Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/08/2003 02:03 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 301-KNIK ARM BRIDGE AND TOLL AUTHORITY Number 0166 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 301, "An Act establishing the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority and relating to that authority; and providing for an effective date." CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to a letter from Mayor Dale Adams of the City of Houston in which he expressed his support of building the bridge over Knik Arm but noted that he couldn't support paying toll without knowing what the cost per trip would be; he also wondered whether yearly passes would be available to commuters. Number 0183 JOHN MacKINNON, Deputy Commissioner, Highways & Public Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), provided the sponsor statement for HB 301 [which was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor] and provided the following testimony: The bill establishes an independent authority to build and operate a toll bridge over Knik Arm. The authority would be able to receive federal money and issue revenue bonds to finance the toll bridge and its appurtenant facilities. The authority would design, construct, and operate the bridge and associate facilities. It would be a public corporation that, although an instrument of the state within the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, would have a separate, independent legal existence from the state. The revenue of the authority would not become part of the general fund, and the property of the authority would be exempt from taxation. MR. MacKINNON continued: This bill establishes a three-person board to govern the authority. The commissioners of revenue and transportation would serve on the board, along with a member of the public appointed by the governor for a five-year term. The construction of the Knik Arm Bridge is a cornerstone of the governor's public transportation development plan. The bridge would unite Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to enable a tremendous amount of growth throughout the area. MR. MacKINNON responded to the questions posed by the mayor of Houston regarding the cost of the toll and said that because the project is just beginning, it's premature to determine the cost of the toll at this point. Regarding obtaining a yearly pass, a variety of options need to be looked at in order to make that convenient for the public. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked why there were only three members on the board governing the authority - one commissioner from the [Department of Revenue], one from DOT&PF, and one public member. MR. MacKINNON responded that it had been determined that involving a fewer number of people would facilitate an efficiently run board due to the ease of the decision-making process. He commented that the legislature has some oversight of the board by virtue of confirming the positions of the commissioners of the Department of Revenue and DOT&PF. CO-CHAIR MASEK expressed concern over the choice the governor might make in appointing the public member, noting that the project is an important cornerstone for the Matanuska-Susitna ("Mat-Su") Borough; she emphasized her concern for fair representation. Number 0460 MR. MacKINNON responded that the three-member board limits representation. He reminded the committee that the bridge was one of three major projects that the governor mentioned in his "state of the state" address, and therefore, anything that would speed up the process of getting the project underway and completed would be consistent with the governor's goal. He added that an independent authority helps to achieve that because the focus is on one particular project. CO-CHAIR HOLM asked, in the context of reflecting upon the financing of the Alaska Railroad, whether there was any provision included that addressed the return of excess revenue, if there was any, back to the state. MR. MacKINNON replied that he didn't believe there was such a provision. He said he thought the intent of the authority was first to focus on building the project and then to operate the project. He indicated that the tolls would be used for two things: to pay for any debt that needs to be retired and also to maintain the project. He said his understanding was that the project's focus was not on its being a moneymaking facility. CO-CHAIR HOLM asked if the intent was for this project to pay for itself. MR. MacKINNON confirmed that this was so. REPRESENTATIVE FATE commented on the size of the board, offering his opinion that with a small board composed of two technical members, those two members would probably overpower the knowledge and actions of the one public member. He asked if there had been any discussion of raising the number of members on the board to five instead of three. MR. MacKINNON offered to take that concern to the administration. Number 0685 REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if there was familiarity with other bridge authorities that could serve as models. MR. MacKINNON said he didn't know if other toll bridges - such as the bridge at Chesapeake Bay or other bridge authorities - had been examined, but told the committee that HB 301 was modeled on a similar bill that had been proposed several years ago. He said that he thought the authority would evolve as needed in order to accomplish the intended goal. REPRESENTATIVE OGG followed up on Representative Fate's concern regarding the number of members on the board. He said in consideration of the bridge connecting Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough, perhaps the governor would consider appointing the mayor or the designee from each municipality, as a way of adding a helpful element to the constitution of the board. CO-CHAIR MASEK said she would entertain a friendly amendment that would increase the membership of the board. Number 0790 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1. The amendment refers to page 2, lines 9-12, and would add: "(4) to add two new members, at the discretion of the governor". REPRESENTATIVE OGG asked if these [two new members] would be public members. REPRESENTATIVE FATE clarified that Conceptual Amendment 1 would increase the number of members on the board to five members and leaves the determination of those members up to the discretion of the governor. He suggested that a five-member board would not run as great of a risk of collusion as would a three-member board. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if Conceptual Amendment 1 was to read [page 2, lines 12 and 13], "three public members, appointed by the governor, who are state residents and United States citizens". REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded that he wasn't necessarily in favor of having three public members. He said that on a board of three, two of those members would be very knowledgeable; they would either be engineers or people with technical knowledge. He stated that it doesn't make sense to have three nontechnical people on a five-member board. He suggested that rather than specifying three public members, the specifics should be left to the discretion of the governor. He put forth the language: "two more members, appointed at the discretion of the governor". He emphasized that he didn't want to overweigh the board with nontechnical people. CO-CHAIR HOLM said he thought it was very important that the involved boroughs have representation on the board and, therefore, that the board be composed of membership that was beholden to the people of the Anchorage and Mat-Su areas. Number 1103 REPRESENTATIVE FATE suggested that this could be [considered as] an amendment to the amendment. Number 1124 REPRESENTATIVE OGG offered an amendment to the amendment that one member would be the mayor or the designee from the Mat-Su Borough, and another member would be the mayor or designee from Anchorage. Number 1150 REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected for purposes of discussion, saying that the geographic positioning seemed wise, but offered that he was bothered by the idea of having the board be composed of generalists. CO-CHAIR HOLM suggested accessing somebody from AMATS [Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study] to be on the board. CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested the consideration of the borough manager or delegate. REPRESENTATIVE FATE concurred that this suggestion was a more likely choice. REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he didn't have a problem changing the friendly amendment to the amendment so that it would specify the manager or the manager's designee of the Mat-Su Borough; however, he suggested keeping Anchorage's position as the mayor or the mayor's designee. He referred to the language [page 2, lines 9-11] "or the commissioner's designee", saying that he was interested in being consistent with that language. MR. MacKINNON referred to a discussion of the summary of the Department of Law's (DOL's) draft that determines the make-up of the board. He said that the original draft received by the DOL added two nonvoting, ex-officio members to the board: the mayors of the Municipality of Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. The [DOL's] governmental affairs section strongly advocated against this in order to preserve the governor's strong powers of appointment and executive branch control, and to avoid potential problems of the board's future function. In its place, the statute includes a requirement to coordinate with the two mayors. CO-CHAIR MASEK expressed appreciation of the administration's point of view; however, she said that the committee's concerns regarding the composition of the board were valid as well. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said this project would be a much bigger project than the Anchorage airport, noting that there was quite an overrun at the airport. He told the committee that without the aforementioned coordination, in addition to there needing to be a very tight board to oversee and discuss the project, there would be too much room for error with only three board members, one of whom would be a public member. He said that a strong liability would be placed on their shoulders to discern how to come to grips with any overruns, should something go wrong. He said he felt that it was not a good move by the DOL to reduce the board's membership. REPRESENTATIVE OGG said he felt strongly that the board should contain a community connection and urged members to support the friendly amendment to the amendment. Number 1444 CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection to the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1. There being none, the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1458 CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection to adopting Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended. There being none, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he hoped this would be carried and hoped there would be a rigorous discussion on "this item today," saying that the intent was not to harm the project or the authority, and that it could always be "amended back." He said this was amended in good faith, with some real concerns regarding the size of the board and the outcome of that size. MR. MacKINNON replied that he would carry this back [to the administration] and reiterated that there had been a five-member board in the original draft and that "what came out of the Department of Law was somewhat different." CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if anyone else wished to testify, and then closed public testimony. Number 1546 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING moved to report HB 301, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 301(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|