03/16/2004 01:35 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 16, 2004
1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Holm, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Dan Ogg
Representative Nick Stepovich
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 260(TRA) am
"An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to
the policy board of the metropolitan planning organization for
the Anchorage metropolitan area; relating to transportation
planning in federally recognized metropolitan planning areas;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 392
"An Act relating to motor vehicle safety belt violations."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED TO 3/23/04
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 260
SHORT TITLE: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS/AREAS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B
01/12/04 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (S) CRA, TRA
02/06/04 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
02/06/04 (S) -- Rescheduled to 02/09/04 --
02/09/04 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
02/09/04 (S) Moved SB 260 Out of Committee
02/09/04 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/11/04 (S) CRA RPT 3DP
02/11/04 (S) DP: STEDMAN, WAGONER, STEVENS G
02/17/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
02/17/04 (S) Moved CSSB 260(TRA) Out of Committee
02/17/04 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/18/04 (S) TRA RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
02/18/04 (S) DP: COWDERY; NR: WAGONER, THERRIAULT,
02/18/04 (S) OLSON, LINCOLN
03/05/04 (S) IN THIRD READING ON 3/8/2004 CALENDAR
03/08/04 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/08/04 (S) VERSION: CSSB 260(TRA) AM
03/09/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/09/04 (H) TRA, CRA
03/16/04 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BEN STEVENS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 260.
CRAIG LYON, Coordinator
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS)
Municipality of Anchorage
Transportation Planning Manager
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Related the Municipality of Anchorage's
opposition to CSSB 260(TRA)am.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JIM HOLM called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. Representatives Holm,
Masek, Stepovich, Kohring, and Ogg were present at the call to
order.
SB 260-METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS/AREAS
Number 0052
CHAIR HOLM announced that the only order of business would be CS
FOR SENATE BILL NO. 260(TRA) am, "An Act relating to
metropolitan planning organizations and to the policy board of
the metropolitan planning organization for the Anchorage
metropolitan area; relating to transportation planning in
federally recognized metropolitan planning areas; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 0089
SENATOR BEN STEVENS, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of SB 260, informed the committee that it should have
the following information: the latest version of the bill; the
sponsor statement for CSSB 260(TRA)am; the sectional analysis of
CSSB 260(TRA)am; the zero fiscal note; and a letter dated
February 22, 2001, from the regional director of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) aforementioned letter relates the
sentiment that legislative members on a metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) doesn't constitute a redesignation so long as
the members of the MPO agree to it. The committee should also
have a spreadsheet specifying the amount of money over which the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) has
had discretion. He pointed out that from 2004-2006 the approved
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) amounts to $1.25
billion. The AMATS Policy Committee, he highlighted, has an
enormous amount of influence and discretion over road
construction, maintenance, and facilities in Anchorage. The
committee should also have a flow chart of the makeup of AMATS.
Number 0282
CHAIR HOLM inquired as to the committee on which the two members
proposed by the legislation would sit.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS specified that those two members would sit
on the AMATS Policy Committee. He mentioned that the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) representative is
always the chair of the AMATS Policy Committee. In further
response to Chair Holm, Senator Ben Stevens confirmed that he
isn't changing the structure of AMATS. He also mentioned that
the AMATS Policy Committee originally consisted of three members
and was amended in 1999 to add two more members for a total of
five members.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS directed attention to a pie chart in the
committee packet entitled "Distribution of Federal-Aid
Transportation Formula Funds Per 17 AAC 05.155-200." The
aforementioned chart specifies how funds for transportation are
spent in Alaska. The amount of money being discussed under this
legislation is 27.8 percent of the total, which equates to the
$1.25 billion.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS pointed out that the committee should also
have a list of definitions from the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). The committee should have the Code
of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), which is the governing body
over the formation of the MPO agreement. Moreover, the
committee should have a copy of the MPO agreement between the
Municipality of Anchorage and the State of Alaska. The
committee packet should include a series of letters dating back
to June 1974 forward. He explained that he included the latter
because there has been discussion regarding whether adding
members is a redesignation, which means that the memorandum of
understanding would have to be redrawn. Senator Ben Stevens
offered his interpretation that as long as the changes proposed
don't change the intent of the MPO agreement, then it doesn't
constitute a redesignation. If the members agree to the change,
then it's an amendment rather than a redesignation. Senator Ben
Stevens opined that if CSSB 260(TRA)am passes as it is, the
Municipality of Anchorage won't agree to it as an amendment,
which is the challenge.
