Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/19/1998 01:32 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
February 19, 1998
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman
Senator Gary Wilken, Vice Chair
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 263
"An Act relating to secondary roads; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 264
"An Act relating to aid for municipal road maintenance; and
providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION
SB 263 - No previous Senate committee action.
SB 264 - No previous Senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator John Torgerson
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 263 and SB 264
Tom Bodecker, Manager
City of Soldotna
177 North Birch Street
Soldotna, AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 263 and SB 264
Boyd Brownfield
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 263 and SB 264
Jim Swing
Public Works Director
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
350 East Dahlia Ave.
Palmer, Alaska 99645-6488
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated support of the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Administration for SB 263 and SB 264
Ocie Adams
Mat-Su Road Advisory Board
HC 30 Box 200
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 263 and SB 264
Dennis Pouchard
Special Assistant
Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 98901-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 263 and SB 264
Pat Poland, Director
Division of Municipal & Regional Assistance
Department of Community & Regional Affairs
333 W 4th Avenue, Suite 220
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2341
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 263 and SB 264.
Tim Rogers, Chairman
Transportation, Utilities & Environment Subcommitte
Alaska Municipal League
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519-6650
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 264
Kevin Ritchie
Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 Second St., Suite 200
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 263 SB 264.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-2, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to
order at 1:32 p.m. Present were Senators Ward, Halford and Green.
The first order of business before the committee was SB 263.
SB 263 - SECONDARY ROADS
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, sponsor of SB 263, gave the following
summary of the measure. SB 263 recognizes secondary roads as a
separate category eligible for federal transportation funds for
road maintenance. Funds would be placed directly into that
category and then be disbursed according to a ranking system
developed by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOTPF). DOTPF's current ranking system is inadequate; secondary
roads do not score high enough on the list of maintenance
priorities to be paved. Examples of this problem can be seen in
every district in the state. DOTPF's continual response to
requests for maintenance of secondary roads is that when they score
high enough, they will be repaired, however the ranking system
prevents those roads from reaching the top of the list. Secondary
roads are defined in SB 263 as dirt and gravel roads. Although the
bill does not address any dollar amount, it reflects an
appropriation of about $20 million. SB 263 contains a sunset
provision after five years, therefore the five year cost will total
$100 million. After SB 263 sunsets, gravel roads will be ranked
amongst each other instead of against other highways and uses in
the state.
Number 053
SENATOR HALFORD asked how chip-sealed roads are categorized, since
they are not actually paved.
SENATOR TORGERSON said he considered writing standards into the
bill, but current secondary road standards seem to evade everyone,
are hypothetical at best, and can be changed at the discretion of
DOTPF staff. To illustrate the problem, Senator Torgerson said a
road in his district was slated to have a chip-seal covering,
estimated to cost an additional $150,000 to a current project.
Because of disputes and other factors, the cost escalated to $1.1
million. He felt everyone needs to know what a secondary road is
and said that if he knew all of the technical terms for chip-seal
or high-float, he would have included them in the bill. He
maintained that his constituents want to drive on a hard surface,
they do not care about the bells and whistles that go along with a
fully fledged large federal highway project. He noted the
definition of secondary road in the bill includes dirt and gravel
roads only.
CHAIRMAN WARD noted Senator Lincoln's presence.
Number 091
SENATOR GREEN asked whether SB 263 will supersede any other
projects and who will be sharing their pot of money to fund it.
SENATOR TORGERSON stated if the amount of federal funds does not
increase, he will advocate a reduction of an equal amount from
three appropriations currently made by the Legislature (the
National Highway System, the TRAC, and the Community Road Program).
He has already devised a formula to raise the $20 million. Alaska
might get an additional federal appropriation due to the
reauthorization of ISTEA. He estimated that DOTPF exceeded last
year's appropriation by about $280 million. He would like to see
some of those projects reclassified to free up $20 million for
gravel road paving. He stated he has not designed a ranking system
at this time.
SENATOR GREEN asked if most of these roads would be DOTPF
construction projects, or whether the boroughs would receive funds
from DOTPF and do the work.
SENATOR TORGERSON replied SB 263 applies to state highways. He
added that if projects such as the Juneau access road, the road to
Whittier, the Dalton Highway, the Denali Highway, and the Kashwitna
(ph) project are given a higher priority, the cost will be $700
million. He stated he does not oppose building new roads but
believes it is more important to fix existing roads.
