03/08/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB22 | |
| HB30 | |
| HJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 8, 2011
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 22
"An Act prohibiting the use of a cellular telephone when driving
a motor vehicle; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 22(TRA( OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act relating to the transportation infrastructure fund, to
local public transportation, to the municipal harbor facility
grant fund, to motor fuel taxes, to the motor vehicle
registration fee, to driver's license fees, to identification
card fees, to the studded tire tax, and to the vehicle rental
tax; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 30(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
creating a transportation infrastructure fund.
- MOVED HJR 4(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
01/18/11 (H) TRA, FIN
02/15/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/15/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/17/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/17/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/11 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/08/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HJR 4
SHORT TITLE: CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) P.WILSON, THOMPSON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
02/15/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/15/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/17/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/17/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/11 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/08/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the changes included in the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 22.
ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 22.
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant
Deputy Commander, A Detachment
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 22.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section
Criminal Division
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered HB 22.
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff
Representative P. Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the changes in the proposed
committee substitute (CS) on behalf of one of the prime sponsor
of HB 30.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 30.
RACHAEL PETRO, President; CEO
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 30.
JOHN MACKINNON, Executive Director
Associated General Contractors of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 30.
BRIAN KANE, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 30.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:34 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives P.
Wilson, Feige, Johnson, Munoz, Gruenberg, and Petersen were
present at the call to order. Representative Pruitt arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representative Thompson was also
in attendance.
1:05:19 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 22, "An Act prohibiting the use of a cellular
telephone when driving a motor vehicle; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was Version B.]
1:05:31 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes contained in the proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version B. She recapped the CS for
HB 22 contains a provision to allow use of a cell phone in the
"hands free mode". Definitions were added for the terms
"emergency" and "hands free mode" for clarity. She addressed
several items that arose at the last hearing. Committee members
brought up other examples of driving distracted, such as radio
use. The Alaska Highway Safety Office (AHSO) reported that some
engagement with radio use resulted aware of the effective date
of changes to cell phone use. Currently the AHSO has been
working on a campaign for distracted driving. The AHSO can
incorporate any changes included in HB 22, if it passes, into
the AHSO's media campaign. The AHSO advised that it would not
need additional funding to do so. The sponsor discussed this
with the Department of Law and the Department of Public Safety,
who thought that it might be a good idea to have an effective
date, but this is a matter that left to the committee to decide.
She related the sponsor has received many interesting stories
about people who have encountered cell phone use. She related a
scenario in which a person was riding a motorcycle needed to use
his foot to avoid being trapped under someone's car since the
person was distracted while using a cell phone.
1:08:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether any of the e-mails raise
any issues the committee should be aware of in terms of possible
amendments.
MS. KLOSTER answered that some people wanted to ban all cell
phone use including "hands free mode" cell phones.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered to provide copies of
information on blogs on this topic.
1:10:27 PM
ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR. stated that he agreed with the bill. He
explained a person driving a vehicle using a cell phone resulted
in his brother-in-law's death, and injured his sister. The
driver's sentence was only 30 days, he said. He reiterated his
testimony of last week. He offered his support for HB 22. He
considered previous testimony and related that the bill would
apply to cell phone use on "public land" so it is reasonable
since it could protect citizens. He related that bicycles are
relevant, noting he has almost hit bicyclists. He offered his
belief that crashes resulting in death is one reason this bill
is essential to Alaskans. He said, "I hope you pass this bill
and get it on the road."
1:14:10 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on closed public testimony on
HB 22.
1:14:29 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 27-
LS0155\B.2, Luckhaupt, 3/7/11, which read:
Page 1, lines 7 - 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) This section does not apply to a person
(1) using a cellular telephone for
emergency purposes, including an emergency call to a
law enforcement agency, fire department, or other
emergency services agency or entity; or
(2) 18 years of age or older using a
cellular telephone by hands-free mode."
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that Amendment 1 would exempt a person
using a cell phone during an emergency or to a person age 18 or
older.
1:16:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected for purpose of discussion. He
understood the purpose of Amendment 1. He preferred not to
single out any age group, whether it is teenagers or seniors.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG disagreed with the prior speaker. He
offered his belief that this bill represents changing morals and
ideas. He related that a few years ago it would not have been
possible to pass a bill like this. He recalled he attempted to
tack on language in another bill having to do with texting to no
avail. However, society has changed and this bill reflects the
change. Amendment 1 attempts to expand HB 22 to those under the
age of 18, who are not as skillful drivers. He did not want to
jeopardize the bill, but he thought Amendment 1 could help the
bill. He stressed the importance of saving lives and his belief
that this bill will save lives. He said he hoped that Amendment
1 would pass.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN maintained his objection.