Number 0675
SENATOR BEN STEVENS turned to the sectional analysis. In
Section 1 the language requiring the design to be adequate for
at least the next 25 years is deleted. The engineers and
planners agree with the concept of trying to work with MPOs and
traffic consultants in terms of understanding future traffic
patterns. However, the requirement of making a road adequate
for 25 years after its construction would essentially mean
looking into the future 30-32 years because it takes up to seven
years to design a road. Seeing that far into the future isn't
quite attainable, and therefore this legislation returns to the
original language of the 20-year requirement, which is the
requirement most planning areas use across the country. He
noted that the aforementioned change was at the suggestion of
the engineers and DOT&PF.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS moved on to Section 2, which addresses the
MPO. Under Section 2, AS 19.20.200 inserts language
establishing the MPO; this is language that hasn't been [in
statute] before. Alaska Statute 19.20.210 establishes the
membership of the policy committee of the MPO, and therefore
adds the two voting members as specified on page 2, line 25
through page 3, line 4. He noted that the language on page 2,
lines 25-26, is such that Eagle River could be included.
Number 0860
CHAIR HOLM highlighted that Fairbanks has a Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions, although it doesn't have the policy
[structure of AMATS].
SENATOR BEN STEVENS informed the committee that FMATS was
established in 2001 and became operational in 2002. The
language "for populations greater than 200,000" was included so
that FMATS wouldn't be required to do this. However, he opined
that at some point FMATS will want to move in this direction.
He continued the sectional analysis with AS 19.20.220, which
provides the governor and the commissioner the ability to
approve a TIP that's developed by an MPO Policy Committee with
the makeup as designated in AS 19.20.210. Section 3 inserts a
new section that allows Anchorage's MPO Policy Committee to be
restructured in conformance with AS 19.20.210 and the
restructuring must be performed in a manner such that it isn't a
redesignation of the Anchorage MPO. Senator Ben Stevens
highlighted that a redesignation doesn't preempt any planning
process, federal money, or the ability for AMATS to operate. If
[restructuring of an MPO] is declared to be a redesignation, the
existing MPO stays in place until the redesignation is ratified.
If a redesignation is declared, the two bodies negotiate and
conclude with a reformatted agreement. He said he didn't
believe the aforementioned would be a bad thing.
Number 1044
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH inquired as to the fears of the
municipality.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS remarked that the fear of redesignation is
overstated because it's only a matter of time [before it will be
necessary] to review the agreement that's 30 years old in order
to determine whether other municipal entities should be
incorporated. He emphasized that his objective is to open the
process in order to involve more people with regard to the
determination of how these monies are used within the
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK turned to the sponsor statement and the
following sentence from it: "The current process of
prioritizing and allocating this funding for transportation
projects within Anchorage is difficult to understand and has
long been the source of discontent among Anchorage residents."
She requested that the sponsor discuss that and whether there
are any projects that hindered AMATS and DOT&PF from doing their
job.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS said that De Armoun Road resurfacing and
relocation comes to mind. The aforementioned project has been
through planning and design. However, when the project was put
out for public comment in the final phase, it was discovered
that most of those living along De Armoun Road weren't in favor
of the road redesign and relocation. The project required
acquiring a significant increase in right-of-way and the
demolition of several homes. While the project was already in
the TIP and approved, the community said it didn't want the
project. Therefore, the project was eventually taken off the
TIP. The aforementioned is an example of a situation in which
the local community's concerns were ignored up until the final
step in the process. Senator Ben Stevens clarified that his
intent is to have more involvement through the membership of
legislators who can listen to their constituents and voice their
concerns through the MPO Policy Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK highlighted that legislators appropriate
funding with DOT&PF and work with the federal T-21 funding.
However, the aforementioned process hasn't worked well either.
