Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/01/1998 02:15 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 1998
2:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 68
Relating to continued operation of the McKinley Park airstrip for
general aviation and access to Denali National Park and Preserve.
- MOVED HJR 68 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL 263(FIN) AM
"An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide
transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HCSCSSB 263(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 68
SHORT TITLE: CONT OPERATION OF MCKINLEY PARK AIRSTRIP
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/22/98 3198 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/22/98 3198 (H) TRANSPORTATION
5/01/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 263
SHORT TITLE: SECONDARY ROADS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON, Pearce, Sharp
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/27/98 2318 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/27/98 2318 (S) TRA, FIN
2/03/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/03/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
2/04/98 2396 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP
2/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
2/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
2/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
3/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
3/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
3/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA)
3/20/98 2915 (S) TRA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE
3/20/98 2915 (S) DP: WARD, GREEN NR: WILKEN
3/20/98 2915 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DOT)
3/27/98 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/01/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
4/02/98 3111 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE
4/02/98 3111 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, TORGERSON, DONLEY;
4/02/98 3111 (S) NR: PARNELL, ADAMS
4/02/98 3111 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DOT)
4/07/98 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
4/07/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/08/98 3199 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/8/98
4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/08/98 3200 (S) MOTION TO ADOPT FIN CS
4/08/98 3201 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/14
CALENDAR
4/14/98 3244 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/15
CALENDAR
4/15/98 3273 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/15/98 3273 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/15/98 3274 (S) FAILED TO ADVANCE TO 3RD Y14 N5 E1
4/15/98 3274 (S) THIRD READING 4/16 CALENDAR
4/16/98 3296 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 263(FIN) AM
4/16/98 3297 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
4/16/98 3297 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/16/98 3297 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
4/17/98 3345 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
4/17/98 3346 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/18/98 3071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/18/98 3072 (H) TRANSPORTATION
4/29/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
5/01/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 422
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4457
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 68.
JAMES DREW, Flight Instructor
4725 Villanova Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-2212
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 68.
TOM GEORGE, Regional Representative
Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation
P.O. Box 83750
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 455-9000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 68.
PAUL BOWERS, Director
Statewide Aviation, Leasing
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
P.O. Box 196900
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6900
Telephone: (907) 269-0724
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 68.
PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
on SB 263.
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant
to Senator John Torgerson
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 514
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on behalf of
Senator Torgerson, Sponsor of SB 263.
TOM BRIGHAM, Director
Headquarters
Division of Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4070
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 263.
OCIE ADAMS, Road Service Area Supervisor
Member, Road Service Area Advisory Board
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
HC30 BOX 200
Wasilla, Alaska 99654-9756
Telephone: (907) 373-6690
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 263.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 263.
DON ETHERIDGE, Representative
Alaska District Council of Laborers
Local 71
710 West Ninth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 263.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Masek, Cowdery,
Hudson, Elton and Kookesh. Representative Sanders arrived at 2:18
p.m.
HJR 68 - CONT OPERATION OF MCKINLEY PARK AIRSTRIP
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business is HJR 68,
Relating to continued operation of the McKinley Park airstrip for
general aviation and access to Denali National Park and Preserve.
Number 0014
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR
68. He explained pilots are concerned about the plan that's being
developed to phase-out the airstrip in the front country of Denali
Park which is located in the broad pass along the Parks Highway.
He said, "The concern is that they feel that the discussion,
because of the way the proposal was made, it was in one of the 'not
preferred' alternatives of the Park Service and then brought
forward, and then kind of moved into 'the preferred' one, kind of
at the last minute, that lot of people feel that they kind of got
blind sighted with the proposal." Representative Davies said they
are asking that the Park Service back-off the proposal to allow for
more consideration and public input before proceeding.
Number 0022
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES concluded that there are a number of the
alternatives that the Park Service seems to advocate which do not
seem to be realistic given the actual flight conditions in that
canyon area. We feel, for the safety of the public, that we need
to take a much more careful look at this plan before it moves
forward.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that Representative Sanders
is present.
Number 0029
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY informed the committee that he has
flown through this pass that it is fairly narrow. He said he
believes the altitude is approximately seven thousand feet, some
times you can get in there but you can't get through, you need a
place to land.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied he has flown through the pass in
small planes with pilots, and the pilots are also concerned about
that, especially if you're coming from the south. He mentioned
this is one of the few good places to land.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated, the other concern is that this is
the source of information about the weather in the area so it's
really important that it be maintained and that there is a good
plan for it if there's going to be alternative place developed,
that the pilots contribute to where that place is going to be, what
kind of information, and what the timing is going to. He said he
thinks people also need to comment on how useful it's going to be.
Right now it's convenient, you can land there, you can get into the
Park Headquarters area, and you can go from there to a camping
area. If you move it much farther away from the Park Headquarters,
it's going to be less convenient.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reiterated that he believes the plan is
moving ahead too quickly. He noted the pass is a major
transportation route between Fairbanks and Anchorage and that,
since the strip is not far off the Parks Highway, there's going to
be continued air traffic in the future. Representative Davies
concluded that we need to make sure whatever changes are made, we
need to take care of safety first and have adequate comments from
the citizens before we make the changes.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added, "And not only for the benefit of the
tourists to be able to land, and stretch, and get out and do their
thing after a flight from Anchorage, but as a safety - I think
there's two issues that should be addressed."
