03/17/2009 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB155 | |
| HB127 | |
| SB72 | |
| HB131 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2009
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to the authorization for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to participate in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act providing that the Alaska Railroad Corporation is
subject to the Executive Budget Act and providing that
expenditures of the Alaska Railroad Corporation are subject to
appropriation; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 127 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(STA)
"An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: AUTHORIZE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PARTICIPATION
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/25/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/25/09 (H) TRA, FIN
03/17/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA RAILROAD BUDGET
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE
02/13/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/09 (H) TRA, FIN
03/12/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/12/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/09 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/17/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 72
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) FRENCH
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) TRA, STA
02/10/09 (S) TRA AT 1:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/10/09 (S) Moved SB 72 Out of Committee
02/10/09 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/11/09 (S) TRA RPT 5DP
02/11/09 (S) DP: KOOKESH, MENARD, DAVIS, MEYER,
PASKVAN
02/19/09 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/19/09 (S) Moved CSSB 72(STA) Out of Committee
02/19/09 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/20/09 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP SAME TITLE
02/20/09 (S) DP: MENARD, FRENCH, MEYER, PASKVAN,
KOOKESH
02/25/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/25/09 (S) VERSION: CSSB 72(STA)
02/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/09 (H) TRA, STA, FIN
03/17/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE: CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOLMES
02/13/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/09 (H) TRA, STA
03/17/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE BARNHILL, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 155.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 155.
PATRICK GAMBLE, President, and CEO
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 127.
BILL O'LEARY, Chief Financial Officer
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 127.
RICK BARRIER, Executive Director
Commonwealth North
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 127.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 127.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 72, as the prime sponsor of
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HB 131.
LISA VALENTA, Staff
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 131, on behalf of the prime
sponsor of the bill, Representative Lindsey Holmes.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:04 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives
Gruenberg, Doogan, Johnson, and Wilson were present at the call
to order. Representatives Munoz, Harris, and Johansen arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 155-AUTHORIZE ECONOMIC STIMULUS PARTICIPATION
1:04:44 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 155, "An Act relating to the authorization for
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
participate in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009; and providing for an effective date."
1:05:31 PM
MIKE BARNHILL, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Department of Law (DOL), offered that on
February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), referred to as the
federal stimulus bill. He explained that the administration
decided on a two-fold approach to implement funding in Alaska.
First, a bill or a panel of bills would provide authorization
for state agencies to apply. He opined that state agencies are
creatures of statute and the administration wanted to assure
state agencies had explicit legal authority to apply for funding
from the federal stimulus bill. Secondly, a panel of
appropriations bills would identify the funding and the specific
projects. He reported that HB 155 is the first effort with
respect to the authorization component. This bill would
authorize the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) to apply for and participate in the funding provided by
the federal stimulus plan.
1:07:37 PM
MR. BARNHILL referred to page 2, lines 19 to 22, which provide
explicit authority for DOT&PF to participate in the programs and
funding of the federal economic stimulus bill. He related that
the remainder of HB 155 is intent language. He explained that
the intent language is intended to track the various sections of
the federal stimulus bill. He referred to proposed Section 1,
subsection (a), that DOT&PF would participate in the funding
provided by Title VI, P.L. 111-5 of the economic stimulus bill
which pertains to homeland security funding. Each agency within
homeland security has line items in the federal stimulus bill
for which the DOT&PF could apply. Subsection (b) tracks Title
XII, P.L. 111-5 of the federal stimulus bill, and that section
pertains to programs with funding provided by the U.S.
Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). He referred to page 2,
lines 8-12, which identify the federal sub-agencies that have
money available. Finally Subsection (c) is an intent section
that expresses that DOT&PF seeks to maximize funding made
available to the state in Title VI and XII of the federal
stimulus bill, recognizing that federal agencies may have some
discretion in the manner in which they allocate funds to the
states.
1:09:34 PM
MR. BARNHILL recalled a prior question whether this bill is
necessary. He affirmed that is a good question. He further
opined that DOT&PF has ample authority to receive funds.
However, he allowed that not all state agencies have explicit
authority, and the attorney general advises that this bill
provides consistency. He remarked that at some point a decision
might be made to expand the scope of the bill to apply to all
agencies.
1:10:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN inquired as to whether this bill provides
the authorization to receive funds that have been earmarked for
Alaska and the DOT&PF and/or if this bill also provides an
authorization to obtain federal stimulus funding from other
states that they cannot specifically use.
MR. BARNHILL related his understanding that the bill would cover
both instances. He related that HB 155 is intended to authorize
the DOT&PF to accept federal stimulus funding that is available.
He further related his understanding that the DOT&PF could
obtain competitive grant funds that are not earmarked for the
state, and potentially other funds in Title VI and Title XII.
Thus, the DOT&PF would like to maximize its receipt of funds.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that the DOT&PF
has developed a list of projects it anticipates using the
stimulus funds for as well as a secondary list of projects that
would be eligible if the state received additional funding. He
inquired as to whether the committee would be signing off on the
second list if HB 155 were passed.
1:13:16 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
replied that HB 155 would allow the DOT&PF to compete for funds,
including any redistribution of funds that the DOT&PF could also
capture that that legislature has provided authority to use. He
related that the governor's bill provides a list of projects,
both recommended and contingency projects. However, the
legislature will select the projects that will ultimately be
funded.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that the DOT&PF
will have to come back to the legislature "in another round" for
anything not in the $117 million list of projects.
MR. RICHARDS explained that the appropriations bill asked for
contingency authority necessary in the event that a project
"trips up" to allow the DOT&PF can shift to another project.
