RÉSUMÉ DIGEST
HB 598 2017 Regular Session Abramson
Present law establishes a prioritization process for construction of highway and bridge
projects utilized to develop a Highway Priority Program that accomplishes many goals
including bringing the state highway system into a good state of repair and optimizes the
usage and efficiency of existing transportation facilities.
Proposed law would have retained present law but added to the goals of the prioritization
process the development of a program to ensure that the taxes levied on motor fuels were
used by the Dept. of Transportation and Development in the most cost-effective manner and
that the state was maximizing state and federal funding on costs related to the actual
construction and maintenance of highway and bridge projects and minimizing the use of
these funds on administrative costs for the Dept. of Transportation and Development.
Proposed law would have specified that in cases where Priority A and B mega-projects
would be prioritized equally in accordance with proposed law and present law, consideration
would have been given to mega-projects for which funding would be made available by
sources other than the state or federal government.
Present law requires, beginning in FY 2017-2018, the Dept. of Transportation and
Development to provide the legislature and public with a program that lists projects to be
constructed in the ensuing fiscal year in an order of priority that is determined after projects
are analyzed utilizing a process based on an objective analysis that considers the following
factors relative to the cost of the project and anticipated revenues to be appropriated by the
legislature:
(1)The condition of the roads, streets, and structures making up the state highway
system and the urgency of the improvements considering their order of needs.
(2)The type and volume of traffic on a roadway, highway, or bridge.
(3)The crash records for a roadway, highway, or bridge.
(4)The technical difficulties in the preparation of plans and the procurement of rights-
of-way for a roadway, highway, or bridge.
(5)Whether an unforeseeable emergency created an immediate need for improvement
or reconstruction.
(6)Whether capacity improvements are warranted due to population or traffic volume
increases in a geographic area.
(7)Whether or not the highway or bridge is or will be on an evacuation route utilized to
evacuate large populations due to catastrophic events.
(8)Whether the improvement to or addition of a highway or bridge will benefit the
economic development potential of the state.
Proposed law would have retained present law but changed the FY from 2017-2018 to FY
2018-2019 and added a factor for whether the highway or bridge project would support the
needs of the local and regional authorities with responsibility for transportation planning to
ensure that there was an equitable distribution among and between the different regions of
the state over a three-year period.
Proposed law would have required, in addition to the requirements of present law, the Dept.
of Transportation and Development to establish a multi-year time line on the projects to be
funded through the program each year including an indication of the source of monies from
which project costs would be funded.
Proposed law would have required Dept. of Transportation and Development to submit
performance progress reports including the performance objectives, indicators, and standards
used by the department to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the priority of
projects in the program. Further would have required the report be submitted and
maintained through the electronic performance database maintained and used by the division of administration to track state agency performance standards and on the Dept. of
Transportation and Development's webpage.
Proposed law would have required, beginning with the program for FY 2018-2019 and for
each program thereafter, the Dept. of Transportation and Development apply the
prioritization factors provided for in present law and begin to prioritize all projects in the
program which were at the stage of project delivery where sources of funding were being
identified.
Proposed law would have further required, beginning with the program for FY 2018-2019,
the department to prioritize all projects included in the program into two separate lists.
Proposed law would have required the first list include a three-year plan for all projects in
the program where funding was programmed based on the anticipated and projected
revenues available for design or scheduled to be bid for construction in that fiscal year.
Proposed law would have required the Dept. of Transportation and Development publish the
list with notations regarding whether the scheduled letting date for each project was on-
schedule, ahead of schedule, or delayed.
Proposed law would have required the department include a detailed written explanation of
any delay notated on the published list required by proposed law.
Proposed law would have required that as projects were completed from the first list, they
were deleted and replaced with projects from the second list beginning with the highest level
of priority. Proposed law further would have required the Dept. of Transportation and
Development to devise a detailed schedule of project delivery for all projects on this list
which should have included at a minimum, the stage of project delivery, the scheduled
letting date, and estimated completion date for each phase of project delivery, associated
costs, and funding sources for each phase.
Proposed law would have required the second list to include a three-year plan for all projects
in the program that could be funded if additional revenues became available. Proposed law
would have specified that each year, as projects move from this list to the first list, new
projects must be added to the second list from prioritized projects in the program starting
with the highest level of priority.
Proposed law would have required the district administrator of each of the nine Dept. of
Transportation and Development districts to determine the prioritization of the pavement
preservation projects in their respective district.
Proposed law would have required, beginning July 1, 2019, the legislative auditor annually
audit the avails of the taxes levied on gasoline, motor fuels, and special fuels, hereinafter
"motor fuel taxes", to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations and adequacy of
internal controls to ensure all of the following:
(1)That the avails of the motor fuels tax were used in accordance with their restricted
purposes as set forth in the state constitution.