Number 0057
REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH noted Southeast Alaska has been
greatly involved with the Park Service in regard to Glacier Bay.
He stated one of the problems with the Park Service is that their
idea of Alaska is to shut it out to everybody, especially those who
have used it before. He said he believes we may have to do is sit
down with somebody in authority, especially those who have some
oversight with the Park Service because we can't afford to have
Glacier Bay or the park closed to access.
Number 0070
JAMES DREW, Flight Instructor, testified via teleconference in
support of HJR 68. He said McKinley Park Airport is an extremely
important safety issue with respect to the flight pattern between
Interior and Southcentral Alaska. He stated the major problem they
face in Interior Alaska, between Southcentral and the Interior, is
that the mountains and the height of the mountains mean that any
kind of instrument flight has to be above ten thousand feet. And
frequently our atmospheric conditions, either throughout much of
the year, or such that icing occurs to that level, most generally
the aviation airplanes in Alaska are not equipped to deal with the
icing.
MR. DREW continued to explain that Windy Pass is the major access
point (indisc.--coughing) that is traveled between these two areas.
Weather often consists of scattered rain showers or snow showers,
in a wider valley it wouldn't make any difference because one can
go around those showers, but in a very narrow pass that's not
possible. And so consequently the weather conditions in Windy Pass
can often be marginal and yet this is the only access that we have,
back and forth between Interior and Southcentral Alaska. Mr. Drew
stressed that the McKinley Park Airport is an extremely important
sight because if any problem, either mechanical or weather occurs,
the McKinley Park Airport is the only place available in Windy Pass
where a safe landing can be made.
Number 0093
MR. DREW referred to the remote transmitting facilities along the
route through Windy Pass, we find that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) has established remote transmitting receiving
sites (RCO) tied into life service stations in both Fairbanks and
Kenai. They have also been established in Healy, McKinley Park,
Cantwell and Summit. He said he knows of no other place in Alaska,
or, in fact, most other places in the rest of the United States
where RCO's are located so close together. Mr. Drew stated he
thinks that represents operational recognition by FAA to the
importance of Windy Pass and the importance of the weather there,
and that in turn reflects the importance of the emergency airports
within that area. As you know, Healy is at the very north area of
the route that goes through the pass and wind conditions are often
bad at Healy. And the Denali Airport, which is south from McKinley
Park, is a private airport which is not available except in
(indisc.) parts and emergency conditions for landing.
MR. DREW said we simply cannot compromise if we're going to retain
a safe condition for flying. In view of the importance of this
route, he strongly urged that the McKinley Park Airport be retained
and suggested that it be improved to provide better emergency field
conditions. If we close McKinley Park, we are jeopardizing a
critical transportation system in Alaska and jeopardizing lives.
Number 0122
TOM GEORGE, Regional Representative, Alaska Aviation Safety
Foundation, testified in support of HJR 68 via teleconference. He
pointed out that the safety foundation is very concerned about the
safety of flights through the Alaska Range and Windy Pass. He said
McKinley Park Airport is the only public airport in that pass and
that it's important to have a place, not only to land in an
emergency, but more importantly to make a precautionary landing to
be able to await better weather conditions. He explained often the
weather conditions are very different between the south end of the
pass and the north end of the pass, in fact, it's entirely possible
to be in the middle of that area and not be able to go either to
the north or the south.
MR. GEORGE mentioned, if lost, it's a form of public access to the
park entrance as well. He stated the foundation doesn't believe
Healy, due to its high winds, is a suitable alternative to meet the
concerns of that area, nor does the private airport because the
public is not invited to land at that location. Mr. George stated,
"The Park Service, as I understand it from reading their plans,
intends to convert that airstrip into railroad parking for bus
transfers at some point in the future. And the assumption they
made there is that the other landing facilities near it are
adequate public access. So, that's I think where we disagree with
that and we request that they would reconsider that decision."
Number 0142
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked Chairman Williams if he was
ready for a motion.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted they were still taking public testimony.
Number 0143
PAUL BOWERS, Director, Statewide Aviation, Leasing, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), testified via
teleconference. He noted DOT/PF strongly supports HJR 68 and
agrees with the comments, so far, that the McKinley airstrip is
indeed strategically located and is a well used air travel
corridor. He mentioned the nearest airstrip is the state-owned
strip at Healy Point which is a much windier location than McKinley
and is not suitable as an alternative.
MR. BOWERS explained the weather reporting facility at Healy does
not cover the weather at McKinley and automated weather observation
system (AWAS) at McKinley, it covers only that area. If that strip
were closed, he said the likelihood is that AWAS, weather reporting
station would also go with it and that would be a significant loss.
MR. BOWERS said when the National Park Service proposed to close
the McKinley Park Airstrip, they said they would not do so until a
suitable alternative is available. He reiterated Healy is not an
acceptable or suitable alternative in that regard. Mr. Bowers also
indicated the Park Service said they were proposing closure of the
McKinley strip to accommodate railroad expansion. He said DOT/PF
contacted the railroad and was informed the railroad had no plans
to expand into that area. He stated it appears the Park Service is
following a national mandate to vacate park lands other than park
facilities which makes no sense.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it's important to get this resolution to
the National Park Service, and to the Secretary of the United
States Department of Interior, including others listed on the
resolution. She encouraged others to get the message to Congress.
