Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/09/1998 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 1998
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 227
"An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project
Authority; relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) PHILLIPS, Cowdery
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/03/97 923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/03/97 923 (H) TRANSPORTATION
04/21/97 (H) TRA AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 17
04/21/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/09/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant
to Representative John Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 455-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 227.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
TOM BRIGHAM, Director
Division of Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-4070
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 227.
PAUL BOWERS, Director
Statewide Aviation, Leasing
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
P.O. Box 196900
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6900
Telephone: (907) 269-0734
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227 and answered questions
regarding the DOT/PF's budget process.
STEVE MORENO, Administrator
Alaska Division
Federal Highway Administration
P.O. Box 21468
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-7180
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227.
RON SIMPSON, Manager
Airports Division
Alaska Region
Federal Aviation Administration
222 West Seventh Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99519
Telephone: (907) 271-5438
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227.
HENRY SPRINGER
Box 4041 "B" Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-5359
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Masek, Cowdery,
Hudson, Sanders and Elton. Representative Elton arrived at 1:17
a.m.
HB 227 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
Number 0090
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would address HB 227, "An
Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority;
relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an
effective date," sponsored by Representative Phillips. He noted
the committee heard this legislation late last session. Chairman
Williams indicated it was not his intention to move the legislation
and noted it would be brought up again at a later hearing.
Number 0113
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called for an at-ease at 1:12 a.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 1:13 a.m.
Number 0141
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative John
Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee to
explain the legislation. He said if each member of the committee
were to ask themselves a few questions about our capital
improvement project planning process, they would see the need for
the legislation. He asked what the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities' (DOT/PF) three priority projects are for
highways, airports or other facilities. Mr. Pignalberi said if the
committee knows what those projects are, maybe there isn't a need
for the legislation. If the committee doesn't know what they are,
maybe there is a need for a change. He asked, "What projects are
you personally interested in the capital improvement process?
Where are they on the priority list? And which priority list are
they on or should they be on?" Mr. Pignalberi said if the
committee knows the answer to those questions, maybe there isn't a
need for the bill. If the committee doesn't know the answer to
those questions, maybe a change needs to be made.
MR. PIGNALBERI asked when the window of opportunity is for a
legislator to get their project included onto a priority list. He
asked who drives the project selection process. He said it
certainly isn't the public or the legislature. Mr. Pignalberi
explained HB 227 will make the answers to the questions more
evident to members of the legislature and public. For that reason,
the bill has been put forward for the committee members'
consideration.
Number 0304
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to the question of who drives the
project list and whether it is the Governor, the legislature or the
public and said one (indisc.) that wasn't mentioned was the federal
government. He pointed out that the state uses an awful lot of
federal dollars. He asked how the structure integrates the
processes that we need to secure the federal dollars.
Number 0341
MR. PIGNALBERI said he believes the committee will hear testimony
from federal representatives who are concerned about the capital
project planning authority. He said, "As a matter of fact, if you
will just ask any objection that comes up to refer to a section of
the bill, I think you'll find the bill is not going to really
change that process." He pointed out that he believes that DOT/PF
currently has a project selection board, or something similar, that
makes the final selection. It is all an in-house activity. There
is not outside accountability. The authority would simply replace
that board. The replacement board would be comprised of public
members. It is not going to short-circuit the planning process or
make any federal funds ineligible. He said it wouldn't change the
relationship that the state currently has with the federal
government.
Number 0472
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON pointed out that when he first came to
Juneau, there was a three member transportation commission and
noted there were three commissioners, one of which was former
Governor Keith Miller. He asked, "How does this jive with that?"
MR. PIGNALBERI responded, "Not at all because that was a regulatory
body which basically had rate setting and entry to market...."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said it was like a limited entry type of a
commission.
Number 0449
MR. PIGNALBERI stated the new organization would to make the
planning more evident and more accessible to the public.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would be more consistent.
MR. PIGNALBERI said there would be a master list of projects and if
there is a change, there would have to be some accountability for
making that change.
Number 0542
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President, Alaska Trucking Association
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He explained his
organization is a 38-year-old trade association that represents the
interest of truck users throughout the state of Alaska. Mr. Dillon
said he supports HB 227. He said he feels the bill lays out a very
positive direction that his organization would like to see the
state take.
Number 0578
MR. DILLON said he believes that DOT/PF has struggled for a long
time to come up with ways to translate dollars into project
improvements and maintenance on the infrastructure. He said the
existing process doesn't allow for the long-term stability needed
to carry through professional judgements of those people who truly
are in a position to assess what this state needs or to satisfy the
motoring public, the elements of commerce that the trucking
industry provides, general safety and to ensure the longevity of
our infrastructure. Mr. Dillon referred to concerns that may be
raised by the federal government and said his association believes
they can be addressed. The legislation may need to be modified.
Mr. Dillon said, "In one instance, we're not sure exactly what's
going to happen with the federal highway bill under the National
Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NECTEA), and
what the real planning requirements under the NECTEA are going to
be. He said it is the trucking industry's point of view that the
process that was used in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) will be considerably modified.
MR. DILLON said the bill incorporates some extremely good ideas.
A number of other states are using a similar process. Mr. Dillon
said, "What we're interested in is having our fair share of the
taxes that we put (indisc.) the infrastructure, maintenance and
improvements and we think that this might give a good shot towards
improving that (indisc.)."
Number 0697
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY said, "What is your feeling about the
stability of this commission, say from one administration to the
other. It seems, in my opinion, that some administrations are
going in one direction. A new administration may come and go in a
different direction? What is your comments of this bill that have
-- in relation to that scenario?"
