Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/02/1998 01:55 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
March 2, 1998
1:55 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL 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
* HOUSE BILL 291
"An Act requiring certain motor vehicles to yield to following
traffic."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) PHILLIPS, Cowdery
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/03/97 923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/03/97 923 (H) TRANSPORTATION
4/21/97 (H) TRA AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 17
4/21/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
2/09/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
2/09/98 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
2/25/98 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
3/02/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant
to Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 227.
PETER ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Bill Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 227.
TOM BRIGHAM, Director
Headquarters
Division of Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4070
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 227.
RON SIMPSON, Manager
Air Force Division
Federal Aviation Administration
222 West Seventh Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 271-5438
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 227.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:55 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Cowdery,
Sanders, Elton and Kookesh. Representatives Hudson and Masek
arrived at 1:57 p.m. and 2:20 p.m. respectively.
Number 0058
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated HB 291, "An Act requiring certain motor
vehicles to yield to following traffic," will be brought up on
Wednesday.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted Representative Hudson joined the meeting.
HB 227 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
Number 0158
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business is HB 227,
"An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project
Authority; relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an
effective date" sponsored by Representative Phillips.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS mentioned HB 227 was previously heard in the
Transportation Committee, this would be its third hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY indicated his staff, and Transportation
Committee staff have been working on language to address some of
the concerns. He urged the committee to adopt the proposed
committee substitute.
0286
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON made a motion to adopt proposed
committee substitute, Version 0-LS0789\F, Utermohle, 2/27/98 for
discussion. There being no objection that version was before the
committee.
Number 0317
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative John
Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He
said he was asked to compare Version E and F.
MR. PIGNALBERI explained Section 1, Findings and Intent is new, the
reason it was put in is because there seems to have been some
misunderstanding about the purpose of the bill, especially by
people outside of Juneau and some of the federal authorities that
work with transportation planning. He said page 2, subsection (b)
is the meat of the bill, he read:
(b) It is the intent of the legislature that the Alaska Capital
Improvement Project Authority
(1) review, revise, prioritize, and approve plans for
transportation systems and public facilities that are
funded with state, federal, and other nonstate funds;
MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out all other things that this authority
does involves from that statement that is a new section.
Number 0444
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked for the definition of public
facilities. For example, does this mean a school that is funded by
the state would fall under the purview of the Capital Improvement
Project Authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied no, that's probably something we need to
look up. Public facilities mean the buildings that are under
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) perusal
for repair, maintenance and construction and so forth. There is a
specific title in the statute (he wasn't able to locate the title).
But it does not include schools.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the reason he asked is because the title
clearly applies to DOT/PF but when you go into for example new
Section 1, and say, "Will maintain transportation systems and
public facilities," public facilities right now includes schools.
He indicated there might be a title problem or it needs to specify
what this doesn't cover.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied it's our intention to go through the changes
today, he noted the fiscal note is not completed. He indicated he
would pull the statute and provide how the definition fits in at
the next meeting.
Number 0566
REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH stated the new findings section
doesn't mention the basis for project selection. He asked if the
current process going to include any of that.
MR. PIGNALBERI responded that is addressed later in the bill, the
authority has the authority to prescribe what the selection
prioritization process will be. Much the same as it is now done by
the Project Evaluation Board (PEB) within the commissioner's office
and headquarters planning. The real difference here is that were
going to leave ultimate decision-making and prioritization to a
citizen panel which is the five-member authority. That's the only
difference.
MR. PIGNALBERI said Section 2 creates the authority, they basically
made something that was explicit to implicit. He referred to page
4, line 2, subsection (b) which reads:
(b) The authority shall allocate the funding available for
transportation systems among the categories and classes
of transportation systems and approve plans and programs
for transportation systems that are consistent with that
allocation.
MR. PIGNALBERI indicated that's something that the commissioner's
office now does in conjunction with the governor's office. That's
to say that so (indisc.) of the total pool of dollars available for
transportation projects some money will be allocated to aviation,
highway, marine highway, highway construction and so forth. This
was implicit in the bill, now it is explicit.