Number 0173
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move HJR 68 from the
committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 68 passed out of the House
Transportation Committee.
SB 263 - SECONDARY ROADS
Number 0179
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced CSSB 263(FIN) Amended, "An Act relating
to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation improvement
program; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator
Torgerson, is before the committee.
Number 0188
PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams,
Alaska State Legislature, presented the working draft, Version L,
Cook, 5/1/98. He explained Section 1, page 1, further defines the
highway program. Mr. Ecklund noted that we currently have the
national highway system (NHS), community transportation projects
(CTP) and trails and recreation access to Alaska projects (TRAAK)
programs. The added language in Section 1 states that the total
federal funds that the state receives, that no more than 65 percent
of those federal funds shall go to the NHS program. And further,
we said that the federal funds we receive for highway programs, no
more than 7.3 percent shall go to the TRAAK program. He noted
those are averaged out over three years.
MR. ECKLUND mentioned he distributed information on the current
statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) and for federal
fiscal years 98, 99 and 2000. He said the TRAAK portion ran from
7.24 percent in 1998, 6.73 percent in 1999, and 7.29 in 2000. So,
capping the TRAAK program at that level is not going to push
anything off the STIP. He indicated this section is basically a
policy decision stating that the TRAAK program is good, we just
want to keep a lid on its growth as we work on our road system.
Number 0206
MR. ECKLUND referred to page 2 of the working draft. He said, "We
deleted -- in the previous Section (c), there was language that
said that 20 percent of the ranking for CTP projects had to be
based on averaged daily traffic. We heard testimony from the
department that an overwhelming percentage of those roads are in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, and that most of that money would migrate
to those two cities. In the work draft, we pulled that out."
Deleted the following:
In determining the priority of each community transportation
project, the department shall determine at least 20 percent of
the ranking of the project based on the volume of use of the
facility that is the subject of the project.
MR. ECKLUND continued, "What we would allow the department to do
is, what we charge the department to do, is to write regulations
concerning the ranking and scoring criteria process for the CTP
program, the TRAAK program, and the National Highway System
program. Right now, they just have an internal policy which can
change between Administrations, between commissioners, or at any
point in time. We're directing them to write regulations so we
we'd have more public input and overview of those processes."
Number 0218
MR. ECKLUND referred to subsection (d) of the working draft, line
24. He said we added the following phrase following, "The
department shall allocate, for planning purposes under this
section, at least 60 percent of the anticipated appropriations,..."
averaged over three consecutive years of the program, for the
community transportation category for projects in the rural
and urban streets and roads subcategory.
MR. ECKLUND explained it gave them three years to average out, to
spend at least 60 percent on the rural and urban street's road
subcategory, because there could be spikes in any one. He said he
believes DOT/PF will agree with that.
Number 0225
MR. ECKLUND referred to subsection (e), page 3, lines 1, 2 and 3 of
the working draft. He said, "This is new section and is a policy
call Mr. Chairman. What the effect of this amendment is, is we've
heard over time, testified by the department and by the
commissioner of many committees, subcommittees, and many
committees, that the TRAAK program is funded with our
transportation enhancement dollars, and what this language does Mr.
Chairman, is it says that transportation and enhancement eligible
projects - projects eligible to be funded with transportation
enhancement dollars shall be funded with transportation enhancement
dollars and not other funding categories. So, that means money
that's available to build roads will not go under the TRAAK is what
that means basically, Mr. Chairman, and that's a policy call. I
bring that to your attention."
Number 0233
MR. ECKLUND continued, "Also on page 3, we have changed the name of
unimproved secondary roads and we've renamed those substandard
secondary roads. And that's what the department -- I think that
clarifies part of this bill Mr. Chairman. What we're doing in
Section 2 is asking the department by regulation to define
secondary roads, and then roads that are substandard to those, to
that criteria, will be eligible for this $20,000,000 that may be
appropriated to upgrade those substandard secondary roads that may
be transferred to municipalities if they request that."
Number 0240
MR. ECKLUND noted subsection (4) was added to subsection (d), page
3, to clarify that substandard secondary roads are roads that are
not on a national highway system or the TRAAK programs. That means
substandard secondary roads are in the community transportation
program and are defined in that section.
Number 0245
MR. ECKLUND said we added Section (4), page 4, basically what this
says is that not less than one percent of our total federal highway
funds, for the next six years, shall be used for new bridge
construction across waterways which are part of the NHS to access
airports in other areas. He mentioned that, after talking to an
attorney in Legal Services, a proposed verbal amendment will be
offered.
Number 0250
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked approximately what would one percent
would be for the years 1998 to 2000 in reference to in Section 4.
MR. ECKLUND replied the House version of Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is $280 million a year for
six years, the Senate version $312 million for six years. He said,
if you say we're get $300 million a year for six years, that's $1.8
million, so roughly one percent would be $18 million, that's a
rough guess.
Number 0255
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked if it's common to appropriate money in
a bill that's for a capital project. Isn't a bridge a capital
project?
MR. ECKLUND replied, in working with Tam Cook [Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs], this is not appropriation language, the
language is defined in this bill and in the title of this bill,
it's not an appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH reiterated that a bridge is a capital
project.
