Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/15/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB131 | |
| SB16 | |
| SB158 | |
| SB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 112 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
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."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
DOUG LETCH, Staff to Senator Gary Stevens, the bill's sponsor,
informed the Committee that this legislation would either eliminate
or update several obsolete statutes relating to the powers of the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Specifically
the bill would remove the burden of conducting a cost benefit
analysis for each of the Department's projects, regardless of size.
This cost-effectiveness analysis requirement has provided
opportunities for project opponents to sue the State. The bill
contains several key provisions that would change the powers and
duties of the Department to bring those statutes in line with the
Department's practice of today. There is widespread support for
this legislation, as indicated by the letters of support included
in the Member's backup material. He asked that any technical
questions regarding this legislation be directed to the Department.
9:35:51 AM
Senator Stedman understood that one of the bill's provisions would
exclude the cost effective analysis for local service area
projects. He asked for further information in this regard.
9:36:24 AM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Management, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, stated that the language
in question is located in Section 5, subsection (e), page six,
beginning on line five of the bill. Subsection (e) reads as
follows.
(e) In evaluating new highways, airports, terminals, ferries,
and other major components for inclusion in the plan, the
commissioners shall prepare a cost-effectiveness analysis
using a consistent methodology. A cost-effectiveness analysis
is not required for a project that involves the rehabilitation
and maintenance of an existing transportation system or that
primarily serves local transportation needs.
Mr. Ottesen clarified that the cost benefit analysis would not be
required for the rehabilitation and maintenance of a variety of
existing projects or that are essentially local in nature such as
local roads, local trails, buses, and vans for senior centers.
Conducting such analyses is currently a burden on the Department.
Senator Stedman asked for further information regarding the "local"
exemption; specifically whether it would pertain to such things as
roads on islands.
Mr. Ottesen responded that the bill's sponsor, working in
conjunction with the Department, deliberately drafted a short bill
with the determination that the specifics would be addressed in
regulations. "Generally speaking, a local road would be
transportation within a borough that basically moves people from
one part of a borough to another, be it on an island or be it on a
part of the mainland". This would include National Highway System
(NHS) routes, major airports, and major port facilities that
connect the State. The cost effectiveness requirement would be
required on any "major new facilities, with new being the key word
here, that are not local in nature. The trouble with the current
statute, which was developed in 1977, is that it is now being used
as a club to halt projects. It applies to anything". The cost
benefit analysis requirement applies to projects approved by the
Legislature, projects approved by voters, or even a transit van for
a senior citizen center. It also applies to such things as training
programs and other things to which determining how to develop a
cost benefit analysis would be difficult. The goal is to exempt
local roads and activities from "this burdensome" cost benefit
analysis.
Senator Stedman opined that, "by that definition, all the roads in
Southeast Alaska would be excluded" from the exemption, as none of
the roads are tied together. The majority of the roads are on
islands.
Mr. Ottesen clarified that the NHS connection definition would
apply to a variety of roads in Southeast Alaska. In Ketchikan it
would apply to the ferry from the airport to town; in Juneau it
would apply to Egan Drive between the airport and downtown. Most of
the other roads in Juneau and similar roads across the State "would
be excepted".
Senator Olson inquired to the two accompanying zero fiscal notes:
Fiscal Note #1, dated March 22, 2005 from the Department of Public
Safety and zero Fiscal Note #2, dated March 21, 2005 from the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. It would be
expected that this legislation would save the State money.
Mr. Ottesen responded that there would be cost savings in that
"more money would be spent on pavement and less money spent on
process". The amount of money that the Department is allocated is,
in its entirety, reflected in the budget; however, now it is being
divvied up "to support economists and planners to conduct
processes" rather than building projects.
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that the funds would be more
project specific.
Mr. Ottesen responded that the total amount received would not
change.
Senator Dyson questioned whether, "aside from the standards that
are applied to really minor sorts of things", some federal
standards in regards to such things as thermal and lighting
analysis on highways are really inappropriate because of such
things as the State's environment and population densities.
Mr. Ottesen responded that the State's responsibility in regards to
thermal standards and lighting standards were incorporated in
statute in the 1970s at a time when the nation was undergoing its
first energy crisis. The Department was designated as the entity to
have that oversight; however, over time, the Department's role in
"the building world" has diminished and the Department no longer
conducts building projects for municipalities or schools for Rural
Educational Attendance Areas. National entities rather than the
Department set standards, which are then adopted by local building
codes. The Department's role in that entire arena has simply
evaporated yet the statute remains the same. This legislation is an
attempt to conduct some housekeeping."
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS SSSB 16 (TRA) was reported from
Committee with zero Fiscal Note #1, dated March 22, 2005 from the
Department of Public Safety and zero Fiscal Note #2, dated March
21, 2005 from the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
9:42:54 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|