HB 178-NAMING PORTIONS OF VETERANS HIGHWAYS  2:24:56 PM VICE CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 178, "An Act relating to recognition of individual veterans along certain veterans' memorial roads and on certain veterans' memorial bridges." 2:25:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature, said HB 178 was requested by Alaska veterans and affects the six veterans' memorials that currently exist in Alaska. 2:26:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 178, [Version 30-LS0550\M], Bruce, 1/24/18, as a working document. There being no objection, Version M was before the committee. 2:26:55 PM JERAD MCCLURE, Staff, Representative David Eastman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Eastman, sponsor, presented the changes incorporated in Version M. He directed attention to page 1, lines 6-12, and said language was added to ensure the veterans' organizations submitting nominations are recognized under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(19). On page 2, lines 1-5, language was added to ensure if a living veteran's name was selected, the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) would be required to seek permission from the veteran before his/her name could be added to the list of individuals to be honored. Also, on page 2, lines 22-25 require that the signs are funded or the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF) cannot proceed. Language beginning on page 2, line 31, and continuing to page 3, lines 1-3, establishes the order of priority for the signs. Also, on page 3, lines 7-10 create a more specific definition of "veteran" for the purposes of this legislation, and lines 11-14 clarify DOTPF is the sole department responsible for handling donations, gifts, and grants for funding the signs. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the sponsor considered expanding the definition of veterans in the bill to include Hmong veterans. MR. MCCLURE responded he did not believe so. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, speaking as the sponsor, said he was amenable to such an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to the bill on page 3, [lines 11-14], and asked whether this language expands the sources of revenue that DOTPF can receive. MR. MCCLURE explained the language grants de minimis authority to accept gifts, grants, and donations so there is no need for DOTPF to receive budget line item funds [for the purposes of HB 178]. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested asked an estimate of the funds necessary to post a sign or marker in recognition of a veteran. MR. MCCLURE deferred to DOTPF. 2:30:23 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 2:31:00 PM MARK NEIDHOLD, Chief of Design & Construction Standards, Division of Statewide Design and Engineering Services, DOTPF, in response to Representative Parish, said a standalone sign, meeting all necessary requirements to preserve the safety of the traveling public, would cost approximately $2,500 per installation. He said there could be economies of scale if there is more than one sign, and/or if the sign is attached to a preexisting structure. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether additional funds would be needed for the maintenance and/or replacement of signs. MR. NEIDHOLD opined the bill restricts DOTPF from performing any repair or maintenance unless funds are available. Further, the cost of a repair would depend upon the condition of the sign and could reach the full replacement cost of $2,500. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD observed an existing sign honoring an Alaska State Trooper killed in action is terribly weathered, and she asked for the cost of replacing the sign. MR. NEIDHOLD was unsure; sign blanks are approximately $250 per square foot thus the six-square-foot sign mentioned by Representative Reinbold could cost $1,500. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the sign in question is small and the estimate [for replacement] seems very high. MR. NEIDHOLD explained his estimate is an amortized cost that includes traffic control, labor, and safety compliance whether installation is by DOTPF staff or is bid out to a contractor. He offered to confirm his estimate. 2:36:14 PM VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked that comments relate directly to HB 178. [A short discussion unrelated to HB 178 ensued.] REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the bill indicates the size of the signs. MR. NEIDHOLD advised the size of the sign is not identified in the bill but would be subject to the Alaska Traffic Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highway Administration. In further response to Representative Rauscher, he said the size of the sign is dependent upon the text, thus a veteran with a long name would require a larger sign. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether remarks other than a veteran's name would be allowed on the sign. MR. NEIDHOLD said the bill does not specify; however, the bill directs DOTPF to develop "that policy," and he offered to provide more information at a later date. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether more than one name would be allowed on a sign. MR. NEIDHOLD said the bill is not specific on that, but it directs DOTPF to produce a sign in accordance with the legislative commendation; the Alaska Traffic Manual and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices do not prohibit listing more than one name on a sign. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether a person sponsoring a veteran would provide the $2,500 for the initial cost of the sign, and additional donations would be needed to cover the cost of repairs if the sign were damaged. MR. NEIDHOLD said language in Version M of the bill prohibits DOTPF from acting unless funds are available. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER restated all of the funds would come from a sponsor. MR. NEIDHOLD restated the bill restricts DOTPF from any or all of the stated activities - design, post, maintain, or replace - unless funding is present. 2:41:43 PM VICE CHAIR LEDOUX directed attention to the bill on page 2, lines 21-23, which read [in part]: ... The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities may not (1) design, post, maintain, or replace a sign or other marker unless there is adequate funding through gifts, donations, or grants ... VICE CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether grants would include grants from the state. MR. NEIDHOLD was unsure and deferred the question to finance. VICE CHAIR LEDOUX noted the bill has a zero fiscal note [Fiscal Note Identifier: HB178-DOT-COM-03-31-17] and expressed her concern as to whether the legislature can act on a bill with a zero fiscal note. MR. NEIDHOLD explained DOTPF attached a zero fiscal note because of the language prohibiting DOTPF from performing any activities unless other funding is provided. 