Number 0704
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said appropriation is obviously being a
function only of the legislature, he wondered if allocation
wouldn't also fit - he asked Mr. Pignalberi to put a question mark
on that to see how that might - whether or not there's any conflict
between their authority visa ve that which is prescribed to the
legislature.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied I think not because all of the plans that
are approved by the authority must be submitted to the legislature.
Everything this authority does is preliminary to final legislative
approval.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked does this paragraph effect the
allocation scheme that is now presently said by the community of
Anchorage. They allocate a certain percentage to trails, roads,
would this supersede that community's authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI responded only in the same way that presently when
the governor and commissioner make a determination of how much is
going to go to roads or highways. That has an effect on what money
is available to the communities. Now the authority will be making
that decision about how much money will be in each classification,
so it will have an effect but it will not have - it's no change in
terms of the communities (indisc. - noise), they need to know how
much money the state is going to be putting out there for a
particular transportation mode and that's what governs (indisc. -
paper shuffling).
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said to put it more specifically, right now
the City of Anchorage is going through a rather tortious debate on
whether or not 20 percent of the funding they get for
transportation should be allocated to trails. He asked if that
means that debate would now take place at this authority level
rather than at the Anchorage level.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied yes, he believes that would have an impact.
This section is basically what the governor and commissioner now do
in terms of deciding how much money is going to go into each
transportation mode, for example consider trails, they may or may
not say that - put a percentage or dollar ceiling on the amount of
money that may go to trails. The local governments, that would
then participate in programs underneath this allocation are going
to be governed by that ceiling for whatever they get.
MR. PIGNALBERI said as he's saying this, he's starting to see what
Representative Elton was driving at. For example if the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) has so many dollars
available through federally allocated programs, with an overall
ceiling they will make their own decision about how much they want
to go to roads, trails, or bikeways, what they call traffic
enhancements.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said so we're not taking that authority away.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied no, we're not taking the local discretion
away. It's only the dollar ceiling, the cap, is all this
addresses.
Number 0932
PETER ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill
Williams, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. He
explained the state right now puts, for example, $20 million into
Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska (TRAAK), $80 million into
the Community Transportation Program (CTP), and $120 million in the
National Highway System (NHS). He said that was a policy decision
by the governor and commissioner. This language would allow the
authority to have that broad policy discretion. When a new
governor or commissioner comes on, it's possible that those broad
funding categories could change. But we want to take that and give
that broad policy decision power to the authority.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said for stability I assume, to make it
stable.
MR. ECKLUND responded yes, the commission, commissioners, serve
five-year terms and it will potentially provide stability to the
overall Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
MR. PIGNALBERI addressed Section 3, page 5, line 14 which reads:
be undertaken by the department during the following
construction season,
Number 1033
MR. PIGNALBERI said it was suggested by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) that "construction season" be replaced with
"fiscal year." He noted they didn't have a problem with that and
asked for a proposed amendment to make that change.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON remarked he could see a potential problem, the
construction season may go from May until September. If you change
it to a fiscal year, it seems to him, you might have to change it
to the following two fiscal years because if the fiscal year
changes on July 1, you've only given off authority for projects up
until the middle of the construction season.
MR. PIGNALBERI read, "must include the projects to be undertaken by
the department during the following fiscal year." The time line
for these plans is going to be earlier than say the legislative
session. It's not a case of saying in May or January of one year
that we're not going to have a plan prepared for that following
summer. These plans are going to have at least a two-year horizon.
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY implied they must include the projects to be
undertaken by the department during the following fiscal year.
That doesn't mean that the construction is going to happen
particularly tied to that. The construction could take three
years, it could be a big project or it could be a short project.
What this is saying is that they must include the projects to be
constructed.