CHAIR HOLM opined that one of the problems is a disconnect with
what [the legislature] views as important projects for an area
and those projects that are actually on the STIP. With FMATS
and AMATS in the middle of this, [the legislature] tries to
maintain the power of appropriation in order to have a bit more
control with the projects. Chair Holm remarked that the process
really has no bearing on whether the public agrees with what's
going on and this legislation seems to offer a better connection
between the legislature and the constituents and back to FMATS
and AMATS.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS explained that the TIP, as developed by
AMATS and approved by the commissioner is rolled into the STIP
and the [legislature] has no input. The legislature only
approves or disapproves [the funding]; [the legislature] has
[always approved the STIP funding]. He reiterated that all he
is attempting is a broader representation on the MPO Policy
Committee, which develops the TIP.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if this legislation has anything to
do with SB 71 from last year.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS replied no. "This is accountability on how
the projects are prioritized across all the money, not just in
transportation enhancements, but road projects, transportation
enhancements, pedestrian facilities -- it's all across
everything," he explained.
Number 1410
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that the only two appointees
[that sit on the MPO Policy Committee] are the DOT&PF and
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) representatives
while the other three members are elected officials. Therefore,
she questioned why the [MPO Policy Committee] should be
broadened if the members are already elected at the local level.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS highlighted that currently all three elected
officials who are members of the [MPO Policy Committee] are from
east Anchorage. In fact, the Anchorage Assembly members who sit
on [the MPO Policy Committee] are from the same assembly
district. Therefore, he proposed the argument that the entire
metropolitan area isn't being represented by the assembly
members, although he acknowledged that the mayor does provide
city-wide representation. Still, Senator Ben Stevens opined
that the more people involved with the planning process provides
more access to a greater diversity of constituents. He
emphasized that [the MPO Policy Committee] has great discretion
over the future planning of the city, which has grown.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked if this legislation would be a
problem for those projects currently under way.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS replied no, and pointed out that the
effective date of the change will occur with the development of
the next TIP, which is July 1, 2005.
Number 1546
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH noted his agreement that there should
be more input into this process, especially in light of the fact
that there is no state or federal input.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS turned attention to a chart entitled
"Centerline Miles by Functional Class and Ownership", which
illustrates that through the memorandum of understanding the
state has deferred maintenance to the city in the ratio of
almost 3:1. He acknowledged that there has been the argument
that this legislation attempts to take control of a local
process, which he refuted.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH related his view that in order for the
legislature to appropriate funds efficiently, it should have
representation on the board.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS clarified that the people being added to the
process would be elected within the MPO area.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH commented that this is something that
could be reviewed for Fairbanks.
Number 1761
SENATOR BEN STEVENS turned to [Amendment 1], which he requested
be offered on his behalf. Amendment 1 read as follows:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "Three"
Insert "Four"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "Two"
Insert "Three"
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "Two voting members"
Insert "At least one member designated by the
municipalities and at least one member appointed by
the governor shall be public members who reside within
the metropolitan area and who are not elected public
officials. The public members shall serve for three-
year terms.
(b) Two nonvoting members of the policy board of
a metropolitan planning organization that is subject
to (a) of this section"
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS said that Amendment 1 is an attempt to
compromise between his desire to open up the process and the
difficulty some have with allowing legislators to be involved.
Therefore, Amendment 1 would add two more members to the MPO
Policy Committee, one of which would be designated by the
municipality and the other designated by the governor, both of
which would be nonelected public officials. The amendment also
changes the legislative members' involvement such that they
would remain on the committee, but would be nonvoting members.
With the adoption of Amendment 1, the membership of the MPO
Policy Committee would increase to 9 members, two of which would
be nonvoting legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK expressed concern with creating a larger
board, and inquired as to what will happen if this larger board
doesn't [accomplish what the sponsor intended].
SENATOR BEN STEVENS answered that there could be another change.
He highlighted that [Anchorage] has a small MPO. He maintained
his belief in "the more members, the better."
CHAIR HOLM noted that the Fairbanks North Star Borough has a
budget of about $100 million and [its MPO] has 11 members. He
surmised that Senator Ben Stevens is attempting to have
representation from all districts in the area.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH commented that roads spread across a
municipality, and therefore one would want to represent all of
them. He asked if there is any district designation on specific
seats [of the MPO Policy Committee].