1:20:36 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Feige,
Pruitt, Gruenberg and Chair Wilson voted in favor of.
Representatives Representative Johnson and Representative
Petersen voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 passed by a
vote of 5-2.
1:21:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2,
labeled 27-LS0155\B.3, Luckhaupt, 3/7/11, which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "vehicle":
Insert "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 2, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. This Act takes effect July 1, 2011."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled earlier testimony that the
department would like to have an effective date since this bill
will affect everyone. He added an effective date can help
provide advance notice of when the provisions will go into
effect. He explained Amendment 2 would add an effective date of
July 1, 2011.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 passed.
1:23:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how anyone could operate a cell
phone without touching it.
CHAIR P. WILSON related "hands free mode" as one instance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON described "iphone" use. He related that
in order to put the phone in a "hands free mode" he would first
have to push a button.
CHAIR P. WILSON related some advance planning could place a
phone in the correct mode plus some vehicles have voice
activated phones.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON wondered whether people would need to buy
new phones in order to comply with this law.
1:25:19 PM
RODNEY DIAL, Lieutenant; Deputy Commander, A Detachment,
Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety
(DPS), related that "OnStar" is a completely voice-activated
navigation system. This bill would not allow manipulation of a
cell phone if a person did so while driving on a roadway.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that even with
"OnStar" pushing a button is necessary to activate the system.
LIEUTENANT DIAL indicated he has a relatively new car and uses
only his voice to operate the telephone system his car uses. He
recalled that some vehicles may require pushing a button and he
was uncertain whether solely pushing a button would constitute a
violation. In further response to Representative Johnson
explained he would expect someone to do more than pushing one
button before the average law enforcement officer would initiate
a traffic stop. He suggested he would need to consult with the
attorney general's office for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that the language in HB 22 does
not say that, it reads "hands-free mode". He even thought
activating a "Bluetooth" would require pushing a button.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that the amendment to allow
operating "hands free mode" was added due to the testimony by
truckers and couriers who use their cell phones to communicate
with their business or dispatcher. She wondered if adding
operation to "hands free mode" could help.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested the technical aspect could be
addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee. She
directed Lieutenant Dial to check with the attorney general's
office prior to the next hearing for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it is his intent that
"hands-free" mode does not prohibit touching the phone. He
referred to page 1, lines 14-15, of HB 22, and related that so
long as the person is not holding the phone using the cell phone
is allowable. He offered his belief that using a cell phone
mounted on dash and pressing a button would also be permissible
under the bill as long as the driver was using the speaker
function or earpiece without actually holding the phone.
1:30:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether it would be better for him
use a phone if he is sitting next to it looking down rather than
having it up and just pushing a button to activate the phone.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated he does not recommend doing so.
He said the point is whether it violates the law and the answer
is no. One of the reasons, the chair's amendment was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thought that the Alaska State
Troopers would have to obtain an interpretation from the
Department of Law prior to citing.
1:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Lieutenant Dial whether he would
need to consult the attorney general's office or if his
explanation cleared this up.
LIEUTENANT DIAL agreed he understood. He related that Alaska
State Troopers exercise discretion in the field. If an AST felt
it was necessary to stop vehicle for someone pushing a button
that the AST would consult with the Department of Law (DOL) as
to whether the action was appropriate. He envisioned law
enforcement officers would use their discretion. If an officer
observed someone talking on the phone while driving, it would
represent a violation of the law much more so than pushing a
button to activate some type of "hands-free" telephone call.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether he would be in violation of
the law if the phone was on seat he dialed the phone. He
further asked if that action would be any less distracting than
actually talking on the phone.
LIEUTENANT DIAL offered his belief that holding the phone and
talking on a phone longer than the time it would take to push a
button would be more distracting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether a person could dial a full
set of numbers so long as he/she is not holding the phone plus
the person could also text. He asked whether it would be more
distracting to dial a phone on the seat than holding the phone.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said he did not believe he was qualified to
answer his question. He suggested that AHSO may have
statistical information that could clarify the level of
distraction.
