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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 8, 2003
2:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Holm, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Dan Ogg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 71(TRA)
"An Act relating to funding for transportation projects; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 71(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- MOVED CSHB 301(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to driving while under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled substance and to
presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's
breath or blood; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 71
SHORT TITLE:TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) STEVENS B
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/18/03 0204 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/18/03 0204 (S) TRA, FIN
02/27/03 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/03 (S) Moved CSSB 71(TRA) Out of
Committee
02/27/03 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
02/28/03 0295 (S) TRA RPT CS 3DP 1NR 1AM NEW
TITLE
02/28/03 0295 (S) DP: COWDERY, OLSON, WAGONER;
02/28/03 0295 (S) NR: THERRIAULT; AM: LINCOLN
02/28/03 0295 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/11/03 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/11/03 (S) Moved CSSB 71(TRA) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
03/12/03 0467 (S) FIN RPT CS(TRA) 2DP 5NR
03/12/03 0467 (S) DP: WILKEN, STEVENS B; NR:
GREEN,
03/12/03 0467 (S) TAYLOR, HOFFMAN, OLSON, BUNDE
03/12/03 0467 (S) FN1: ZERO(DOT)
03/13/03 0491 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/13/2003
03/13/03 0491 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/13/03 0492 (S) TRA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/13/03 0492 (S) ADVANCE TO 3RD READING FAILED
Y12 N7 E1
03/13/03 0492 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
3/17 CALENDAR
03/17/03 0519 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
71(TRA)
03/17/03 0519 (S) PASSED Y11 N7 E2
03/17/03 0519 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) ADOPTED Y18
N- E2
03/17/03 0519 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
03/18/03 0539 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/18/03 0539 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/18/03 0539 (S) VERSION: CSSB 71(TRA)
03/19/03 0576 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/03 0576 (H) TRA
03/19/03 0596 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): LYNN
03/20/03 0603 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S):ROKEBERG#1,
STOLTZE#2
04/01/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/01/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/02/03 0748 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER TRA
04/03/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/03/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(TRA)
05/08/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 301
SHORT TITLE:KNIK ARM BRIDGE AND TOLL AUTHORITY
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
05/06/03 1354 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/06/03 1354 (H) TRA, FIN
05/06/03 1354 (H) FN1: (DOT)
05/06/03 1354 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/08/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE:DUI: LOWER BAC IF PREVIOUS CONVICTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)WEYHRAUCH
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/03 0641 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/03 0641 (H) TRA, JUD
03/26/03 0641 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
04/15/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/15/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/24/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
04/24/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/06/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
05/06/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard --
05/08/03 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN MacKINNON, Deputy Commissioner of Highways & Public
Facilities
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HB 301.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 217 on behalf of the bill's
sponsor, Representative Bruce Weyhrauch.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-21, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Holm, Fate, and Kohring were present at the call to order.
Representative Ogg arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 71-TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 71(TRA), "An Act relating to funding
for transportation projects; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0053
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that the bill would place in statute the 4
percent required [maximum] level of funding for TRAAK [Trails
and Recreation Access for Alaska] programs. She said she felt
this was setting a bad precedent because TRAAK funding is of
benefit to many areas in the state. She stated that there is no
doubt that support is needed in the state where there is no road
or highway access, and TRAAK funding provides good support for
communities with trails and quality-of-life additions. Having
said that, she asked for the wishes of the committee.
Number 0090
CO-CHAIR HOLM moved to report CSSB 71(TRA) out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSSB 71(TRA) was reported from the
House Transportation Standing Committee.
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.
HB 217-DUI: LOWER BAC IF PREVIOUS CONVICTION
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 217, "An Act relating to driving while under
the influence of an alcoholic beverage, inhalant, or controlled
substance and to presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol
in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 1582
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska
State Legislature, provided the following testimony as the
sponsor statement for HB 217 on behalf of Representative
Weyhrauch, sponsor:
The bill that is under consideration before you
proposes to lower the blood alcohol content for repeat
DUI [driving under the influence] offenders from the
current level of 0.08 to 0.04. This bill is a
priority of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and it's an
important piece of the criminal justice system's
approach to prosecuting drunk drivers and keeping our
roads safe. I want to emphasize that this is a small
step and it will not overburden the criminal justice
system or the courts with an influx of new arrests.
Just an aside: once this legislation was introduced,
I got a number of phone calls from the departments,
asking what the sponsor's intent of the legislation
was. They were concerned that we were hoping that it
would do a lot. I emphasized to them that we thought
that we consider this legislation to be similar to an
aggravating factor in sentencing; it's just something
that is a very small step.
Right now, if a police officer pulls someone over, if
they have probable cause to consider that this person
might be impaired in their driving, they pull him over
and then they take a breathalyzer test in the field,
again, if they have probable cause. If it's real low,
if it's 0.08, for example, the person might be
arrested - chances are would be arrested - and then
they're taken to the stationhouse and they take
another breathalyzer test at the stationhouse. My
understanding is, that's the test that is used by the
prosecution and the defense in criminal prosecution.
If it's marginal, if it's just under or around 0.08,
there's a chance that the prosecutor won't take the
case because they are necessarily limited by resources
and they want to take the winning cases the distance.
