Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/26/2004 08:17 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 327-POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF Number 1530 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 327, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and repealing a requirement that public facilities comply with energy standards adopted by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted there were two committee substitutes: Version S, labeled 23-LS1135\S, Utermohle, 4/22/04; and Version U, labeled 23-LS1135\U, Utermohle, 4/24/04. [Regarding Version U], he said, "Neither you, nor the sponsor, nor I had ... a chance to look at this until now, so we didn't want to do anything without getting input here." Number 1576 TODD LARKIN, Staff to Representative Jim Holm, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of Representative Holm, sponsor. He indicated that he is more familiar with Version U and offered to present that version by section. Number 1533 The committee took a brief at-ease. MR. LARKIN noted that Section 1 changes the requirement for a long-range plan to be developed by the Department of Transportation from every year to "periodically". He explained that the plans "reach out 10-20 years," thus there is no reason to "be constantly revamping that." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH reiterated that the changes that had been made to Version S now show in Version U and are being seen by everybody for the first time. He added, "So, we're both playing a little bit of catch-up, and I apologize for that." He noted that the amendments that currently exist are to Version U, with the exception of one, from Representative Holm, which correlates with Version S. MR. LARKIN said Representative Holm's amendment, if offered, could be changed to [fit] Version U. In response to an observation by Chair Weyhrauch, Mr. Larkin confirmed that the large intent language section was withdrawn. MR. LARKIN directed the committee's attention to page 2, beginning on line 1, which read as follows: program shall become part of the state transportation plan developed under AS 44.42.050 MR. LARKIN explained that's the major section of statute that "we will be amending." He added, "The section changed, the power did not." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH noted that Section 1 has no substantive changes from the original bill version. MR. LARKIN noted that Section 2 addresses requirements to the department. He highlighted one change in [paragraph (11)], where the requirement to "[ANNUALLY]" evaluate "[NATURAL GAS]" has been changed to "periodically" evaluate "alternative fuels". In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that the intent of the bill is to include electricity as an alternative fuel. Number 1302 MR. LARKIN noted that [paragraph (13)], which had been deleted in [CSHB 327(TRA), Version 23-LS1135\Q] had been reinserted. Paragraph 13 read as follows: (13) complete and maintain a current inventory of public facilities, including a projection of the serviceability of the facilities and projections of replacements and additions to facilities needed to provide the level of services programmed by the various user agencies, for municipalities with populations of less than 12,000 and for unincorporated communities, and perform those duties on a cooperative basis with larger municipalities; MR. LARKIN, in response to a questions from Chair Weyhrauch, confirmed that the reason that language was reinserted was because of concern that there be an inventory for projects that occur in the Bush. He added, "These are more in the area of cleaning up the statute of what was the department doing and what weren't they doing, that's been handed off to other departments in the state. Hopefully, the section that we're coming to wouldn't have affected that." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Would that be like [the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)] handing off to [the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)] for water?" MR. LARKIN said that's an excellent example. Number 1219 JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that the department had asked for the [requirement listed in paragraph 13] to be deleted, because it does not have the budget to fulfill it. He stated that when the Department of Highways and the Department of Public Works merged, "this was a duty that came to us as part of public works." He explained that the Department of Public Works used to be the builders of public facilities for local governments, but today facilities are being built by governments at the local level, so DOT&PF is no longer involved. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the figure of 12,000 was in statute at statehood. MR. OTTESEN answered, "Probably statehood, or shortly after." In response to a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, he said he doesn't believe that number is currently relevant, and he suggested that the number be [lowered]. He stated, "Local governments have just become far more capable than they were 30 years ago." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he is not certain what number would be appropriate. MR. OTTESEN suggested that number should be in the range of 2,000-3,000. He said he would like to look at communities by population, and he said he would get back to the committee regarding this issue. Number 1127 MR. LARKIN continued reviewing Version U. He explained that paragraph 14 is being deleted because it relates to performance standards that have been replaced by more current building codes; it's not DOT&PF's job to dictate building codes for the rest of the state. Paragraph 15 relates to planning assistance, and is being deleted for "housecleaning" reasons. He clarified that "they're duties that have been handed off to other entities in almost every case." MR. LARKIN explained that [paragraph (16)] makes an annual requirement of the report of the activities of the department. He said he imagines it would be a lengthy report. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH confirmed that it was his idea to add [paragraph (16)], but he suggested that the report could be a summary. Number 0993 MR. LARKIN turned to Section 3, which he said addresses "how that plan will be broken up." He offered examples. He said it would put requirements on the commissioner more in line with the current standard practice. He highlighted a sentence [on page 4, beginning on line 19], which read as follows: The commissioner shall include the estimated costs of projects described in the plan and, if the commissioner determines appropriate, an estimate of the benefits of the project. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH requested that Mr. Larkin provide a copy of 23 U.S.C. 135 to the committee. MR. LARKIN said he would, but emphasized that it is a document of considerable length. MR. OTTESEN assured the committee that the document is not that long. He said, "Title 23 is the whole enchilada for the department; Part 135 is the part that speaks to transportation planning. He estimated it to be 20-30 pages in length. MR. LARKIN, returning to the aforementioned language on page 4, line [19], said the intent is to allow the commissioner to estimate the benefits of a project, when he/she deems it is appropriate to do so. Mr. Larkin added, "In the following sections, we're going to lay out how those regulations would be written to cover projects." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Ottesen if use of the term "the plan" refers to the "comprehensive, intermodal, long-range transportation plan." Number 0833 MR. OTTESEN answered that he believes that's correct. He said, "This is very similar language to what's now required by 23 U.S.C., which requires a statewide transportation plan that's intermodal ...." In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he indicated that intermodal includes: road, air, rail, marine, and trails. In response to a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, he explained that [the plan], at one time, was a single document, but now it's comprised of many documents. He noted that the state is divided up into three regions. Area plans are made, which look mostly at parts of the state that don't have a complete road system. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the draft of the Southeast Alaska transportation plan is one of the intermodal long-range transportation plans. MR. OTTESEN described it as a piece of the larger plan. He added, "The larger plan is never really seen; it's really flushed out by all its individual components. ... It would be a geographic area of the state." Number 0724 MR. LARKIN turned to Section 3, which he noted would delete the recommendation of the now defunct Alaska Transportation Planning Council and "THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF NEW TRANSPORTATION MODES AND FACILITIES." In its place would be language allowing discretion [to the commissioner]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that the administration developed two entities to address issues regarding air and roads, as well as "some advisory committee for the ferries." He asked, "Does this have sort of an integrated support from those entities?" MR. OTTESEN responded that "this language" reflects what the department is doing and "what these boards have been overseeing." He explained, "Rather than having a single document, where we're trying to do everything at once, with all these ... different areas of the state ..., we realized that, practically speaking, we have to do our planning ... at a subcomponent level." He offered examples. He noted that the regional plans have been a good vehicle; they have been geographically based and have had advisory committees made up primarily of local officials in each of the regions. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked where the strategic vision for the Southeast Alaska transportation system exists. MR. OTTESEN answered that it exists in the Southeast plan. He defined the Area Transportation Plan as being the strategic vision for the state. He stated that the last four or five area transportation plans have caused the department to rethink things and come up with new ways of doing things. One example, he said, are the fast ferries. Another example is the complete change of the way airports are designed in Southwest Alaska, as a result of the plan. Number 0536 MR. LARKIN directed attention to Section 4, which is language that would require the commissioner to periodically develop a list of the projects in a plan that are on deck to be done. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked what the difference is between "annually" and "periodically". MR. LARKIN defined the former as a plan that would have to be submitted or renewed every year, and the latter as the requirement to update a plan when something new occurs. In response to a follow-up question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that the effect of this language will be to change from annually to a period of not less than two years. Number 0488 MR. OTTESEN explained that "the program" is essentially what is thought of as the list of projects. He said the federal term for that list is the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and it essentially is a multi-year capital budget. He stated that federal law requires that the STIP must have a minimum two-year horizon. He noted that bills currently before the House and Senate would make that requirement a four- year horizon, and he indicated that that change could be in effect in four weeks. He clarified, "Essentially, we're trying to make state law here conform to federal law so that we don't end up with things that are inconsistent or, basically, make us do things twice." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH remarked, "This is that 23 U.S.C. 135 again." He asked how often that is amended. He noted that [United States Representative Don Young] just passed a bill - "this huge omnibus transportation." He asked, "Is that 23 U.S.C. 135, is that amended in that?" MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He explained that Title 23 is the full law that applies to surface transportation and 23 U.S.C. 135 is one chapter in that law. He noted that there was also a bill passed by the Senate, known as SAFETEA [Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004]. He said, "Both will address, in part, 135, and there are many, many changes in those two bills." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he knows there were a number of projects in Alaska that were in at least "the House version of the bill." He asked, "How does the State of Alaska act quickly to incorporate the funds for projects in that bill, so the state can move forward in conjunction with the federal government to start on those projects?" MR. OTTESEN replied that is the crux of the issue before the committee. He explained, "We can't quite formally put them in the STIP yet, because they're not real, but we can put them in the capital budget, and have done so." In response to a question from Chair Weyhrauch, he confirmed that he meant in the capital budget for the State of Alaska for this year. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked about authorizing language to receive the funds. MR. OTTESEN responded as follows: It's partly by project capital budget authority. We're tracking those projects very carefully, as are many other people in the state. There's over $450 million-worth of projects in the Young version of the bill - just in earmarks. Number 0284 MR. LARKIN stated that the assumption is that there are people presently in the department constantly "watching Title 23." He added, "And what we'll allow them to do by statute is, rather than proposing changes to our statute all the time, they can continue to watch [Title] 23 and just comply." CHAIR WEYHRAUCH observed that the statute has been around a long time, and [HB 327] would only now incorporate it into Alaska law. MR. OTTESEN said that is formally correct; however, he explained that "it's one of the rules we've had to follow if we want to use federal dollars, since the federal aid program began." In response to questions from Chair Weyhrauch, he explained, "There isn't anyone in our department in a responsible job that doesn't have a copy of Title 23 on their bookshelf." MR. LARKIN stated that Section 4 also provides that the commissioner will provide specific information to the governor and to the legislature for review. Number 0119 The committee took an at-ease from 10:15 a.m. to 10:24 a.m. TAPE 04-70, SIDE A Number 0096 MR. LARKIN directed the committee's attention to Section 5, which would provide guidelines for the regulations that the commissioner adopts. Section 6 contains housecleaning measures. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mentioned language that had been deleted [from a prior version of the bill], regarding energy performance standards, energy audits, standards for design, and energy conservation measures. He asked Mr. Ottesen, "If [DOT&PF] is doing a project in a locality, do they have to comply with local building standards, energy conservation measures, et cetera?" MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He noted that there is another statute that also requires that [the department] go through local government approval for every project. He offered examples. Number 0128 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked why the language [on page 6, lines 7-9] was being deleted. That language read as follows: [(i) BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES UNDER AS 44.42.020(a) FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES; OR MR. OTTESEN explained as follows: This is kind of language that's pointing back to standards that we have earlier in this draft bill, Section 2, I believe. ... In the late '70s there was an energy crisis, [and the] price of fuel was spiking. At the time, the department was the constructors of public facilities across the state, and so we were given a lot of authority to adopt standards and to deploy them in our buildings. And, over time, standards now have evolved to local governments; they now have building officials and building codes. We're no longer the predominate builder of public facilities. We build our own facilities and a few others, but many agencies now are kind of going it alone, as well as certain school districts and [Rural Education Attendance Area] REAAs, and the like. So, really, both the responsibility for constructing public facilities and the responsibility for establishing standards for public facilities is no longer on our shoulders. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if the lighting and energy standards aren't also developed by local entities. MR. OTTESEN replied that a national standard is almost always adopted. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Why make this so specific?" MR. OTTESEN explained that it is just latent language that is currently in statute. Number 0258 MR. LARKIN indicated that the repealer in Section 7 simply refers to the thermal and lighting energy standards. He added, "Those were the standards that were adopted under the previous requirement of the statutes." In Section 8, Mr. Larkin noted, language has been added in Version U outlining how and when the new regulations can be implemented and who has to be notified. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH suggested that the committee needs to take time to read the language. [HB 327 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|