a commissioner, and
having authority by the legislature for various programs in
management. He felt that there needs to be caution in putting this
together that ther isn't any kind of impediment to Alaska's timely
appeal to the feds for projects that are on the table. He stated
that the feds need to know the continuity of the state's
transportation plans that are going to use any kind federal money.
He asked if that continuity and the flow of responsibility is
maintained in this bill.
Number 2266
MR. RUBY stated that he sees a lot of problems within the bill. It
is the authority concept that is used in the majority of the states
very successfully. The continuity issue is not only the long range
plan and where we are going but focusing on one type of project
under one commissioner instead of two years later abandoning all
those projects and picking up a new series of projects with each
commissioner. He stated that most projects take five to seven
years to develop, and this is where the continuity factor is a
major benefit.
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated the Federal Highway Authority approves
much of the Marine Highway Authority and wanted to make certain
that these plans flow through some sort of common transportation
plan from the road connections to the marine highway. He stated
that aviation is a stand alone entity. He stated that it looks
like the commissioner takes his authority from the authority and
yet the feds work through the commissioner. He stated that we
would want to know if working through this authority provides us
the opportunity to access the funds in a timely manner and gain the
necessary approval. He stated that he did not want us to lose a
satisfactory relationship with the Federal Highway Authority.
Number 2449
MR. RUBY stated that the administration deals with the commissioner
and not with the transportation boards.
TAPE 97-22, SIDE B
Number 010
MR. RUBY stated that there needs to be a relationship between the
Marine Highway Board and the commissioner and that the chain of
command be maintained.
The gavel was turned over to Chairman Williams.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated that on the Marine Highway Authority the
commissioner is on that authority.
MR. RUBY stated that the way Title 23 is set up, they deal with the
appointed head of the transportation department for all federal
funds.
Number 031
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that the intent of the bill is for
the system to work better than it is now. He stated that he would
be working with Mr. Ruby's division to address all of his concerns
in the bill.
Number 116
HENRY SPRINGER, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, that the association
has 600 members and that he was a former employer of the DOT/PF for
25 years. He stated that the association is in support of the
bill. He stated that the lack of stability has been in the
department for 28 years. He stated that there is a steady erosion
of money used in non-contruction and non-DOT/PF activities, such as
being used for environmental safety. He stated that in the last 25
years the money spent on non-contruction items has grown from 8
percent to 38 percent. He stated that maintenance has fallen
behind. He sees the authority as replacing the headquarters
function of planning and programming and would eliminate the
majority of the 28 positions that are in that position right now.
It appeared to him that 1.7 million dollars could be saved and used
in other federal aid activities such as construction. He stated
this would not change anything in the regional planning and
programming efforts, all the public involvement processes would
remain on the regional levels.
The gavel was turned over to Vice-Chair Masek.
Number 349
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Springer if he thought everything
was working fine in DOT/PF.
Number 381
MR. SPRINGER replied that what there has been up to now is not
working. He stated that there can not be a valid transportation
plan, especially a multi-modal plan by not having some kind of
authority established that brings all the public comments together.
Number 448
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if he had a chance to look at the
fiscal note.
Number 494
MR. SPRINGER stated that he could not comment on the fiscal note
because he has not seen it.
Number 556
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, conceptually in
support of the bill. He stated that from the association's
perspective this bill is not an attack on the DOT/PF, rather a help
to the department allowing them to carry out their planning
process. He stated that there has been many plans and projects
that have never been carried out. Establishing an authority is a
good idea. He stated that the association wants to help DOT/PF do
a better more comprehensive job.
Number 678
VICE-CHAIR MASEK stated that there are more people who would like
to testify but the committee is out of time and will continue with
testimony the next time the committee takes up the bill.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 751
VICE-CHAIR MASEK adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|