Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
03/22/2005 01:30 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 16-POWERS/DUTIES DOTPF/TRANSPORTATION PLAN
1:37:12 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS announced SB 16 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR COWDERY moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
referred to as Version \I as the working document. There being
no objection, the motion carried.
1:38:38 PM
MR. DOUG LETCH, staff to Senator Gary Stevens, presented SB 16
at the request of the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT/PF). SB 16 updates obsolete language in statute
related to the powers of the DOT/PF. It also removes the
requirement for the DOT to conduct a cost/benefit analysis for
all of its projects. The passage of SB 16 is desirable to avoid
future costly litigation.
1:40:39 PM
SENATOR COWDERY asked Mr. Letch if a dollar value is considered
for a project before a study was required.
MR. LETCH answered cost/benefit studies are required to be done
on projects such as repairing road damages and performing
emergency repairs.
1:41:55 PM
MR. JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Program Development, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF), supported SB 16. The
core of SB 16 is the provision that speaks to cost/benefit
language. The other changes are merely housekeeping measures. He
referred to Section 1 and stated the DOT has been issuing grants
for several years with no legal authority to do so. Section 3
addresses language that was established in statute by Governor
Hammond at the time the DOT was created. To fulfill the
requirement of the DOT updating a statewide transportation plan
annually, the DOT would have to increase staff and budgets
tenfold. The DOT would like to change the annual requirement to
a periodic duty.
1:44:41 PM
MR. OTTESEN said it is difficult to perform a cost/benefit
analysis when considering a project that will be done 5-15 years
in the future. The data is relatively sparse yet DOT is required
to do the expensive study. Currently the DOT is required to
perform a cost/benefit analysis for installing a simple stop
sign.
1:45:38 PM
SENATOR COWDERY asked Mr. OTTESEN whether the current system has
been abused in order to stop projects.
MR. OTTESEN answered yes. The road between Iliamna and Nondalton
is an example. Litigation was used to stop the project and two
men died recently crossing the river because the bridge was not
built.
MR. OTTESEN added the DOT received a letter from a non-profit
agency asking whether a cost/benefit study had been done
regarding the road out of Juneau. He said a strict look at
cost/benefit analysis is difficult. Many of the things the DOT
builds in Alaska are not cost effective, such as airports in
rural areas.
1:47:33 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Ottesen how the regulation was used to
block the construction of the bridge at Nondalton.
MR. OTTESEN explained the lawsuit was based on the fact the DOT
had not conducted a cost/benefit analysis when it selected the
project. Work began in 1995 and was well under way when
litigation was filed in 2002. The judge ordered the DOT to do a
cost/benefit analysis on the project, which cost $60,000 in
consultant costs and another $30,000 in staff costs to update
the plan. January of 2005 they went back to court and the judge
dismissed the injunction.
SENATOR COWDERY asked who brought the suit.
MR. OTTESEN replied it was an individual who owns property 14
miles from the bridge. The communities surrounding the area are
supportive of the project.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether it was considered a public
interest lawsuit.
MR. OTTESEN replied the two names on the lawsuit were Trout
Unlimited and Robert Gillam.
1:50:41 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Ottesen the elements of a cost/benefit
analysis.
MR. OTTESEN explained they add up all costs, subtract any
identified transportation savings and divide that number by the
future population of the area, which gives a cost-per-person
served figure.
1:52:39 PM
MR. OTTESEN referred to a map given to committee members and
explained the color green represents a true road, blue
represents a gravel road and red represents an all-terrain
vehicle (ATV) trail.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Ottesen to explain the process they are
using today.
MR. OTTESEN assured the committee he would provide them with the
information. He added the DOT complies with a Federal Rules book
when researching projects.
1:55:10 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Ottesen to explain grants and awards.
MR. OTTESEN explained the Highway Safety Office has the ability
to issue grants. They receive approximately $7 million each year
from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
They focus on the behavior side of highway safety. Non-profit
groups and elderly programs are eligible to receive money to buy
vans and to organize transportation. The DOT has been issuing
grants by the authority of the capitol budget process, but they
are not authorized in statute. SB 16 will fix the disconnect.
1:57:34 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked him to explain how the DOT/PF issued
$200,000 to the University of Alaska in Fairbanks (UAF) for a
paving project.
MR. OTTESEN explained the DOT is allowed to transfer funds to
other governmental organizations as a government-to-government
transfer. The state procurement code authorizes that as a
transfer that does not require procurement. Examples of grants
they issue would be those to Catholic Community Services, MADD,
and other non-governmental entities.