Number 0727
MR. DILLON said he believes that HB 227 will really make an
approvement in the stability from one Administration to another or
one commissioner to another. He stated he believes Commissioner
Perkins has the greatest longevity of any DOT/PF commissioner in
the history of this state. Mr. Dillon said that because it takes
a long time to implement a transportation infrastructure project,
he believes the state suffers as a result of that. He said
hopefully we realize that the bill does not completely remove the
planning process from the political arena, but he does feel that it
would dampen the short-term effects of politics on long-term
projects.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he believes that the legislation would
put a lot of stability in long-range planning.
MR. DILLON said he agrees with Representative Cowdery's statement.
Number 0825
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked if the authority would have better
access to the legislature's appropriation process than the
Administration. He asked Mr. Dillon if he believes that it might
professionally elevate the need for funding of programs that are
designed and planned for versus what we currently have. He said
there are often new Administrations that come and political
discourse takes place. He asked Mr. Dillon if he would see the
authority as providing stability from a political and funding
sense.
MR. DILLON said the legislation provides exactly for that sort of
circumstance and he hopes that is precisely what develops. He
said, "We don't believe that people's intentions in this process
are necessarily suspect. It's just that the outcome eventually,
because it does take so long and because there is political element
in the appropriation process that we are not going to get away
from, we believe that the establishment of the planning authority
would help mitigate those circumstances and provide for a
circumstance like we have now where we have a difference between
philosophical difference and a party difference between the
Governor and the Administration. It might help mitigate some of
those rough spots."
MR. DILLON said there is no feature in Alaska that is more
important to the quality of life than an efficient and safe
transportation system. Currently, just because of the way the
planning process takes place, his organization doesn't believe
Alaskans are being particularly well-served.
Number 0977
TOM BRIGHAM, Director, Division of Statewide Planning, Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the committee
to testify on HB 227. Mr. Brigham said he has spoke to Chairman
Williams' staff and it was requested that the department outline or
summarize a presentation that was made last year. He asked
Chairman Williams if he would still like him to do that.
CHAIR WILLIAMS asked him to please make it brief.
MR. BRIGHAM said the department does not support HB 227, relating
to the establishment of a capital improvement project authority.
He said DOT/PF believes the current process for prioritizing and
selecting projects is stable and provides well for statewide needs.
There are a number of areas and issues that the bill has the
authority delving into that goes way beyond what the department
currently does with the Project Evaluation Board (PEB). Mr.
Brigham said a concern the department has is that the proposed
authority is really not a true authority, as seen in many other
states, that would be responsible for both the capital and
operating budgets of the department. He said the department's
concern is that it would probably more greatly confuse a lot of
issues than it would clarify them. Mr. Brigham pointed out that
there are also concerns about the extent to which its activities
would be federally eligible for funding. He said if changes were
to be made to the program late in the process, there would be a
question as to whether those projects would remain federally
eligible. He indicated that the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) might be able
to shed some light on.
Number 1123
MR. BRIGHAM referred to a question asked by Mr. Pignalberi, "What
are the DOT/PF's three highest priorities?" He said the department
doesn't have just three high priority projects. Mr. Brigham
pointed out they have a 1998 program that represents the
department's highest priorities. He informed the committee that is
laid out in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
and the Aviation Improvement Program (AIP), which are available.
He noted all legislators have been furnished with the STIP document
as it is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration and the
Federal Transit Administration. Mr. Brigham said the department
welcomes comments from legislators.
Number 1182
MR. BRIGHAM referred to the question, "When and what is the window
of opportunity?" He said the department has gone to great lengths
to create what is called a public involvement process. There was
public involvement to develop the public involvement process. He
noted there is a book that describes it. Mr. Brigham pointed out
that part of the business of working with federal funding is that
you need to follow the process that you establish. He said the
department has two 45-day periods for public comment on the "needs
list." The "needs list" is the first big list of projects that
come in. The department sorts those projects and develops a draft
STIP. There is then another 45-day comment period. Mr. Brigham
said they received comments from members of the legislature and
constituents.
Number 1229
MR. BRIGHAM referred to the question of who drives the process and
said he would argue that particularly for the Community
Transportation Program (CTP) and for the Trails and Recreation
Access for Alaska (TRAAK) Program - the enhancement program, it is
the public that drives that process through elected representatives
within the communities. The projects come out of the communities
and the DOT/PF does very few of those projects. Mr. Brigham
pointed out that it is a little different for the national highway
system. He said, "Those are the state's highways and we are the
driver there."
Number 1259
MR. BRIGHAM indicated he would like to add a couple of comments
regarding the testimony that was provided by the department last
year. He said it is good to bear in mind that in Anchorage the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study TIP really can't
be changed by the DOT/PF or any authority that might be put in
place and that is simply how the federal regulations work. He said
they take the TIP and fold it into the statewide program - the
STIP. He noted that is the way the federal regulations work and
that would need to be carried forward. The notion that the
Anchorage projects might be affected by the authority is not a
notion the committee should entertain.
MR. BRIGHAM said the DOT/PF believes that they have been proactive
in addressing a lot of the issues that gave rise to the
legislation. He informed the committee that they have formed the
Evaluation Board and the Aviation Evaluation Board and the results
of those evaluations are public information. They have matrices of
scores by evaluator, by criteria, for each project. People ask for
those and they are handed out. There is nothing that is really
hidden. Mr. Brigham pointed out that those processes have been
supported by the FHWA on the part of the PEB and the FAA in terms
of the Aviation PEB. He noted the aviation version is being used
as a model by the FAA to redo their national prioritization
process. Mr. Brigham stated the department believes that is a good
process and they try hard to fairly administer that process and to
create a level playing field for projects from all over the state.
It would be difficult to change that process without years of work.
Number 1398
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Brigham how long he has worked for
the department.
