"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; and repealing a requirement that public facilities comply with energy standards adopted by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities."

HB 327 is being brought forward because, of a concern expressed to our office last year by a resident of the Illiamna area. HB 327 has the support of the DOT and the Attorney General's office in order to clean up old statute which is now and always has been, obsolete.

A situation has developed in Rural Alaska where a bridge is being held up, because of an oversight by state government. In the late 70's the Governor wrote executive order No. 39 § 2 (1977) creating the "Alaska Transportation Council" (among other things) directing the commissioner of DOT to consult with this council on all annual transportation projects. Projects were not supposed to move forward without the recommendation of the council being considered. Unfortunately, after the term of that sitting governor all of the subsequent governors failed to maintain the council (the council has been unseated for over 20 years). This made it difficult to comply. A contributing factor to the issue was the manner in which the council became law. As an executive order, it entered statute from lack of action on the part of the legislature and was therefore, somewhat outside of the usual process.

As we in the Legislature know, good ideas come and go. What seemed very prudent at one point can seem impractical at a later date. I feel that as a matter of policy, if we have placed an unrealistic statue into law we should repair it at the first notice. This is exactly the situation that HB327 addresses, but with a more serious consequence. Because the State may have unwittingly overlooked the requirement to "consider the recommendation of the Council…" and do a cost "benefit" study for each project in the state, it has found itself in litigation. This oversight was brought to my attention last year.

Our problem is fairly straight forward. The state is not complying with this old statute, thereby setting a basis for litigation. One person has taken advantage of this situation to get an injunction against a rural project and there is every reason to think that more will follow. To preserve our current and future projects, we must quickly repair this statute and take the further step of making it retroactive.

The other changes to the statute amount to house cleaning. The changes reflect "Powers and Duties" that have been handed to other agencies along with practices that cost more than the resulting savings. Also some changes include allowing the Commissioner to study "alternative fuels" for use in state vehicles rather than just natural gas. And finally, changing "annual" requirements to "periodic" which will allow the commissioner discretion in choosing times that are sensible. This will save the money spent on studies and let it be spent on roads.

Please help me make this crucial change as soon as practical.

# # #