1:34:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his position is fairly clear and
he did not wish to pursue this further.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked why he would dial the phone on the
seat next to him if it was not a "hands free mode" device.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that he would do so since it
would be legal but if he picked it up and dialed it would not be
legal. He would not want to break the law, he said.
1:34:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that punching a series of
buttons to text messages would be in violation of existing
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood. He merely mentioned it for
emphasis. However, he might dial if it were legal to do so.
1:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related his constituents asked for the
amount of any proposed fine for using a cell phone while
driving.
LIEUTENANT DIAL related that fines are set by the Alaska Supreme
Court. The DPS has no input on fines, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether he was aware of the number
of points that would be assessed on the driver's licenses.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that until the bail was set the
department would not know the penalty amount. He offered his
belief that the maximum allowable in statute is $500.
1:37:48 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law (DOL), stated the
maximum fine in Title 28 for a violation is $300. She offered
her belief that Lieutenant Dial was referring to a bail schedule
set that may be lower. In response to Chair Wilson, she related
that the court sets bail amounts based on request of the
affected department. She stated it would likely be the DPS who
would request the bail amount
1:38:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN clarified that the maximum fine would be
$300. He asked whether that would be the amount set for the
first offense.
MS. CARPENETI answered that would be the maximum amount. She
assumed that as with other schedules in which a bail amount is
set, the bail amount would likely be substantially less.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether she knew the number of
points that would be assessed against a driver's license and
whether it would depend on the number of offenses a person had
assessed on his/her license.
MS. CARPENETI answered that the commissioner of the Department
of Administration (DOA) would set the schedule for assigning the
number of points. She assumed it would be based upon a
graduated point system.
1:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked what citation would be issued to a
driver if a crash was caused by driver distraction such as
changing channels on a radio.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that currently the AST would either use
negligent or reckless driving. He agreed with Ms. Carpeneti
that the maximum bail amount would be $300. He previously had
been relating the bail amount for insurance violations.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether negligent or reckless driving
could be used to cite a driver if a crash was caused by driver
distraction from dialing or talking on a cell phone.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered yes. He said it would depend on
severity of the offense. It would depend on the collision as to
whether the offense would be negligent or reckless driving.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:41 to 1:42 p.m.
1:42:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related when a person is charged with a
crime and the matter is resolved through the court process it
generates a cost. He asked for clarification on the fiscal
note.
MS. CARPENETI agreed. However, the Department District
Attorney's office does not represent the state in traffic
matters. The DOL would not appear and these matters of
violations generally are handled in traffic court.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if there is not any cost associated
with cell phone violations that it follows that no one is
expected to be cited. He asked for the purpose of passing this
bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON responded that the bill would save lives.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that the fiscal note
should be positive.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that fines would be
collected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained the bill should have a
positive fiscal note.
1:44:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled the Alaska State Troopers
(AST) would decide whether to cite for this offense or something
else. The same number of AST hours would be spent on the road
working traffic offenses so the enforcement focus would be up to
the AST's discretion. The statute dealing with fiscal notes
only requires a fiscal note in the event the department will
request an additional appropriation. In this case, the bill
would not require an additional appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related in his experience serving on
budget subcommittees that very few departments indicate the
department will do more work for less money. He surmised that
the budget request may not happen initially but it would likely
occur in year two or three. He said it seems that when the
administration likes a bill that it often has a zero fiscal
note, but if the department does not like a bill, the bill would
likely have a fiscal impact. He related his goal is to seek
budget integrity.
1:45:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the court would incur
additional fiscal impact. Additionally, he inquired if law
enforcement officers are attending traffic court whether this
bill would add to the Department of Public Safety's (DPS) fiscal
impact.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the same
answer would apply. He explained that most of the driving
offenses would be in the cities and it would likely affect
municipal police rather than AST and the legislature does not
require municipalities to submit fiscal notes. Additionally,
AST could only write so many citations in an eight-hour shift,
so the officer would cite for cell phone offenses or something
else, which would not result in more court time, just in the
type of citation issued.
1:47:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the AST would cite for
speeding or cell phone use in an instance in which an AST
stopped a vehicle for speeding and discovered the person was
also using his/her cell phone.
LIEUTENANT DIAL responded that with the dedicated traffic unit,
officers have a set amount of time to work traffic stops. It is
not uncommon for officers to stop a driver for one offense and
also discover another offense during the traffic stop.