MR. BRIGHAM responded that he has worked for the department for
about two and a half years.
Number 1409
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Brigham if he thinks the current
priorities are the same as they were during the last
Administration. He also asked Mr. Brigham if he thinks
Administrations change priorities.
MR. BRIGHAM pointed out that there is no question that each
Administration brings a set of priorities.
Number 1445
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Brigham why he thinks HB 227 was
introduced. He referred to earlier statements by Mr. Brigham that
what the department is doing is supported by the public. He again
asked Mr. Brigham what he thinks the motive is behind the
introduction of the legislation.
MR. BRIGHAM responded by saying, "Representative Cowdery, I would
really hesitate to speculate as to what the motives were, although
looking at the sort of preamble to the bill, I can understand
perhaps that some of those were concerns. I would hope, I guess --
in my testimony what I wanted to point out was I would hope we have
addressed a lot of those concerns in the way the current process is
put together and the relative stability that the process has
enjoyed."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he believes the changes provided in
the bill would benefit both DOT/PF and the state.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to Mr. Brigham speaking about the
public involvement process that the department now uses for the
creation of the project list and said he is assuming that if HB 227
is signed into law, the processes the department uses in developing
the project list will be essentially the same as they currently
are. What changes is that process continues up the line of
command, through the public hearing process, until it gets to the
level at which the department then turns that list over to the
authority. He said the authority would have the ability to review
the work that has been done, review the public testimony that has
been gathered and then submit that list to the Office of the
Governor. Representative Elton said it seems that another layer of
bureaucracy is being added through the creation of the authority.
Representative Elton said the legislation doesn't preclude the
commissioner from submitting an independent list to the Governor.
He said the bill doesn't say that the only list that goes to the
Governor comes through the authority. The commissioner will still
have the ability to submit a list right to the Governor.
Number 1591
MR. BRIGHAM said the way the bill is written, it is a bit foggy as
to whether the program by the authority would be the only program
or whether the department could advance a separate program. He
said he doesn't believe it is clear at all because the bill gives
the authority the ability to create a staff. So you could have an
authority staff and department staff. Exactly how the process
would work at that point is unclear. Mr. Brigham provided the
committee members with an exhibit. He said the exhibit is the
department's sense of how this would or wouldn't work. The exhibit
describes how the department sees how the bill would establish and
authority and an authority director, and then allows the authority
to create a staff. How the authority relates to the commissioner
is spelled out to some degree in the bill, but how the director and
the staff relate to the current DOT/PF staff and the commissioner
is not at all clear.
Number 1679
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the committee previously heard that there
are other states that have this kind of a system. He said he would
think that this template could be superimposed over how other
states do it. He asked Mr. Brigham if he is saying that other
states may have a commission that does all the work, or may have a
commissioner that does all the work, but there aren't other
jurisdictions that have kind of this bifurcated responsibility.
Number 1706
MR. BRIGHAM said his understanding and experience is that there are
a number of states that have commissions and he believes there are
about 12 where the commission is the chief policy and decision
making body for the Department of Transportation. They then have
an executive director, or someone who is the chief administrator,
who reports directly to the commission for all matters. He said
that is very clear and there is no question as to what is going on.
Mr. Brigham said HB 227 doesn't provide for that. The other main
model is a commission that is more of a policy advisory body, but
is not in the direct chain of command. Those are very clear in
that they operate to advise the governor or commissioner as to
transportation policy and needs, but they do not have line
authority. Mr. Brigham said there is typically one or the other
kind of an approach. House Bill 227 kind of confuses the two which
concerns the department.
Number 1763
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said Mr. Brigham mentioned that the department
has a lot of problems with the legislation. He asked if there were
written comments to that effect.
MR. BRIGHAM said in reading the minutes of the previous hearing on
HB 227, Deputy Commissioner Parkin had submitted written comments.
He said in checking with Chairman Williams' staff, it turns out
that the written comments weren't submitted. He informed the
committee the comments will be prepared and submitted within one or
two days.
Number 1788
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted the committee members have a chart
from the department. He asked Mr. Brigham if he can point out in
the legislation where it speaks about staff. Representative
Cowdery referred to meetings he has had with Mr. Brigham and said
it was his understanding that the commission would use DOT/PF
staff.
Number 1818
MR. BRIGHAM directed the committee to page 3, line 22, "(e) The
authority may hire the minimum of staff, including a director,
necessary to efficiently perform the functions of the authority."
He stated it isn't mandatory, but it certainly leaves the door
open. It doesn't say that the authority shall use DOT/PF staff.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "Am I correct in thinking that the
commission has got to go through the -- before it goes to the
Governor the ACIPA - you know staff has got to go through this
staff -- between that and the Governor. Am I correct to thinking
-- my interpretation?"
Number 1866
MR. BRIGHAM said he believes the way the bill is currently written,
Representative Cowdery's interpretation is certainly good as any.
He pointed out it is open to more than one interpretation which is
one of the department's main concerns.
Number 1888
REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH asked if there is anything in HB 227
that is not already being done by DOT/PF. He said it is a broad
question, but he wants to be able to support or not support the
legislation based on some rational findings and facts.
MR. BRIGHAM responded that there is one thing. He said the
authority, as outlined in the legislation, would transcend
administrations.
Number 1947
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked, "Does this bill give any independent
authority to the new department?"
MR. BRIGHAM responded that he doesn't believe so.
Number 1969
PAUL BOWERS, Director, Statewide Aviation, Leasing, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. He said, "In follow-up to statewide planning
director, Tom Brigham's comments that the genesis for this bill may
have been trying to address a problem that we have historically had
that we in DOT think we have fixed it with the APEB process - the
Airport Project Evaluation Board and the Project Evaluation Board."
