Legislature(2003 - 2004)

2004-03-03 Senate Journal

Full Journal pdf

2004-03-03                     Senate Journal                      Page 2382
SB 260                                                                                            
SENATE BILL NO. 260 "An Act relating to metropolitan planning                                       
organizations and to establishment of a metropolitan planning                                       
organization for the Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for                                 
an effective date" was read the second time.                                                        
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    

2004-03-03                     Senate Journal                      Page 2383
Senator Cowdery, Chair, moved and asked unanimous consent for the                                   
adoption of the Transportation Committee Substitute offered on page                                 
2209. Without objection, CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 260(TRA)                                            
"An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to the                                  
policy board of the metropolitan planning organization for the                                      
Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for an effective date" was                               
adopted.                                                                                            
                                                                                                    
Senator Ben Stevens offered Amendment No. 1 :                                                        
                                                                                                    
Page 1, line 2, following "area;":                                                                
          Insert "relating to transportation planning in federally                                
recognized metropolitan planning areas;"                                                          
                                                                                                    
Page 1, following line 4:                                                                           
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                        
"* Section 1.  AS 19.10.160(b) is amended to read:                                                
                   (b)  Design [AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2002,                                        
          DESIGN] for proposed major upgrade and new construction                                   
          projects for highways in federally recognized metropolitan                                
          planning areas must be conducive to safety, durability, and                               
          economy of maintenance and provide for capacity that will                                 
          adequately serve planned future traffic as set out in this                                
          subsection. This subsection does not apply to designs for                                 
          highway maintenance projects. Proposed major upgrade and                                  
          new construction projects that are estimated to cost                                      
                             (1)  less than $5,000,000 must be designed to                          
          adequately serve planned future traffic for at least the next 10                          
                  years [AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT];                                       
                             (2)  $5,000,000 or more [BETWEEN                                   
          $5,000,000 AND $10,000,000, INCLUSIVE,] must be                                           
          designed to adequately serve planned future traffic for at least                          
          the next 20 years [AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE                                              
          PROJECT;                                                                                  
                             (3)  MORE THAN $10,000,000 MUST BE                                     
          DESIGNED TO ADEQUATELY SERVE PLANNED                                                      
          FUTURE TRAFFIC FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT 25                                                   
          YEARS AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT]."                                                
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    

2004-03-03                     Senate Journal                      Page 2384
Page 1, line 5:                                                                                     
          Delete "Section 1."                                                                     
          Insert "Sec. 2."                                                                        
                                                                                                    
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                                                   
                                                                                                    
Page 3, line 8:                                                                                     
          Delete "sec. 1"                                                                           
          Insert "sec. 2"                                                                           
                                                                                                    
Page 3, line 13:                                                                                    
          Delete "July 1, 2005"                                                                     
          Insert  "immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)"                                               
                                                                                                    
Page 3, following line 13:                                                                          
          Insert a new bill section to read:                                                        
   "* Sec. 5.  Section 2 of this Act takes effect July 1, 2005."                                  
                                                                                                    
Senator Ben Stevens moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 1.                                      
Senator Guess objected.                                                                             
                                                                                                    
The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll                                    
was taken with the following result:                                                                
                                                                                                    
CSSB 260(TRA)                                                                                       
Second Reading                                                                                      
Amendment No. 1                                                                                     
                                                                                                    
YEAS:  17   NAYS:  0   EXCUSED:  2   ABSENT:  1                                                   
                                                                                                    
Yeas:  Bunde, Cowdery, Dyson, Elton, French, Green, Guess,                                          
Hoffman, Lincoln, Ogan, Seekins, Stedman, Stevens B, Stevens G,                                     
Therriault, Wagoner, Wilken                                                                         
                                                                                                    
Excused:  Davis, Ellis                                                                              
                                                                                                    
Absent:  Olson                                                                                      
                                                                                                    
and so, Amendment No. 1 was adopted.                                                                
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
                                                                                                    

2004-03-03                     Senate Journal                      Page 2385
Senator Guess offered Amendment No. 2 :                                                              
                                                                                                    
Page 2, lines 1 - 2:                                                                                
          Delete "for a metropolitan area with a population greater than                            
200,000 persons"                                                                                    
                                                                                                    
Senator Guess moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 2. Senator                                    
Ben Stevens objected.                                                                               
                                                                                                    
The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll                                    
was taken with the following result:                                                                
                                                                                                    
CSSB 260(TRA) am                                                                                    
Second Reading                                                                                      
Amendment No. 2                                                                                     
                                                                                                    
YEAS:  7   NAYS:  11   EXCUSED:  2   ABSENT:  0                                                   
                                                                                                    
Yeas:  Dyson, Elton, French, Guess, Lincoln, Ogan, Olson                                            
                                                                                                    
Nays:  Bunde, Cowdery, Green, Hoffman, Seekins, Stedman, Stevens                                    
B, Stevens G, Therriault, Wagoner, Wilken                                                           
                                                                                                    
Excused:  Davis, Ellis                                                                              
                                                                                                    
and so, Amendment No. 2 failed to be adopted.                                                       
                                                                                                    
Senator Ben Stevens moved and asked unanimous consent that the bill                                 
be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final                              
passage. Senator Elton objected.                                                                    
                                                                                                    
The question being: "Shall the bill be advanced to third reading?" The                              
roll was taken with the following result:                                                           
                                                                                                    
CSSB 260(TRA) am                                                                                    
Advance from Second to Third Reading?                                                               
                                                                                                    
YEAS:  12   NAYS:  6   EXCUSED:  2   ABSENT:  0                                                   
                                                                                                    
Yeas:  Bunde, Cowdery, Dyson, Green, Ogan, Seekins, Stedman,                                        
Stevens B, Stevens G, Therriault, Wagoner, Wilken                                                   
                                                                                                    
Nays:  Elton, French, Guess, Hoffman, Lincoln, Olson                                                
                                                                                                    
Excused:  Davis, Ellis                                                                              
                                                                                                    
and so, the bill failed to advance to third reading.                                                

2004-03-03                     Senate Journal                      Page 2386
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 260(TRA) am "An Act relating to                                              
metropolitan planning organizations and to the policy board of the                                  
metropolitan planning organization for the Anchorage metropolitan                                   
area;relating to transportation planning in federally recognized                                    
metropolitan planning areas; and providing for an effective date" will                              
be on the March 4 calendar.