Legislature(2005 - 2006)
05/02/2005 02:33 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB141 | |
| SB147 | |
| SB16 | |
| SB139 | |
| SJR11 | |
| SB141 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 16(TRA)
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities;
repealing the requirement for a long-range program for
highway construction and maintenance; and repealing a
requirement that public facilities comply with energy
standards adopted by the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities; and providing for an effective
date."
DOUG LETCH, STAFF, SENATOR GARY STEVENS, spoke in support of
SB 16. He noted that the legislation would update obsolete
statutes regarding the powers and duties of the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities. The key provision
is the removal of the requirement for the department to
conduct a cost benefit analysis for all projects. The
regulation has placed the department at a huge disadvantage
because it makes every project no matter how small subject
to a cost benefit analysis. He maintained that opponents of
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities projects
have used the provision as a basis of litigation.
Representative Croft observed that the legislation would
eliminate a cost benefit study on all projects and asked if
it would be appropriate to require it on medium to large
projects. Vice-Chair Meyer asked that the question be held
till after Mr. Ottensen's presentation.
JEFF OTTENSEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, referred
to a sectional analysis (copy on file.) Section 1 would
grant the department the ability to issue grants, when they
have been authorized by appropriation of the legislature.
The department receives money in at least three different
categories from federal sources that is then granted out to
local governments and non-profits. Section 3 contained the
old cost benefit language. Section 5 adds a new cost
effectiveness requirement for new projects that are not
local. This would eliminate the burden from 80 - 90 percent
of their projects. Significant projects that are beyond a
local town or road would be included. A cost effectiveness
analysis would be required, at a lower cost than the
traditional cost benefit analysis. Section 8 gives the
department one year to implement Section 5 through
regulation. He noted that the statutes are over 30 years old
and felt that the legislation would be good for local
governments and the department.
3:40:46 PM
Representative Croft questioned how the legislation would
benefit the public. In response to further questions by
Representative Croft, Mr. Ottensen referred to section 5,
which requires a new cost effective analysis for new
highways, airports, terminals, ferries, and other major
components. Projects requiring rehabilitation and
maintenance of the existing system, or would primarily serve
local transportation needs are excluded.
Representative Croft asked why there should not be a cost
benefit analysis for these projects. Mr. Ottensen stressed
that the greatest burden is on municipalities and local
government. The state of Alaska is geared up to make these
analyses. The cost benefit analysis occurs at the planning
stage. The quality of data goes up on almost every project
as it goes through the process. Cost studies become more
meaningful later in the process.
Representative Croft questioned why not require the cost
studies later and asked if they are being done twice.
3:44:38 PM
Mr. Ottensen agreed and reiterated that the statute affects
planning. Cost effective studies exempted during the
planning stage could be required at the building stage.
3:45:37 PM
Representative Holm asked if the legislation would solve
problems with cost benefit analysis that have no merit. Mr.
Ottensen felt that the legislation would fix the problem. He
maintained that delay of the legislation resulted in the
death of three individuals due to the department's inability
to go forward on a bridge.
3:47:09 PM
Mr. Ottensen noted that projects in the GARVEE legislation
have not gone through a cost benefit analysis. The
department will need to do a cost benefit analysis on each
of these projects as soon as the [GARVEE] legislation is
passed.
3:47:21 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to report CSSSSB 16 (TRA) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSSSB 16 (TRA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal impact notes:
#1 DOT, #2 DPS.
3:48:23 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|