SENATOR BEN STEVENS replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH expressed his belief that the
legislators should be voting members because they are as much a
part of the municipality as the other members.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS agreed, but reiterated that Amendment 1 is
an attempt to compromise and meet the objective of more public
involvement in the AMATS Policy Committee process.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH stated that the legislators should be
voting members because they are involved in the appropriation
process and are members of the municipality. He opined that
having voting legislative members would benefit the community.
CHAIR HOLM turned to public testimony.
Number 2162
CRAIG LYON, Coordinator, Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS), Municipality of Anchorage,
Transportation Planning Manager, noted that he has sent the
committee some materials, including a position statement, a
letter from the Federal Highway Administration dated March 5,
and a copy of the resolution passed by the Anchorage Assembly.
As Senator Ben Stevens related, AMATS was established in 1976 as
a multi-agency team to plan and fund the transportation systems
in the Anchorage and Chugiak-Eagle River areas when federal
funds are used. Federal funding accounts for about 90 percent
of public monies being spent to develop Anchorage's
transportation system. The $1.25 million in the TIP accounts
for all federal monies spent on transportation projects in the
AMATS area. The AMATS Policy Committee controls about $40
million a year. He related that the policy committee, the
primary decision-making body for AMATS, is responsible for
annually approving the transportation plan and programs and
providing policy direction to the AMATS process.
MR. LYON informed the committee that the Municipality of
Anchorage is opposed to CSSB 260(TRA)am for the following
reasons. Firstly, there is the matter of local control. He
reminded the committee that MPOs were established by the federal
government to prioritize the expenditure of federal
transportation dollars within certain urbanized municipalities.
Adding two more state positions to the MPO would tilt the
balance away from local control. The current process allows
local citizens the opportunity to discuss transportation issues
with his or her local representative. Having two legislators on
the committee would decrease public participation because the
citizens couldn't meet with two legislative members of the
policy committee because they would be in Juneau for four months
of the year. Secondly, this legislation would be inconsistent
with federal law. In a letter dated March 5, 2004, the FHWA has
stated: "The actions suggested in this bill would be
inconsistent with federal regulations that govern MPOs. This
bill would, in effect, cause a restructuring and redesignation
of the MPO that would have to be agreed upon by the local
governing body and the governor." In testimony given May 1,
2001, in the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee, the director of the Federal Highways Division office
in Juneau explained that it was acceptable for the MPO to add
membership when the government units and the governor agreed.
MR. LYON said that as the sponsor pointed out, there isn't a
problem with a legislator serving on an MPO, but it depends upon
"how they get there." This legislation purports to add the
legislators unilaterally, which, according to federal highways,
would be inconsistent with the federal regulations that govern
MPOs. In the 300-400 MPOs around the country, there are no MPOs
that have legislators as members. Hawaii used to have
legislators sitting on its MPO, but the process became so
politicized that members of [Anchorage's] MPO and members of
several other MPOs were sent to Hawaii in an attempt to remedy
the process. Therefore, Hawaii no longer has legislators
serving on the MPO. Having legislators on an MPO isn't
something that is utilized throughout the [country].
TAPE 04-9, SIDE B
MR. LYON informed the committee that on February 3, 2004, the
Anchorage Assembly voted to oppose CSSB 260(TRA)am.
Additionally, the State and Local Government Committee of the
Anchorage Chamber of Commerce voted for the Board of Directors
to oppose this legislation. Mr. Lyon then turned to the size of
the MPO, and reminded the committee that within the boundary of
this MPO there is one municipality. However, in Fairbanks there
is Fairbanks and North Pole, which means that there must be
representatives from each local government unit. When the
Anchorage MPO was designated there wasn't the need for other
groups to be represented, which is why it is comprised of five
members.
MR. LYON addressed the 90:10 split with the 90 percent being
federal monies coming through to the MPO. The 10 percent is the
state's match, which is decreasing and in some cases going away
completely. Therefore, it seems ironic that in a time when the
state is actually decreasing the amount of funding the state is
providing to the process, there is legislation proposed to
increase the membership of the policy committee.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH said that he was having difficulty with
the distinction between local and nonlocal because legislators
are elected by the people in the community and are also members
of the community itself.