With this law enacted, those marginal cases will be
better bets for the prosecutor to prosecute.
Number 1681
MS. SYLVESTER testified:
In 1999, Alaska led the nation in highway accidents in
which alcohol was a factor. Forty out of seventy-six
accidents that year involved alcohol, which is about
53 percent. Statistically, on a nationwide level,
approximately one-third of all DUI convictions each
year are repeat offenders. A 1994 study found that
fatally injured drivers involved in alcohol-related
accidents were eight times more likely to have had a
prior DUI conviction in the [preceding] five years.
Drivers with DUI convictions whose licenses have been
reinstated are six to ten times more likely than
drivers the same age and gender to be arrested for a
DUI or be involved in a crash the year following their
reinstatement. Over and over, the numbers show that
there is no doubt, repeat DUI offenders are over
represented in alcohol-related fatal crashes.
MS. SYLVESTER testified:
The question that HB 217 poses is, "How many bites of
the apple do you give the drinking drivers who are
extremely high-risk drivers?" And then the question
is, "Does it make sense to hold repeat DUI offenders
to the same standards as people who are receiving
their original citation for that [offense]?" This
bill is not zero tolerance. It's just a simple tool
that gives the prosecutors more leeway in prosecuting
cases that are borderline. Is it fair? Is it
draconian? That's the question that we'll be
addressing at table. Before you make that
determination, consider that these people are high-
risk and that it's the second and the repeat
offenders, statistically, that are on the roads that
are doing the killing. Incidentally, you'll have a
first-time DUI offender in a fatal accident, but
statistically it's the repeats, and that's why these
people are being targeted.
CO-CHAIR HOLM referred to information included in the committee
packet and asked why the lower limit of 0.05 was used by Mothers
Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and the AMA [American Medical
Association], whereas the bill refers to the amount of 0.04
percent.
MS. SYLVESTER responded that MADD recommended 0.05 and that
there are six states that have a lower BAC [blood alcohol
concentration] level for second offenses.
CO-CHAIR HOLM interjected that the data indicates that MADD
supports 0.05 as a BAC limit. He asked, "Do you know how much
alcohol needs to be consumed - one beer, one drink, whatever -
to get to .04?"
MS. SYLVESTER responded that she was similarly intrigued by that
question and determined that after drinking 2 1/2 glasses of
wine [within an hour, her] BAC level was at 0.04 [percent].
CO-CHAIR HOLM commented that this amount was perhaps indicative
of a low metabolic rate, as it was his understanding that 0.08
was reached as the result of drinking two beers. He suggested
that additional medical expertise was desirable to provide
further information, saying that he was fearful that this was
"draconian." He pointed out that it's one issue "if we're to be
against alcohol completely, but if we say that it mitigates the
ability of somebody at 0.04 to make good judgments driving, I'm
certainly not an expert, but I question the number."
Number 1918
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he had heard the same argument
regarding setting the limit at 0.01, 0.08, and now with 0.04.
He said he agreed with Co-Chair Holm and didn't question the
intent of getting drunk drivers off the road; however, he was
concerned with "where social engineering stops and where the
real worth of this type of legislation begins." He said that
"we are currently on the knife's edge of social engineering" and
that he didn't believe that it was his responsibility to do
"social engineering in these halls." He stated that he wasn't
supportive of HB 217.
MS. SYLVESTER offered background information on the origination
of the legislation and told the committee that in the 1980s,
Maine had an extremely high rate of DUI deaths. In 1988, the
state was the first to institute a rate of 0.05 for second and
subsequent offenses. Five years later, the results were that
the death rate for DUI accidents was reduced by 25 percent.
During the same time period, the rates in other New England
states had increased by 46 percent. In 1995, Maine instituted
zero tolerance for convicted offenders. Ms. Sylvester said that
HB 217 isn't zero tolerance, but it does have a track record
indicative of lives that could be saved.
CO-CHAIR HOLM responded that while "statistics sometimes lie,"
these statistics would "bear out what you're saying" because
times have changed and now, for example, there are designated
drivers, which didn't used to exist as such. He said he wasn't
sure that the correlation could be drawn that "because we don't
tolerate 0.05, therefore it relates directly to a lessening of
people dying."
CO-CHAIR HOLM continued that before voting on HB 217, he would
want to know the medical truth, for example, of what a 165-pound
man, with a normal metabolism, would have to drink to reach
levels of 0.04 or 0.05. He opined he didn't want to be onerous
to the extent that "somebody goes to a softball game, has a
couple of beers, and can't drive home." He pointed out that one
issue would be to argue that nobody should ever drink a beer.
He noted that he doesn't drink and that teetotalers are fine,
but he wasn't supportive of the idea of engineering laws so that
this would be determined by the state, adding that this would
not be sending an appropriate message.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that legislation had previously been passed
to comply with the federal level of 0.08. She thought that
according to the Department of Public Safety, the program had
been doing well and there had been tremendous improvements
regarding drinking-and-driving statistics, with the levels at
0.08. She told the committee that she shared the concerns of
Co-Chair Holm and Representative Fate of changing the level to
0.04, and that this was "getting intrusive."
Number 2169
CO-CHAIR MASEK ascertained that there was no further testimony
on HB 217, and said that in light of the concerns brought up by
committee members, HB 217 would be held over.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:47
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|