SENATE BILL NO. 168 "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." 10:00:47 AM SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, SPONSOR, introduced the legislation. He stated that the bill would give the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) the receipt authority to take donations to put up signage after the legislature names a project. 10:01:27 AM DAWSON MANN, STAFF, SENATOR MYERS, discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file): Section 1: AS 37.05.146(c) Page 1, Lines 5-7 This section adds gifts, donations, and grants received by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to the definition of program receipts and non-general fund program 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. Senator von Imhof queried the process for funneling the money. Senator Myers replied that the intention was for DOT to partner with an entity for administration then deliver the funds to DOT for sign materials and labor. Senator von Imhof surmised that the money would go toward the plaque and not DOTs bureaucracy. Senator Myers agreed. Co-Chair Stedman remarked that there was sometimes signage for trails through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). He felt that there should be a discussion with DNR on that issue. He pointed out that safety issues should also be addressed, such as crosswalks. 10:06:48 AM Senator Olson wondered whether the intention was mainly for land transportation corridors, or whether the bill also included airports. Senator Myers replied that bridges would be the most common piece, but could be anything owned by DOT. 10:07:52 AM ANDY MILLS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, explained the legislation and the process for how DOT took third party receipts. Co-Chair Stedman queried the other processes for naming a DOT-owned entity. Mr. Mills replied that there were other ways to name the bridges and other corridors, and he agreed to provide that information. 10:11:01 AM Co-Chair Stedman felt that it used to be rare to put the naming into legislation. Co-Chair Bishop requested every option for naming. Senator von Imhof commented that there could be an amendment to the bill to include DNR naming. She stressed the pertinence of addressing safety issues as well. Senator Olson wanted to ensure that non-state entities would not have to provide a fiscal note, and therefore DOT would not have the grounds to reject a public proposal. Mr. Mills replied that the process for naming would not change in the bill. Senator Olson asked whether the bill created an avenue for funds. 10:15:34 AM Co-Chair Bishop replied in the negative. He explained that the bill allowed entities to donate funds to build the sign. Senator Olson restated his question. Mr. Mills replied that the funds received were for a specific project. Senator von Imhof wondered whether the outline of costs for the donating entity would include the administration, actual signage, and labor. 10:17:06 AM DOM PANNONE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that there was a standard quoting process for the signs. Senator Wielechowski surmised that there would need to be a legislative appropriation before receiving the funds. Mr. Pannone replied that the bill created a mechanism for DOT to create a future fiscal note with program receipts. Co-Chair Stedman remarked that millions and sometimes billions of dollars were spent annually on DOT, and queried the issue of the state paying for signage. Mr. Pannone replied that, in the past in bridge-naming bills, there was high scrutiny around the cost of the sign. Co-Chair Bishop queried the process for replacement. Mr. Mills replied that the cost was often rolled into project costs that were in the surrounding area. 10:25:11 AM Co-Chair Bishop felt that most of the bridge bills had a fairly low fiscal note. Co-Chair Stedman explained the tracking of fiscal notes in the legislature. He felt that the small cost of the naming bills did not have a large impact on the state budget. 10:29:23 AM Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the department would have the authority to accept a large gift or organization to name a road or public facility. Mr. Mills replied that the legislative process would occur first. Senator von Imhof wondered whether there were ways to name a bridge that the legislature would not be aware in advance. Mr. Mills replied that he was not aware of that mechanism for naming. Senator von Imhof wondered whether there should be a dollar threshold attached to the bill. She remarked that sometimes the money was not an issue, but rather it was a place for a person to put their emotions. 10:34:01 AM AT EASE 10:34:55 AM RECONVENED 10:35:13 AM Senator Wilson wondered whether DOT could return to the funders for replacement funds. Mr. Pannone responded that DOT paid for sign damages out of their operational budget. He did not see DOT returning to a donor to ask for repair funds. Senator Wilson wondered whether the bill would make that issue possible, because of the authorization. Mr. Pannone replied that the bill only added the donations to program receipts. Co-Chair Stedman asked that DOT present the cost of the signs over a five-year period. Mr. Mills replied that in the year prior there were two naming bills and accounted for less than $20,000. He agreed to provide further information. Co-Chair Bishop stressed that they were already existing signs. Senator von Imhof stressed that there was already authority in statute to do what was proposed in the bill. 10:40:10 AM AT EASE 10:42:06 AM RECONVENED 10:42:16 AM Mr. Pannone replied that the department could accept the funds, but the bill would create a fiscal note to expend the funds. Co-Chair Stedman asked how much money had come from foundations for the purpose intended from the donating entity. Mr. Mills replied that the bill codified a path for a third party payment. Senator Wielechowski queried liability if the department failed to follow the terms of the donation. Mr. Mills agreed to provide that information. Co-Chair Bishop OPENED and CLOSED public testimony. 10:46:46 AM AT EASE 10:47:01 AM RECONVENED Co-Chair Bishop stated that the afternoon's meeting will be cancelled. SB 168 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.