Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/16/1999 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 12
"An Act relating to an easement for the extension of
the Alaska Railroad to the Alaska-Canada border."
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES introduced HB 12 and explained
the need for the legislation:
? 1982
A corridor was delineated by statute, connecting
Alaska's existing railroad with the Canadian border;
? 1994
HB 184 authorized $10 thousand dollars for a study
determining the cost of acquiring the right-of-way;
? 1995
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
reached a cost estimate of $6.363 million dollars to
acquire the right-of-way. Of the $10 thousand dollars
appropriated by HB 184 for the study, a total of $7,876
dollars has been expended;
? 1996
On May 5, 1982, the application to Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for the project was withdrawn by an
order of Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities due to lack of interest, in spite of the
1994 legislation indicating interest;
? 1999
HB 12 reauthorizes delineation of the corridor, subject
to legislative appropriation. The bill carries no
fiscal impact and would reauthorize the 1982 statute.
Representative James continued, both the Canadian and
Russian governments have been increasingly interested in an
U.S.- Asian link via rail through Alaska. HB 12 would allow
eventual funding from some source either private or
governmental.
Representative James concluded that the advantages to Alaska
would be threefold:
? Resource development;
? Tourism:
? Job opportunities for all areas.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that in delineating a corridor,
there would be no right-a-way acquisition and it would move
across state lands and property. Representative James
replied that when an application is made from the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) to locate a corridor, it would stay on
file. The steps would include authorization of a delineated
quarter, finding out the best route to use for building and
determining the survey and costs associated. She re-
emphasized that the bill would provide authorization to
delineate a corridor, subject to legislative appropriation.
She acknowledged that if interest was to continue in the
railroad, federal or "other" monies would be made available.
Representative J. Davies voiced confusion with the
legislation. He asked if to date a corridor had been
authorized. Representative James referenced a book from a
route selection project dated from July 1979, indicating the
routes from outside the Canadian border. She noted that
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities had also
provided additional information on the project. [Copy on
file].
Representative J. Davies questioned how could the State know
what it would cost to acquire the right-of-way if the
corridor had not been delineated. Representative James
replied that the corridor was delineated and that maps exist
that illustrate that information.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that the proposed
legislation would reauthorize funding for that which already
was delineated. Representative James agreed, noting that in
the cost estimate, the determined value had been included.
Representative J. Davies questioned how the proposed
legislation could change the existing situation with federal
lands. Representative James commented that the legislation
is requesting a utility corridor between the Alaska Railroad
and the Alaska-Canadian border.
Representative Austerman inquired if the authorization would
be feasible. Representative James replied that she had been
working on this issue for six years during which time, the
Canadians have extended interest.
DENNIS POSHARD, LEGISLATIVE LIASON SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE
OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES, offered to answer questions of Committee
members. In response to Representative J. Davies, Mr.
Poshard pointed out that the Department would not
necessarily use the corridor delineated in 1982. In working
closely with the Alaska Railroad, they might have a long-
term maintenance preference. Although, considering that
some of their land status has changed from the original
corridor since 1982, it could be preferable to choose
another corridor. He understood that the legislation would
authorize that the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities start with the 1982 study, and then work with the
Alaska Railroad to delineate a new, up-to-date corridor.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that he had signed as a co-sponsor
to the proposed legislation. He believed that there would
be benefit in having a potential right-of-way platted as
property ownership changes, and that the new owners have
some understanding of the future use for the lands. He
suggested that if a Native Corporation or private property
owner wanted to do something with their land, that
information would be a helpful consideration. He reiterated
that there is benefit to having a right-of-way delineation.
Representative Bunde pointed out that the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities had prepared a zero
fiscal note, although a memo was attached which indicate
costs.
FRANK MIELKE, CHIEF, RIGHT OF WAY & UTILITIES, SE REGION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
explained that analysis accompanied the note because
language in the bill indicates that it would be subject to
appropriation. He noted that there are additional routes
being scrutinized at this time. He believed that there was
a good chance that the route could be located in the
original area.