Number 133
SENATOR LINCOLN commented that she receives repeated complaints
about the dust control problem on gravel roads in her district,
because of resulting health problems. It is especially problematic
for smaller communities because gravel is removed from the riverbed
and the sediment creates a very fine dust. She asked if that
concern is addressed in SB 263.
SENATOR TORGERSON replied the qualifications apply to any gravel
road irregardless of community size which would then be ranked by
DOTPF.
SENATOR LINCOLN questioned whether villages could also participate
in the municipal transfer provision under this legislation.
SENATOR TORGERSON said any gravel road qualifies and DOTPF would be
required to rank those roads higher if a local government wishes to
take ownership of the road.
SENATOR LINCOLN stated that as a member of the Deferred Maintenance
Task Force, she was glad to see the transfer provision.
SENATOR TORGERSON indicated that a substantial savings will occur
"down the road" if some of the roads are upgraded and then
transferred to local governments. He maintained he is taking a
leap of faith by believing that DOTPF will devise a fair ranking
system, but he believes it will, which is why he did not establish
a ranking system in the legislation itself.
Number 185
SENATOR GREEN asked what SB 263 accomplishes that cannot be
accomplished right now without legislation. SENATOR TORGERSON
stated the same thing could be done without legislation if the
Administration was willing to recognize that there are gravel roads
in the state that need paving. The Administration has recognized
the problem just this year, but only to the tune of $800,000 in
what is named the "Secondary Road Transfer Program."
SENATOR GREEN asked if the unimproved secondary road definition in
SB 263 is in statute elsewhere. SENATOR TORGERSON stated that he
created that definition.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if, according to the definition in SB 263,
Senator Torgerson's list of secondary roads needing improvement is
compatible with DOTPF's list. SENATOR TORGERSON did not know
whether DOTPF has a list, but repeated it would apply to any gravel
road. He explained that there are paved roads in the state that
are considered to be secondary roads, but SB 263 would set aside
money to pave gravel roads.
Number 214
MR. TOM BODECKER, City Manager of Soldotna, testified via
teleconference. He said the City of Soldotna generally supports SB
263 because it addresses a problem with gravel roads that has
resulted from the current system. Under the current standard, when
a request is made of DOTPF to pave a gravel road, a cost estimate
is completed and that number is plugged into the formula. In some
rural areas, the cost estimates encompass a grand scheme plan to
improve several roads. The high cost then lowers the project's
ranking, and nothing gets done.
[MR. BODECKER'S TESTIMONY WAS INTERRUPTED BY POOR TRANSMISSION.]
MR. BOYD BROWNFIELD, Deputy Commissioner of DOTPF, stated DOTPF
generally supports the concept of SB 263, but believes several
areas need clarification. Section 1(a) begins by establishing the
adoption of regulations formalizing secondary roads as a category
within Alaska's highway system. The section also contains a
subcategory that pertains to unimproved secondary roads, and
instructs DOTPF to formulate a ranking system for those roads.
Section 1(b) then relates to secondary roads again, and aims toward
the ownership of a municipality or local authorities, and then
instructs that a priority shall be given to unimproved secondary
roads if a local request for transfer is made. He requested a
chance to work with the sponsor to clarify the language.
MR. BROWNFIELD explained that Section 1(d) defines unimproved
secondary roads as dirt and gravel roads. DOTPF feels a road does
not have to be dirt or gravel to be unimproved and suggests the
definition include roads that may have some asphaltic treatment on
it. The asphaltic treatment is also referred to as chip sealed and
high float. Those types of roads in disrepair should be qualified
as unimproved roads. He noted DOTPF is already in the process of
establishing a separate local roads category in its project
evaluation board process which should address this same issue.
MR. BROWNFIELD pointed out DOTPF has a regulation that defines
secondary roads (17AAC.05.030). He concluded by saying in any
event, DOTPF supports the concept of SB 263.
SENATOR GREEN referred to language on page 1, line 7, which reads:
"Standards adopted for secondary roads under this subsection need
not conform to those adopted by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials" and asked if that language
applies to improvements to secondary roads now.