MR. PIGNALBERI said he will do a time line on how this will work
and will show it at the next hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that might be helpful. He asked what
happens if we're going to do some bridge repair work, but the
bridge repair work is going to occur after -- maybe you have
somebody on mile 90 of the Seward Highway, and there's a bridge
down the road and you want to do both during the same construction
season because your going to have the materials, work crew, and
equipment in the area. It seems to him the word that if you
changed a fiscal year, unless you do that bridge project before the
end of June, that the authority may not have had the ability to
approve it if you're not going to start the bridge project until
July.
MR. PIGNALBERI noted this section pertains to aviation projects,
but the principals the same. He indicated this was discussed with
the FAA.
Number 1216
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH referred to page 5, subsection (b), he read:
(b) The authority shall establish standards for making and
posting highways,
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said it looks like were going to do that
even in certain municipalities. Anchorage, for instance, posts
their own highways and speed limits. He stressed there clearly is
a conflict.
MR. PIGNALBERI stated this is in current law, the DOT/PF has
statewide authority to set the standards by which the local
governments may set specific speed limits, a difference being
between the broad standard and establishing criteria versus setting
a specific speed limit or posting a specific sign. Now DOT/PF has
that power, under this bill the authority will assume that
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated, "Okay, so there's clearly no
conflict between the Municipality of Anchorage and the way that
this bill is written.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied that's correct. This is only transfer of
power from the DOT/PF to the authority.
Number 1282
MR. PIGNALBERI added you might further note several of these
provisions have to do with posting of speed limits, the collection
and setting of tolls, signing authority on highways and so forth,
are regulatory functions and Legal Service advises that we are
required to put these regulatory services in the authority because
of the nature of the appointment process. In order to justify
legislative confirmation of the directors they must have certain
powers and duties. There is a family of regulatory powers that go
along with these transportation activities that are in authorities
for that reason.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that raises a significant issue. He
asked are you saying that now the state does have the authority to
set signage and traffic signals within the Municipality of
Anchorage. Has the state delegated that to the municipality?
MR. PIGNALBERI remarked again it's not the specific speed zone or
speed limit, it's the authority to set the criteria by which speed
limits, signs, and speed zones will be set. The state has always
had that authority, unless there is something in Title 29, the home
rule, local government statute where they have that power because
of a home rule city, he indicated he wasn't sure.
MR. ECKLUND stated thus is existing law and suggested that question
be answered by DOT/PF staff.
Number 1383
MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out the remaining Sections (three to eight)
are the same. Section 9, page 8, is the same as it was except the
five-year horizon has been restored. In fact, it's the way it is
in existing statute, in the earlier draft we had changed the
planning horizon for the department, for this highway construction
program, down to two years and there was no need for that. We
simply restored it back to five years.
MR. PIGNALBERI continued, at the end of this section, page 8, line
11, a new sentence was added which basically requires that any
amendments that are made to the approved highway construction plans
that are funded by the Federal Highway Administration, that if the
authority amends that plan, they must amend it in accordance with
a process that has been preapproved by the authority. You can't
arbitrarily say, "Lets take project 67 and make it number 1," it
has to go through the process. As requested, we tried to make it
explicit.
The authority may make amendments to an approved program that
affect projects for construction or maintenance of highways
approved by the Federal Highway Administration only if the
amendments are adopted in accordance with the program review,
revision, and approval process established by the authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI noted "program that affect projects" should be
plural, "affects" projects.
Number 1483
MR. PIGNALBERI addressed Section 10. He said it's the same, but
added they added the last sentence. This section requires the
DOT/PF to prepare a status list of the projects that have been
approved at various levels. It simply says that the department
shall send the list or the statement to the new authority. It
reads:
The department shall send the statement to the Alaska Capital
Improvement Project Authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI pointed out Section 10 has been deleted. It was a
cleanup (the old version) that the bill drafter put in to clean up
a purchasing provision for DOT/PF because it was not directly
relevant to the bill we asked him to take it out. Both old Section
10 and old Section 16 are identical sections, both were deleted.