(2)That the avails of the motor fuels tax were spent in appropriate categories as outlined
in proposed law.
(3)That the avails of the motor fuels tax were spent on projects in compliance with the
priorities set forth in the applicable programs for prioritizing capital projects.
(4)That the avails of the motor fuels tax were spent in an efficient and effective manner
showing improvement in program operations through performance measures such
as pavement conditions, bridge conditions, safety improvements, implementation of
the La. Statewide Transportation Plan, and other outcome measures as determined
by the auditor.
Proposed law would have required the Dept. of Transportation and Development annually
submit a report to the legislature and the legislative auditor which would have contained
detailed information regarding the expenditure breakdown of the avails of the motor fuel
taxes utilized by the department in accordance with the restricted purposes as set forth in the
state constitution and the methodology and outcomes of the Dept. of Transportation and
Development's prioritization of projects, and all source documentation necessary to review any metrics determined by the legislative auditor. Proposed law would have provided for
a detailed breakdown of additional information the report was required to include.
Proposed law would have required the auditor to annually certify that the audit of the avails
of the motor fuels tax were in substantial compliance with proposed law and LA Const.
Article VII, §27. Proposed law would have specified that if the legislative auditor found a
lack of substantial compliance with any three consecutive audits, then the Legislative Audit
Advisory Council was required to make recommendations of appropriate action to the
legislature.
Present law provides for annual public hearings on a proposed construction program
presented by the Dept. of Transportation and Development to and conducted by the Joint
Highway Priority Construction Committee composed of all members of the House and
Senate committees on transportation, highways and public works and each legislator
representing parishes within the respective highway district and for submission of a report
based on testimony received to be sent to the department.
Proposed law would have changed present law beginning Feb. 1, 2018, and Feb. first each
year thereafter to require the Dept. of Transportation and Development to present the
proposed construction program and list of projects together with the summary of project
requests from public hearings conducted under present law. Proposed law would have
required the Joint Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works to hold a
public hearing, and authorized the joint committee to delete any project it determined did not
have priority in accordance with the factors in present law (R.S. 48:229.1) and add or
substitute any projects to the proposed construction program for projects which have been
removed. Proposed law would have required the joint committee to communicate the
approved proposed construction program to the Dept. of Transportation and Development.
Present law requires the department create the final construction program for the coming
fiscal year for submission to the legislature.
Proposed law would have required the final construction program for the coming fiscal year
for submission to the legislature be approved and authorized the legislature to delete any
projects determined to not be in proper order of priority beginning March 1, 2018 and not
later than March first of each year thereafter.
Proposed law would have changed present law to provide that the Joint Highway Priority
Construction Committee included legislators representing the parishes within the respective
highway district solely for purposes of attending public hearings in each highway district.
Present law prohibits the Dept. of Transportation and Development from undertaking any
construction project other than those included in the priority listing for that fiscal year
regardless of the source of funds for the project except projects undertaken and financed out
of the secretary's emergency fund and projects involving use of matching funds to meet
federal requirements in order to receive federal aid funds.
Proposed law would have removed the exception applicable to projects involving use of
matching funds to meet federal requirements in order to receive federal aid funds. Proposed
law would have added provisions that required the Dept. of Transportation and Development
to provide notification by email, together with a brief description of the need for and purpose
of any project that changes the flow of traffic by closing an existing interchange to each
legislator in whose district the project was proposed prior to undertaking any of these
projects.
(Proposed to amend R.S. 48:229.1(B) and (C), 231(A)(5) and (6) and (B), and 232; proposed
to add R.S. 48:229.1(A)(9), (10), and (11), and 229.2)
VETO MESSAGE: "Please be advised that I have vetoed House Bill 598 of the 2017
Regular Session. As originally drafted, House Bill 598 was part of a transportation package
that included a transportation funding bill. It further would have provided for additional
transparency and accountability from the Department of Transportation and Development.
Providing for additional funds to meet our critical infrastructure needs while at the same
time providing for better accountability for the use of those funds has been, and continues
to be, a critical priority of my administration. However, this bill, as amended, does not meet those standards. The amendments to
this bill allow for the legislature to make changes to the Highway Priority Program by
inserting or substituting projects. This would inappropriately inject politics into a process
that should be based on data and needs. This would erode public trust and confidence in the
Highway Priority Program. When combined with the failure of House Bill 632 to become
law, it is clear that House Bill 598, in its final form, would further prevent the Department
of Transportation and Development from meeting the infrastructure needs of the state."