Thus, the DOT&PF would like the flexibility to "slip in" another
project.
1:15:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG allowed that he is not fond of intent
language, and inquired as to whether subsection (a) and (b) are
necessary.
MR. BARNHILL answered no. The language in subsections (a) and
(b) are designed to give assurance to the legislature that it is
the intent of the administration for the DOT&PF to apply for all
available funding offered in Title VI and Title XII of the
federal stimulus bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, to lines 20 to 22,
and related his understanding that the language does exactly
what Mr. Barnhill just explained.
MR. BARNHILL replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 13 and 15 of
subsection (c) up to the "," after "state" and offered his
belief that language seems to be important intent language.
However, he related that the language on page 2, lines 14-17
does not seem to be important.
MR. BARNHILL explained that the idea is to put people on notice
that the state does not have complete control over how the U.S.
DOT, in particular the Federal Aviation Administration is going
to allocate the distribution of funds. He reiterated that this
alerts people that funds are allocated subject to the discretion
of the federal agency.
1:17:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the bill might be
expanded to include other agencies. He inquired as to whether
that is likely to happen.
MR. BARNHILL related that a spectrum of options is available to
the administration and the legislature with respect to
authorization bills. One option is to expand the scope in HB
155 to provide explicit authority to ensure that state agencies
have the authority to participate in the entire stimulus bill.
Another option is to introduce another bill to provide authority
for the remaining agencies to participate. He offered that
another option is to not enact an authorization bill. He
surmised that most states do not appear to be seeking explicit
authorization. However, the Alaska Supreme Court has held on
multiple occasions that state agencies are the "creatures of
their statutes" and they can only exercise authority found
within the statutes. He opined that the DOT&PF statutes are
littered with authorization to participate in federal grant
programs. He opined that $100 million is available through the
state fiscal stabilization fund through the federal stimulus
bill that requires the governor to apply for the funds.
However, statutes to authorize participation are absent. Thus,
the DOL recommends some sort of explicit authorization.
Ultimately, if legislature does not deem that the authorization
is necessary, the DOL "will live with that."
1:20:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out two competing policies.
One, to ensure the administration has authority to apply for the
funds. Secondly, he inquired as to whether the legislature
would set precedent if it adopts language for explicit authority
now.
MR. BARNHILL opined that the precedent has already been set
since the DOT&PF already has five or six statutes that provide
authorization to participate in federal grant programs.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether HB 155 should be expanded
to a general authorization, given the timeframe of the 90 day
session.
MR. BARNHILL conceded that the agency might wish to address
this.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed he would like other agencies to
address this also.
MR. BARNHILL offered his belief that the issues will be taken up
in the House Finance Committee.
1:22:07 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that she would like to review the bill as it
currently reads, and if another committee would like to amend
the bill to expand it, that they can do so.
1:22:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that the intent language states
to "seek to maximize" the funding made available to the state.
He expressed concern about funding for programs that the state
may be "stuck with" over time. He conceded that the DOT&PF is
the least likely agency, but maintained his cautiousness about
establishing programs that 18 months from now the state would
need to appropriate general funds. He asked for assurances that
nothing in HB 155 mentions funding for programs.
MR. BARNHILL offered his belief that nothing in the bill
mentions program or obtains funding for program. The bill
simply would permit authorization for the state to apply with
intent to maximize receipt of funds. He recalled media articles
that mentioned the governor shares Representative Johnson's
views.
1:23:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 2, line 19, which reads,
"(d) Notwithstanding any provision of state law, and to the
extent not already authorized by state law, the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities is authorized to participate
in the programs and funding enacted by Division A, Titles VI and
XII, P.L. 111-5 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009)." He stated that the language does not restrict the
DOT&PF and could be a five-year program that "we're stuck with
after three you're authorized under that to do this." He asked
for clarification.
1:24:40 PM
MR. BARNHILL acknowledged that his question is a fair question.
He related that the companion bill, HB 154, identifies all the
funding, but not for programs since the bill relates to capital
projects.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON conceded that the DOT&PF is the least
likely department, but also related his understanding that the
bill may later be expanded to other agencies. He maintained his
concern for funding programs with stimulus funding that might
require the legislature to subsequently fund them with general
fund dollars or be forced to cut the programs. He said, "I want
to be on the record that is something I don't support. I think
the governor is on the record, as well. So I do not want to
inadvertently pass something that is contrary to what the
governor and I happen to share a common belief in."
1:25:39 PM
MR. BARNHILL affirmed that he shares Representative Johnson's
concern, as he believes the governor does also. He offered his
belief that the companion bill will contain language that
suggests funding received under the federal economic stimulus
bill is one-time funding. He indicated that the purpose of the
language in HB 155 is to put people on notice that this
situation is unique and not to expect future funding from the
federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether it would be
appropriate to add specific language to this bill to further
clarify that the funding is one-time federal funding.
MR. BARNHILL agreed that specific language could be added in
this committee or the bill could be amended in the House Finance
Committee.
1:26:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed confidence in the House Finance
Committee. He maintained his concern that he does not support
funding future programs with the federal economic stimulus
funding.
1:27:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS stressed that he has full faith in DOT&PF.
He said he would like to see additional maintenance funding. He
opined that the crux of problem is who will authorize the
expenditure of the funding. He recalled that under the
constitution the legislature is empowered to appropriate funds.
However, he opined that the legislature's power is eroded in a
variety of ways. He expressed concern that the administration
should not be allowed to spend funds without explicit direction
from the legislature through the appropriation process.