2:44:22 PM MIKE LESMANN, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, DOTPF, stated DOTPF's understanding that activities related to design, maintenance, posting, or replacing [signs] are prohibited without funding to DOTPF outside of funding from the state or federal government, which is the reason for a zero fiscal note. However, for its Southcoast, Northern, and Central Regions, DOTPF has statutory designated program receipt authority which provides the mechanism for DOTPF to accept gifts and grants. Mr. Lesmann suggested the question about grants should be directed to the bill sponsor. In response to Vice Chair LeDoux's question about [Fiscal Note Identifier: HB178- MVA-OVA-1-19-18], he deferred to the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs. [Vice Chair LeDoux returned the gavel to Chair Tuck.] REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ surmised the intention of Version M is DMVA would work with private nonprofit organizations which support and advance veterans' interests and recognition in order to secure nominations and funding for said memorials. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN remarked: The intention of the bill comes from the requests from the veterans' organizations themselves who have identified funding for some signs that they would like to go ahead and put on these veterans' memorials. And the, the process and the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs can certainly speak to their analysis, but the process is such that those, those veterans' organizations have current established relationships with the department. They're already recognized by (indisc.) as veterans' organizations, they already have those relationships, and they simply submit a document with a name. Then that is simply passed on to the legislature by the department. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ said from her experience working with veterans' organizations, a veterans' organization interested in recognizing a nominee would put forth a person's name with the understanding that it would likely fund that specific memorial sign. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said yes. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ observed the bill would allow DOTPF to work with DMVA in placing signs at six specific veterans' memorials in the state; this would be done in collaboration with the private nonprofit veterans' organizations which would fund the projects. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN clarified DMVA would be an intermediary between the veterans' organizations and the legislature, and the legislature would decide whether or not to recognize veterans. REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ confirmed funding would come from private nonprofit organizations working with DMVA to make recommendations to the legislature regarding memorial signs. If the recommendations are approved, the signs would be installed by DOTPF. She asked for the location of the six veterans' memorials that would be affected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the bill amends AS 35.40.035 which identifies six veterans' memorials designated on portions of highways in Juneau, Eagle River, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and Fairbanks, and on two bridges. In further response to Representative Spohnholz, he said he would provide the locations of the memorials to the committee. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he likes the intent of the bill and that Alaskans would honor a fallen comrade in a self-reliant manner. He asked whether there are any limits to the number of memorials, other than those imposed by the veterans' organizations. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out the legislature has established the existing memorials and new legislation would be required to change the number of memorials. Further, the legislature would decide on the number and frequency of designated names. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the six existing memorials are identified by a signpost - or encompass a certain area, such as an intersection - so to envision the physical or procedural limitations on the number of individual signs that might be posted. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said individual veterans' memorials can be unique; therefore, the legislature has allowed DOTPF latitude to determine their location and size, and if more than one person's name would be included. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised the amount of money generated may affect the size of the memorial thus signs may be very large or very small depending upon the veteran's popularity. Further, he asked where the bill establishes standards on what would qualify a veteran for commendation or recognition. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the legislature ultimately decides who is recognized under this program; the bill does not provide criteria to guide the legislature in its decision. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER concluded a recommendation - even though funded by a veterans' organization - could be denied by the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained denial of a recommendation would occur through inaction by the legislature. 2:55:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD acknowledged the value of recognizing veterans, however, DOTPF's primary responsibility is for infrastructure and public safety. Further, she estimated there are 75,000 veterans in Alaska, and asked how [one nomination] would be prioritized as more important than another. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said veterans' organizations desire to highlight one or more veterans over a certain period of time, but not permanently. He stressed the legislation currently before the committee relates to whether the legislature will respond to that request. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD expressed her appreciation of veterans' memorials and their purpose. She inquired as to whether there are additional messages of support for the bill, and questioned how the legislature would recognize all of the thousands of veterans in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted there will be public testimony from veterans in support of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE PARISH returned to the concern of equity, and pointed out the bill directs the initial placement would be done in the order of the most recent commendation, and if donations have not been linked to a specific veteran, DOTPF could use those funds for others; however, if there were veterans commended by the legislature without funding, and all available funding is associated with other names, there would be a conflict. In addition, if the signs are not meant to be permanent, he surmised [veterans' organizations] would need to raise funds for their eventual replacement or removal of the signs. He directed attention to the bill on page 2, lines 18 and 19, which read [in part]: ... A donor may request that a gift, donation, or grant be used for a specific veteran's memorial, ... REPRESENTATIVE PARISH gave an example of a partial donation directed to a specific memorial and asked what the accounting burden would be if DOTPF is expected to hold a donation for a specific veteran and await additional funding. 3:01:04 PM CHAIR TUCK announced that HB 178 was held over.