MR. PIGNALBERI brought up proceeded to Section 11. He stated it is
the same as the old Section 11. It has to do with local service
roads and trails funding.
MR. PIGNALBERI said the next change is in Section 13, line 31. He
said the previous language said that "the state shall only
participate in projects approved by the governor on recommendation
of the commissioner and the authority." We deleted the word
"commissioner" because it was redundant to have the commissioner
and the authority both approve for the sake of the governor:
The state shall participate only in those projects approved by
the governor on recommendation of the Alaska Capital
Improvement Project Authority.
Number 1589
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he may have misunderstood. It may have
been redundant, but it seems to him that it's a fairly significant
change. Essentially what we're saying is it's a lot fun to be
governor because that latitude is taken away from the governor that
they now have.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied that's correct. He read the old sentence:
The state shall participate only in those projects approved by
the governor on recommendation of the commissioner and the
authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI stressed if it's approved by the governor, is the
governor going to approve something that hasn't been approved by
the commissioner. Having the governor, commissioner and the
authority is redundant. He explained the authority is a separate
entity from the department and the commissioner is part of the
governor's staff, so to speak, that's why he used the word
redundant. Mr. Pignalberi reiterated, "We're saying now that the
state will only participate in projects approved by the governor,
who does the governor seek council from to participate in such
projects, but the commissioner of DOT/PF and this requires it be
also be approved by the authority."
Number 1654
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it seems to him that's backwards. He
said, "What were saying here is the governor can only approve
projects that have come by recommendation of the authority. So
what you've done, is you've got it the other way around, the funnel
is the authority going to the governor and the governor can't add
something, the governor can only approve something that is coming
from the authority."
MR. PIGNALBERI replied he thinks that's the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated that's precisely what we're doing,
is we're elevating the recommendation of the authority to a higher
level, and obviously the commissioner who works for the governor -
the governor doesn't have to get his permission so it just simply
says that we can't participate unless it's approved by the governor
and on recommendations of this authority. He reiterated, so we're
elevating the authority recommendations to a very high level.
Number 1703
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked what is the relationship between
the commissioner of DOT/PF, who reports to the governor, and the
authority, and authority's director, who reports to the authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied the authority is an independent body, it's
appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. The
authority will have staff that is (indisc.) moved over from the
DOT/PF and report - a much smaller staff, will report to the
authority. There is no direct connection between the staff of the
authority and the governor, that staff would go through the
chairman of the authority.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what is the purpose of the authority to
have a director.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied the purpose of the director of the
authority, having a director is to have a full-time -- the
authority members are part-time citizens of the state and special -
they come from geographically disbursed areas with special
expertise and different modes of transportation. They are part-
time, they will have a full-time staff that is comprising of some
expertise, just like the commissioner now has a staff comprising
transportation planners, engineers and designers. There will be a
smaller staff like that for the authority.
Number 1783
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what would happen to DOT/PF and all the
staff.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied DOT/PF Headquarters Planning staff would be
reduced in size, part of its functions would be transferred to the
authority.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS added there have been so many changes in the
DOT/PF because their commissioner has not wanting to stay. He
believes in the last two years we've had five commissioners that
keep changing the direction of DOT/PF. What we want to do is not
necessarily change the direction but keep -- the governor is going
to have a say about what's happening, but we're going to have a
person that is an expert in that area and keeping the people in
DOT/PF that knows what they're doing all the time without changing
every year. Today we go down four levels, he believes, of
leadership and every time we change a governor -- we may change a
governor this year and they'll be changing the department again.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK understands the intent, but is concerned about
the interference of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding. She asked that be addressed
because in Section 3, page 5, which reads:
Construction and maintenance program for airports and air
navigation facilities.
Number 1877
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked could this interfere with the
established federal program for airport improvement and
construction.
MR. PIGNALBERI responded no, it was never intended to do that.