MR. BARNHILL related that the concern is one that has been
expressed to the administration several times over the past
month. He offered that the administration attempts to address
that concern by submitting the companion appropriation bill. He
indicated that further language, probably in a separate bill,
will identify the source of funds and how the funds will be
expended. He pointed out that these bills reflect the
administration's recognition that the legislature plays an
important role in exercising its appropriation authority over
the stimulus funds. He said, "And, ultimately, I think it's the
administration's hope that there will be a meeting of the minds
between the administration and the legislature as to how the
economic stimulus funds will be expended." He remarked that as
far as the administration can tell, other states are not seeking
express authorization, other than Washington. He noted that
Washington passed its appropriation bill two weeks ago for the
transportation funds and that bill has been signed into law. He
said, "Given the legislature's express desire to have a role in
the expenditure of these funds, the administration is seeking to
accommodate them."
1:29:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered that the state has a
constitutional provision that is implicit that the legislature
has the authority as the entity which appropriates funds. He
opined that the administration only has a role when the
legislature authorizes it. He indicated that the legislature
has given statutory authority to entities such as the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to expend funds without legislature
authorization. He emphasized that the administration does not
have that right. He stressed that the legislature has not
denied the administration the right to obtain all the money it
can get. He recalled that the governor has expressed she might
not want all the money since "strings might be attached." He
acknowledged the governor's right to do so. However, he
stressed that the administration needs an appropriation bill
once it has accepted any federal stimulus funds since the
constitution mandates it. He said, "I don't see any reason why
we need this to give you authorization to go get any money. Go
get all you can get; the more, the merrier." He acknowledged
that some members have expressed concern some funding might
"have strings attached" that attempt to bind the state in the
future. He further opined that any authorization or
appropriations bill the moves forward has a fiscal note attached
to define funding sources. He said, "And if they don't we ought
not to approve the expenditure. That's my whole point."
1:31:24 PM
MR. BARNHILL acknowledged that is a fair point. He maintained
the administration submitted an appropriation bill to do just
that. He indicated the reason for HB 155 is to ensure that
explicit authorization is in law for state agencies to apply.
He agreed that DOT&PF is the least likely agency to need the
authority since it has statutory authorization. He maintained
that other agencies do not which is the reason for consideration
of this bill. He further acknowledged that the legislature may
decide that such state authorization is not necessary. He
highlighted that he cannot guarantee that someone will not raise
the issue to the governor of the state's authorization to accept
the federal stimulus funding, which may be an issue that needs
to be dealt with later.
1:32:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to whether the Department of
Health and Social Service (DHSS) has that authorization since it
routinely receives federal funding.
MR. BARNHILL said he has not reviewed the DHSS. He offered to
provide that information to the committee. He recalled that
several Alaska Supreme Court cases suggest state agencies need
authority to exercise their power.
1:33:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to whether any state has been
sued due to lack of authorization for federal funds.
MR. BARNHILL said he did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked for clarification of the concern
that HB 155 would address.
MR. BARNHILL reiterated that the concern is that the state has
authorization to accept federal funding for some state agencies
such as DOT&PF, but not for all agencies. He acknowledged that
the bill might address an overly cautious perspective. He
offered that given the significance of the federal stimulus
funding that the approach was that it "would be better to be
cautious." However, if the legislature decides not to do that,
there may not be any consequences, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS highlighted that he would share the
concern if the view was that litigation might arise. He
indicated that he did not want to deny any state agencies the
ability to obtain federal stimulus funds. He related that if
the administration simply desires to have a blanket
authorization to accept federal funding that he has no issue.
However, he emphasized that when it comes to who authorizes the
actual expenditure of the funds, the legislature is the
authority. He reiterated that he does not have a problem with
the administration seeking blanket funding authority to accept
the federal stimulus funds.
1:35:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN echoed his frustration, similar to what
Representative Harris stated. He stressed the legislature's
constitutional right to appropriate funds. He said, "I would
hope that the next time you testify you are a little more
careful in the way you characterize the powers of the
legislature. It's very frustrating to me."
1:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that the process
is a three part process consisting of an authorization process
and this bill attempts to give extra impetus of law, whether or
not it is necessary so why not do it. He said, "Can't hurt,
might help." The next process is the expenditure process and by
constitution the legislature must be involved. Finally, the
application process falls in between the authorization and
appropriation process in which someone makes a decision as to
whether to apply for the funds. He surmised the bill is
lengthy, the funds are large, and the programs are diverse.
Thus, he inquired as to how the administration views the
application decision and what, if any, role the legislature has
in the decisions.
1:38:35 PM
MR. BARNHILL answered that at the outset, the most important
aspect is to have an awareness of the programs and the funding
sources available, and to identify the timelines. He remarked
that the administration must check the federal website
recovery.org daily to identify any new requirements for
timelines and application submissions. Thus, obtaining all the
information is the first step. He highlighted the next step is
to coordinate with state agencies to identify who will fill out
the application, what information is necessary to support the
application, and identify projects for an appropriation bill.
MR. BARNHILL mentioned the administration is currently gathering
an extraordinary amount of information. He related his
understanding that the information will be distilled in an
appropriation bill of global magnitude for the legislature to
consider. He emphasized that the administration will review all
information and will decide whether to apply for every program.
He acknowledged that some policy issues are rising as part of
the information review. He further related his understanding
that the governor plans to share the policy concerns with the
legislature so it can weigh in on them. He surmised that some
policy concerns to obtain funds will require statutory changes.