Typically, officers would not issue multiple citations. The
officer would pick one violation to cite and issue a warning on
any other violation.
1:49:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether it would be necessary to for
people purchase a "Bluetooth" in order to comply with this bill.
He was curious about the technology necessary to comply with the
"hands-free mode."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained some vehicles have built in
phones and the driver would dial a number and talk.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT restated his question. He related that he
personally does not have voice activated or built in technology
in his vehicles, which is nearly ten years old. Thus, if he
plans on speaking to anyone using a cell phone he would need to
dial on the phone, which would not be "hands-free" or he would
need to ensure that the phone could recognize his voice using a
"Bluetooth." He acknowledged he could receive a call since it
would only require pushing a button. However, he was unsure how
it would work to dial out.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the
"Bluetooth" is a device that is placed somewhere and the driver
pushes a button to activate it. He further related his
understanding that cell phone holders are rubberized mats, which
are placed on the dash. The driver would dial, which he said
would be okay under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT reiterated that so long as the phone is
attached to the car he could use the device.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to page 1, lines 4-6, of HB 22 which
read, "(a) A person may not use a cellular telephone when
driving a motor vehicle on a highway or vehicular way or area."
She suggested a person could pull over and dial their cell
phone.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT responded that differs from the prior
interpretation. He suggested someone could answer the cell
phone but could not make a telephone call. He noted
Representative Gruenberg is disagreeing.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to Amendment 1, which was adopted. She
said two exceptions apply. She read:
(b) This section does not apply to a person
(1) using a cellular telephone for emergency
purposes, including an emergency call to a law
enforcement agency, fire department, or other
emergency services agency or entity; or
(2) 18 years or older using a cellular telephone
by hands-free mode.
CHAIR P. WILSON clarified that these are the exceptions.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT pointed out that calling to tell his wife
he is going to be late would not be considered an emergency, but
he is sure she would like to know. He wondered if it would be
necessary to pull the car over to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related to the age provision which
would apply and indicated that a driver could use the "hands
free mode", which is defined.
1:54:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to definition on bottom of
page 1, lines 13-15, of HB 22 which read: "hands-free mode"
means use of a cellular telephone for listening or talking by
means of a speaker function, headset, or earpiece without
holding the telephone."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the language allows for
a person to use the phone so long as they are not holding the
phone.
1:55:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT explained it would be cumbersome to do so.
He was concerned that the line of sight to the roadway would be
affected. He offered his belief that if the phone was in front
of him it would provide a better view of the roadway.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether "vehicular way or area" is
defined.
1:55:51 PM
MS. CARPENETI referred to AS 28.90.990(30), which read as
follows:
"vehicular way or area" means a way, path, or area,
other than a highway or private property, that is
designated by official traffic control devices or
customary usage and that is open to the public for
purposes of pedestrian or vehicular travel, and which
way or area may be restricted in use to pedestrians,
bicycles, or other specific types of vehicles as
determined by the Department of Public Safety or other
agency having jurisdiction over the way, path, or
area.
1:57:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that by that
definition a driver could not pull over by the side of the road.
CHAIR P. WILSON responded that once the driver pulls off the
roadway and stops he/she is not driving.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that a person
who was under the influence of alcohol could be arrested even if
his/her car was stopped if the person was sitting in the car.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that if the key is in the ignition it
is considered operating, which is a different term than driving.
1:58:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to report the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 22, labeled 27-LS0155\B out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 22(TRA) was reported
from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
1:58:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE objected for purpose of discussion. He
said that he represents House District 12, which has a lot of
highway, with reasonable cell phone coverage. He said he is
loath to enact any laws that restrict personal freedom. If this
bill passes, what would be banned next: putting on makeup,
talking to person next to the driver, or talking on a citizen
band radio (CB). He offered his belief that there is a
perception that people using cell phones cause accidents, noting
that statistics can be manipulated.
2:00:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE An existing statute exists to cite a person
who causes an accident. He suggested leaving it up to
municipalities to enact cell phone ban. He was unsure cell
phone usage should be banned in Barrow or on the Richardson
Highway. He did not think it should be a statewide ban. He
expressed further concern over the cost of a new device. He
then removed his objection.
2:03:06 PM
There being no further objection, the CSHB 22(TRA), as amended,
was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
2:03:17 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:03 p.m. to 2:05 p.m.