Some of the amendments that they are reviewing today are simply
amplifications to make it explicit that that is not intended to
happen or will not happen. He pointed out the charge is made in
Section 1, a new section of the bill. In fact, the authority must
maximize the use of all federal funding sources. There would be no
design or intent to, in any way, lesson the amount of federal funds
that would be used for state projects.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated she may have more questions.
MR. PIGNALBERI said he believes FAA is on-line. He indicated they
have been working very closely with FAA just to answer these
questions.
Number 1937
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated this is the first time he's heard
that they are going to reduce staff in DOT/PF and noted it doesn't
say that in the bill. He said he is a little concerned because he
hasn't been convinced yet that this is a good vehicle because it
looks to him, like we're just putting another layer of bureaucracy
in there and he's not convinced that we're going to do other than
that. Maybe, in going through the whole process, a light may come
on some place, he'll be amazed that this may work but far he hasn't
seen that.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied here comes the light. The light is that we
want to have an external authority, an external group of people
from all over the state with diverse interests who are interested
in maximizing our transportation system in all modes. And to have
them play a significant role on behalf of the public in the
selection, in the prioritization of projects, including the funding
allocation that goes to those projects.
Number 1988
MR. PIGNALBERI continued, "When you start with that premise, then
you say, 'Well, how can I make that happen at the least possible
cost.' Rather than add an additional or separate layer of
bureaucracy, we took a look at the process that is now in place in
the DOT/PF and said, 'Look, really what we want the authority to do
is somewhat redundant with what the Headquarters Planning Section
does in the DOT/PF.' Number one, we want to cutback the size of
the government in general. We think we can afford to cutback some
of the Headquarters Planning functions in DOT/PF. Take what we
need ... and give it to the authority so that the authority members
will have the staff they need to interface with the department and
to make the intelligent decisions they need to allocate and
prioritize the CIP. That's the overall goal and it necessitates
that we're going to fund it somehow, we're not going to add new
dollars to the budget we're simply taking some existing funds from
the DOT/PF and using them in a better way, we think."
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH indicated there's probably a light at the
end of the tunnel, eventually he'll see it. His initial reaction
has to be that there's just another layer of bureaucracy.
Number 2061
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, "It seems to me, easy to answer the way
in which you (Mr. Pignalberi) did answer, and it seems to me easy
to say that what we're doing is were inducing stability in the
process. The other thing that we are doing, and maybe this can be
part of the light when we get there, ... we're depoliticizing the
process which means that we're making -- I can make an argument,
we're taking the voters out of this because I can tell you one of
the ways I evaluate the governor, and the job the governor is
doing, is how well he and his staff are doing on the marine highway
system."
CHAIR WILLIAMS asked Representative Elton to hold his debate.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he appreciated that but maybe that can
help us get to the light at the end of the tunnel.
CHAIR WILLIAMS indicated they will make time for debate.
Number 2130
MR. PIGNALBERI moved onto Section 14, a new sentence has been added
on lines 23 and 24:
The department shall send the list to the Alaska Capital
Improvement Project Authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI said this was also in an earlier section, it simply
says that when the department compiles its list of projects that
have been proposed by the department, funded by legislature,
recommended by the authority that it does the status list and must
send it to the authority each year.
MR. PIGNALBERI referred to Section 15, page 11, line 1. He said
Section 15 is a grammatical change the drafter did, without any
request on our part. Mr. Pignalberi indicated he cannot see any
substantive difference between the old and new sentence. It now
reads:
... Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI brought up Section 16. The old section was deleted
-- it's the one that had purchasing language that was cleaned up.
New Section 16 is the same as the old Section 17 with no change.
Number 2198
MR. PIGNALBERI said the next change occurs in Section 21, page 14,
line 23. The old version had the plan being submitted to the
governor and to the legislature by the department. In fact, if you
strike the word "authority" and put the word "department" you'll
have what the old language said. This makes it clear that the
authority will submit directly to the governor and to the
legislature.