MR. ECKLUND replied yes, it is a capital project. This is not an
appropriation. It basically sets aside money for a project of this
type.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated it sounds like the definition of an
appropriation by setting aside money for a project.
MR. ECKLUND reiterated according to Legal Services, this is not an
appropriation, it's not violating any act or appropriation, it fits
within the title of this bill and in this bill perfectly fine.
Number 0264
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked Mr. Ecklund where the Gravina Island
Bridge is in the state system for funding. Is it currently in the
budget?
MR. ECKLUND replies no. It's not on the STIP.
Number 0267
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to the 7.3 percent requirement,
page 1, beginning on line 10 of the working draft.
Federal funds allocated to the trails and recreation access to
Alaska projects may not exceed 7.3 percent of the federal
highway funding available, averaged over three consecutive
years.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how does that affect Anchorage. Does
7.3 percent apply to the federal dollars that are going to
Anchorage, and that Anchorage decides how to spend it under their
own program?
MR. ECKLUND referred to page 6 of the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program, March 1998, DOT/PF criteria. He explained,
"What line 11 says is, ... it shows out for 1998, 1999 and 2000 of
the STIP, what's its program is for the TRAAK program of how many
dollars are programmed in for TRAAK and those are projects spread
throughout the state, not just Anchorage. And, if you divide $22
million like in say 1998 by 304 down below, that percentage is
7.24, and so on. In the year 2000, already in their STIP spent $24
million on TRAAK projects in the year 2000, okay. And that works
out to be 7.3 percent of the total of federal funds available for
that year as they've estimated. What we've done is, we've said,
'Okay, that's reasonable, we'll put that in statute.' And that's
basically a ceiling on how much of a percentage, of our total
federal dollars that we can spend on TRAAK. If, in our federal
legislation we get more money than we programmed here, they can
spend more money, you know, 7.3 percent of that extra money on
TRAAK. So, that percentage is not going to wipe out anything
that's scheduled in the STIP for TRAAK projects."
Number 0286
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, if he remembers the newspaper stories
correctly, Anchorage is debating on whether or not they have 10, 15
or 20 percent for TRAAK projects. He asked, if they settle on 15
percent on TRAAK projects in Anchorage, does that reduce the amount
of money that's available for TRAAK to other parts of the state.
MR. ECKLUND replied DOT/PF can also provide their view of the
situation. He further explained the cap of the total federal
dollars we receive for a three year period, we're not going to
spend more than 7.3 percent averaged on TRAAK. The Anchorage TRAAK
projects have to go through the STIP, they're ranked like
everything else, they have to go through the STIP just like CTP
projects do for Anchorage, they go through the same ranking
criteria that every project throughout the state does. What DOT/PF
does, is they rank all the projects throughout the state, they take
the amount of money they have available for CTP and for TRAAK, and
then they pull out how many projects would qualify for Anchorage in
CTP and TRAAK, under the amount of money they have, and that's what
they allocate to Anchorage for the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study (AMATS). So, those projects in Anchorage are
not going to compete with projects throughout the state and so it's
not to pull any off of STIP, it's just going to put a cap on the
total dollars we can spend on TRAAK to keep it basic at the level
it is now.
Number 0301
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the concern he has is that if
Anchorage, for example, decides to spend 15 percent on TRAAK
projects, that might diminish the amount of money available to
other parts of the state for TRAAK. Conversely, this would be a
mandate - this takes away the local option for AMATS to make their
own decision on how much they want to spend on TRAAK.
MR. ECKLUND said he believes when the state goes through and makes
their calculations for CTP and for TRAAK, they give that money then
to Anchorage and AMATS decides how they want to spend it.
Number 0305
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 2, subsection (c), beginning
on line 16.
The department shall rank community transportation projects
proposed to be undertaken in each year of the statewide
transportation improvement program in accordance with the
priority of the project. The department shall give priority
to upgrading a substandard or hot asphaltic road if the
department receives a request by a municipality for the
transfer of the road or a portion of the road to the
municipality and, after the upgrading is completed, the
department shall transfer to the municipality the road or the
portion of it that is within the boundaries of the
municipality.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the new priority - is that the first
threshold question and whether or not that substitutes for
criterion number 6.
MR. ECKLUND deferred the question to Senator Torgerson's staff
because she is more familiar with the secondary roads program.
Number 0312
MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson,
Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She said she
only heard a part of the question.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON reiterated, under subsection (c), beginning on
line 16, page 2, it establishes a priority, if the road is going to
be transferred to a municipality. He asked if that creates a new
priority that substitutes for criteria number 6, and whether the
department would have to write a new criterion that this would be
the first threshold criterion, and that all the other criteria
are...
MS. JACKSON interjected that it was not intended to have the
department re-rank, this was supposed to conform to the secondary
roads program of Section 2. She stated Section 2 was the bill, and
then Section 1 became the amendment, so, we were trying to make
certain that Section 1's ranking criteria matched the initial bill.
Ms. Jackson said, perhaps it doesn't if Representative Elton thinks
it reads that way.
MR. ECKLUND referred to Section 2, secondary roads, page 3. He
said the department is going to write regulations establishing what
a secondary road is, and then certain gravel roads, and cold
asphaltic roads that don't meet that definition of secondary roads
or substandard secondary roads. The department shall identify
substandard secondary roads and then rank them. One of the first
priorities in that ranking is, if there's a community that's near
a substandard secondary road that wants to take it over, once it's
improved, they'll get priority in the ranking system that DOT/PF
sets up.