Mr. Bowers explained that the reason the department believes they
have fixed the problem is that APEB process has been in place for
almost three years. It has gone through two legislative sessions
without change and has resulted in significant improvements with
federal dollars. He stated, "In recent years, we are at
approximately $81 million in FAA administered AIP funds this year.
That's up nearly 20 percent from about two years ago. That's a
rather dramatic increase and it is tied directly to this process
that the FAA has bought into and the national headquarter's folks
has bought into. It simply is working."
Number 2039
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked, "Do you attribute any credit for the
extra funding to our recently appropriation member back in -- the
heads of the Appropriation Committee back in Washington, D.C.?"
MR. BOWERS responded that is obviously doesn't hurt. He noted the
process that the department goes through is one that is competed
for on a national basis. He said he believes the process is
significantly better than the rest of the country and our projects
compare favorably in that regard.
Number 2092
STEVE MORENO, Administrator, Alaska Division, Federal Highway
Administration, came before the committee to testify. He noted he
is replacing Bob Ruby who testified last year on HB 227. Mr.
Moreno indicated concern regarding language in the legislation. He
said the bill specifically states that the authority may submit
proposals for capital improvement projects. There is also other
language that says the authority shall review and revise, as
appropriate, the various programs that the DOT/PF puts together.
Mr. Moreno said there are several things that are tied together in
making a state transportation improvement program. The projects
don't exist in a vacuum, they exist because they're tied to one
another. In the case of the AMATS process, the federal requirement
is that the AMATS process come together and generate a list of
projects - the TIP. The Governor, or the Governor's
representative, and the AMATS' policy group together agree on what
the content of that list is. Mr. Moreno explained the federal
requirement is that the list must be put into the statewide TIP
without any adjustments. In other words, it must be included
verbatim either by reference or directly by physically putting it
in the document. Mr. Moreno informed the committee that his
concern is perhaps the authority would reach a decision at which
point they say, "Okay, we're going to remove this project from the
AMATS list." He said at the point, the project is removed from the
AMATS list and a new one is inserted, the FHWA could not support
that new project because it's not being developed in the
cooperative process that is required by federal regulation.
MR. MORENO said a second issue is that AMATS is a air quality
nonattainment area. What that means for the federal government is
when that AMATS list is put together for their TIP, it has to be
tested against criteria to show whether or not it helps achieve the
national ambiant air quality standards. In other words, are we
going to make the air better or worse as a result of these
projects. Mr. Moreno explained that the testing is an actual
numerical test of cranking numbers and looking at what the
omissions are. That is something that the FHWA does together with
the Federal Transit Administration. He noted they also receive
advice from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on
whether or not the program, as a whole, will go towards furthering
achieving of the air quality standards. Mr. Moreno said the
problem would be that if you start changing the mix of projects,
and they're significant projects, you run the risk of being out of
conformity. If the TIP is no longer in conformity with the state
implementation plan for air quality, then the federal government
cannot support it financially. He noted that is a provision of
both the Clean Air Act and the ISTEA legislation. Mr. Moreno
informed the committee that there is a problem with the Fairbanks
area because it is also a nonattainment area. He said there is
also a requirement that all STIPs be financially constrained. What
the intake is, in terms of revenue, has to be similar to what the
outlay is going to be. Mr. Moreno said, "Here again, if at the
last minute somebody starts pulling projects or inserting projects,
it may disturb the financial aspect of it. Once again, the feds
are required to make that test. Is this financially constrained?"
Number 2258
MR. MORENO explain a final issue has to do with the public
involvement process. Here again, the feds set out a process that
states are to follow. He said they don't perscribe the exact
details of it, but there must be a process with some key steps in
it. That process involves various documents, putting them out for
public review and then acting on whatever the public comments are.
He stated the issues they are concerned with are the financial
constraints, the public involvement, the air quality conformity in
the nonattainment areas, and the idea that the TIP for the AMATS
area must be included as a verbatim unit from what was passed by
the appropriate group.
Number 2301
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked where in the bill it talks about
public comments not being allowed.
MR. MORENO informed Representative Cowdery that the bill doesn't
say that public comments won't be allowed. He pointed out what he
is saying is that the public is presented, in the state's process,
with some listings of projects, priorities, scheduling, et cetera.
If that changes from what the public is seeing, he isn't sure that
the public is given an ample opportunity to see the final product.
Number 2322
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked, "Do you intreprete the bill then to
bypass AMATS?"
MR. MORENO referred the committee to page 2, line 25, "(a) The
authority shall review, revise as appropriate, and approve the
following plans and programs...." It then lists a bounch of plans
and programs. He said he believes there is the opportunity for
this authority to change the list. He also referred the committee
to page 3, line 19, "(d) The authority may submit proposals for
capital improvement projects for construction...." Mr. Moreno said
he intreprets that to mean if you submit a proposal, you could
include, but you could also delete. He referred to page 6, line
30, "Long-range program for highway construction and maintenance."
He said he read that to be the STIP and then on page 7, line 2, it
says, "Subject to review, revision, and approval by the Alaska
Capital Improvement Project Authority,..." He said the word
"revision" suggests the authority would be acting somewhat
autonomously from the rest of the process.
Number 2393
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Moreno if he thinks that currently
there is never any revisions.
MR. MORENO responded that there are revisions and the process is
designed to allow revisions. He said when those revisions take
place, such as when a new project comes from somewhere and it is
attempted to be put on the STIP, it must go through the process
that the original STIP went through. Some would argue that it is
buracratic and others would say it is protecting that interest of
not allowing for individual munipulation of the project list.
Number 2416
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Moreno if he belives that if the
authority wouldn't be astute enough to recognize the funds that
might be in jeopardy and would conform to the....