Representative J. Davies agreed that the corridor should be
delineated on the plat map. He suggested that such action
would be good and bad, the positive being that it would
allow planning and serve notice to the Alaskan people the
intent of the State. The disadvantage, however, is that it
could reduce property values.
Representative J. Davies voiced concern that previous
funding had been granted and somewhat disappeared into "thin
air". He questioned if by going through the process again,
the State would end up in the same predicament. He urged
creating a structure that it would stay on the plats.
Mr. Mielke explained that it was clear that this time the
legislative intent would keep it on the status plat, leaving
the application in until further direction from the
Legislature.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if an appropriation would be
necessary in order to accomplish the items outlined. Mr.
Mielke replied that it would.
Representative Austerman questioned status of conversations
between the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, the Canadian government and the Alaska Railroad.
Mr. Poshard replied that Department had only been involved
peripherally. He pointed out that Representative James had
several discussions with the Canadian Government and the
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARC) and that the Alaska
Railroad Corporation would most likely take the lead.
Representative G. Davis inquired the Railroad's involvement.
Mr. Mielke explained that two factors had been plugged into
that time line. The State acquired the Railroad in 1984,
and consequently, prior to 1984, work had been done by the
agency. The proposed legislation would change land status
in Alaska.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if without an appropriation, would
there be a means to revive the previously closed file. Mr.
Mielke explained that to place it back on the status plat
would take a minor action. Co-Chair Therriault asked if
with passage of the legislation, would the Department be
capable to pay the costs associated with it. Mr. Poshard
replied that the Department could check into it as it had
already been considered.
Co-Chair Therriault noted that it wasn't his intention that
by passing the legislation, it would obligate the State to
an expenditure in the future. He hoped that passing it
would provide new intent with a minor expenditure absorbed
by the Department. Concurrently, the action might bring the
State back to addressing land status plats.
Representative Bunde pointed out that there had been a
right-of-way before. The only way to guarantee that right-
of-way would be to purchase the land. Mr. Mielke replied
that the Department has never had a right-of-way, rather
right-of-way permit which provided the right to survey,
enter or take data. The full right-of-way is not usually
granted until a proposed project is to be constructed.
Representative James pointed out that without the
authorization of the study, there would be no appropriation
or action taken.
Representative Bunde asked if a right-of-way were
established, would it become part of the Alaska Railroad.
Representative James commented that disposition of the
Alaska Railroad Corporation is available, however, there
would be no way to determine if the disposition would belong
to them.
Representative Grussendorf advised that the Alaska Railroad
Corporation was an enterprise and that an expansion would be
at their willingness to use federal funds. He pointed out
that the Committee did not know the Railroad's position on
the proposed legislation. He encouraged that they be a part
of making any decision. Representative James noted that a
representative from the Alaska Railroad did testify in the
House Transportation Committee and spoke in support of the
legislation.
Co-Chair Mulder asked why a route had been "dropped" in the
past. Mr. Mielke explained that there were two portions of
the right-of-way, one, which was across the BLM lands, and
one which was on State lands. The first one on the BLM
lands stipulated that the State could not process the
application without approval of the U.S. Department of
Defense because it would be crossing three separate
reservations.
Representative J. Davies referenced Page 1, Lines 8, 9 and
10 and asked if that language included a survey. Mr. Mielke
replied that it did not and that a survey would be the best
legal description.
Representative J. Davies MOVED a conceptual amendment to
Page 1, Line 10, following "right-of-way" adding language
"and shall be shown on the appropriate land status plats".
There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
Representative Austerman MOVED to report CS SSHB 12 (FIN)
out of Committee with individual recommendations and with
the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ruled.
CS SSHB 12 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities dated
2/3/99 and Department of Natural Resources dated 2/3/99.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|