Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/27/1998 01:50 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement
Project Authority; relating to the powers and duties
of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; and providing for an effective date."
MARCO PIGNALBERI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY,
commented that the purpose of HB 227 was to increase public
involvement, stability and discipline in capital project
planning for the State of Alaska.
Planning for Alaska's capital improvement projects is
presently carried out by the Planning Division of the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF).
Three regional planning teams carry out research and
planning. These regional planning teams coordinate with
the local governments, including Anchorage Metropolitan
Transportation System (AMATS) and Fairbanks Metropolitan
Transportation System (FMATS) within their region. These
regional plans are feed into the statewide planning team in
Juneau at which point they are consolidated into statewide
plans. These stipulations are required for internal
management and to meet requirements for federal funding.
Mr. Pignalberi noted that HB 227 would come into play at
the level of statewide prioritization and funding
alternatives. It would not change the basic planning
process now in use, although, it would change the method by
which projects are rated, prioritized and submitted to the
Governor and the Legislature.
Mr. Pignalberi pointed out that despite efforts of DOTPF to
make the planning process more inclusive and transparent to
the public, capital project planning remains a science for
most Alaskans. He suggested that planning was hindered by
a lack of continuity at the executive level. He noted that
past DOTPF commissioners have had an average tenure less
than two years. Permanent professional planners become
committed to the project which they work on.
Mr. Pignalberi explained that the provisions of HB 227 are
intended to make the capital project planning process more
comprehensive, coherent to the public and stable in its
role of building Alaska's infrastructure. The Authority
would have a single purpose mission rather than be
entangled with the multi-purposes of the Governor,
Legislature and DOTPF.
Mr. Pignalberi urged passage of the proposed legislation.
He noted that both the federal highway administration and
the federal aviation administration have testified in other
committees expressing deep "fear" of "potential" problems
in the legislation. He guaranteed that this would not
happen. Mr. Pignalberi closed, noting that no one knows
what the State's priority projects are now for any mode of
transportation. HB 227 will provide policy and continuity.
Representative Martin voiced concern with the separation of
the proposed authority and the Executive Budget Act.
Additionally, he believed that by such an Authority
establishing fees would be in direct competition with the
powers of taxation. He stressed that the legislation would
be interfering with the Executive Branch of government. He
pointed out that the role of the commissioner would loose
all power to the proposed authority.
Representative Grussendorf noted that under the current
system, it is clear who gets held accountable for problems
which occur and credit due. He questioned who would
ultimately be responsible in a system proposed in the bill.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 128, Side 1).
Mr. Pignalberi addressed Representative Martin's concern,
pointing out that it was the intent that the proposed
legislation fall within the Executive Budget Act.
Representative Martin recommended that there be an
amendment which specifies that the authority stay under the
Executive Budget Act. Co-Chair Therriault suggested
checking with legal drafters to find that statute
placement.
Representative J. Davies thought it preposterous that more
duties would be added in order to create an authority. Mr.
Pignalberi noted that this was an issue that some attorneys
have differed over and that it was not central to the
sponsor's interest. He pointed out that Legal Services had
recommended that it be added and he felt it could be
removed.
Representative J. Davies referenced Page 3, Line 21, and
asked what authorization the authority would have power to
revise. Mr. Pignalberi replied that all planning powers
that currently reside within the Department would move to
the Authority.
Representative Martin asked if Mr. Pignalberi thought by
statute, the legislation could change the power of the
Executive Branch authority. Mr. Pignalberi stated that was
the intent, which could be done by changing statute.
Representative Martin disagreed, pointing out that there
need to be a change to the Constitution. The Constitution
states that all commissions are part of the Executive
Branch. Mr. Pignalberi pointed out that all changes being
made are changes in statute. He advised that 17 positions
in the Department's Headquarters Planning Division would be
moved to the Authority. The Department has many other
functions which would not be moved such as operations,
design and maintenance.
Representative J. Davies asked if it would be funded by
general funds. He stressed that the federal government
will not fund a separate planning effort. Mr. Pignalberi
stated that the federal government would fund whatever
process the State comes up with. They will not fund a
duplicative activity.
HENRY SPRINGER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS, ANCHORAGE, spoke in
favor of the proposed legislation. (Testimony inaudible).
THOMAS BRINGHAM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE PLANNING,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
commented that HB 227 was a well intentioned effort to add
stability to the transportation project development
process. However, close examination of the bill has left
the Department to conclude that if enacted, it would cause
many problems in an attempt to solve problems that no
longer exist. As a result, DOTPF does not support the
legislation. DOTPF believes the process available for
prioritizing and selecting projects is fair, stable and
provides well for statewide transportation needs.
He enumerated the problems created by the bill:
? The proposed Authority is not a true authority or
commission which would be responsible for all
capital and operating activities of the
department. Capital programs approved by the
authority would still be subject to legislative
approval on a project by project basis. Under
the Authority as proposed in HB 227, the
Department and staff would be serving two
masters, the Governor and the Authority. There
are 13 states which have commissions with direct
line authority, i.e., the commissions are
responsible for all aspects of the operations of
the department. There are 15 states that have
commissions that are advisory to DOTPF or the
Governor and DOTPF. Unlike these two types of
commissions with clearly defined roles, the
Authority proposed in HB 227 would establish an
Authority with responsibilities that are more
than advisory but less than a commission with
line authority. The in-between status lead to
confusion both inside and outside DOTPF.
? The intention of HB 227 in regard to the day-to-
day operation of the Authority is unclear.
? This Authority will increase the cost of project
selection and add costs and delays to programming
efforts. It would add another layer to the
existing project approval process, and would
reduce responsiveness and add general fund
administrative costs.
? The legislation would give the Authority the
ability to delete and add projects to the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP).
Changes to the federally funded program must be
made in accordance with the STIP process.
Deviation from the process would render the
project ineligible for funding.
Mr. Bringham added that the Department has submitted a note
outlining what the fiscal impacts of the legislation would
be. These impacts total over $500 thousand dollars per
year. All staff and related costs are to be paid for with
State general funds.
Representative G. Davis voiced frustration with the current
process and the lack of public input. He noted that there
is a lot of flexibility in the planning process regarding
how federal dollars are spent.
Representative J. Davies asked how the prioritization of
projects would occur when the bill was in place. He asked
if the Authority made a change, would the proposal need to
go through the public process again. Mr. Bringham replied
that was not clear to the Department. At present time, the
regional staff works with the communities to pool the
projects together and the highest scored ones go to
statewide competition.
Representative J. Davies asked the relationship between the
AMATS and the FMATS. Mr. Bringham responded that federal
law protects the AMATS program. That program must be
totally incorporated into the Department's STIP. The State
agency does not have any authority to change it.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 128, Side 2).
JACK KREINHEDER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated that
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) believes that the
proposed Authority would be an unnecessary level of
bureaucracy. Mr. Kreinheder agreed with Mr. Bringham in
problems which would occur during a turnover, when the
Authority becomes "out-of-sink" with the Administration.
At that point, they would become a dual entity to do
business with. He projected that the Governor would end up
ignoring the commission, as the Governor's constitutional
power can not be changed by statute.
He pointed out that OMB would suggest to the Governor that
the proposed legislation would create constitutional
problems. Mr. Kreinheder advised that the Administration
is open to suggestions for improving the planning process
with public and legislative input.
In conclusion, Mr. Kreinheder stated that in regard to the
legislative amendments, the entire concept is flawed. He
recommended against going with a full commission,
suggesting that an advisory commission could address some
of the problems. Mr. Kreinheder would recommend the bill
be vetoed.
HB 227 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|