TAPE 98-3, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. MORENO responded, "...and sometimes they fall outside the
rules, and when they do that part of my job is to say, 'I'm sorry,
we can't participate in that.' And so we obviously are bound by
the laws and regulations of Title 23 where our program lives. So
I'm not saying it would be an intential thing. I'm saying it can
happen and there is not a lot of flexibility when it does happen."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "It is my understanding the intent of
the sponsors and everything and the bill is to use that from DOT
for these problems that we just talked about. I mean it has some
language in here to allow for some executive, maybe, staff or
something (indisc.) in here. But the main source of information
and guidance is going to come from DOT. Would you belive that's a
fair statement?"
MR. MORENO responded that he would certainly hope so.
Number 0042
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said his understaning of what Mr. Moreno said
is that the authority is okay as long as they don't exercise any of
the prerogatives given to them in HB 227. If they exercise their
prerogatives by taking out or inserting projects, then it is not
okay. If they do take out or insert any projects, the state of
Alaska jeopardizes federal funds.
MR. MORENO said that is fairly accurate. If they insert their
judgement for the process which is in place, then those projects
that they have inserted don't have any status as far as federal
funding goes.
Number 0089
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the concerns would be alleviated if
the authority was to be put at the beginning of the process instead
of the end of the process.
MR. MORENO referred to his interpretation of HB 227 and said it
looks as if the authority would have line item substitution
authority for projects, whether they add or delete them. He said
it is not whether or not you have an authority or commission or
whether you function under the existing set up. He noted there are
lots of states that have commissions and authorities and they
function. The question is whether or not this authority would be
using its position to remove or delete projects that would external
to the accepted process.
Number 0135
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked Mr. Moreno if he believes the
current process works well.
MR. MORENO answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Moreno how he can feel that way
about a system that hasn't built a road in 25 years. He also asked
Mr. Moreno how he can feel that it is working well. Representative
Sanders said it seems like anything would be better than the way
we've done it.
MR. MORENO responded, "I guess I have the opportunity to share with
you a perspective when you say, 'We haven't built a road in so many
years,' because much of what is being done by the federal funds
that are made available, nationally, is basically to rehabilitate
what is out there. When you say we haven't built a road, I guess
I, you know, I don't know the specifics locally. But there is a
great need out there to rehabilitate what we have on the ground and
it's being done everywhere in the nation - that we're spending more
and more of our money doing projects that are on existing
alignment. We're attacking safety problems, we're widening,
putting up new signals, we're straightening out alignments. And so
on the one hand you'd say, 'You know we're spending a lot of money,
but we're not getting any new roads.' And that's true, but that's
not unique to here. And in my past position, I came back from a
situation where we were sitting around a table debating the
environmental status of a project that's been on the board for 30
years. We still hadn't built it. And I mean we're building other
things around them. We're rehabilitating. We're changing out the
guardrail to make it safer for people. We're repaving so we're
putting down new surface. We're converting, in some places, gravel
over to pavement. So those are all parts of the legitimate
expenditure of funds, but they don't represent a new road to a new
location. That's not unique to Alaska and it's not unique to the
DOT."
Number 0220
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said, "I could appreciate that if we were in
a state like most others where it was criss-crossed with roads, but
90 percent of our state doesn't have a road in it."
MR. MORENO said that is true.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said that we need to build some roads so we
can fix them.
MR. MORENO responded, "Well I think you have been fixing them and
I think you have been building them." He pointed out that to build
new roads on new alignment is a very difficult process. He said he
was in Juneau from 1983 to 1993 and said during that period there
were several improvements to Egan Drive, Old Glacier was redone,
Riverside Drive was redone. He said they weren't new roads in that
sense, but they offered new features such as things like bike
paths, sidewalks, shoulders that never existed before, et cetera.
He pointed out they also moved into some environmental areas that
they hadn't traditionally been into.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said it has been 25 years since a state-
funded road has been built. That information came from a letter
the committee had from Bruce Campbell, dated February 9, 1998,
where Mr. Campbell says the last road built with state funds was
from Anchorage to Fairbanks. He said he would bet that road wasn't
built all with state funds.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said he appreciates the amount of money that
we have spent in Alaska just to fix up the roads because Angoon
would not have benefited. He stated the last place another road is
needed is in Anchorage. He noted he has been on the Anchorage
roads and a lot of them go nowhere. We don't need to build roads
that go nowhere.
Number 0333
RON SIMPSON, Manager, Airports Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
informed the committee that his division administers Airport
Improvement Program (AIP), the federal funded program for airport
development in the state. He read the following statement into the
record:
"I'd like to express our concerns regarding this proposed House
Bill Number 227, relating to the establishment of an Alaska Capital
Improvement Project Authority. This authority, as we understand
it, would be used to rank, prioritize and improve capital
development projects as well as provide stability and continuity in
the Capital Development Program when administration changes occur.
However, from an FAA perspective, this House Bill 227 has major
consequences and would jeopardize the ability of the state of
Alaska to optimize federal airport capital development funds.
"These AIP funds are distributed on a competitive basis based on
the selection of high priority projects. The state of Alaska
competes with every other state on a national basis for a
commensurate share of AIP funds. We are working very closely with
DOT/PF to ensure that the maximum amount of AIP funds are secured
and meet the airport development needs in Alaska.
"We understand that his authority, as proposed, will be approving
a list of development projects by February 2 of each year, for
construction over the next succeeding two fiscal years. This
proposed process will not match with the complexities or timing of
the AIP application process. In the AIP Program, we submit ACIPs
(Airport Capital Improvement Plan) comprised of the proposed
airport development projects for Alaska. We submit them from the
regions of FAA Headquarters in the October time frame to compete
for AIP funds for the succeeding construction season.