Number 0327
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he observed that there is a priority for
that now, it appoints a warden for example now if the road were to
be turned over to a municipality. He reiterated that he is
concerned that if it's a threshold question that comes above the
other criteria set, that it pushes rural projects further down the
list because, if this is the threshold question, and the
municipality says they want that road, that we'd never get to some
of the rural projects.
MR. ECKLUND remarked there is a $20 million cap on roads that can
be improved, substandard secondary roads per year, and DOT/PF will
be writing regulations, since that is a public process you and the
public will have influence on how that ranking system is set up.
Number 0335
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to subsection (d), beginning on line
22, page 3.
For purposes of this section, "substandard secondary road"
means a dirt or gravel road or a road that has received a cold
asphaltic application, and that
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked what is the effect of that subsection on
the Marine Highway System and whether or not this diminishes the
amount of money that would otherwise be available to the Marine
Highway System. When you apply at least 60 percent of the
anticipated appropriations for projects of rural and urban streets
(indisc.) a subcategory, does that diminish the amount of money
available to the Marine Highway System.
MR. ECKLUND replied that's the current DOT/PF policy. He said,
"The Marine Highway System parts that are in the CTP program, are
only I guess a couple off, not mainline terminals. The rest of the
Marine Highway System is on the National Highway System." He said
he believes the criterion shows what's on the National Highway
System.
Number 0341
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated this would be just for terminal
projects, or access to terminals.
MR. ECKLUND replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated they need to adopt the working draft
for discussion. She made the motion to adopt the proposed HCS CSSB
263(TRA), Version LS1421\L, Cook, 5/1/98. Hearing no objection,
Version L is before the committee.
Number 0349
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked why Section 4, page 4, beginning on line
2, fits under the existing title.
Notwithstanding other provisions of state law, not less than
one percent of the total federal highway funds apportioned and
available to the state for obligation in the statewide
transportation improvement program for federal fiscal years
1998 - 2003 shall be obligated for new bridge construction
across waterways that are part of the national highway system
that provide direct access to airports and other areas.
MR. ECKLUND said he could call Legal Services for a legal
explanation. He stated it's not an appropriation. It's okay to be
in this bill. He reiterated the drafter is fine with the language
being in the bill. He also mentioned he is going to make a small
amendment to this language.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to page 1, line 11, of the working
draft. He said, along those same lines, you have 7.3 percent of
the federal highway funds available will be used for a certain
issue.
MR. ECKLUND stated the title is very broad, it says, "An Act
relating to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation
improvement program; and providing for an effective date." He said
we are defining what that Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program is in this legislation.
Number 0361
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked, "When we talk about a (indisc.)
statewide common standard for secondary roads, you know we have
various -- how would that be determined."
MR. ECKLUND replied that would be a good question for the
department. He said we're asking them to write regulations to come
up with standards for secondary roads because currently there is
none.
Number 0366
MR. ECKLUND also pointed out a change on page 3, line 6. He
mentioned Representative Masek asked a question on Wednesday
regarding establishing standards that are uniform throughout the
state, and at the department's suggestion, and from talking to
Senator Torgerson's staff, we put in the word "reasonably" uniform
throughout the state.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "I wonder if the Chairman would like
to add a separate repealer in Section 4, say ten years."
Number 0374
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked, "What is the justification on
page 4, Section 4, line 5, of the designation that this bridge
construction across waterways that are part of the National Highway
System, it's that or part of the National Highway System. Is there
anything in current law or federal law, or any other dictates that
we have that would require that? What if you had bridge
construction across a waterway that provides direct access to
airports in other areas. Why identify it only across waterways, I
guess that's what we're talking about, waterways that are a part of
the National Highway System?"
...obligated for new bridge construction across waterways that
are part of the national highway system that provide direct
access to airports and other areas.
MR. ECKLUND referred to the waterway in Ketchikan that is
identified as a part of the National Highway System. He said
that's what was in mind as the legislation was written.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned a waterway between Douglas Island
and the Juneau Airport would provide a similar service.
MR. ECKLUND replied we may have excess ferries in the next few
years.
Number 0393
TOM BRIGHAM, Director, Headquarters, Division of Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the
committee to sum up the department's reaction to the committee
substitute. He said in general, DOT/PF is happy to see the 20
percent, based on the traffic provision, come out in Section 1.
Essentially DOT/PF's position at this point is that they believe
Section 1 would best be left to next year. He said, because you're
really talking about applying Section 1 to a process DOT/PF set up
that's a product of the current Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act, which is in the process of being reauthorized by
Congress. He indicated they will have a new one sometime within a
half year. Mr. Brigham explained it makes more sense to address
these kinds of issues after we know what the federal stage is
because we are talking here about the federal program. So,
DOT/PF's recommendation is to delete Section 1.
MR. BRIGHAM referred to Section 2. He said, "With the editorial
changes that have been made in this committee substitute, we have
no particular..."
TAPE 98-22, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. BRIGHAM referred to Section 4. He stated that he wants to make
it very clear that DOT/PF has no particular problem with the
objective that is the crossing with a particular waterway near
Ketchikan. But, DOT/PF does object to, in effect placing a
specific project in a bill of this sort. They think the place for
this is the capital budget.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked where does it say anything about where it
is going.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked, "Particularly with my amendment."
