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 |
---|