MR. PIGNALBERI referred to Section 24, page 16, line 24. He said,
"We received this this morning from the drafter and so there are a
couple things that are not clear. First of all if you look at line
24, subsection (6) 'submit its findings, 'its' even though it's in
the old statute is inappropriate there and ought to be deleted.
But that sentence in number six if you read it is a very convoluted
sentence, it's difficult to understand. In the old version of the
bill there were two sentences there, it's been now combined into a
single sentence. What we've asked the drafter to do was just to
make sure that the submittals and the recommendations would go from
the CIP authority, to the governor and the legislature without
having to go back to the department. And there was just no reason
for it to go back to the department, and it is just is not clear
what this sentence really means. So we need to fix this sentence,
it will probably have to be changed in a different section of the
statute, it wasn't very easy to do or we would have done it before
this meeting." He indicated they would clean up that language at
the next meeting.
Number 2311
MR. PIGNALBERI said, "Finally, in Section 29, the last change is a
new Section 29, which simply gives precedence to an Alaska Marine
Highway Authority - should it be (indic.) into life in this
legislature, if we have a marine highway authority, it will be its
own planning authority independent of this planning authority."
Section 29. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LEGISLATION. If a bill
transferring the Alaska marine highway system to a state
authority is passed by the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature
and enacted into law, the provisions of that bill as enacted
into law supersede conflicting provisions of sec. 12 of this
Act and other provisions of this Act relating to the Alaska
marine highway system.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to Section 29 which gets rid of the
potential conflict with the marine authority, and references
Section 12. He asked would you then need have some place in this
bill, a definition of public facilities, since you're using public
facilities throughout the bill. He believes there are other
sections of this that would also supersede a marine authority. You
can maybe take care of that by defining public facilities and
excluding the marine highway system as a public facility.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied that Section 12 of course refers to marine
highways. He indicated he wasn't catching Representative Elton's
meaning.
Number 2372
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained he knows that it does, but a marine
highway system -- without a definition of a public facility -- a
public facility right now is a marine highway system, it's a
harbor, it's an airport, it's a road, it's a building. It seems to
him that you may at least need to define public facilities
somewhere in this bill so that it would exclude marine highway
system from the definition of a public facility instead of just
addressing the Section 12.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied okay, he'll take that up with the drafter.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what happens when the commissioner and
the authority are at odds. For example, you have a project - the
authority can refuse to approve a project advanced by the
commissioner, and likewise the commissioner can decide not to build
a project approved by the authority.
MR. PIGNALBERI responded the authority has the final say. He again
noted the makeup of the authority and their responsibility to
prioritize and allocate funding to the projects.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicated HB 227 will be brought up again.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON remarked he wasn't sure if this was on the
bill or if the committee substitute addresses this - if it's not
part of the committee substitute they can address it later. He
said we've established through the committee substitute the
processes that apply in making the decisions. He asked is there
anything in the committee substitute that requires the authority to
follow federal processes that we're required to follow now in order
to access federal dollars.
MR. PIGNALBERI noted the new amendments require the authority to
follow its own procedures, those procedures being set up to
maximize federal funding. He indicated that he didn't know that we
concede the state power to the federal government and give the
federal agencies veto authority over our planning process or our
selection process. He mentioned, "I think you'll see in the new
language in Section 2 of the bill, and in the highway construction
plan, that we did try to tie the process into approval in a working
relationship with the federal agencies, and we've been on the phone
for the past week talking with federal agencies to arrive at this
language."
TAPE 98-10, SIDE B
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS informed the committee the would be in committee
until 3:00. He asked Tom Brigham to come forward.
Number 0024
TOM BRIGHAM, Director, Division of Statewide Planning,
Headquarters, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
stated, "I would summarize our views here by basically saying our
concerns have really not been changed significantly by the changes
in this committee substitute. In that you still have essentially
a half-measure. That our recommendation would be, if the
legislature chooses to do a commission [authority], do a commission
[authority], do the whole nine-yards where the commission
[authority] runs the department, and chooses the projects, and does
the whole works as opposed to something that is kind of in the
middle here, as I think we're trying to do with this case. Or,
leave it alone because it certainly is clear and does, we believe
at least, function well under the systems that are set up right
now."