MR. BRIGHAM replied, "Through a process of deduction Mr.
Chairman..."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM added that there are several areas and asked Mr.
Brigham to explain his comment.
Number 0012
MR. BRIGHAM responded that he only began thinking of the number of
projects that were across waterways that would be new bridges that
would be part of the National Highway System or eligible the
National Highway System that would provide direct access to
airports. He said he could only think of one project, therefore,
the criteria are limiting enough, that the universe you're talking
about is in fact very very small, even if it is larger than one
project.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "If we were to take out, on line 5,
'that are part of the national highway system,' then you could
think of more than one couldn't you."
MR. BRIGHAM replied he recalls a suggestion, along those, lines
being made here just a few minutes ago and that could well apply he
supposed.
Number 0024
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it had any implications on the
federal authorization for the use of these funds.
MR. BRIGHAM responded, in a programmatic sense, to be eligible for
federal funds, a project has to go through the federal STIP
process, through the public involvement process, and so forth, then
it becomes eligible. If, for example, you were to say, put such
and such a project in the federal program, and if we simply did it,
the federal government would say, "I'm sorry this isn't eligible,
it hasn't been through the process." But, if we don't put it in
the program, we would then be in violation of state law. So,
programmatically it puts us in a bit of a fix.
Number 0035
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what if we were to conceptually say,
"unless one percent of the total federal highway funds apportioned
shall be obligated for federally authorized new bridge
construction." He added this would be in compliance with the STIP
provisions.
MR. BRIGHAM replied, "Or federally eligible, something like that
would probably take care of that."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that would probably eliminate the
federal concerns.
NUMBER 0044
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 1. He asked Mr. Brigham if
he concurred with what he's heard on the 7.3 percent. He said he
would be interested in his view on whether that's a mandate to
Anchorage through AMATS, in whether or not that takes away their
local option of determining what percent goes to trails. And if it
is, if they're still allowed to do that and set for example 15
percent of their funds for TRAAK. Representative Elton asked does
that diminish funds available for TRAAK elsewhere in the state.
MR. BRIGHAM said Mr. Ecklund did a good job of describing the way
the process works. This would cap the amount of - the size of the
TRAAK part of the program. Within that, DOT/PF would then evaluate
the Anchorage projects along with everyone else's to determine what
the allocation to Anchorage would be. As a Municipal Planning
Organization (MPO) DOT/PF has to give them an allocation of funding
and not tell them which projects they can build. He explained that
they would then take the TRAAK allocation, and take their Community
Transportation Program (CTP) allocation, they put them together and
they can do whatever they want with it as long as it's federally
eligible. In other words, they can choose to spend 15 percent or
5 percent. By law, it's their decision and DOT/PF and the
Legislature are not really able to alter that. So, this would not
interfere with AMATS's decision as how they want to do their TRAAK.
Number 0061
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated it's her understanding the federal
regulations for the STIP hasn't been finalized.
MR. BRIGHAM replied correct. The reauthorization of the service
transportation Act is not final. He said there are two competing
bills and are at the moment in conference and it looks like it's
going to take a while.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "If we are to make this law, how will
that effect..."
Number 0065
MR. BRIGHAM said, "Our concern is that we have a process developed
in response to the current ISTEA, this codifies much of that
process, it adds a few things which we independently object to, but
nonetheless, it codifies that process. That's fine if ISTEA is -
the new ISTEA is a continuation of the old ISTEA, but to the extent
to which you may wind up with different federal requirements in the
new federal legislation, it seems to me to make a lot sense to us
to take Section 1 out, bring it back next year if there's still a
desire to do that. We think we have a pretty good process right
now and we'd like to see that continue and carry over beyond this
Administration into future Administrations. So, in general we
don't have a problem."
Number 0075
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what kind of fiscal note does he
anticipate for adopting regulations.
MR. BRIGHAM replied there are three fiscal impact issues here,
there are two sets of regulations to adopt which are not federally
eligible by in large and there is a certain amount of staff work to
do to inventory the unimproved secondary roads. He noted DOT/PF
prepared a new fiscal note which is approximately $150,000 to the
bill as it currently stands. If Section 1 were deleted that would
remove $50,000 perhaps a bit more from that, it would drop the
fiscal impact to approximately $75,000 to $90,000.
Number 0085
MR. ECKLUND said he would like to respond to some of DOT/PF's fears
about reauthorized ISTEA. He stated, "The work draft, ... is more
of a broad umbrella policy, it can fit in -- I'd be interested to
know specifically what sections you are really worried about that,
in the reauthorized ISTEA, we might be asking to violate because,
Mr. Chairman, what we have in front of us is a broad policy, we're
going to set up three broad funding categories, NHS, the TRAAK, the
CTP program. We're not asking them to rank and score projects.
Mr. Chairman, the reauthorized ISTEA, neither version -- Alaska has
always had many exemptions to the federal regulations on federal
highway programs to create discretion. And in both versions of the
bill - we still have Section 118 exemptions and we're exempt from
many federal requirements. And, the implementation of this bill is
a policy question, and it's a policy question this year or next
year, or the following year, and to hold the reauthorization of
ISTEA out there is the reason we're not passing the bill I think
along Mr. Chairman."