1:59:19 PM
SENATOR COWDERY recalled a grant from discretionary funds that
was issued by himself to UAF through the DOT.
CHAIR HUGGINS announced SB 16 would not pass out of committee
today.
MR. OTTESEN said the DOT/PF feels they are lacking full legal
authority to issue grants to non-governmental entities.
SENATOR COWDERY asked whether UAF was considered a government
entity.
MR. OTTESEN replied yes. There is a specific exemption in the
state procurement code for government-to-government transfer.
Senator Albert Kookesh joined the committee at 2:01:06 PM.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Ottesen to define the DOT/PF's
perception of periodic evaluation.
MR. OTTESEN said there is a constant oversight of programs and
they use a check and balance system.
CHAIR HUGGINS suggested there be a recurring date.
MR. OTTESEN agreed every three-five years would be easier to
absorb into the budget than annually. He added transportation
finance is undergoing a rapid change. The fuel tax on gallons is
no longer serving the DOT/PF well. Hybrid and hydrogen cars are
part of the reason. The State of Texas has decided to toll their
entire highway and freeway system because they recognize that
gas taxes are not achieving state financial goals.
2:04:40 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Ottesen to explain Section 2, paragraph
13.
MR. OTTESEN answered it was for municipalities with populations
of less than 12,000 and for unincorporated communities. The
entire funding has lapsed and the DOT/PF no longer has the staff
to perform building maintenance and inventories. Other districts
have taken over those duties.
2:06:59 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked what buildings were maintained in places
such as Nome and Kotzebue.
MR. OTTESEN answered there were many public buildings but they
are owned by the cities of Nome and Kotzebue. He added the DOT
owns transportation assets, such as buildings that house fire
rescue and some airport terminals.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether SB 16 would relieve the DOT from the
responsibility of maintaining public buildings.
MR. OTTESEN responded the DOT/PF has not been funded or staffed
to perform those duties for over a decade.
2:08:08 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS stated somebody should be responsible.
MR. OTTESEN asserted the state has turned it's back on the
responsibility. Local governments will advocate to the
Legislature directly when seeking funding.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Senator Kookesh to comment on government
entities other than the DOT/PF maintaining public buildings.
SENATOR KOOKESH replied he is aware of a requirement for schools
to maintain a maintenance program.
MR. OTTESEN commented that requirement comes from the Department
of Education. SB 16 would not apply to a state owned building
located in a small community.
CHAIR HUGGINS asked who owns the buildings that the DOT/PF is
trying to lose responsibility of.
MR. OTTESEN replied the local governments or local school
districts.
2:09:42 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether the Department of Fish and Wildlife
were affected.
MR. OTTESEN replied they are in state buildings and the DOT/PF
still works with them. Most agencies have their own maintenance
programs. Section 2 is about DOT/PF being involved in local
governments with populations under 12,000.
2:12:00 PM
MR. OTTESEN noted Section 4 is about the process by which the
DOT develops the list of projects to be constructed in the near
term. SB 16 is an attempt to clean up the statute to conform to
DOT current practices.
2:15:16 PM
MR. JEFF PARKER, attorney, testified he represented Trout
Unlimited and Robert Gillam in the previously referred to court
case. He testified in opposition to SB 16. He offered to work
with the committee to make SB 16 acceptable. He disagreed with
Mr. Ottesen's testimony and said the DOT cost/benefit analysis
requirements applied only to new transportation and facilities.
He agreed the current statute is ambiguous and could be
improved. Most people would support a provision to establish a
monetary level below which a cost/benefit analysis would not be
required. He suggested providing a definition for the words
"facility" and "periodically".
2:19:40 PM
MR. PARKER said it was not fair to call the statute obsolete.
The consideration of cost/benefit analysis is common sense. The
DOT/PF needs only to address those problems that occur on the
fringes.
2:20:50 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked Mr. Parker the concerns his clients have.
MR. PARKER answered Trout Unlimited is the nations largest cold
water fisheries conservation organization with 700 Alaskan
members. They are generally involved in a variety of land use
habitat fishery management issues, as well as any transportation
issues that may impact fisheries. Their concern with the
Iliamna-Nondalton bridge project is the environmental impact to
the fishery and its intended connection to the Pebble Beach
mine.
2:22:52 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether Trout Unlimited was concerned about
the mining interest.
MR. PARKER said yes.
2:24:14 PM
CHAIR HUGGINS held SB 16 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|