TOM BRIGHAM continued. "I will say that, one further comment and
that is that it is not at all clear - as to the issue of the two
staffs - Mr. Ruby, Director of Federal Highways here (at the
hearing that was held last year) testified that the relationship
between the federal government and the state is with the
commissioner, it was not with an authority. It is the department's
staff that prepares the STIP and the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP), I don't think that would change under this. Those are
federally reimbursed. Our division is almost entirely federally
funded. I believe Mr. Ruby also said last year, that the
authority, as such as its set up in this bill, would not be
eligible for federal reimbursement. So what you'd be doing is
setting up this staff that would in fact be funded with state
general funds."
MR. BRIGHAM concluded, "So we see it as difficult, expensive,
confusing and would probably work - we would hope it would work
okay, as long as the governor's appointees are largely in the
authority. Then ... everybody's on the same team and it all works
along. But if you can imagine when you change administrations, and
change governors, and you have an administration at odds with the
bulk of the members of the authority, ... the way this is set up,
it can get quite messy. Because I don't think it's at all clear,
the question I believe Representative Masek asked - it is not at
all clear, so who has the last word in terms of actually
constructing - what projects actually get built or constructed
under the current set up. And we'd be happy to continue the
dialogue and work with your staffs and see if we can't help create
something workable here, if that's the desire."
Number 0151
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON observed over the years that many of the
projects that are put on the plan so to speak, for a particular
timetable, are as much influenced by changes in the availability of
federal money and approval of land acquisitions, and right-of-ways,
and things that are beyond the original plans scope of
understanding. He asked if that was still the case.
MR. BRIGHAM replied he would say that is a fair statement. Most of
the changes are the result of changes in the specifics of the
project.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON interjected "As opposed to changes, in say a
new commissioner dumping an old plan and proceeding with some new
ideas. As I understand it, ... what we're looking for here is
continuity, where we say this is what we want to do, these are the
roads we want to build, to maintain, to expand, this is the new
docks and harbors to replacement and vessels to replace, and things
of this nature there. And the frustration is with the turnover, as
the director has said of one commissioner after another and several
layers underneath and through the appointed process, because there
all in the PX [partially exempt] category. And so the bill is, as
I understand it at any rate, is seeking stability and performance
of the plan." He asked the prime sponsor if that was right.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY replied that's true. He said, "You stated
that this plan, since it's not a full-blown authority, would be in
conflict with the governor - could have conflicts with the
governor's plan. Would a full-blown authority have the same
conflicts?"
Number 0246
MR. BRIGHAM explained, "A full-blown authority would be in charge
of all aspects, the operations as well as the capital program of
DOT/PF, so the likelihood of having any problems, and in fact would
report -- well, its set up differently in different states, but you
wouldn't have this potential sort of dueling bureaucracy potential
that I think you run the risk of creating the way this is set up
right now. Take Washington State for example, the commission
itself has the final authority, they don't report to the governor
or the legislature, or anyone."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY interjected does it work well.
MR. BRIGHAM replied it depends. If you happen to like the people
who are on the commission that will be there for some time it works
great, if you don't then it's a problem. There are pros and cons
of both approaches here. You do get stability, but some times you
get more stability than you really ever bargained for.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he talked to the commissioner, and
the commissioner said like in Missouri it works well, very well.
He said, "So I don't know, we'll wait until we get the thing
finalized here. But I think this is a step in the right direction
and that's why we're creating the bill for the speaker."
Number 0300
MR. BRIGHAM stressed the objective here is, we would agree is, that
stability is a noble objective. He said, "Our concern is that the
cure is going to be worse than the problem."