"Furthermore, to compete effectively on a national basis requires
at least two to three years advanced planning to accomplish AIP
programming requirements such as obtaining environmental permits
and land acquisitions before a project can be approved for funding.
Legislative authority is also needed for DOT/PF to perform the
required preliminary engineering, design and bidding that must
occur before an AIP grant can be issued. Any inability to timely
submit ACIPs, or meet AIP programming requirements, will be
perceived by FAA Headquarters in Washington is an indication that
the state of Alaska may not really need this necessary AIP funding,
thus jeopardizing our future funding levels.
"We believe that this authority is being proposed to fix a problem
that has already been recognized and corrected by DOT/PF; a backlog
on capital development projects that were designed, but never
constructed. The DOT/PF formed the Airport Project Evaluation
Board (APEB) two years ago to address this apparent problem with
their project selection process. We've worked very closely with
DOT/PF to ensure that this new AIP project selection process
results in the highest priority projects being selected. The APEB,
in our opinion, has corrected this problem and has improved the
state of Alaska's ability to compete for AIP funds.
"The APEB is a panel that is comprised of a fairly high level of
state representation including the statewide planning director, the
statewide aviation director, three regional directors and the
deputy commissioner of Aviation, which we believe provides a good
statewide perspective incorporating the entire state's development
needs and concerns into the process. The APEB selection process
uses a ranking criteria that considers such factors as safety,
health and quality of life, economic benefits, community support,
community maintenance and operation contribution, airport security
and airport certification requirements, aviation and transportation
alternatives, runway length and condition, aviation hazards,
erosion and flooding problems, among others. This project
selection ranking criteria closely resembles the FAA's national
priority system for AIP project selection.
"The establishment of the APEB has really been a benefit for the
state of Alaska because it incorporates the federal priorities with
overall statewide needs to compile ACIPs that are credible. These
ACIPs are three to five-year plans that provide a measure of
stability and continuity to the state's Airport Capital Development
Program.
"We are beginning to see the benefits of the APEB process in the
state of Alaska's ability to compete for AIP funding. Prior to the
APEB selection process being put into place, the state's AIP
funding level averaged about $60 million annually. Since the APEB
process has been established and utilized for the last two fiscal
year programs, and we've been through a complete cycle, it has
enabled the state to acquire $75 million in AIP funds in FY 97, and
we anticipate an all time high of over $81 million in AIP funding
for fiscal year 98. This increased funding would not have occurred
without a selection process that resulted in many projects that are
high priority and competitive on a national basis consistent with
FAA national priority system.
"Another point, this new authority, as proposed in House Bill 227,
will be made up of public citizens that will serve with staggered
terms. This causes us great concern as we have invested countless
hours in educating the APEB on the FAA national priority system to
ensure that they have the expertise to select the highest priority
projects to give the state of Alaska a best competitive edge for
AIP funds. Re-educating this new authority and building the
necessary expertise is no small undertaking; and with staggered
terms and a rotating membership, this educational process will
undoubtedly be ongoing, and significantly impact our resources as
well as the state's ability to optimize AIP funding.
"With all due respect, we would encourage the Alaska State
Legislature to enable the DOT/PF and FAA to continue to work
cooperatively together incorporating the APEB process to pursue,
capture and retain all of the airport infrastructure development
funds we can possibly get to meet the aviation needs in Alaska. We
in the FAA strongly endorse the APEB project selection process and
we feel that the establishment of an authority will only add an
additional layer of review that will jeopardize and impact the
state of Alaska's ability to optimize federal airport capital
development funding."
Number 0655
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to Mr. Simpson speaking about the
authority and changing board members every three or five years. He
referred to the possibility of a change in the Administration and
asked what would then happen to the FAA.
MR. SIMPSON responded that the ACIP which is submitted to
Headquarters is a five-year plan.
Number 0687
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if direction would be changed.
MR. SIMPSON said to change the next five-year plan in midstream
would impact the credibility of the program and impact the ability
to secure federal funds for development in Alaska. He said,
"That's why we like to look at the ACIP as being a very important
document and incorporate a statewide perspective when we put them
together and make sure that they do have within them the highest
priority needs that's identified for the state. So should we be
moving from one administration to another, we would look to see
that there is continuity as far as which projects are rated the
highest priority projects based on the specific specified criteria.
In a change of administration, the selection criteria should not be
changed in that predicament.
Number 0728
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the committee wants to make sure there is
continuity and make sure that nothing changes within that. He
said, "I know that having one administrator that is appointed
because he is an administrator in that field, whether it's FAA or
whatever, that it is better for the state for having someone
appointed because he is a political -- helped the Administration
get into office."
Number 0763
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Simpson if he feels that if the
authority is created, they would not maximize the funds available
from any of the sources.
Number 0789
MR. SIMPSON responded, "I'm not being critical of the authority and
its intentions, but what I would like to add is that what we have
in place now with the APEB process is an accepted proven process
that has already shown benefits in the state of Alaska as far as
the ability to secure their maximum amount of federal funding. And
the project selection criteria that they use to determine which
projects we forward to Washington, D.C., for funding has been very
successful and consistent with our FAA national priority system and
really serves as a model for selecting and documenting and
justifying which projects are forwarded to Headquarters for
funding."
Number 0829
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if it is possible that another system
could be more successful than the current system.
MR. SIMPSON responded that they work with the DOT/PF on a continual
basis. The membership of the APEB consists of the regional
directors, statewide aviation directors, statewide planning
directors and the deputy commissioner of Aviation. He said they
work with them on a continual basis and have developed a close
relationship with those individuals as far as coming to some
agreement as to what the aviation needs are in the state of Alaska,
which ones of those needs are high priority needs, and where should
the federal investment be focused so that the constituency of the
state of Alaska gets the most benefits out of the aviation program.