He said, "The administration is working as hard and as fast as
it can to gather that information, to distill it into a form
that is understandable and bring it to your attention." He
opined that this set of bills, including HB 155, was designed to
get the process going, primarily since the federal stimulus
funding represents a lot of money. He stated it was a way to
"get the ball rolling."
1:41:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that the
legislature has a larger role than to weigh in on funds the
governor may not wish to accept. He opined that under the terms
of the bill, the legislature can accept, by joint resolution
say, "Ah, no, we want to take the money anyway."
MR. BARNHILL answered, "Yes, that is exactly correct."
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked if it is the intention of the
administration to make its decisions not to accept funds in
sufficient time to allow the legislature time to decide if it
agrees with that decision.
MR. BARNHILL answered yes.
1:42:19 PM
CHAIR WILSON recapped the committee's comments. She related
that the legislature is recognizing that some other states are
not taking the same approach. However, she opined that the
governor has more power than any other governor in the U.S.
Thus, the legislature holds jealously its ability to
appropriate. She said, "We don't want that taken away from us.
Those are the facts and everyone needs to realize that. That's
something we really hold dear."
MR. BARNHILL said:
Madame Chair, that point's very well taken. By
sharing what is going on in other states was in no way
intended by me or the administration to suggest that
we're going in that direction. In fact, quite the
opposite. We are going in the direction that we have
laid before you. That is a two-fold approach with an
authorization and an appropriation bill.
1:43:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 1, lines 9 and 12, and
page 2, lines 4 & 6, are both to apply for and expend. He
acknowledged that he did not have a problem with "apply for" but
the expenditure could be read as authorization for programs that
are not even in existence now. He stressed that he has
considerable problems with that. He said he did not understand
the necessity for authority to apply for money. He said it
seems to him that the administration can do that anyway. He
related his understanding that a number of states are moving
forward to obtain the funds anyway. He inquired as to whether
the other states have the authority to expend funds without
legislature authorization. He said, "That's a blank check."
MR. BARNHILL answered that he cannot comment on the legal
structure in other states. He offered to research and to
provide the information at a later time. He pointed out that
the language says subject to appropriation so the intent was not
a blanket authorization to expend it, just a method to apply,
subject to appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that while it may be the
intent, the language is broader. He referred to page 2, line
21, and stated the language is to participate, which he stated
is an authorization. He opined that normally the authorization
is held, then the appropriation. He said he thought this seems
to be in place of an authorization.
MR. BARNHILL reiterated that this language is not intended to
authorize an appropriation. He suggested that the committee may
wish to consider an amendment to make it clear and he has no
objections to an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he will consider the
matter. He recalled Representative Doogan's question, and
opined that nothing requires the governor to notify the
legislature if she doe not to intend to apply for federal
stimulus funds. Additionally, intent language provides power.
He inquired as to whether language should be explicit in the
bill that if the governor does not intend to apply for all
funds, that the legislature should be given adequate notice to
pass a resolution.
MR. BARNHILL offered that he has no objection to that type of
amendment. He related his understanding that the administration
intends to disclose exactly what stimulus funding it will and
will not apply for so "cards will be on the table and there will
not be any playing hide the ball."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to place on the record his
statement. He said, "I've known you. I know you are highly
ethical. I know you are a very fine attorney. And I know there
was no intent in anything than the highest professionalism here.
I think that I commend you and the department."
1:46:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related that the legislature could pass a
joint resolution to apply for federal stimulus funds which would
be subject to veto.
MR. BARNHILL said, "I believe that it is. I'm hoping we don't
have to cross that bridge, Representative Harris."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS offered his belief that any expenditure of
funds by the legislature is also subject to veto.
1:47:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled Representative Doogan was
suggesting a vehicle of resolution. He offered his belief that
a resolution is read by the governor but there is not a right to
veto.
1:48:28 PM
MR. BARNHILL confessed that everyone is operating in some
ignorance since the federal law recently passed. He offered his
believe that Representative Harris stated that the governor has
power to veto the appropriation. He referred to Section 67 (b)
of the ARRA, which he opined states that if the governor does
not certify that she will apply for and use funds provided for
by the economic stimulus bill, the legislature has the right to
accept the funds by resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether that would be
constitutional. He offered that he does not need an oral
answer. However, he pointed out that a joint resolution,
according the Uniform Rules, aside from constitutional items,
does not direct anyone to take an action. He stated that it
simply expresses the intent or position of the legislature. He
clarified that a joint resolution is directed externally, while
a concurrent resolution is normally directed internally. He
highlighted that the application is an issue that is normally
outside the scope of a resolution. He inquired as to whether
the legislature has the power, given the separation of powers,
or if the resolution would be governed under the supremacy
clause under this unusual provision under federal law. He
suggested that Mr. Barnhill may wish to provide something in
writing for the legislature.
1:50:26 PM
MR. BARNHILL opined that Representative Gruenberg raised a
fascinating question. He deferred answering the question.
However, he recalled that the question was posed to the
Congressional Research Service and it rendered a ten page
memorandum on the subject. He said he was not sure he agreed
with it, but would provide it to the committee.
1:51:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further inquired as to whether the
committee could also obtain a legal opinion on state
constitution with respect to the separation of powers.
CHAIR WILSON reiterated the committee was seeking two legal
opinions.
MR. BARNHILL inquired as to whether the matter could be deferred
until the legislature faces the issue over it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew his request. He suggested
that the information from the Congressional Research would
initially suffice.
1:51:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to whether the legislature
will have sufficient time to react to the governor's decision on
whether to accept the federal economic stimulus funds. He
pointed out that only two weeks remained until April 3, 2009.
He inquired as to whether the legislature would have sufficient
time to address the matter.