MR. LYON acknowledged that legislators are elected by the people
in the legislator's local district. However, for purposes of
federal highways and how this relates to these statutes, a
legislator is considered a member of a state body rather than a
local body.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH highlighted that two members of the
policy committee aren't elected, but are members of the
community. He indicated that local roots are important.
MR. LYON said that he didn't disagree. However, the MPOs were
established to provide local officials a sense of ownership in
the process. According to the FHWA, the local members are the
members of a local governing body not locally elected officials
who represent people on a state body.
Number 2140
CHAIR HOLM asked if Mr. Lyon agreed that the local folks aren't
putting any money into this program.
MR. LYON disagreed, and pointed out that every time an
individual purchases gasoline or a new set of tires he or she
puts money into the program.
CHAIR HOLM offered, "The 10 percent match that we put in as a
state is our ... part .... The people that ... would be
supporting you would be your representatives from the Anchorage
area for AMATS who would be giving you the 10 percent match to
the federal ... highway money coming in." Therefore, he asked
Mr. Lyon if he felt there should be some oversight from the
folks giving that 10 percent match.
MR. LYON reiterated that the FHWA established this organization
such that the local officials would have the lead role in
acquiring those federal monies. Therefore, he suggested that
[AMATS] provides 90 percent of the funds because the federal
government has provided that money to [AMATS] to determine how
to spend it, while the legislature has provided the other 10
percent.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS directed attention to 23 U.S.C. 134(b),
which specifies:
(b) Designation of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. -
(1) In general. -
To carry out the transportation planning process
required by this section, a metropolitan planning
organization shall be designated for each urbanized
area with a population of more than 50,000 individuals
-
(A)
by agreement between the Governor and units of general
purpose local government that together represent at
least 75 percent of the affected population (including
the central city or cities as defined by the Bureau of
the Census); or
(B)
in accordance with procedures established by
applicable State or local law.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS explained that per the above, local law
doesn't supersede state law rather it refers to "State or local
law."
Number 2022
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK directed attention to the resolution from
the Anchorage Municipal Assembly, which is in opposition to the
passage of SB 260. Lines 31-33 of the resolution read as
follows: "WHEREAS, this change would, in effect, be removing a
strong local voice in Anchorage's transportation system planning
and design, and would be inconsistent with Federal regulations
governing metropolitan planning organizations;". However, this
legislation specifies that there must be agreement between the
local governing body and the governor. If the local governing
body and the governor don't agree, the [AMATS] TIP and Long-
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) will be in jeopardy. She then
turned to the March 5, 2004, letter from the FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, and highlighted the following: "
... we are of the opinion that the proposed State legislative
requirement would unilaterally add members to the AMATS
governing board above and beyond the MPO's existing structure
and by-laws, thereby likely constituting a formal redesignation
of the AMATS governing board." From the same letter she also
highlighted the following: "... the State legislature without
the consent and support of local officials and the Governor
would appear to be inconsistent with the intent of 23 U.S.C.
134." She noted that she is concerned with the conflicting
information.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS opined that there is [conflicting
information] because of the perceived power struggle. He
further opined:
Those that have the power over the appropriation of
this money -- the five people that meet behind closed
doors and produce transportation improvement plans ...
and they bring them out to meetings that occur once a
month at 1:00 in the afternoon where there's no public
involvement, and that they approve them with no public
debate, and they spend the money with no public
approval. There is ... a conflicting position here.
And my position is ... to open this up and get more
public involvement. If ... the AMATS Policy Committee
and the Mayor of Anchorage won't accept legislators as
public involvement why won't they accept increased
members of the public as increased public involvement.
And Mr. Lyon's refusal to address the amendment that
... all of us in this room understand the impact of
it. There is inconsistency and there is conflicting
positions on this. But those that are controlling the
money don't want to give up any control and any
exertion of public involvement in this. ... that's
what this entire effort on my behalf is: ... to exert
public involvement in the ... planning process. And,
by the way, the letter from Mr. Miller ... in March of
2001 is ... in total conflict with the letter from
March of 2004. So, to add to ... Representative
Masek's confusion, we have letters coming out of FHWA;
one from Washington, DC, and I find it ironic that a
local government agency has to go all the way to
Washington, DC, the largest bureaucracy on the planet
to say we want you to support our local government
authority.
CHAIR HOLM commented, "It does sound a little bit inconsistent,
Senator."
REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if the Municipality of Anchorage has
the understanding that SB 260 is being introduced because the
state is reducing its road construction contribution.
MR. LYON said that the municipality isn't suggesting any reason
behind this legislation than that stated by its sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG clarified his question as follows: "I was
just saying that the increase in state oversight comes as the
state is reducing its contribution .... Is that your
understanding that the only reason for this bill is that we're
not putting as much contribution into road construction so that
we want more control over the federal dollars? Is that the
city's position?"
MR. LYON specified that the aforementioned isn't the city's
position. The point is that it's ironic that at the time when
fewer funds are being funneled to the municipalities and cities,
in terms of a matching program, the state through this
legislation wants more oversight.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that he doesn't have the impression that
this legislation [is being introduced] because the state's
contribution to road construction is decreasing. He then turned
attention to the last bullet on page 2 of the additional
position statements from the Municipality of Anchorage. That
bullet says: "Politicizing the process - Adding legislators
will further politicize the process, making an already
confusing, labored, at times misunderstood process even worse,
not better." The aforementioned seems to acknowledge that
presently the AMATS process is "confusing, labored, at times
misunderstood process".
Number 1675
MR. LYON related that anyone involved in an MPO around the
country would say that it's a confusing process and Byzantine,
at best. The "Politicizing the process" bullet [is derived]
from the experience in Hawaii where legislators were members of
the MPO, which lead the process to become convoluted and
politicized to the point at which the legislators are no longer
members of the MPO. Mr. Lyon pointed out that Alaska can review
what it has done in the past and say that the problems in the
past necessitate this drastic step. On the other hand, Alaska
could look forward under the new Administration in Anchorage and
Juneau and attempt to work together to get some roads built and
congestion solved.
MR. LYON informed the committee that FHWA was in Anchorage for a
three-day workshop. He explained that although the federal
legislation may not specifically say that local officials must
be the lead, the federal officials who recently visited said
that the local officials should have the lead. With regard to
the AMATS process, the meetings aren't held behind closed doors.
In fact, the public is invited and able to testify at any point
during the proceedings. At the last policy committee meeting,
there was a request to have evening and weekend meetings in
order to achieve more public involvement.
CHAIR HOLM inquired as to how long Mr. Lyon has been involved in
the AMATS program.
MR. LYON answered that he has been involved since July 8, 2003.
In further response to Chair Holm, Mr. Lyon specified that AMATS
has been a functioning MPO since 1976.
CHAIR HOLM remarked, "And only now you're offering that you
could have weekend meetings or you could have meetings that
might help the public enter into the process."
MR. LYON said that he wasn't sure. He noted that since he has
been with AMATS there have been evening meetings.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS referred to a letter dated [June] 25, 1974,
the second paragraph of which begins as follows: "This
organization, the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Study (AMATS), is headed by a Policy Committee consisting of the
Mayor of the City of Anchorage, the Mayor of the Greater
Anchorage Area Borough, and the Commissioner of Highways." In
1974 Anchorage was a small community that barely made the 50,000
threshold. He then highlighted portions of the third paragraph
of this letter as follows: "... it is essential that each
governmental agency involved have a proper share of both
decision-making authority and actual responsibility for
implementation of the planning process. ... too often,
designation of one specific governmental entity to implement the
continuing planning process has resulted in abdication of
responsibility by those agencies and local governments not
directly involved in actually achieving results."
SENATOR BEN STEVENS mentioned that he had a meeting with FHWA
when recently in the state during which the FHWA told him that
one would have to go back to the original intent of the
memorandum of understanding that formulated the MPO. As long as
changes are agreeable to the entities involved with the MPO and
it doesn't change the intent of the agreement, it's merely an
amendment. However, the fear is that the changes proposed in
the legislation will cause redesignation. Senator Ben Stevens
commented that to him redesignation isn't such a bad idea
because [AMATS] is working under an agreement that's over 30
years old. In terms of meeting public demand and concerns, he
questioned what would be so bad about redesignation. He
highlighted that during a redesignation nothing constitutes a
discontinuation of any federal process. Therefore, he surmised
that the Municipality of Anchorage, the Mayor of Anchorage, and
the Anchorage Assembly don't want a redesignation because they
have diminished authority.