2:05:54 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HB 30, HOUSE BILL NO. 30, "An Act relating to the
transportation infrastructure fund, to local public
transportation, to the municipal harbor facility grant fund, to
motor fuel taxes, to the motor vehicle registration fee, to
driver's license fees, to identification card fees, to the
studded tire tax, and to the vehicle rental tax; and providing
for an effective date."
2:06:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 30, labeled 27-LS0198\X, Kane, 3/8/11, as
the working document. There being no objection, Version X was
before the committee.
2:06:24 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative P. Wilson ,Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of one of the prime sponsors,
Representative P. Wilson, explained the changes incorporated
into the proposed CS.{ explained the changes incorporated into
the proposed CS. She stated that the title was changed to add
"other fees and taxes related to motor vehicles." She explained
that several exceptions were made for specialty funds.
Additionally, when capturing the fees in 28.90 that would be
deposited into the transportation fund, the bill drafter
inadvertently included snow machine fees. Proposed Section 3
identifies that unless otherwise provided by law, state fees or
taxes collected less refunds would be deposited to the
transportation fund.
2:09:02 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 5, line 12, of HB 30 to the proposed
Transportation Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council (ATIFAC).
She read the goal of the ATIFIC, which is the lead in language:
(a) The Transportation Infrastructure Fund Advisory
Council is established as an individual, nonpolitical body
to prioritize a list of eligible transportation projects
solely on the factors of nonbiased information and need.
MS. ROONEY explained that the goal was to compile the
stakeholders to represent as many modes of transportation as
possible. This version reduces the size of the ATIFIC to 19
members, of which 17 are voting members. She explained that the
legislative seats were changed to nonvoting members to address a
concern about separation of powers. Additionally the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF) was reduced to
one member, the commissioner or his/her designee. The Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) and the
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) Policy
Committee members were also removed since this fund primarily
would work with state funded projects but not federally funded
projects used by those organizations. Version X also removes
the representative from the Alaska Federation of Natives but
leaves in the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council member.
2:11:52 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 9, line 27, of HB 30. She explained
that "modes of local public transportation" was changed to
"modes of coordinated transportation" to better reflect the
changes over time and not limit it to local areas alone.
MS. ROONEY referred to page 12, lines 5-9, of HB 30 adds a
contingency clause so if the voter initiative to change the
state's constitution does not pass, none of this bill would go
into effect.
MS. ROONEY concluded by relating that proposed Section 20 of HB
30 would add an effective date that coincides with the date of
the constitutional amendment to establish a transportation
infrastructure fund. The original bill set a specific date tied
to the 2012 general election.
2:13:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 5, line 30, of HB 30
and asked whether the name of the organization is Alaska
Truckers Association instead of Alaska Trucking Association.
2:14:31 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,
Inc. (ATA) agreed the title is the Alaska Trucking Association.
2:14:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to page 9, line 27, of HB 30.
He asked whether coordinated transportation is defined.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ indicated the governor recently appointed a
coordinated transportation task force to coordinate municipal
opportunities statewide.
CHAIR P. WILSON clarified that the goal is to include different
modes of transportation to use different sources of money and
stretch transportation dollars.
2:16:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the Motor Vehicle Registration
Tax (MVRT). She said she did not think the bill identified a
percentage.
MS. ROONEY responded that the percentage is identified in the
resolution. In further response to Representative Munoz, she
explained it is set at 50 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the total number of proposed
council members.
MS. ROONEY answered the proposed ATIFIC is comprised of 17
voting members and two non-voting members for a total of 19
members.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that the numbers were reduced.
2:17:50 PM
RACHAEL PETRO, President; CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
(ASCC), explained that each year the Alaska State Chamber of
Commerce (ASCC) sets its legislative priorities. Transportation
infrastructure has long been an issue for its members. This
year is not any different, she said. Creation of an Alaska
Transportation Infrastructure Fund is one of the top three
priorities of its members. The Alaska business community
believes investing in transportation infrastructure is critical
for the long term growth of Alaska's economy. Currently, as
many of you know, Alaska's multi-modal transportation
infrastructure is not only dilapidated but lacks a consistent
funding mechanism to address the billions of dollars of multi-
modal needs in Alaska. Alaska needs new transportation
infrastructure development to provide access to resources,
reduce barriers for many communities and allow for safe and more
efficient transportation for all Alaskans. The state's highway
and airport infrastructure is largely funded by federal dollars,
which are under severe threat of significant reduction. The
federal government lacks consistent programs for harbors and
ports. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supports HB 30 and
believes it represents a good step in the state being proactive
to address today's needs while planning for the future.