MR. BRIGHAM stated, the department's sense is, in the
reauthorization of ISTEA there are provisions relating to the
National Highway System, to enhancements, and to all sorts of
things that are different in the two versions if the bill is passed
out.
MR. BRIGHAM said, "We simply believe it's premature. You could
wind up with provisions that apply to the National Highway System
or to enhancements which we believe could be in conflict with the
way this Section 1 is structured. And it just seems, procedurally,
it seems to make a lot more sense to take Section 1, and set it
aside, deal with it once we know, in other words next year, once we
know what we have in the way of a federal program that we're
relating our programs to."
MR. ECKLUND stated, "Right now we have a current STIP for 1998, and
we have a capital budget for 1999, and a STIP for FY 99. What
we're doing in this document is basically codifying what's in this
STIP. So, what Mr. Brigham was worried about, if they pass
reauthorized ISTEA, if it's going to -- if this bill would violate
anything - reauthorized ISTEA, they're going to have to change it
in this document anyway. So, we're not actually - you're going to
have to change this document if there's things reauthorized ISTEA
that this document violates. Mr. Chairman, I just think it's
pretty far fetched, what we've got in this bill is what's in this
booklet Mr. Chairman for the most part."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, except for Section 4.
Number 0116
MR. BRIGHAM responded DOT/PF clearly will change the STIP when they
have a new ISTEA. They will have final funding amounts, which
their STIP has to be in line with those, and so forth, there's no
question. But DOT/PF would change them based on the federally
approved process, and so forth, but they would not be constrained.
Right now DOT/PF is not necessarily constrained by a particular
state law that says here's how you have to put your STIP together.
What this would do, it would give DOT/PF that state law, and their
concern is our state law winds up being at odds with the new
federal legislation and then we are in a pickle. Mr. Brigham
stated it is not far fetched, it simply makes good sense.
MR. ECKLUND said Alaska, and all states, has always had broad
discretion on how they set up their ranking and criteria system to
come up with a STIP. They have to have a process that's approved
by the Federal Highway Administration. He stated, "This would just
be the process, that's all they ever asked for is a process, and
that's what we're asking in the bill, we're kind of codifying a
process. So, it wouldn't be in violation of anything Mr.
Chairman."
MR. BRIGHAM said he would continue to disagree.
Number 0132
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, from the beginning, what statement by
the Legislature predicates the current STIP development. Was there
guidance put on the record by the Legislature in how to prepare the
STIP or was that pretty much dictated by the federal government or
independently by the department?
MR. BRIGHAM responded the guidelines are almost exclusively
federal. He noted a broad state statute exists that essentially
says, go forth and bring back all the federal money you can.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I believe the working draft is a
statement on the part of the Legislature to try to direct the
influence of whatever funds we get through the federal government
for public purpose uses. I think it's part of the Legislature's
effort to at least have some intent, maybe even some beyond the
intent - even some requirements of the department when you prepare
your STIT to try to isolate a percentage of them for this purpose,
and percentage of them for that purpose. And I think that is a
right role for the Legislature because we are the -- if Ramona
Barnes were here she would tell you that we are clearly the policy
setters for the State of Alaska."
Number 0152
MS. JACKSON stated Senator Torgerson supports Section 1 and
understands some of the concerns of the department. She said she
thinks the Legislature is the policy setting board, and there's
$300 million on the table that the Legislature has not had any
direct influence over, and should.
MS. JACKSON mentioned the issue of 20 percent which came up in the
meeting on Wednesday. She said Senator Donley's staff was here
earlier and had an amendment that took it down to 15 percent. She
indicated she didn't know what Senator Donley may or may not do
when it goes over to the Senate.
Number 0165
MR. ECKLUND offered a proposed amendment to Section 4, line 5, page
4.
Delete: obligated
Insert: used by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities
MR. ECKLUND asked Representative Hudson if, that after for, insert
"federally eligible."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Ecklund to read it.
Number 0173
MR. ECKLUND referred to the end of line 4, "shall be used by the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for" and insert:
federally eligible new bridge construction across waterways...
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if everyone understands the meaning.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Ecklund to read it.
MR. ECKLUND explained, on line 5, just strike the word "obligated"
and insert "used by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities," keep the next word for, then insert right there
"federally eligible." Between "for" and "new" insert federally
eligible. Mr. Ecklund said he believes that was Mr. Brigham's
suggestion.
Number 0185
MR. BRIGHAM replied, "I don't believe this was my suggestion. I
just might ask for the intent under 'used,' how used is meant here.
We may or may not have a technical problem."
MR. ECKLUND read Section 4.
Notwithstanding other provisions of state law, not less than
one percent of the total federal highway funds apportioned and
available to the state for obligation in the statewide
transportation improvement program for federal fiscal years
1998 - 2003 shall be used by the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities for federally eligible new bridge
construction across waterways that are part of the national
highway system that provide direct access to airports and
other areas.
Number 0194
MR. BRIGHAM asked would you consider "obligated" as a form of
"used," in other words, is this intended to broaden the original
sentence, or is it narrowing.