MR. LYON said that he wanted to be sure what Amendment 1 would
achieve. He related his understanding that with the adoption of
Amendment 1 the policy committee would have nine members, which
would include two nonvoting legislators; four representatives of
the Municipality of Anchorage consisting of one public member
and three members of the local government; and three
representatives from the State of Alaska consisting of one
public member, one member from DOT&PF, and one member from DEC.
He asked if his understanding is correct.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS agreed and clarified that Amendment 1 would
change the policy committee such that it would consist of nine
members, two of which would be nonvoting legislators and seven
of which would be voting members. Of the voting members, four
members would be from the municipality and three from the state.
Therefore, the changes under Amendment 1 would be that the
Municipality of Anchorage would appoint one public member and
the governor would appoint one public member.
Number 1232
REPRESENTATIVE OGG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
which read as follows:
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "Three"
Insert "Four"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "Two"
Insert "Three"
Page 2, line 24:
Delete "Two voting members"
Insert "At least one member designated by the
municipalities and at least one member appointed by
the governor shall be public members who reside within
the metropolitan area and who are not elected public
officials. The public members shall serve for three-
year terms.
(b) Two nonvoting members of the policy board of
a metropolitan planning organization that is subject
to (a) of this section"
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH objected, and specified that he would
like the voting members to come from the legislature.
Therefore, he suggested an amendment to Amendment 1, which would
delete the word "nonvoting" in subsection (b).
REPRESENTATIVE OGG objected to the amendment to Amendment 1. He
opined that a legislator's job is to vote in the legislature not
in [other committees outside of the legislature]. He further
opined that the point of a legislator being on the AMATS Policy
Committee is to observe and bring back information to the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH related his view, "I just think the
vote would express the intent of the money appropriated."
CHAIR HOLM noted his disagreement with Representative Stepovich.
He said he understood Senator Ben Stevens to make the case that
the legislative members are validated as members of the
community, but not heavy handed members over AMATS.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH said, "This whole bill is dealing with
the intent of the appropriations ...." He surmised that Senator
Ben Stevens is concerned with how the appropriations are handled
within AMATS and the legislators are placed on the AMATS Policy
Committee to oversee those appropriations. Representative
Stepovich withdrew his amendment to Amendment 1 [and removed his
objection to Amendment 1].
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected to Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stepovich, Kohring,
Ogg, and Holm voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representative
Masek voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a
vote of 4-1.
Number 0995
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING noted his support of this legislation.
He agreed that it's time to revise the AMATS process in light of
the fact that the Anchorage area has grown. He noted his
further agreement that increasing the public involvement
improves the process. Moreover, this seems to be an effective
manner in which to manage organizations in the Lower 48.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that he likes the approach of this
legislation. However, the effective date clause seems
problematic because should there be a failure of the governor to
enter into an agreement with the municipality, the legislation
could be in effect with no agreement. Therefore, he questioned
what would happen if no agreement is reached.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS explained that the current TIP is in effect
until 2006. Therefore, this legislation would go into effect
and the new TIP would be developed for 2007-2009.
Theoretically, the parties would have until July 1, 2007, to
come to agreement. He agreed that there would be a period of
uncertainty as described by Representative Ogg.
Number 0750
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH asked if Mr. Lyon agreed that there
should be state input on this matter.
MR. LYON opined that there isn't a problem with regard to state
input on this as there is such currently.
CHAIR HOLM inquired as to the will of the committee.
Number 0717
REPRESENTATIVE STEPOVICH moved to report CSSB 260(TRA)am, as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected.
REPRESENTATIVE OGG said that he didn't have a problem, but hoped
that the sponsor would address the [possibility of there being
no agreement between the governor and the municipality].
The committee took an at-ease from 2:59 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Number 0666
REPRESENTATIVE OGG expressed the desire to be sure that the ball
isn't dropped because of the agreement and the effective date.
CHAIR HOLM commented that perhaps that could be reviewed between
now and the next hearing on the legislation. He highlighted
that AMATS has been in existence since 1976, and weekend and
evening meetings came up because of Senator Ben Stevens not
because of AMATS or the Municipality of Anchorage. Obviously,
the aforementioned is an issue for his constituents.
[SB 260 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at3:01
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|