HB 296-DONATIONS/GIFTS FOR DOT&PF SIGNAGE  1:50:42 PM CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 296, "An Act relating to program receipts; and relating to the acceptance of gifts, donations, and grants for the purpose of providing signage for assets under the control of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities." 1:50:58 PM The committee took a brief at ease at 1:51 p.m. 1:51:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented HB 296. He paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Part of the job of being a State Senator or a State Representative is to acknowledge those people, groups or organizations that have contributed to their community or state or country in a unique way that provides that recognition. One of the ways we do that is to name a geographic location, structure, event or even a bridge after those previously named entities through legislation. When doing so, one of the most common points of discussion is the cost to name that structure. I have never seen one to vote on that doesn't have a fiscal note attached and that alone has caused a few legislators to vote no on the legislation. HB 296 provide a mechanism for funding a commemorative name to a project by allowing receipt authority to the Department of Transportation so that the department can collect donations for signage. It does not require these costs to be paid by outside groups but instead helps to codify a process that will not be reliant on state funds. 1:53:44 PM RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor, provided the sectional analysis for HB 296 [included in the committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1: AS 37.05.146(c) Page 1, Lines 5-7  This section adds gifts, donations, and grants received by DOT & PF to the definition of program receipts and non- general fund programs receipts found in the Fiscal Procedures Act in accordance with section 2 of this bill. Section 2: AS 44.42.060 Page 1, Lines 8-14, Page 2,  Lines 1-3  This section adds that the department may receive gifts, donations, and grants in accordance with a memorandum of understanding with the donor party. This section also outlines that the funds may not be used until the necessary funds have been collected from the donor. 1:55:47 PM MR. MCKEE, in response to a question from Representative Hannan, clarified that the money is collected up front. 1:56:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER added there would be an expectation of whether the naming of a bridge would be done through donations or "through the legislature and the money process here at the state." It could be either, he said, and it would be designated within legislation put forward. 1:57:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to questions from Representative Stutes, explained that there is a number assigned to a bridge, but until the money is collected, the name would not go up on a sign at that bridge. 1:59:34 PM CHAIR HOPKINS proffered that if the legislation was moved forward and passed, the physical sign wouldn't go up until the state receives the money. 2:00:24 PM MR. MILLS, in response to a question from Chair Hopkins, walked the committee through the process. First, a bill would come before the legislature requesting the naming of a bridge, and the bill would signify whether the funds would be from a donor or be paid by the state. If the money were to come from a donor, then the state would designate [the donor] in state designated program receipts (SDPR) that the department would expect to collect, and there would be a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that would be signed with that party. Mr. Mills cited the language on page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1 of HB 296, as pertaining to this process and protecting DOT&PF from having to pay for the signage with its own funds. In conclusion, he confirmed the sign for the bridge would not be placed until the funds were collected. In response to a follow- up question from Representative Stutes, he said if a donor died after making a commitment to pay for a sign on a bridge, then a new MOU could be drafted. He then suggested that designating that the money would come from a third party would be one way to "get around that issue." 2:04:09 PM MR. MILLS, in response to Representative Hannan, offered his understanding that "the sweep" [that occurs at the end of a fiscal year] does not affect statutory designated program receipts. To another question, he replied that DOT&PF would collect the funds only when the full amount was available. He added that a "boiler plate" MOU would be available. 2:05:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed his understanding of the mechanism proposed under HB 296. 2:06:59 PM CHAIR HOPKINS noted that he agrees with the mechanism. 2:07:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said HB 296 basically would give the receipt authority for DOT&PF to collect the funds. 2:07:46 PM MR. MILLS, in response to Chair Hopkins, clarified that a donor could gift the actual sign rather than the funds for one to be made, as long as the sign itself met the standards of DOT&PF. He then responded to follow-up questions. He said the department does not "presuppose" price as affected by inflation, and "would work to make that difference up." He explained that the authority given would be to spend down to zero, so the fiscal note would be zero, but would not be "a true zero fiscal note." 2:09:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to Representative Hannan regarding the need for this legislation to dedicate bridges, shared that "one or two votes have not happened because it costs the state money." 2:10:41 PM CHAIR HOPKINS offered clarification that HB 296 would not [preclude other forms of funding]. 2:11:12 PM CHAIR HOPKINS expressed appreciation for the proposed bill. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked the committee. 2:11:45 PM CHAIR HOPKINS announced that HB 296 was held over.