MR. BROWNFIELD answered DOTPF has the ability to create new
standards now that would be accepted by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA). If federal funding is used, DOTPF has to
touch base with the FHA somewhere along the line first.
Number 294
MR. BODECKER continued his testimony via teleconference. One
problem that prevents secondary road paving is that secondary roads
tend to be designed for paving at a very high standard which
results in a cost-benefit ratio that leaves those roads low on the
list. He thought the idea of establishing a construction standard
for secondary roads is important. He maintained that although the
problem could be resolved through DOTPF's regulatory process, it
has never occurred.
Number 314
SENATOR GREEN informed committee members she prepared an amendment
that includes gravel, chip sealed, or inadequately paved roads in
SB 263.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked SENATOR TORGERSON if he wished to respond to
the comments made by Deputy Commissioner Brownfield.
SENATOR TORGERSON felt Deputy Commissioner Brownfield raised three
issues of substance. In response to any confusion about secondary
roads versus unimproved secondary roads in Section 1(a), a
definition of unimproved secondary roads is included in the bill.
Senator Torgerson said this issue goes to the heart of the problem.
DOTPF says it has defined secondary roads in regulation, but if the
room were filled with city managers and people in the road
construction business, no one could say what a secondary road is if
asked to build one because the description is discretionary to
DOTPF. The Legislature could adopt the standards used in the
regulation, but the problem is the discretion DOTPF uses. Local
governments cannot have an engineer visit their localities to
review a project request, inform the local governments they are
getting one thing, and then have the plan change completely.
Regarding the asphalt and chip seal roads, SENATOR TORGERSON said
he does not object to including both, but the object of SB 263 is
to take care of roads that have never been paved. He pointed out
his Borough has no paved secondary roads. He was not sure how many
roads are chip sealed, but he assumed their inclusion will divide
the pot up further.
SENATOR TORGERSON stated DOTPF's Commissioner said DOTPF was
looking at other ways to rank secondary roads several years ago.
He felt if SB 263 spurs DOTPF along, that is fine, but he did not
give that statement much credence.
SENATOR TORGERSON said DOTPF's ability to create new regulations is
what scares him about the process and is the reason he wants to put
standards in statute. He said he talked this over with federal
officials. Alaska would have to go through a process to amend the
STIP, which requires a public hearing process and other things.
Senator Torgerson pointed out that during previous DOTPF testimony
he was told that federal money could not be used to upgrade gravel
roads with more gravel, but federal officials said otherwise.
Number 356
JIM SWING, Public Works Director of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
testified on behalf of the Borough administration and the
Department of Public Works. The Mat-Su Assembly has not had the
opportunity to review either SB 263 or SB 264. The Road Advisory
Board will be reviewing both bills tonight. The Borough
administration is in favor of SB 263 but would like to see chip
sealed or inadequately paved roads, that do not meet the standards
established under this section, included in the definition. The
Borough administration is interested in SB 263 from the standpoint
of quality of life regarding paving state roads, and is also
interested in taking ownership of some state roads, if improved to
acceptable standards which SB 263 allows and encourages. He
suggested soliciting local government participation when
establishing standards because most local governments have
standards of their own and could be of assistance.
MR. OCIE ADAMS, Secretary of the Local Road Service Advisory Board
for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, stated he agreed with Mr. Swing
regarding the definition of an unimproved road, and expressed
concern that no standards are actually addressed in SB 263. He
questioned whether state or local standards would be enforced. He
stated the Advisory Board would be discussing the bill tonight and
would provide the Legislature with written communication in the
form of a resolution.
CHAIRMAN WARD stated he would hold SB 263 in committee to allow
Senators Green and Torgerson to work on a committee substitute,
including Senator Green's proposed amendment.
SENATOR GREEN maintained she is not trying to interfere with
Senator Torgerson's purpose, however she believes it is important
that attention be given to those roads that were sealed 20 or 25
years ago and are now essentially bare.
Number 422
SENATOR LINCOLN referred to the definition of unimproved secondary
road, and asked if roads that were asphalt or chipsealed but have
been washed out would be classified as secondary roads rather than
unimproved secondary roads.
SENATOR TORGERSON replied that paved roads can be secondary roads.
He said his definition only includes dirt or gravel roads because
including asphalt roads will increase the pieces of the pie. He
would oppose including chip-sealed roads if their inclusion means
gravel roads will not get paved which was his primary purpose in
introducing SB 263. CHAIRMAN WARD agreed with Senator Torgerson.