MR. BARNHILL referred to Section 67 (b) of the ARRA, and related
that there is not a specific deadline. He related his
understanding that some people have speculated that the
legislature would have an April 3 deadline. However, he stated
that he disagrees. He asserted that the federal ARRA does not
have a deadline. He noted the administration has sought
guidance from the federal Office of Management & Budget for any
deadline. He offered his belief that the governor is preparing
to disclose what the issues are this week. He maintained that
everyone is working as fast as they can to allow people to make
decisions.
1:53:34 PM
MR. BARNHILL, in response to Representative Johansen, said he
believes that the governor will make decisions this week.
However, he related his understanding that is the timeframe
although he could not offer total certainty.
1:53:50 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that she would like to hold the bill.
1:54:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to whether the companion bill,
HB 154 is currently before the House Finance Committee.
MR. BARNHILL answered yes, and that it is scheduled for a
hearing.
1:54:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:54 pm. to 1:55 p.m.
1:55:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG volunteered to assist in reviewing the
language in the bill. He surmised that the resolution process
was deliberate on the part of the Congress in order to allow the
legislatures the ability to act on the matter if a governor did
not. He opined the real question is whether that takes
precedence over the constitution.
1:55:44 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that the bill would be held over.
HB 127-ALASKA RAILROAD BUDGET
1:55:50 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 127, "An Act providing that the Alaska Railroad
Corporation is subject to the Executive Budget Act and providing
that expenditures of the Alaska Railroad Corporation are subject
to appropriation; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was Version A.]
1:56:33 PM
PATRICK GAMBLE, President, and CEO, Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARRC), stated the proposal to transfer the ARRC under the
Executive Budget Act is clear. He offered to address the "why"
today. He offered his belief that this issue is raised about
every ten years. He opined that it is appropriate to do. He
inquired as to what has changed that might require such action,
which he said is exactly the right approach. He related that
examining whether the framers of the Alaska Railroad Transfer
Act of 1982 (ARTA) "had it right" and whether the properties are
enduring properties.
1:58:23 PM
MR. GAMBLE stated that he reviewed the 38 pages of the corporate
act, and as he thumbed through and highlighted any issues that
might arise between the ARRC Act under AS 42.40 and the
Executive Budget Act. He stated that he had about 50 items that
would need to be clarified how the ARRC would operate under the
Executive Budget Act. He said he agrees with Representative
Gruenberg that it is a complex issue. He provided a history of
the ARRC, that the legislature approved the ARRC transfer from
the federal government after 70 years of federal government
control. He offered that the legislature deliberated whether to
take over the railroad, and many issues and legalities were
discussed. He related that the legislature created an entity
that was a business like entity, quasi-independent, and outlined
the scope of the ARRC.
MR. GAMBLE recalled that the Corporate Act under AS 42 goes to
great length to explain the purpose of the ARRC. He related the
introduction states that it is the legislature's intent, the
policy of the State of Alaska to foster and promote the long
term growth of the state; and to foster and promote the
development of the state land and natural resources. Thus,
properties for business would be enduring properties; and the
state does not have the authority to sell off land, he opined.
He emphasized that cited at least a half a dozen times in the
corporate act is an overriding concern as to the ARRC's
solvency. Therefore, when it came to selling bonds, the
legislature placed safeguards in at least six places, advising
the ARRC that it cannot sell bonds without the proper authority.
2:01:51 PM
MR. GAMBLE continued by stating that ARRC is an "essentiality"
of the state infrastructure in that the ARRC needed to be able
to provide transportation without state approval. He opined
that the state had confidence in the business case that was
presented, that the business case would allow the ARRC to "pay
its bill" meet its obligations, and contribute to a capital
program, and as an independent operating agency not have to seek
approval. He offered his belief that the model works. He
welcomed the review to determine whether the ARRC is doing the
best it can. He opined that if it is not, that it was time to
reexamine the business case. He offered his belief that he is
here to discuss the alternative and impact if the ARRC is to be
placed under the Executive Budget Act. He admitted that he did
not know exactly the implications of the change.
2:03:55 PM
MR. GAMBLE reiterated that the statutes defined the details of
the ARRC operations. He reiterated that he is not sure of
changes in the ARRC operations under the Executive Budget Act.
He expressed concern to offer opinions on hypothetical
questions, given the ambiguity of how the ARRC would need to
operate under the Executive Budget Act.
MR. GAMBLE referred to the ARRC operations in the past 24 years
that the ARRC has been in existence. He related that the
capital contributions are well in excess of $900 million, and
the ARR earnings all are invested in capital programs, which he
stated are jobs, contracts, opportunities for employees, and the
trickle down effect. He opined that effect is growing at a 14
percent compound annual growth rate for last 23 years, although
he cannot say that for this year. He reported assets of $22
million have grown to almost $900 million. He opined that the
ARRC has been considered a model, that in fact, China asked him
to speak on the regional model since China is working to segment
its large railroad into regions.
2:06:09 PM
MR. GAMBLE related that Commonwealth North in its report
"Putting Alaska's Assets to Work for Alaskans" cited the ARRC as
a good model of an operating entity. He reported that 24 hours
per day somewhere in the system "a wheel is turning." He
reported that the ARRC has its own liabilities and employees,
which are funded from its earnings. He identified that it links
responsibility and accountability within its model. Thus, if
the ARRC receives board approval for capital expenditures, which
are then accomplished within the organization, the ARRC reviews
it. Therefore, he observed that he is not sure he understands
the current deficiencies. He conceded that perhaps it is not
deficiencies, but the prospect of a better business enterprise
model. He expressed a willingness to review the current ARRC
model. He stated that if the ARRC can improve its profitability
for the state's economic development, it needs to do so.
