Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 01:02 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 361 - PRIVATE MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAY Number 0076 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business is HB 361, "An Act relating to private maintenance of state highways," sponsored by Representative Masek. Number 0092 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK said HB 361 was introduced to resolve the conflict over private maintenance of the state-owned highway. Currently it is difficult at best for the Department of Transportation [and Public Facilities, DOT/PF] to deal with private parties that undertake the maintenance of a state highway where the state has declined to maintain it during the winter months. She indicated it was not her intention to keep private parties from maintaining state highways. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated, "It's merely my purpose to make sure the proper tools are in place so that maintenance conforms to standards necessary to protect other segments of the public. HB 361 will do that by giving the DOT/PF clear statutory authority to regulate such activity." Number 0203 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if someone from the state or people from the right-of-way were present. Number 0230 DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities came before the committee. He said, "The department is supportive of this piece of legislation [HB 361], the only one thing that we thought the committee may want to consider, and we've talked to Representative Masek's staff about it, was possibly adding some provision that provides that the person wishing to maintain a state highway needs to get department approval prior to undertaking that. "Upon approval" in writing from the department or something like that, they may undertake it. That was really the only concern, I think it was just so that we could that way know where roads are being maintained by private individuals and we can sort of monitor that and take away approval if necessary. If the roads are being maintained in a dangerous manner perhaps, or something of that nature." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated she did not have a problem with inserting that language. MR. POSHARD mentioned he did not have proposed language. Number 0363 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Mr. Poshard to repeat what he said. MR. POSHARD reiterated it would require a private individual, who undertakes to maintain a state highway, that they receive written approval from DOT/PF prior to commencing that activity. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how long would it take, the formality of writing a letter and asking for authorization. Would that have to go through John Horn, Regional Director, Central Region, DOT/PF? Number 0447 MR. POSHARD replied a letter to the regional director or to Gene Kulawik, Director, Maintenance and Operations, who resides in Anchorage. Either one would be an appropriate contact. He said, "And I certainly would hope that we could make a decision promptly enough to satisfy anyone who would be asking to take over the maintenance of a road." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to line 11, after highway, would it be appropriated to say, "must have Department of Transportation and Public Facilities letter of approval", or "letter of authorization" there. A required letter? MR. POSHARD replied that would be fine. Or possibly in the same sentence [page 1, line 9], after department, "A person who undertakes to maintain a highway that is not maintained by the department must receive written approval from the department and may not recover compensation from [the state or the public for the costs that the person incurs in maintaining a highway]." Something to that affect would probably work for us [DOT/PF]. Number 0560 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK suggested adding, page 1, line 5, between department and has, [add] "normally maintains but". "A person who undertakes to maintain a state highway that the department has normally maintains but has determined not to maintain during the winter...." She indicated the highways are what DOT/PF normally maintains but not during the winter. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON suggested adding, "shall obtain written approval from the department and" on page 1, line 10. Number 0670 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered his proposed amendment and asked Vice-Chair Masek was satisfied with that. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated she did not object. Number 0697 CHAIR WILLIAMS asked if anyone objected. There being no objection the amendment was adopted. "A person who undertakes to maintain a highway that is not maintained by the department shall obtain written approval from the department and may not recover compensation from the state or the public for the costs...." REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH said if nobody is going to maintain it, and somebody was going to maintain it as a private individual, why would anybody complain. He said he read, "Some private individuals, who own property on a highway - I mean some maintenance is better than no maintenance is what I was thinking and I don't know where you're coming from. Why would we even do this... I understand we want to regulate and make sure people who get hurt or something. I'm just trying to figure out the status and why we're doing this bill." Number 0746 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY agreed with Representative Kookesh, if it is free, so what. If it is a long road people have to be able to have turnouts now and then to pass so there should be some standard that allows that versus the largest vehicle that has the right-of-way. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he understood the concerns, but the standards are made to a point where even a private person says, "I'm not going to maintain that." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it is a safety issue as well. Number 0808 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said an unmaintained road is more of a safety issue than a maintained road that is being maintained by somebody for free. Number 0822 EDDIE GRASSER, Legislative Assistant to Representative Masek, testified before the committee. He referenced an incident where a private party was maintaining a long road, in a heavy snow area that was not normally maintained by DOT/PF. He indicated they maintained it as a single-lane road and there was no way for people to get to their property. If the mining company was using the road, because they would be coming down the road with a D8 Caterpillar, you would have to backup 20 miles to be able to get out of the way of the Caterpillar. The state had problems with this particular company because they were doing damage to the roadbed. There is nothing in current state statute that allows them to take care of that problem. Number 0880 EDDIE GRASSER said the purpose of HB 361 is to set standards so that the rest of the public could use it, and it is only in those instances where the road is not being maintained in the winter. Most of the people that were investigated, especially the people who owned property, they preferred not to have the road maintained because they were accessing their property by snowmachine. REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked, "What's the object, you want them to not maintain the road." EDDIE GRASSER replied no, the intent is not to prevent them from maintaining the road. If they are going to maintain it they need to maintain it so the rest of the public can use it. Number 0971 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK offered a proposed amendment to page 1, line 5, insert "normally maintains but". "A person who undertakes to maintain a state highway that the department normally maintains but has determined not to maintain during the winter shall,... Number 1000 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK offered another proposed amendment to page 1, line 12, insert "or from the private party". "A person may not recover civil damages from the state or from the private party for personal injury, death, or property damage resulting..." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was further discussion on the amendments. He indicated it would be called amendment number 1. Number 1024 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt proposed Amendment 1. Number 1040 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated the amendment to line 12 essentially says that whoever is maintaining the road has no liability. If they have a Caterpillar that sideswipes a parked car, while they are maintaining the road, that they are not liable for any damages during maintenance. EDDIE GRASSER mentioned he did not have a chance to go over this with Representative Masek since she got in late last night. He said her first amendment is important because the private people they talked to that do this are maintaining some side roads that the state does not normally maintain in the summertime. They would not have to maintain those particular roads like logging roads to these standards. EDDIE GRASSER noted the second proposed amendment [referred to as the first] was offered because of liability they would incur. He indicated that this was left up to the legislative body. Number 1142 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the proposed amendments were moved as one amendment or two separate amendments. He stressed that he was bothered by the proposed amendment to line 12 and wanted to have that addressed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied we will do that. Page 1, line 5 will be Amendment 1, page 1, line 12 is Amendment 2. Number 1173 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move proposed Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I think that this amendment somewhat alleviates the concerns that Representative Kookesh has brought forward because it would remove those roads that are typically not, or normally maintained by the state and so private roads would not fall, as I see it at any rate, that are not normally maintained, would be outside the adjunct of this law." Number 1215 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was objection to the amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1217 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move proposed Amendment 2 [page 1, line 12]. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He indicated he would be interested in hearing from the department [DOT/PF]. He said, "I'm not sure that the state is immune from liability if they sideswiped my car right now. I would object to offering a private party something that the state is not protected from." Number 1253 MR. POSHARD stated, "The answer is no, we're not immune from liability. Our maintenance crews are subject to normal civil liability, if something such as that incident you described occurs we would certainly be liable for that." REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH referenced the zero fiscal note. He said, "I noticed in the requirement of the bill we say that we would have the department [DOT/PF] have some statutory authority to regulate private contracts as well. How could that be a zero fiscal note if we're going to put the department into some kind of regulatory position with these people?" CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if they could take care of this after the amendment has been addressed. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH replied yes, but asked that Mr. Poshard keep that in mind for follow up response. Number 1311 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "If we require and provide written approval, are we then under this provision here, we're giving written approval to a person to perform this service that we are not going to perform. And now we're saying that that person is relieved of civil damages and other liabilities, I'm assuming at any rate, resulting from the private maintenance of the highway and that could be either in direct contact with say the snow plow that the guys got on the front of his truck or could be because he plowed too far to the shoulder and literally exposed that car to driving off and hitting a ditch and perhaps causing some injury or damage. I'm wondering whether or not we can do that, whether or not we can relieve the state or that private party by a virtue of this law from that kind of liability. I think that's why somebody said we need to have an attorney or somebody to tell us about that." Number 1370 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked what the next referral was for HB 361. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied just Transportation [Committee]. Number 1390 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out one of the things can happen is this private contractor can take out three highway signs and the public would be stuck with the bill. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said, in hearing the objection, she withdrew Amendment 2. Number 1438 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSHB 361(TRA) with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH mentioned he asked about the zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON withdrew his motion for further discussion. Number 1472 MR. POSHARD said, "I guess I'm not reading in this bill where it requires us to establish standards for a private contractor." REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH replied the bill requires you to have regulatory authority over these people. MR. POSHARD replied right. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated even just writing a letter in your department [DOT/PF] I know costs us some money. [Laughter]. MR. POSHARD said, "I think that the department - the only thing that we intend to do is take the written request for approval and process it. I think that we intend to periodically inspect the maintenance that is occurring, I don't think that we intend to take maintenance crews off of other projects to go and review these on a regular basis of any kind. We're not looking at it as a burden. We're looking at it more as an opportunity." Number 1531 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said this is something that the state can do, is willing to do. He asked if there was more discussion. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said any cost would be an incidental expense that the department normally has. MR. POSHARD replied yes, that is how the department is looking at it. Number 1552 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON reintroduced his motion to move CSHB 361 (TRA) with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. Number 1560 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was objection. There being no objection, CSHB 361(TRA) moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|