Number 0316
RON SIMPSON, Manager, Airports Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, testified via teleconference. He stated FAA is
responsible for the administration of the AIP which provides
federal funding for airport development in Alaska. Mr. Simpson
read the following testimony:
"I would like to take this opportunity to express our concerns
regarding the modifications made in the proposed committee
substitute [CSHB 227] relating to the establishment of an Alaska
Capital Improvement Project Authority. The modifications to the
subject bill in the 'working draft' do not fully address the
concerns expressed in our prior testimony and in our letter of
February 9.
"The proposed HB 227 has negative consequences that may jeopardize
the ability of the State of Alaska to optimize federal airport
capital development funds. These funds are distributed on a
competitive basis, based on the selection of high priority
projects. The State of Alaska competes with every other state on
a national basis for its commensurate share of AIP funds.
Number 0363
"Factors proposed in this bill may adversely impact the state's
ability to compete for funding are:
1. The proposed authority would be made up of public
citizens that would serve with staggered terms and a
rotating membership. This causes us concern as we have
invested countless hours in educating DOT/PF on the FAA
National Priority System to ensure they have the
expertise to pursue the highest priority projects to give
the State of Alaska the best competitive edge for AIP
funding.
Reeducating this new authority to fill in the necessary
expertise is no small undertaking; and with staggered
terms and a rotating membership, this educational process
will be ongoing, significantly impacting our resources
and the state's ability to optimize AIP funds.
2. To compete effectively on a national basis requires at
least two to three years advanced planning to accomplish
AIP programming requirements once a project has been
selected, such as attaining environmental permits and
land acquisition, before a project can be approved for
AIP funding.
The proposed bill is not clear on the need for advanced
planning, nor does it acknowledge the steps that must be
accomplished to meet AIP programming requirements.
3. Legislative authorization is needed for DOT/PF to perform
the required preliminary engineering, design and bidding
that must occur before an AIP grant can be issued. AIP
grant amounts are based on actual bid prices.
Number 0416
The proposed bill is not clear on the need for advance(d)
legislative authorization in order to recognize the
preliminary work needed to meet AIP requirements before
grants can be issued.
4. The proposed bill does not reference or recommend any
criteria for project selection or approval. Without a
specified criteria, it's not clear what value the
authority will add to the project selection process.
To ensure that maximum amount of AIP funds are secured,
the highest priority airport development projects must be
submitted consistent with the FAA's National Priority
System for AIP project selection.
"With all due respect, we encourage the Alaska State Legislature to
enable the DOT/PF and FAA to continue to work cooperatively
together incorporating the Airport Project Evaluation Board (APEB)
process to pursue, capture and retain all of the airport
infrastructure development funds we can to meet the aviation needs
of Alaska. The establishment of the APEB has resulted in higher
priority projects being forwarded by the State of Alaska to FAA
Headquarters to compete for these limited federal funds. The APEB
process effectively incorporates federal priorities with overall
statewide needs to compile Alaska Capital Improvement Projects
(ACIP) that are credible.
Number 0516
"We are just beginning to see the benefits of the APEB process in
the State of Alaska's ability to compete for AIP funding. Prior to
the APEB project selection process being put into place, the
State's AIP funding level averaged approximately $60 million
annually. Since the APEB process has been established and utilized
for the last two fiscal year programs, it has enabled the state to
acquire $75 million in AIP funds in FY (fiscal year) 97 [1997], and
we anticipate over $81 million in AIP funding for FY-98. This
increase in funding would not have occurred without a project
selection process that results in submitting projects that are the
highest priority and competitive on a national basis consistent
with the FAA National Priority System. The FAA endorses the APEB
selection process.
"The establishment of an authority may provide more continuity when
changes in administration take place. However, it may also provide
the opportunity for political agendas and special interests to be
inserted into the project selection process, at a point in the
process that is critical in securing federal funding."
Number 0557
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Simpson to fax a copy of his statement.
He indicated HB 227 would be heard again on Wednesday.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|