Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
04/01/2014 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB379 | |
| HB238 | |
| HB317 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 379 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 238 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 317 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 317-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NEAR SCHOOLS
9:40:05 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act relating to official traffic-
control devices at schools and in school zones." She noted that
Version U was previously adopted and is before the committee as
a working document.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, said the CS
to HB 317 has new fiscal notes.
9:41:07 AM
CONNIE MCKENZIE, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT), said that there are
fiscal notes for each of the three DOT regions. Statewide, the
cost is $624,000 to implement HB 317 for the schools that are
now included in the definition. Approximately 30 percent will
be on state roads, she added.
9:42:01 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX noted the huge change in the fiscal note.
MS. MCKENZIE said the change is due to allowing the traffic
safety practitioners to be able to review all the various signs,
crosswalks, and signals for each school, instead of just
flashing signals. "By being able to look at the different kinds
of signs and signals that might be practical for any one school,
we were able to reduce the fiscal note down to $624,000."
9:43:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK thanked DOT and said there will be
appropriate, cost-effective signage to bring public awareness of
school locations.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony.
9:43:53 AM
JEFF STARK, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
Transportation Section, said he works a great deal with DOT, and
he still has concerns with Version U. The requirements in
current law are that the state adopt a uniform system of traffic
safety devices, and that requirement is in two sections, AS
19.10.040 and AS 19.10.050, he said. Currently, DOT engineers
have discretion as to where traffic control devices are placed.
He said his concern with Version U is that Alaska statutes
indicate that the uniform system adopted by the state must
include provisions for both posting traffic control signals and
marking and posting traffic control devices. He believes, based
on the fiscal note, that DOT is interpreting a great deal of
discretion under the new bill, but he does not read it as
liberally as DOT does. "I know that DOT is fully on board with
what I believe is the intent of the sponsor, which is to treat
private schools, charter schools, [and] religious schools all
the same as public schools, and this bill does that, but I am
concerned that it still restricts the discretion of the traffic
and safety engineers in terms of what sort of signage, what sort
of signals they use more than it should." He said that language
can be worked out, but it is not yet done.
9:47:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked if current statute needs changing.
MR. STARK said no, the current statute is probably fine,
although it is not terribly well written. It dates back to pre-
statehood. He said AS 19.10.040 deals with marking and posting
of highways, and AS 19.10.050 deals with providing signals. He
said he would rather the two be combined and just address
"installing traffic control devices." But under current law,
the state has adopted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, which originates with the Federal Highway
Administration and is adopted by the American Association of
Highway and Transportation Officials. It is then incorporated
by the state into the Alaska Traffic Manual, which is approved
by the Federal Highway Administration. That manual provides a
great deal of discretion to the traffic and safety engineers as
to the placement of traffic control devices, so his concern with
CSHB 317 is the use of the term "must" on page 1, line 14, and
page 2, line 5. He noted that safety engineers do not believe
that signals are required in all school zones as it would be an
unnecessary expense and can even decrease safety. "Having these
requirements split and saying that they must use both in school
zones, I think they've lost the necessary discretion that they
have under current law," he concluded.
9:50:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KITO III pointed to Section 5 of Version U,
requiring the municipality to erect traffic control devices in
school zones "in conformance with the Alaska Traffic Manual."
It seems that there is discretion, he said.
MR. STARK said Section 5 addresses municipalities, and it does
give that discretion under current law, but Sections 1 and 2
deal with DOT, "and I would read it saying you must provide
traffic control devices ... and that, again, would remove the
discretion from the municipality."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Stark if he would be willing to work
with the sponsor of HB 317 to develop the appropriate language.
MR. STARK said absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked about committee referrals.
9:52:00 AM
KENDRA CLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, said the bill will go to the House Transportation
Standing Committee next.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said the concept is good, and if HB 317
were going to the finance committee, it could be fixed there.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX said it might go to the finance committee now
that it has a fiscal note.
9:52:39 AM
MS. CLOSTER noted that she has been working with Doug Gardner
[Attorney for Legislative Legal Services], traffic engineers,
and people from the Office of the Attorney General, and there
have been some differences of opinions. There have been
multiple requests from traffic engineers to reference both
sections of the statute, she said. The transportation committee
could address current statute and what might need to be changed,
because markings, postings, and signage are all under different
sections.
9:54:05 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said if "must" was changed to "may" on the
first page, the committee could move the bill along and it may
not need a fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said he supports moving the legislation
along. The transportation committee can look at some of the
detailed questions, but, overall, he said he likes the concept.
9:55:22 AM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she would like to move HB 317 out of
committee but with the proviso that the House Transportation
Standing Committee work on Mr. Stark's concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if Representative Herron had made
a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said it was just a suggestion.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX noted that changing "must" to "may" guts the
entire bill because DOT could do what it wanted.
9:56:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the change would help with the
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he does not have a problem with the
fiscal note as it exists. "The department has been working
really well with us," he added. Without "must" there will not
be the public awareness for charter, private, and religious
schools. He said he wants action on this.
9:57:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he disagreed because both DOT and the
assistant attorney general "disagree with your statement."
Given all of the other changes, he said, HB 317 could become a
reality, but if "must" and the fiscal note remain, "I am not as
hopeful."
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if he would like to offer an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said, "My colleague from the Eagle River
Valley has offered to make that conceptual amendment."
9:58:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she does not want to gut the bill,
because it is really, really important, but she does not want to
make it mandatory if it includes all Headstart programs and
preschools.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she prefers passage of HB 317
without amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he supports the co-chair.
9:59:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER moved to report CSHB 317, Version U, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
317(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated the proviso stated earlier.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 379.pdf |
HCRA 4/1/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 379 |
| HB 379 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 4/1/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 379 |
| HB 379 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HCRA 4/1/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 379 |
| HB 379 Letter of Support.pdf |
HCRA 4/1/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 379 |
| HB 379 13 Tax.pdf |
HCRA 4/1/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 379 |
| HB 238 ver N.pdf |
HCRA 4/1/2014 8:00:00 AM |
HB 238 |