HB 317-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NEAR SCHOOLS  9:40:05 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 317, "An Act relating to official traffic- control devices at schools and in school zones." She noted that Version U was previously adopted and is before the committee as a working document. REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, said the CS to HB 317 has new fiscal notes. 9:41:07 AM CONNIE MCKENZIE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT), said that there are fiscal notes for each of the three DOT regions. Statewide, the cost is $624,000 to implement HB 317 for the schools that are now included in the definition. Approximately 30 percent will be on state roads, she added. 9:42:01 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX noted the huge change in the fiscal note. MS. MCKENZIE said the change is due to allowing the traffic safety practitioners to be able to review all the various signs, crosswalks, and signals for each school, instead of just flashing signals. "By being able to look at the different kinds of signs and signals that might be practical for any one school, we were able to reduce the fiscal note down to $624,000." 9:43:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK thanked DOT and said there will be appropriate, cost-effective signage to bring public awareness of school locations. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony. 9:43:53 AM JEFF STARK, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, Transportation Section, said he works a great deal with DOT, and he still has concerns with Version U. The requirements in current law are that the state adopt a uniform system of traffic safety devices, and that requirement is in two sections, AS 19.10.040 and AS 19.10.050, he said. Currently, DOT engineers have discretion as to where traffic control devices are placed. He said his concern with Version U is that Alaska statutes indicate that the uniform system adopted by the state must include provisions for both posting traffic control signals and marking and posting traffic control devices. He believes, based on the fiscal note, that DOT is interpreting a great deal of discretion under the new bill, but he does not read it as liberally as DOT does. "I know that DOT is fully on board with what I believe is the intent of the sponsor, which is to treat private schools, charter schools, [and] religious schools all the same as public schools, and this bill does that, but I am concerned that it still restricts the discretion of the traffic and safety engineers in terms of what sort of signage, what sort of signals they use more than it should." He said that language can be worked out, but it is not yet done. 9:47:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE KITO III asked if current statute needs changing. MR. STARK said no, the current statute is probably fine, although it is not terribly well written. It dates back to pre- statehood. He said AS 19.10.040 deals with marking and posting of highways, and AS 19.10.050 deals with providing signals. He said he would rather the two be combined and just address "installing traffic control devices." But under current law, the state has adopted the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which originates with the Federal Highway Administration and is adopted by the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials. It is then incorporated by the state into the Alaska Traffic Manual, which is approved by the Federal Highway Administration. That manual provides a great deal of discretion to the traffic and safety engineers as to the placement of traffic control devices, so his concern with CSHB 317 is the use of the term "must" on page 1, line 14, and page 2, line 5. He noted that safety engineers do not believe that signals are required in all school zones as it would be an unnecessary expense and can even decrease safety. "Having these requirements split and saying that they must use both in school zones, I think they've lost the necessary discretion that they have under current law," he concluded. 9:50:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE KITO III pointed to Section 5 of Version U, requiring the municipality to erect traffic control devices in school zones "in conformance with the Alaska Traffic Manual." It seems that there is discretion, he said. MR. STARK said Section 5 addresses municipalities, and it does give that discretion under current law, but Sections 1 and 2 deal with DOT, "and I would read it saying you must provide traffic control devices ... and that, again, would remove the discretion from the municipality." CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked Mr. Stark if he would be willing to work with the sponsor of HB 317 to develop the appropriate language. MR. STARK said absolutely. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked about committee referrals. 9:52:00 AM KENDRA CLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, said the bill will go to the House Transportation Standing Committee next. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said the concept is good, and if HB 317 were going to the finance committee, it could be fixed there. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX said it might go to the finance committee now that it has a fiscal note. 9:52:39 AM MS. CLOSTER noted that she has been working with Doug Gardner [Attorney for Legislative Legal Services], traffic engineers, and people from the Office of the Attorney General, and there have been some differences of opinions. There have been multiple requests from traffic engineers to reference both sections of the statute, she said. The transportation committee could address current statute and what might need to be changed, because markings, postings, and signage are all under different sections. 9:54:05 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said if "must" was changed to "may" on the first page, the committee could move the bill along and it may not need a fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER said he supports moving the legislation along. The transportation committee can look at some of the detailed questions, but, overall, he said he likes the concept. 9:55:22 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she would like to move HB 317 out of committee but with the proviso that the House Transportation Standing Committee work on Mr. Stark's concerns. REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked if Representative Herron had made a conceptual amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said it was just a suggestion. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX noted that changing "must" to "may" guts the entire bill because DOT could do what it wanted. 9:56:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the change would help with the fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he does not have a problem with the fiscal note as it exists. "The department has been working really well with us," he added. Without "must" there will not be the public awareness for charter, private, and religious schools. He said he wants action on this. 9:57:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he disagreed because both DOT and the assistant attorney general "disagree with your statement." Given all of the other changes, he said, HB 317 could become a reality, but if "must" and the fiscal note remain, "I am not as hopeful." CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if he would like to offer an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said, "My colleague from the Eagle River Valley has offered to make that conceptual amendment." 9:58:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she does not want to gut the bill, because it is really, really important, but she does not want to make it mandatory if it includes all Headstart programs and preschools. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she prefers passage of HB 317 without amendment. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he supports the co-chair. 9:59:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER moved to report CSHB 317, Version U, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 317(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX reiterated the proviso stated earlier.