SENATOR HALFORD pointed out the issue is further confused by the
fact that primary roads can be gravel roads, such as the Haul Road.
SENATOR TORGERSON added the word "unimproved" is in the eyes of the
beholder also.
CHAIRMAN WARD repeated his request that Senator Green work with the
sponsor to prepare a committee substitute.
SB 264 - AID FOR MUNICIPAL ROAD MAINTENANCE
SENATOR TORGERSON, sponsor of SB 264, gave the following overview
of the legislation. SB 264 takes funds for road maintenance out of
the revenue sharing program and creates a stand alone program. The
funds would come from a portion of the 8 cent per gallon fuel tax.
Over the years, the municipal road maintenance revenue sharing
portion decreased from $2500 per mile to $700 per mile because this
program was incorporated into the larger revenue sharing program
that is subject to reductions and the road money was never
identified. SB 264 will increase the total appropriation to this
program: currently $2.6 million is being shared with local
governments, the bill will increase the amount to $8 million. The
intent of SB 264 is to increase the amount to local governments for
road maintenance to $1,000 per mile, which constitutes a 40 percent
increase. A $3.5 million surplus will be used for two purposes:
to continue with paving and upgrade for the road transfer program;
and to provide a pot of money to equalize the funding so that if a
new road was taken over by a local government, the entire pot would
not be reduced by that amount of road miles. In essence, it would
keep the $1,000 per mile constant even though new roads would be
added to the system. Any remaining balance will be used for road
construction and transferred to local governments.
SENATOR TORGERSON explained his proposed amendment to SB 264 as
follows. "In the revenue sharing portion currently in statute, if
municipal governments -- once they run through the formula for
revenue sharing and the different formulas, if the amount that is
to be paid to them is less than $40,000, then they would receive
the $40,000 -- the minimum entitlement portion of this program. If
we just leave that constant and not make this amendment then they'd
be paid for roads under the one program, through the formula to get
up to the $40,000, as well as being paid separately for the roads.
So what this does is take the road portion out of that and reduce
the minimum entitlement share by the amount equal to the amount
that has come out for roads, so again, to these minimum entitlement
communities it would still be an -- it would be an increase to them
because they are getting more money for the road miles but it does
separate the programs and keep them entirely separate. That's
something we overlooked when we drafted the bill at first."
MR. PAT POLAND, Director of the Municipal Assistance Division in
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA), gave the
following testimony. He noted Mr. Bill Ralston, program manager
for the Revenue Sharing Program, was present in the audience, and
could respond to technical questions. DCRA supports the spirit in
which this legislation is offered, that is to support local
governments in service delivery. DCRA supports financial aid to
local governments and believes they are a vital and key part of the
public service delivery system. The Governor's FY 99 budget
proposal contains no cuts to the revenue sharing program and the
Administration supports transfer of state services to local
governments, which SB 264 promotes. DCRA has two fundamental
concerns with SB 264. The first is dealing with revenue sharing
local government financial support on a piecemeal basis.
Essentially, it peels off a pot of the money and places an isolated
priority on it. The second concern is that when the formula for
the formula entitlement program is changed, winners and losers are
created. If the appropriation was at the full amount proposed, all
participants would win; if the amount remains at the current level,
the funds will shift from the smaller rural areas to the urban
areas. DCRA would like to see a process that gives all of the
impacted communities a chance to comment and look for alternatives.
TIM ROGERS, Legislative Program Coordinator for the Municipality of
Anchorage, spoke in his capacity as the Chairman of the
Transportation, Utilities and Environment Subcommittee of the
Alaska Municipal League (AML). AML supports passage of SB 264 for
three reasons. SB 264 will stabilize road maintenance funding.
Funding through the revenue sharing program was at a level of $2500
per mile 12 years ago, today the average is $734, and for some
municipalities, less than that. AML believes it is important that
the gasoline tax be identified as the funding source. AML also
believes it is important to have a mechanism for a transfer of
responsibility for some of the roads from the state to local
governments providing that the transfer has a funding mechanism for
continued maintenance and that the roads be brought up to a
specific standard prior to the transfer.
SENATOR HALFORD asked Mr. Rogers if he thought SB 264 will create
an incentive to pass increases in gasoline taxes. MR. ROGERS
thought it may.