MR. GAMBLE opined that HB 127 does not provide this option. He
recalled that some people have asked him "what is broken." He
offered his belief that nothing is broken but the ARRC has an
obligation and responsibility to ensure the ARRC is still doing
what the legislature intended it to do. He speculated if the
issue is not whether the business is performing, but instead is
a constituent issue in which the ARRC has taken action in
certain constituent matters, that is a legitimate concern. He
recalled the ARRC personnel were called arrogant by some
legislators. He said this upset him since the majority of the
public comments refute that statement. He observed that if this
is a constituent issue that he needs to identify and address the
matter.
2:09:18 PM
MR. GAMBLE identified that ARRC's Strategic Plan and five year
plans emphasize the need to work at the grassroots level with
individuals, entities, and municipalities to in order to fulfill
the mission of the ARRC. He highlighted that the statement was
developed especially for ARRC's employees. Thus, he would
appreciate knowing of instances in which employees are perceived
as arrogant or who are not willing to address issues. He
stressed if employee attitudes are the issue that it is not
necessary to change the current ARRC model. He reiterated his
interest in identifying constituent issues.
2:10:18 PM
MR. GAMBLE offered his belief that the ARRC's overall record is
clear. He recalled similar statements when he initially began
working for the ARRC. He observed that he has not heard
complaints about arrogance in three or four years. He shared
the ARRC public affairs department distributes surveys and
reported that approval ratings are up from 65 to over 80 percent
statewide. He specified in Fairbanks, despite "tough issues"
that the ARRC's favorable rating is over 90 percent. Thus, he
concluded that the public has trust in the ARRC.
2:11:40 PM
MR. GAMBLE recalled a prior hearing he was unable to attend. He
offered to comment on several matters that arose. He related
that the ARRC has employees who are members of five unions. He
conveyed that of those, two are currently unhappy over work
which has been contracted out. He detailed that the two unions
have 10,000 and 7,000 hours of backlog, respectively. He
reported that he contracted out one segment of the backlogged
work, especially since the ARRC's busiest season will soon
start. He mentioned that this is a one-time contract and this
is the first time he recalls that he has had to contract work
out. He related that he discussed this with union leadership.
2:12:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to the specific unions that
are affected.
MR. GAMBLE replied that one union is the Transportation
Communication Union (TCU), comprised of about 46 employees. He
mentioned that the ARRC is in the process of hiring four more
journeymen. He described the task as replacing wooden planking
on flatcars, after 30 to 40 years use. He characterized the
work as "grunt work" and not skilled labor, yet it is work that
must be finished by summer since the flatcars would otherwise be
deemed unsafe. He remarked that the ARRC has hired local
business to rip and replace the planks while the rest of the
ARRC team is doing "winter work" to ready the passenger coaches
for summer. He surmised that when employees are not happy they
will complain. He acknowledged that he anticipates the
complaints. However, he also respects the employee's rights to
represent their union, even if it means complaining to
legislators. He recalled difficulties with the United
Transportation Union (UTU) six years ago. He related that
through informal discussions he was able to assist and negotiate
a contract. He speculated it is possible that the UTU may well
support the ARRC's position with the current issue, although he
emphasized that he cannot speak for the union. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Gamble related that the union
represents the locomotive engineers, firemen, and brakemen.
2:16:07 PM
MR. GAMBLE speculated that the unions may support the ARRC's
leadership since the perception is if the ARRC fell under the
Executive Budget Act that members fear they would have 60
managers instead of the ARRC, when contemplating pay raises or
work rules. He reported he has successfully negotiated 11
contracts thus far without a strike, although he recalled that
he has reached impasse at times. He offered that in those
instances he has intervened and has been successful. In
response to Representative Harris, Mr. Gamble pointed out the
International Association of Machinists (IAM) represent the
machinists, currently working on a technology project as a
result of a Congressional mandate that is about a 7,000 man
hour. He related that the installation piece was contracted
out. While IAM members would like to do the work, he pointed
out that he cannot double the workforce in order to accommodate
the union. Thus, given the short timeframe, he has contracted
out the one-time installation segment and members are not happy,
he reiterated.
2:18:38 PM
MR. GAMBLE then turned to Flint Hills Resources Alaska (Flint
Hills). He explained that the ARRC could not purchase the Flint
Hills refinery without involving the legislature in numerous
issues. He said, "It's my opinion that the answer to that
question is no, we could not go out and buy Flint Hills." He
surmised that the capital investment alone would require the
state to step in. He replied that the ARRC would receive
federal economic stimulus funding through a formula based on the
number of passenger coaches and passenger miles. He emphasized
that the funding is strictly for "rail" and is based on 60
percent of the miles, which has been set at $26 million. He
allowed that he has not yet taken proposals to the ARRC board,
but related the federal rules are explicit. He outlined the
categories are all related to passengers. He recalled that one
is the technology project previously mentioned. Another is to
provide funding to rebuild main line to Fairbanks and Seward.
The third category is for passenger equipment. He noted that
the ARRC is on the same timelines as the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) must adhere to for
the economic stimulus funding.
2:21:15 PM
MR. GAMBLE referred to the fiscal note and recalled questions
about the ARRC issuing dividends, which he says comes up
periodically. He clarified that he testified in Senate Finance
Committee several years ago about dividends. He opined that
federal law prohibits the ARRC from issuing dividends. However,
he related that since the legislature gave bonding authority to
the ARRC it has accelerated the ARRC's building program by about
ten years. He further related that the ARRC is in its fourth
year of the six-year upgrade to rebuild the line. Thus, he
opined that the ARRC may have discretionary capital dollars
available. He is under discussions with DOT&PF about instances
in which the railroad has commonality with roads and bridges.