2:20:26 PM
JOHN MACKINNON, Executive Director, Associated General
Contractors of Alaska, thanked the committee for looking ahead
with respect to the transportation needs of Alaskans. He
provided a brief work history, relating that he has served as
the executive director for the past three years and prior to
that was a deputy commissioner for the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). He related that a
state funded transportation program is an essential element. He
stated that anecdotally, federal dollars is worth about $.75
compared to a state dollar. One important element of a state
funded program includes a substantial stream of consistent
funding. This bill includes that element, since the endowment
fund would spin off five percent a year into the program.
Additionally, using motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration
fees are an appropriate use of taxes since the connection
between the fee and the use is helpful to the public. Another
element that is important is that this bill embodies
programmatic development of the projects. The one efficiency in
the federal program is that it is funded and developed
programmatically. Thus, a project is not funded with one block
of money. Instead if "x" dollars are required for planning and
design the funds are allocated. Subsequently, funding for
permitting is allocated and the funding is programmed out over
the course of the development and construction of the project,
which is efficient.
2:23:12 PM
MR. MACKINNON explained that it is not as easy to do in the
conventional lump-sum state appropriation. The third element is
prioritizing projects on need and facts instead of politics. He
related that it is not difficult to look back in the past decade
and find projects that were funded that do not represent the
highest and best use of public funds. He offered his belief
that at least a couple hundred million dollars were spent on
projects that could have been spent on projects that represent a
better use of money. He suggested the process of prioritizing
projects by an advisory group, much like the rural school
projects are prioritized in that way and tends to take the
politics out so needed projects get funded. He thanked members
for some of the changes made. He said going to the coordinated
transportation aspect gives the advisory board much more
flexibility. It is not just transit but grouping transit needs
together in an area. He commented that making the advisory
board smaller is also an improvement. He offered strong support
for HB 30.
2:24:57 PM
MR. THOMPSON explained that the Alaska Trucking Association is a
statewide organization representing the interests of nearly 200
member companies from Barrow to Ketchikan. Freight movement
represents a large chunk of the state's economy and affects
everyone each and every day. One priority of the Alaska
Trucking Association has been a state funded capital projects
program as federal funding is likely to decrease to a point
where it will no longer meet Alaska transportation
infrastructure needs. Alaska needs to invest dollars in its
system. He said he ATA believes HB 30 goes a long way in
setting the stage for a robust state funded capital projects
program that will benefit all modes of transportation. As the
largest payer of the motor fuel tax, the trucking industry is
glad to see an effort to devote these user fees to the
improvement and expansion of our state highway system
infrastructure. As an association, the ATA has supported fuel
tax increase proposals in the past provided that they are
dedicated to the highway system. He note changes made in the
composition of the ATIFIC and commended the committee. The ATA
previously requested a seat on the proposed ATIFIC and is glad
to see they are on council members list. He hoped this system
would help depoliticize the decision-making process. There may
be a tendency to look to the ATIF to support more and more
expenditures to the highway system in Alaska. He hoped the ATIF
appropriations would provide additional funds to support a
robust state capital project's program. Simply put, if the ATIF
is not an add-on to the existing transportation funding that it
will not accomplish its purpose. He said the ATA believes the
ATIF has the potential to supplement existing transportation
programs.
2:27:39 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 30.
2:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 11, Section 18, to the
severability clause. He wondered what the legal issues were.
BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, related
that the severability clause relates back to AS 37.14.890 (a)(1)
and (2). He explained the severability clause relates to the
two legislative members of the proposed ATIFIC. He related that
there may be a concern in having legislature members on the
proposed ATIFIC. He pointed out that it represents a judgment
on the part of the committee as to whether the severability
clause should remain in the bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for his opinion since the two legislative
members are nonvoting as to whether the provision should remain.
MR. KANE responded that the legislature has definitely lessened
any possible problems, but there still may be some issue lurking
just generally. He said if it is not in there and it becomes a
constitutional issue as to whether the members could be part of
the proposed ATIFIC, he thought the members would just be
removed and he did not think the proposed ATIFIC would be
disbanded solely on that basis.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the issue might be one of
a separation of powers.
MR. KANE agreed that was the main issue since the members are
usually appointed from the executive branch.