Number 556
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out he had requested that 3 cents per
gallon of the gasoline tax be used, but the legal drafters advised
him to include a percentage. He would have preferred to have
included a set amount but the 8 cents per gallon has other
restraints on it from prior legislation.
SENATOR HALFORD indicated if a percentage of the total is used,
there is an incentive to increase the tax. SENATOR TORGERSON
agreed.
MR. TOM BODECKER commented that he agreed with Mr. Rogers' position
on SB 264.
MR. JIM SWING indicated that the Matanuska Borough Administration
and its Department of Public Works support SB 264. They presented
some graphs to the Deferred Maintenance Task Force that show the
decrease in revenue sharing for road maintenance and the increase
in taxes in their area. The Department of Public Works maintains
over 1,000 miles of road in the municipality and sees the need for
a stable funding source for road maintenance. The Borough has been
negotiating with DOTPF for take over of secondary roads and
supports any mechanism to upgrade those roads and allow the
transfer.
MR. OCIE ADAMS stated he is taking no position on either piece of
legislation but is on a fact finding mission for the Road Advisory
Committee for its meeting tonight. He commented that currently the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough does not have road powers. The taxpayers
have resisted granting the Borough road powers for consolidation of
road service areas. He questioned whether SB 264 will force that
consolidation since Section 2 requires recipients to have road
powers to receive funds from the motor fuel tax.
SENATOR TORGERSON said boroughs have to exercise certain powers now
to get the money so he did not see how SB 264 would have any effect
on the revenue sharing pot. He emphasized it is not his intent to
force some kind of consolidation of road service districts and he
would be willing to add clarifying language to that effect.
MR. ADAMS said he would appreciate clarification because Section
2(a) says that municipalities who exercise road maintenance powers
are entitled to receive funds. The Borough does not exercise road
service area powers over the entire service area, only on
individual service areas through the appropriation of funds from
residential taxes. It makes sure that money goes directly back to
that particular service area as it cannot use those funds in
another service area.
SENATOR TORGERSON explained the Borough has non-areawide powers.
Cities have the road power so all boroughs, except unified
boroughs, adopted non-areawide powers through the service
districts. That applies to all except unified boroughs. He
repeated if the Borough is currently receiving funds, it has some
sort of power on the books.
MR. ADAMS said the Borough is currently receiving money. He noted
the general consensus of the members of the Mat-Su Road Advisory
Board is that SB 264 will force consolidation which they do not
support.
TAPE 98-3, SIDE B
Number 549
MR. POUCHARD provided the following testimony on SB 264. DOTPF
unequivocally supports the objective of improving and transferring
roads to local governments and currently has a program that has not
proved to be very successful. The main stumbling block has been
that local governments do not want to pick up the costs of road
maintenance because the current level of revenue sharing they
receive is not a great enough incentive. DOTPF wants to ensure
that the issue of road maintenance is reviewed comprehensively,
taking into account the state's needs for state roads, so that
doors are not closed to future options regarding state maintenance.
Mr. Pouchard indicated DOTPF has a few technical concerns with SB
264.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if DOTPF supports the repeal of the existing
dollars per mile provision. MR. POUCHARD asked Senator Halford if
he was referring to the amendment. SENATOR HALFORD clarified he
was referring to the repealer in Section 5. MR. POUCHARD said he
would not feel comfortable saying DOTPF supports the repealer; but
it does support the concept of transferring roads to local
governments and seeing that local governments have adequate
maintenance funds.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director of the Alaska Municipal League,
echoed Mr. Rogers' and Mr. Bodecker's testimony and thanked Senator
Torgerson for his support. AML hopes legislative support for
revenue sharing remains strong.
SENATOR GREEN asked, if this money is designated for this
particular function, who will receive less. SENATOR TORGERSON
replied there is no way to track that because the 8 cent per gallon
goes directly into the general fund. He added SB 264 will cost $4
million so that money will have to come from another program which
has not been identified.
CHAIRMAN WARD stated that Senator Torgerson's amendment was not
adopted at this time. He asked Senator Green to work with Senator
Torgerson to prepare a committee substitute to SB 264 also.
There being no further business before the committee, CHAIRMAN WARD
adjourned the meeting at 2:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|