He speculated that it is possible the ARRC could cooperatively
work with DOT&PF to apply capital dollars and those dollars
could stretch the DOT&PF funding. He opined that would be a way
to contribute to another department's needs with capital excess
while still following the federal guidelines. He further opined
that could amount to several million dollars a year for the
state.
2:23:40 PM
MR. GAMBLE related that legislative oversight of federal
projects could represent a method to successfully work on such
cooperative projects. In response to Chair Wilson, Mr. Gamble
related that the fiscal note is $1.3 million, with subsequent
funding of $247,000.
2:24:38 PM
BILL O'LEARY, Chief Financial Officer, Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC), referred to the fiscal note. He stressed
that the fiscal note was difficult to prepare since significant
uncertainty exists with respect to the proposed ARRC transfer
under the Executive Budget Act. He related that page 2 of the
fiscal note refers to five bullet points in the analysis
section. He further related that items one and two were
unquantifiable at this time since the ARRC structure is unknown.
He explained it is possible that the ARRC could suffer loss of
revenue due to the more rigid budget guidelines. Additionally,
in discussions with financial entities, the ARRC believe that
any debt subject to appropriation could impact pricing on future
debt depending solely on the amount of debt issued. He
indicated that the current ARRC financial system is not designed
to accommodate legislative appropriation control of the state's
accounting system. He related that initial discussions to
modify the current system "have not been promising." Thus, the
ARRC anticipates a significant increment to maintain appropriate
level of control. He identified the ARRC would anticipate
additional staffing in order to comply with the Executive Budget
Act. Finally, the ARRC anticipates additional costs would be
incurred to travel to Juneau to coordinate with the Office of
Management & Budget and the Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development during the legislative session.
2:27:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked on his earlier comments about
arrogance, which he described as comments from third parties
were passed on to him. He related comments were not directed at
Mr. Gamble personally. He opined the ARRC has a pretty good
record. He indicated the ARRC is an entity solely owned by the
state. He suggested since the ARRC is tax exempt, that it
competes with the private sector but not necessarily on a "fair
playing field."
MR. GAMBLE offered his belief that it would depend on who was
asked. However, he affirmed the ARRC does compete with the
private sector. In further response to Representative Harris,
Mr. Gamble agreed the ARRC does not pay property taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to how much land the ARRC owns
that is not currently being used.
MR. GAMBLE estimated that the ARRC owns 36,000 acres, with half
unusable land. He related that approximately 18,000 acres is
the ARRC plant. He opined that about 8,000 acres are leasable.
2:29:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding that about
18,000 acres are not leasable. He inquired as to whether the
ARRC can sell the land.
MR. GAMBLE replied that while the ARRC does not prohibit sale,
that it requires legislative approval. He said, "The
legislature over the past 23 years has been very loathe to
consider outright sales, fee simple type sales."
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS recalled that the ARRC owns 18,000 acres
that has not been earning any money.
MR. GAMBLE said, "No necessarily." He described a scenario,
about 25 miles north of Talkeetna, in which the ARRC has
discovered high quality granite at a site where the road ends
but the rail continues into the backcountry. He mentioned that
the ARRC save $700,000 year by not buying the fill. He opined
that the process of setting up the granite mine used up the
majority of the 5,000 acres at Curry. However, he acknowledged
that other areas, somewhat along the rail could be identified as
not being used. He mentioned that the ARRC has 85 acres in
Valdez, with a right-of-way to the ocean used during the
pipeline construction phase to store pipe, transfer the pipe to
trucks for transport. He opined that the 85 acres has been
dormant but recently the pipeline companies are discussing the
possibility of using the land for the gasline. He surmised that
over the long run this represents the fluctuation of parts of
the land endowment depending on development.
2:32:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to whether the ARRC is
amenable to sell land.
MR. GAMBLE indicated this may be one of the things the
legislature wants to review, and if so, the ARRC certainly could
not say no without defense. He characterized the ARRC as
stewards of the state land. He stressed that if the legislature
gives the ARRC that direction, that it will take it. He
commented that the ARRC board will certainly want to provide its
input.
2:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked that he had an uncle who was an
engineer stationed in Curry years ago.
2:33:22 PM
RICK BARRIER, Executive Director, Commonwealth North, stated
that he has studied the ARRC since the mid-80s transfer. He
said, "We have concluded that the structure that's currently in
place for this enterprise seems to be working in an very
effective way to manage this property." He affirmed that it is
an operating business that needs to have ability to be flexible
to respond quickly. He offered his belief that the ARRC has
done a pretty good job. He reported that Commonwealth North
does not see a need for HB 127 unless there is an issue that has
not yet been raised. However, he opined that the ARRC seems to
be functioning well and Commonwealth North does not see bringing
it under the state's Executive Budget Act would be beneficial to
the railroad or the state.
2:35:20 PM
CHAIR WILSON, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 127.
2:35:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS referred to a handout titled "COMMENTS ON
HB 127, Executive Summary, submitted by the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC)" dated 3/10/09. He then referred to a bullet
point that stated making the ARRC subject to the Executive Budge
Act may violate the federal Alaska Railroad Transfer Act (ARTA),
which specifically provides that the ARRC is to retain control
of its funds. He inquired as to whether any effort to sell the
Alaska Railroad Corporation would violate the ARTA.