CHAIR P. WILSON related that the governor would appoint one
member from each of the judicial districts. She asked if that
would be a consideration.
MR. KANE responded that typically legislative members are not
part of a council.
2:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 5, lines 17-20, and
asked whether any precedent or other statutes that would cover
these provisions or any case law that would apply.
MR. KANE related that the attorney general's office has issued a
couple of opinions, but he was unsure if any statutes list
legislators along with governor appointees.
2:33:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled a mayor of Anchorage previously
filed a lawsuit against the legislature since some legislators
were appointed to AMATS. He related that he was one member and
the municipality prevailed. He stated he was one of the
legislature appointees, and most members agreed it was good to
have nonvoting members.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled a lawsuit was filed. He
assumed the statute was upheld.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it was not and he was not allowed to
serve on AMATS.
2:34:34 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
responded that he represented the DOT&PF during the previously
mentioned lawsuit. He stated that the issue revolved around the
effective date. The effective date was ruled by judge to be
improper but the rest of the statute change was valid. He
characterized the issue as being like a rock ready to fall. He
explained if the AMATS Board bylaws are ever redone, the timing
of which is governed by federal rules, that the state statutes
would be triggered and two ex-officio members from the
legislature would be added to the AMATS Policy Board. He
reaffirmed that the implementation was ruled invalid but not the
entire statute.
2:35:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON did not recall the specific details just
the outcome.
2:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether it would be problematic
to have the severability provisions included in HB 30. He said
was unsure of how the effective date related to the issue.
MR. OTTESEN said he does not believe so. He recalled that the
AMATS situation had to do with what was triggering the
implementation of law. The governor could not approve a
spending plan if the board composition did not include these two
members. Thus, the governor was disallowed from approving the
spending plan. That what the judge found to be improper, he
said.
2:36:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that this bill has a
contingent effective date, depending on the constitutional
amendment. It would only allow the law to come into effect if
the voter approved it in 2012. He asked whether the Chair would
like to have an alternate plan in place in case that did not
occur.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered to entertain this in a finance
subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that would cure some
concern. He related that he is not a great fan of dedicated
funds. However, he liked the idea of this fund and
incorporating an alternate plan would help him become a great
fan.
2:38:23 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled testimony from the Department of
Revenue (DOR) that the committee should think about making a
change to the percent of market value (POMV) for its Alaska
Transportation Infrastructure Fund (ATIF) ATIF rates. She
provided a handout to members titled ATIF payout rates, which
showed the payout rates from 4.5 percent to 6 percent. She
wanted to be certain the fund would continue to grow and asked
members to review the documents.
2:39:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the finance subcommittee should
consider this. He recommended sending the form to the House
Finance Committee.
2:40:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled Pat Kemp had concern over 20
percent maximum participation on federally funded projects. She
asked if he was comfortable with the language.
2:41:17 PM
MR. OTTESEN said he did not have an opportunity to review Deputy
Commissioner Kemp's comments. However, he thought that 20
percent of overall fund, not per project. He related his
understanding that some categories of funding have a match rate
of 40 to 50 percent, although some match rate is usually about 9
percent. He offered his belief that in reviewing the overall
program, it was likely that the program would stay within the
cap. There are times when non federal funds are extremely
powerful to advance projects, and when the department has the
choice to make distinction between the two classes of money the
DOT&PF can advance projects quicker and at lower cost. He
related a scenario in which the Tanana Bridge was demolished.
The DOT&PF advanced the project but was stalled waiting for
environmental permits. Under the federal rules, the DOT&PF
could not move to right-of-way step. The DOT&PF could see it
might take several months so it used state funds to purchase
several right-of-way parcels. In doing so the department saved
an entire year on the project. Using state fund the public
benefits, the state can lower project costs and also can save
time. He pointed out the DOT&PF needs to have that kind of
funding flexibility.
2:43:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report the proposed committee
substitute, (CS) for HB 30, labeled 27-LS-0198\X, Kane, 3/8/11,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB
30(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing
Committee.
2:44:08 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska creating a transportation
infrastructure fund.
2:44:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report the proposed committee
substitute, (CS) for HJR 4, labeled 27-LS0197\I, Kane, 2/11/11,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
4(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing
Committee.
2:45:58 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB30 updated spreadsheet with different payouts V 2.xlsx |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CSHB30 ver E.pdf |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CS HB 22 version B 2 24 11.pdf |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |