HB 261-TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DISCLOSURES    1:31:56 PM CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 261, "An Act requiring the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to publish on the department's Internet website reports regarding contracts awarded for transportation projects." REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 261, labeled 26-LS1129\R, Kane, 3/17/10, as the working document. There being no objection, Version R was before the committee. 1:32:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked staff to present the bill. JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HB 261 would consolidate information on DOT&PF's website to provide some details on projects. He explained that initially the sponsor wanted all of the information on projects posted to the website. However, much of the information is technical information, which is of little interest to the public. The proposed committee substitute, Version R, provides a list of the information that will be posted that is of interest to people. He characterized Version R as a collaborative effort between the DOT&PF and the bill sponsor. 1:34:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that several of Representative Keller's bills should be combined into a single bill. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the bills are two different bills, with one directed at DOT&PF to make information accessible, and the other about the DOT&PF structure. He added that the DOT&PF has been very cooperative in working on HB 261 and has actually started to implement the process of posting project information to its website. This bill would direct the DOT&PF to enhance that process. 1:35:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that he did not track the differences between the two versions of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the original bill asked for complex information, including technical specifications and all subcontractors involved in the construction project. He explained that the specific information of interest to the public would provide such items as the status of a project and a timeline with percentage of project completion. 1:36:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to page 2, line 2, of Version R and to the expenditures in subparagraph (E). She asked if the reporting requirement would be onerous for the department. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained the DOT&PF requested that the updates to the website be made on their normal update schedule, which was satisfactory to him. 1:37:09 PM MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained the DOT&PF shares the goal with the bill sponsor to have information easily accessible to the public. One issue that needed to be addressed was the project status after funding is appropriated, but before the "shovel" or piece of equipment moves. The environmental authorization and utility, right-of- way, and design phases can take years. The DOT&PF likes to provide the information to the public in a well thought out manner. The DOT&PF currently lists the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) project information on its website, but the DOT&PF project information is limited to the construction costs so the information would not contain pre- construction details. She reiterated that the DOT&PF desires to provide the information and hoped it will be helpful to constituents and to the legislature. 1:39:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to page 2, line 4 of subparagraph (F), which read, "future funding needed to complete the project;" which he said can be "a moving target." He asked whether that would be difficult to accurately fulfill. MS. SIROKY answered that the DOT&PF should be able to identify the funding. She explained that usually a funding obstacle means reducing the scope of the project. This subparagraph should allow the DOT&PF to identify the additional cost. She did not think it would be onerous. She related the DOT&PF should be able to pull some information from its current databases. She acknowledged that project descriptions will require staff to write "in plain English" and not in "engineer- speak." She explained that some tasks cannot be automated, but the DOT&PF believes this process is important. Additionally, the DOT&PF is would like create a timeline so people can get an idea of the percentage of the project completed in relation to the overall project. 1:41:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked if the work is done in-house, whether this would include the costs of the environmental stage. MS. SIROKY stated that the DOT&PF will develop a project website after the bill and capital budget is passed and funding is appropriated. In further response to Representative T. Wilson, she also explained the DOT&PF would identify the expenditures and update the website every six months. The website would show the expenditures incurred internally but would not list the man- hours, she stated. MS. SIROKY, in response to T. Wilson, explained that the DOT&PF would identify the prime contractor, but would not provide information on contracts prior to construction; so it will not cover survey, utility, or environmental (EIS) costs. This bill would identify contractor costs beginning with the construction phase, she stated. 1:44:32 PM CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether costs would be broken down for right-of-way permitting and design. MS. SIROKY clarified that the timeline would identify when the project is in the EIS phase and if that phase lasts two years, the "bar would move every six months." However, the website will not identify a list of contractors and if the phase since only the prime contractor would be listed once the project moves to the construction phase. 1:45:29 PM MS. SIROKY, in response to Representative Petersen, stated that the information will not speak to the actual road conditions. The DOT&PF will independently update the DOT&PF's "511 system" with a new road traffic awareness system that will provide information such as "This road is closed." 1:46:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the state of Utah received numerous awards and one of two states to receive an "A" rating since they provided good information to the public. He thinks this bill is good step in the right direction. He asked whether the list in the bill should be published by regulation, to avoid coming to the legislature each time something changes. He further asked whether the bill should have the flexibility to allow the DOT&PF to publish regulations. MS. SIROKY stated that the DOT&PF has the authority to do provide future information. The DOT&PF did not believe that writing regulations would be beneficial. The DOT&PF is not seeking others to comply, just to act as an agency to provide additional information to the public. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the name of a contracting company should also list a contact number and the name of the person at the DOT&PF should be listed, along with their contact information. 1:49:33 PM MS. SIROKY stated that the DOT&PF always provides contact information and she anticipated the name and contact number for the DOT&PF person would be listed on the website. She expressed concern in terms of listing a phone and e-mail for a construction contractor, since that person may not want to field public comments. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested including that the information for a contractor would likely be in the phone book. MS. SIROKY related that it would not be a problem to have contractor information available, but she suggested that it be nested in the DOT&PF's database instead of manually added. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he did not want to hold the bill up, but thought the public might appreciate the information. MS. SIROKY agreed the DOT&PF could include any information can be easily "pulled" into the database. 1:51:26 PM CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that contractors may not want people calling them while they are in the midst of working on a project. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested the DOT&PF consider the concept, with a human contact. He thought it may reduce the public's frustration. 1:52:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 1, line 10-11, of HB 261 to the information to be reported. He related his understanding that the DOT&PF undergoes a long process on projects. Projects are reviewed during the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process and are nominated by communities. He stated that the legislature has to approve every appropriation included in the capital budget. He pointed out the list of items in the bill is information already compiled by the department. He further stated that he does not have any problem with HB 261, but objects to the amount of money DOT&PF says they need to accomplish the website enhancements as reflected in the fiscal note. He said he does not want hold the bill up. MS. SIROKY responded that the fiscal note was written to reflect the requirements in the original version of the bill. That version of the bill had the DOT&PF collecting information not readily available in its databases. The extensive information requested included details for all contracts, planning, design, and historical information. 1:56:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked for the reason that the bill even has a fiscal note. MS. SIROKY explained that the administration's policy is to prepare a fiscal note on bills for the first committee of referral and to update the fiscal note once a committee substitute has been adopted and passes out of the committee. CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether she could project the DOT&PF's needs to accomplish the website enhancements. MS. SIROKY answered that the DOT&PF would likely need one person and some initial consulting costs for the first year. She related that the DOT&PF has not done any fiscal note projections yet. CHAIR P. WILSON agreed most of the information is compiled. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed frustration that the committee does not know the fiscal impact. He thought the policy slows down the process, noting that members must decide matters without having the full impact. He expressed his frustration with the administration's policy. 1:59:06 PM CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the DOT&PF retains a certain amount of administrative costs and asked whether this bill would increase the administrative project costs. MS. SIROKY answered no. She stated that the fiscal note will reflect funding for one additional person in the department. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed with Representative Johansen that he shared the concern on the fiscal note. 2:00:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked what information is not currently provided. MS. SIROKY offered that initially, the DOT&PF would create the project schedule and geographic location at the beginning of the project. The DOT&PF would expand on the project's description and project status, pull information from other databases on any appropriations or expenditures. The DOT&PF would also calculate anticipated future funding and determine and input the project phase. The DOT&PF would pull information from the Department of Labor & Workforce Development's (DLWD) database to identify the prime contractor. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON suggested that she does not think the planned information provides enough project information, since it only identifies the contractor. She offered that the bill appears to provide transparency. She expressed concern that all the steps are not listed, including the environmental, right-of- way, and surveying costs that the public should be able to access. She asked if the reason for limiting the details was due to the cost of providing the details. 2:02:57 PM MS. SIROKY agreed since that type of detail would require a significant amount of manpower. Some work is performed in- house. The DOT&PF looked at the construction contract as the place that people may be most interested. The DOT&PF reviewed the aspects of the construction process to identify the information people may be interested in, such as who a person would contact for a job. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON related her understanding that this bill is not really about providing information to the public, but is another way for the DLWD to find people to employ in the private sector. MS. SIROKY reiterated the DOT&PF's interest in providing wide- ranging information to the public. She offered that if the legislature wants more information provided the DOT&PF's interest is to do so. This bill, Version R, represents the easiest way to provide information on projects on a regular basis. CHAIR P. WILSON imagined that the DOT&PF has a project manager on projects who tracks the expenditures and timetables. She related she is having difficulty understanding why all the information is not currently contained in one place and the necessity to contact numerous people to obtain it. MS. SIROKY related her understanding that the DOT&PF can provide the expenditures, but could not easily identify the individual subcontractor's expenses. She offered to meet with the data processing staff. She explained that the DOT&PF reviewed with Representative Keller the items the public is most interested in, not to track the project's expenditures each step of the way. 2:07:03 PM CHAIR P. WILSON recapped her understanding that the DOT&PF has different data bases for right-of-way, permitting, and environmental processes until it comes together at the construction phase as a project. 2:07:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON maintained that the project manager should have the information compiled. MS. SIROKY offered that the DOT&PF has a design team for some projects, while other projects are handled in a more streamlined manner. She offered to hold more discussions and provide the information. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER appreciated the questions. He offered his intent to stay at the "100,000 foot level", but not to hold the DOT&PF accountable for detailed expenditures. He acknowledged the diversity of the information and related the right-of-way procurement may be the biggest cost associated with the project. He explained that posting this information becomes complex. He said that he began the project at the same level as Representative T. Wilson indicated, in terms of wanting details posted. Ultimately, he decided that people could view a map of Matanuska-Susitna Borough, could click on "Trunk Road," and find out when a project was initiated, the budgeted amount, and the projected costs. He related that the website would contain the basics to describe "the big picture." He noted that some numbers are continually changing, such as procurement costs. Property values change from the initiation of a project until the surveying and right-of-way is completed. He explained that it can become complicated since so many issues are involved. Therefore, he said he asked the DOT&PF to keep it simple. The goal is not to track expenditures for a project, but just to provide some basic construction information on projects. 2:11:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether it is possible to write a program that automatically updates information to avoid manual posting. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated that it is complex since the information is not all available on one screen. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN thought perhaps the technology is available to do so and perhaps investing more initially later may result in cost reductions to the overall website. CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that state government is "pathetic with this type of thing". Initially, a database program may be a good program, but as technology advances, programming is necessary and the cost to access information is unbelievable. She recalled similar circumstances in the Department of Health and Social Services system. 2:13:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the "big picture" is currently available on the DOT&PF's website. MS. SIROKY answered that not all projects are listed. In further response to Representative Munoz, she explained that the DOT&PF provides information on its website on some high profile projects. She related her understanding that the goal of HB 261 is for the DOT&PF to provide a webpage for every construction project that receives an appropriation. 2:14:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled the stimulus monies the state recently received. She applauded the DOT&PF's efforts to acquire the funds and manage the projects. MS. SIROKY, in response to Representative Munoz, offered that the DOT&PF hopes to provide "good solid information" to the public, which she thought would ultimately reduce the DOT&PF's workload. The DOT&PF would like the public to be able to access the information on the website rather than for them to call the office or the engineer to obtain the information. MS. SIROKY, in response to Representative T. Wilson, offered to discuss the scope of information to provide to the public. She pointed out that until the pre-construction phase is completed that the contractor's name would not be listed. She related that the contractor information would be available once the bid is awarded and the department could look at the cost of posting certain "big chunks" of information. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON thought providing the information "in chunks" could be a great tool, but she would not want the department to spend a lot of money compiling the information. 2:18:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether the DOT&PF has a public information officer on staff. MS. SIROKY answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked how the DOT&PF would track $30 million designated for a road without a single appropriation source and the allocation. MS. SIROKY referred to page 1, line 14 to subparagraph (D), which would identify the fund sources of the appropriation. Thus, a fund source would be listed by project. In further response to Representative Johansen, she related that the specific project would identify the fund source. She did not envision that this project would list all fund source changes. In order for a person to track the changes he/she would need to know the initial source of funding, but this bill would identify any funding source that changed on specific projects. 2:22:57 PM CHAIR P. WILSON recalled a project that began as the "Alaska BC line" but stalled during the process. She asked whether such a project would be listed on the website. MS. SIROKY related that this bill would identify projects from the effective date forward, but in the instance a project was in the limbo phase that a balance would be associated with the project. She anticipated that if the funding was used for something else, the funds would decrease. CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether it would show the funding shifted to another project. MS. SIROKY offered that this process has not been thought through yet, but it seemed reasonable to assume that reappropriation funds would identify the projects. She was not certain how that would be handled. 2:24:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 1, line 6, which read, "When an appropriation has been made to the department for a transportation project..." He remarked that the DOT&PF has large amounts of authorizations for projects so he was unsure if the legislature is going to gain more information in this process. MS. SIROKY, in response to a question, related that the bill is triggered by an appropriation, not an authorization. In further response to Chair Wilson, said she was not sure the DOT&PF would handle internal preliminary design work performed for projects that it contemplates. 2:29:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to allocations in the state's Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and asked whether the legislature would be able to identify projects that have been in the planning phase for five years, but never quite get built. MS. SIROKY hoped this process would identify the information taken during those five years in the planning phase. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he supports the concept for HB 261. 2:31:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked about road service area funding. MS. SIROKY said she was unfamiliar with the road service area funds. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked if district funds were allocated to road service areas whether the funds would be tracked. MS. SIROKY asked whether the funds would be part of the state's CIB or if the funds are appropriated not by the DOT&PF but through Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development grants. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said she was unsure, but said she would check. 2:32:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ move moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 261, labeled Version R, 26-LS1129\R, Kane, 3/17/10, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON objected. She commented that she is interested information on how projects are tracked. MS. SIROKY agreed that she would provide the information no matter what happens to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON removed her objection. 2:33:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN objected. He remarked that he would like to have someone in DOT&PF check into computer program and modern technology to reduce the manpower needed to provide the website information. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he is interested in having contact information provided on the DOT&PF website. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN removed his objection. There being no further objections, the CSHB 261(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.