MR. GAMBLE related that the ARTA was fully approved by the
legislature. He said, "It is my understanding that the
legislature giveth and the legislature taketh away. Therefore,
in my opinion if the legislature wanted to make a fundamental
change, it certainly could." He surmised that the current
federal and state act requires the ARRC to retain earnings. He
surmised that it might be necessary to go to Washington DC to
change the federal law. He said, "It's not that it couldn't be
done." However, if the federal law was not changed, the ARRC
may be in violation of a federal statute.
2:37:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding that the ARTA is
a federal act. Thus, if the legislature passed something
different, that it would need Congressional modification of the
ARTA.
MR. GAMBLE related that this is complex. He offered his belief,
items such as the one just raised would be addressed at that
level. He remarked that he does not have a way to answer the
question at this time. He acknowledged it could be flagged as
an as an issue, but he does not have "a quick answer."
2:38:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related that Wells Fargo Bank is listed as
a major customer. He inquired as to what dealings the ARRC has
with Wells Fargo Bank.
MR. GAMBLE related his understanding that the ARRC has a line of
credit with Wells Fargo Bank. In further response to
Representative Harris, Mr. Gamble agreed it was a financial
deal.
2:39:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, opined as
prime sponsor of HB 127, that the impact of the Executive Budget
Act has been far overstated. He related that several other
corporate entities such as the Aerospace authority, AIDEA, and
the AHFC. He indicated that this is not about a constituent
issue. He emphasized that he has always been a fan of the ARRC.
He reiterated his family history with the ARRC and his personal
history of land adjacent to the railroad. He offered the reason
for the bill is to address a broad policy issue, to lift the
corporate veil of secrecy. He opined that he would like the
ARRC to be part of a broad budget process. He related that
positive things have happened simply by introducing the bill,
such as the Flint Hills purchase. He related that having the
issue raised solves one of his concerns. He reiterated that
this bill is to address a broader policy issue. He opined that
aloofness is a better term than arrogance. He recalled rumors
that this is a nuisance bill, which he finds an affront to the
legislature process. He related this is an institutional change
but emphasized that he is not out to destroy the ARRC, that he
wants it to prosper and sees the ARRC as an important part of
the transportation network and the state's economy.
2:44:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN commented that although other agencies are
under the Executive Budget Act, but he was not aware of any
corporations in direct competition with the public. He offered
that the ARRC competes with private sector. He offered his
belief that under the Executive Budget Act the ARRC would have
less flexibility to operate in the environment, which he said
does not strike him as a good thing to do. He offered that it
would be difficult for him to support the bill.
2:46:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS moved to report HB 127 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE Doogan objected.
2:47:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gruenberg, Johnson,
Harris, Johansen, Munoz, and Wilson voted in favor of moving HB
127 from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
Representatives Doogan voted against it. Therefore, HB 127 was
reported out of the House Transportation Standing Committee by a
vote of 6-1.
SB 72-CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS
2:47:50 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(STA), "An Act relating to use of child
safety seats and seat belts."
2:48:21 PM
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, Alaska State Legislature, as the prime
sponsor of the bill read a portion of his sponsor statement, as
follows: [original punctuation provided]
Booster seats save lives. Of the 61 children under
the age of eight injured in auto accidents in Alaska
between 2001 and 2005, only five were considered
properly restrained by federal standards. Nearly two
thirds of those 61 children were between the ages of
four to eight, making the injured too large for a
child safety seat but too small for an adult seat
belt.
Current Alaska law requires the use of proper safety
devices for children under the age of 16 as approved
by the US Department of Transportation. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommends that
children under 80 pounds and under 57 [inches] use a
child safety seat or a belt positioning booster seat.
SENATOR FRENCH explained that the booster seats basically
lift the child so that the seatbelt strikes them at the
"right part of their body" where their muscular skeleton
can stop the impact of a crash. He concluded by stating
that is the basic overview of the bill.
2:50:03 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that SB 72 will be held over.
HB 131-CHILD SAFETY SEATS & SEAT BELTS
2:50:14 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act relating to use of child safety
seats and seat belts."
2:50:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 131, Version 26-LS0372\C, Luckhaupt,
3/6/09. There being no objection, Version C was before the
committee.
2:51:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY HOLMES, Alaska State Legislature, stated
her staff would provide an overview of the bill.
2:51:01 PM
LISA VALENTA, Staff, Representative Lindsey Holmes, on behalf of
the prime sponsor of HB 131, Representative Lindsey Holmes,
stated that this bill has the same goals as the prior bill, SB
72. The bill is focused on education of parents so that parents
are informed of the specific child safety restraint for their
child based on the child's height and weight.
2:52:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered that states might be eligible to
apply for approximately $200,000 in federal funding this year,
but the funding might not be available next year.
2:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to whether the sponsor would
have any problems to incorporate proposed changes to SB 72.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES offered her support for SB 72, the Senate
version of the bill as the vehicle since it has passed the
Senate.
[HB 131 was held over.]
2:53:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:53
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ARRC Exec Summary.pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2009 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| ARRC HB127 Commentary.pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2009 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| SB72AAPSupportLetter.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72ABINSupportLetter.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72AkAccidentstats.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB0072B.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72Chart.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB127 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/12/2009 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 127 |
| hb 131 sectional.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| hb 131 backup.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| hb131 sponsor stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| hb131 cs.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| SB72OtherStates.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72Sponsor.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72SupportAPOA.PDF |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72SupportLetterAADA.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72SupportLetterPeggyHayashi.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SB72SupportLetterSafeKidsAK.pdf |
HTRA 3/17/2009 1:00:00 PM |