Mr. Simpson indicated he believes the relationship between the
DOT/PF and his agency would be impacted if there is another level
of review inserted into the process.
Number 0892
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Simpson if he believes that there
is ever any political influence in any decisions that are made.
MR. SIMPSON informed the committee he has been in his position
since 1991. He said, "Back in those days, yes, I did see political
pressure and political maneuvering impacting our program. But in
the last few with APEB process, as Mr. Bowers, Statewide Aviation
Director has indicated, the ACIP that's been formulated by the APEB
has withstood the scrutiny of the Alaska State Legislature, has not
been influenced or impacted by political assertion and gone forward
from our offices to Headquarters intact.
Number 0899
HENRY SPRINGER came before the committee to testify on behalf of
himself. He said he has been in Alaska since 1960 and spent three
years in the Army. From 1963 to 1986 he was with the old Highway
Department and was with DOT/PF as a director. Mr. Springer
referred to HB 227 and said his interest is in the transportation
of Alaska. He said, "I feel great as a taxpayer that I was
(indisc.) there is really no need to fix anything. If it ain't
broke, don't fix it and I believe in that. But I also have a keen
interest in the historic perspective in transportation in the state
and I don't think we're doing all that great."
MR. SPRINGER said he believes there was a more responsive system in
the state 50 or even 100 years ago that fulfilled the needs. The
simple reason for HB 227 or some kind of a different approach is
the instability. He said what a lot of people don't understand is
what the shock effect is in a department, especially as big and
complex as DOT/PF is when a commissioner changes. It is not just
philosophical or policy changes, it's bureaucratic changes that
come with the personnel system. There is the insecurity of people
in different jobs. Mr. Springer said, "A simple thing is that we
have produced, through the years, partly because it was mandated by
the federal aid and Federal Aid Administration, that we had three-
year, five-year, six-year and ten-year plans. And I have been
heavily involved with all those."
Number 1115
MR. SPRINGER informed the committee that in his personal library,
he has about 1,200 pounds of studies and planning documents, since
statehood, of which hardly any of them were ever used longer than
the administrations they were produced in. That is somewhat
understandable because if you produce something and that reflects
your policy and your philosophic direction, that is what you're
trying to work with. Mr. Springer said the next person comes in
and she/he may or may not have completely different ideas. A prime
example is what Governor Hickel produced and what the present
Administration is doing. He stated he is not saying one is better
than the other, he is just using it as an example of instability.
He said he believes the department is making very creditable
efforts in coming up with a good and placable and logical planning
process with whatever criteria they use. The underlying problem is
stability and there hasn't been any stability in any way, shape or
form since statehood. Mr. Springer asked "What should a
transportation system do for the state?" The conventional wisdom
says a transportation system is necessary for the economic
stability and well-being of the state.
Number 1207
MR. SPRINGER said we have to have intermodal considerations. In
some areas marine transportation is paramount, in others land
transportation and also air transportation. He said he would
submit that none of it, in this state, has come about because of
careful planning or some government entity having a lot foresight
and skill. It has all come about because commerce, industry and
individuals found necessities to have whatever mode of
transportation was necessary for the well-being for those people.
MR. SPRINGER referred to the villages years ago and said the old
timers had a better trail system in place to accommodate winter
travel than what we currently have. Maybe we don't need it to that
extent anymore because aviation is taking over.
MR. SPRINGER said he has looked at some congressional records from
years ago and there was a well-planned system with minimal money
they had shelter cabins, firewood, staked trails which connected
the villages. There are trails in Anchorage. That's great for
some people, but that is a luxury and not a necessity and we're not
meeting the basic necessities because of policy shifts.
Number 1282
MR. SPRINGER pointed out that 31 states have used some kind of a
commission approach and it is not a rigid thing. There could be a
system where there is a full system that would take the place of
the commissioner and he believes that would be the desirable thing
to do. He said he honestly thinks a full commission that takes
over the policy for DOT/PF would be the thing to do. He asked,
"Why not do that?" He said our constitution has given the Governor
very broad and probably more authority than any other Governor in
the nation. The same thing holds true for the legislature. Mr.
Springer said if we wanted to establish a broad commission, it
would probably cut, even deeper than HB 227, into the authority of
the Governor. It also will be perceived to infringe on some of the
authority of legislators. Mr. Springer stated he believes it is
politically not doable. He said since the planning and programming
is the key to at least capital programs, such an authority would
provide a vehicle to establish that stability.
MR. SPRINGER said, "I want to get into some specific things that
come up and I think either people don't see it directly in the bill
or can't envision it - why that authority is a good and workable
thing. Number one, it would not raise another level of
bureaucracy. The way I think the bill envisions it, it would keep
the planning process in the regions completely intact. The
regional planners in the three regions within DOT would continue to
do whatever they are -- basically (Indisc.) acquisition and so on.
That is for all modes of transportation. What it would basically
do is replace a large portion of the Headquarter's planning and
programming group, and I said 'replace.' It is not parallel group
coming up. And there are some functions that need to be maintained
because of federal requirements like keeping statistics, and so on,
so the commissioner's office would be able to continue that."
Number 1446
MR. SPRINGER said the key question is, "Who sets the policy? Who
makes the selections?" He pointed out that there is nothing in the
present stipulations, both in the FAA and the FHWA, to prevent such
an approach. It can be just as compatible meeting the requirements
as the present set-up is. You take one group and replace it with
another. Mr. Springer said the big difference it that this group
has authority to basically decide what is going to be in the
Capital Program. One thing that has been pointed out is AMATS
which is under the ISTEA provision. He pointed out under ISTEA,
they see a necessity for a municipal planning authority in those
types of communities. He said that doesn't mean AMATS is set
rigidly as to its composition. It just has to comply with the
federal requirements pertaining to municipal planning authorities.
Mr. Springer stated the commissioner can be replaced with the
chairman of that board. The mayor of the municipality can still be
in the process.
Number 1520
MR. SPRINGER said, "The other (indisc.) that is of some political
concern, while we are going to knock off jobs -- well I think one
of the key points here in the legislature is dealing with fiscal
gaps and so on." He said he doesn't think it affects the job
security. It will eliminate some planning positions, but most of
those are funded by federal dollars. That money could be used in
design and construction which where it is more needed than in the
planning process. Mr. Springer referred to the current planning
process and said it is very expensive. He said the committee has
heard about the necessity of public involvement. He stated, "It
has been my observation that the public involvement process has
reached dimensions where the mechanisms are such that there isn't
much sausage coming out of that hopper. There are a lot of
ingredients going in, but they're just stirring the pot and making
hamburger and there are no patties coming out." Mr. Springer
stated that is a problem for two reasons. He said we have planning
processes that are continually on-going. Mr. Springer said he sees
the same faces, for example, in the Anchorage public hearings.
That is a concern. He asked what the public involvement is. He
said he would submit to the committee that a body that is appointed
by the governor, confirmed by the legislature, represents different
modes and geographic areas is an ideal way to get the feedback and
access of the public in the hearing processes. It isn't a process
that would be manipulated by bureaucrats. It is a process that is
composed of and done by citizens.
MR. SPRINGER explained that bureaucrats don't need to teach people
what is needed, it's the other way around. Industry and commerce
is the thriving force, not some bureaucracy. He said on the flip
side, you can't expect people from all sorts of life to make a
decision that should be done along professional guidelines. To use
a process where you take only people's input and try to formulate
a policy is absurd and is a guarantee that nothing will happen.
That is where the professionals with training and the elected
leaders should use a leadership role and decide what is the right
thing to do. It should be established as a policy and then that
policy should be pursued over a long period and not be at the whim
of one Administration or another.
Number 1728
MR. SPRINGER referred to what the authority would do and said he
doesn't see anything where it is not compatible with federal
guidelines. He said, "To address the concern that the authority
will indeed have the power to add, subtract or change a program -
they're well founded, but that authority also, in the end, can
decide if that has a priority and if the federal participation can
not (indisc.) be guaranteed, maybe there is a situation where state
funding should be used. We have, right now, a couple of examples
I can give you with a well thought out process in place right now
that are exemptions. I'm amazed at its political expediency. One
of them is a thirty some million dollars that has been announced to
be used for the Anchorage International Airport. It wasn't in the
STIP or in the long-term planning process. It came out like that
just as predictable as the next election. The same thing with the
intersection at Tudor and Lake Otis. That didn't show up in any
planning document or anything. All of a sudden Mayor Mystrom and
the Governor fall all over each other saying that it has a high
priority. Where the hell were the planners at? I'm not being
critical. I'm just pointing a couple of examples which we have
just seen within the last two weeks which points out to me that the
planning process and the priority setting is problematic. The
second thing is I think it guarantees sufficient citizen access and
input. I think it takes the operational needs that the industry
and commerce and the people have into consideration. It provides
a geographic balance. It is more results oriented because it's
based on business decisions and not so much political (indisc.) I
think there are better decisions in regards to the cost benefit
ratio of a project. We are required to have a cost benefit
analysis. I don't see that in hardly any of the planned projects -
what is coming out of the hopper? I think it is a cheaper process.
I think we can cut the costs that is being used right now for
planning probably in half. We don't lose that money, we just use
it in another sector."
Number 1900
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he agrees with Mr. Springer as far as
continuity. He said Mr. Moreno had concerns about some of the
wording in the bill and asked Mr. Springer if there is a big issue
in that area.
Number 1930
MR. SPRINGER said, "I tried to address the AMATS and the MPO
question as far as air quality goes. It is obvious that a
commission like that is not going to bite its nose off. If there
is a decision that is paramount to utilize all available federal
funds, which I think anybody, I don't care if it's the Governors
Office or a commission or whoever, that is paramount. But at the
same time, we shouldn't overlook the flexibilities, in some cases,
for specific projects if they are too problematic that we should
use only state funding or bond funding which we have done. There
is plenty of necessity to use the federal dollars up without
getting into any problems. Air quality attainment in Fairbanks and
Anchorage is well known, but there is nothing that the authority
couldn't do that is presently being done." Mr. Springer continued
to discuss his experience while he worked for the Department of
Fish and Game.
MR. SPRINGER referred to Representative Sanders question of why
haven't we built any roads. Mr. Springer said in 1963, we used
approximately 80 percent to 90 percent that went into a project.
Currently, we have 52 percent of the money going into projects and
the rest going to air quality, water quality, storm water runoff,
ASHA, planning, trails, et cetera. He stated that roads aren't
being built because the money is being used for other things
besides construction.
Number 2086
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Springer to comment on what he
believes the composition of the board should be.
MR. SPRINGER informed the committee that in the early 1980s,
Governor Egan established a transportation advisory board made up
of citizens. Governor Egan appointed people who he felt had
expertise in different matters who would help the commissioner
establish a transportation policy. The met twice a year. Some of
the people appointed ran barge companies, fuel docks, et cetera.
Mr. Springer said maybe those people were a little short on
education or weren't politically correct, but they sure knew how to
run barges, trucks and airlines. He said a concern is how much
time people can spend working on the board. Mr. Springer stated he
doesn't see an adverse situation between the commissioner and that
body. He sees it as a very compatible and cooperative effort.
Number 2368
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS indicted there needs to be some limited changes
to the legislation. He said HB 227 would be held for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2442
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|