MR. ECKLUND replied the term "obligated," as he and as the drafter
understands it, is when the state is going to do a project, or
wants to build a project, or do right-of-way, or design, or some
portion of a project, they apply to the Federal Highway
Administration for approval to do that project. When the Federal
Highway Administration signs off and approves that project, they,
the Federal Highway Administration, have obligated themselves to
repay those funds. So, the way it was formally written, with
obligated, we could not force the federal government to do
anything. So, we've changed that to say that, that one percent
shall be used by DOT/PF for federally eligible new bridge
construction.
MR. BRIGHAM said that's clear enough.
Number 0205
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked does that means, once we go through
that process, we have one percent available, then you look at the
projects that have gone through the federal process to be
recognized as need funded, then you would take that one percent and
fund that particular project.
MR. ECKLUND responded as he sees, is when a project qualifies,
under this section, that gets on this STIP, there will be money
available.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked did they go through the regular
process first.
MR. ECKLUND replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated then that one percent is available,
then you fund them.
MR. ECKLUND replied that's how he understands it.
Number 0211
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, how does this work. He said, "We're
saying used for a project that meets these criteria. In federal
fiscal years 1998, what does that mean - immediately. Are we using
federal fiscal year FY 98 dollars this construction season?"
MR. ECKLUND responded we are using federal fiscal year 98
construction dollars this season, but the effect of Section 4 is
that one percent of the total available to the state for the
federal fiscal years 98 through 2000 shall be used for a project
that meets this criteria. So, we're not affecting any projects
this year, or any projects in the STIP.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, so, it's not a one percent each year,
it's an amount equivalent to one percent over those federal fiscal
years.
MR. ECKLUND replied that is correct.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any further comments or
questions on the amendment. He asked for a motion to move the
amendment.
Number 0221
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed
amendment. There being no objections, the amendment was adopted.
Number 0223
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY offered an amendment to Section 4, line 5,
delete after waterways, "that part of the national highways
system." He asked Chairman Williams if he would consider that
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he would consider the proposed
amendment if Representative Cowdery offered it.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied, right now, probably not.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, just checking.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were further comments or questions
on the bill.
Number 0232
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Chairman Williams if he wanted motions
for other amendments, or does he want to wait until after public
testimony.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied, after the public testimony is closed.
Number 0236
OCIE ADAMS, Road Service Area Supervisor, Service Area 17, and
member of the Road Service Area Advisory Board for the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough, testified via teleconference. He said,
"The Road Service Area Advisory Board and the Mat-Su Borough have
supported SB 263 in its original content and we're following this
bill through to this point. I have some severe concerns for some
of the amendments that I've heard put into the bill today, though
and we will need to discuss these further to continue to support
it."
MR. ADAMS continued, "I think that the allocation of roads through
airport money, there is (indisc.) provisions in the STIP to
prioritize and work up through the system to get those type
projects done. All this amendment will do is circumvent the
process and I didn't think we could support that."
MR. ADAMS noted they don't support the removal of Section 1 either,
the Road Service Area supervisors and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
staff supports it in its original format. Mr. Adams said he
believes there's information contained in it that protects that
program from being in conflict with anything. He read Section 1,
line 8, 4/15/98 as amended reads:
The program shall be prepared and revised as frequently as
necessary for state participation in federal highway, transit,
and transportation programs or, in the absence of a federal
requirement, as frequently as the commissioner otherwise
determines appropriate.
MR. ADAMS stated he doesn't see how we can have this in conflict
with anything if we have a provision in it to revise it as often as
necessary to make the program work.
MR. ADAMS said he thinks the original format could be supported by
the majority of the service areas, if not all the service areas in
the borough.
Number 0256
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Adams if he was looking at the
committee's new committee substitute.
MR. ADAMS indicated the Legislative Information Office staff may
have not given him the most recent version.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS mentioned a copy of Version L is being faxed.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Adams if he would review it and
provide comments.
MR. ADAMS responded he needs a few minutes to look over it.
Number 0263
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he is more comfortable with SB 263 the
way it got to this committee than he is the way it's leaving this
committee. For that reason, he proposed Amendment 2:
Delete: Section 1 and renumbering the subsequent sections.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thinks the testimony has covered an
awful lot of what his concerns are and is willing to speak to that,
but he thinks everybody understands what the issues are. If
anybody has any questions, he indicated he would be more than
willing to answer them.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any questions on Amendment 2.
Number 0273
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move Amendment 2.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected. He said, as he understands it, it
helps us set up a broad policy for what we currently don't' have.
He asked Representative Elton what his objection is to that.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out his strongest objection is the way
it constricts, especially with the inclusion of the 7.3 percent
which restricts the ability that the department now has in the
allocation of funds. He said he took to heart, to some extent,
also the concerns that DOT/PF has that we're adopting in statute
something that we may have to come back and change depending on how
ISTEA turns out in this Congress.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Ecklund if this currently is the way
TRAAK money is written in the STIP program.
Number 0282
MR. ECKLUND responded that's correct, the way DOT/PF has laid out
the STIP and funding over the next three years, FY 98, 99, and
2000. In the year 2000 they have programed $24 million to spend on
the TRAAK program and that is 7.29 percent of the estimated funds
they had that year. So, adoption of this bill, with Section 1 in
it, is not going to push any TRAAK project off the STIP, it just
puts a ceiling on TRAAK projects and the policy decision is
basically that spend enhancement money on TRAAK program and money
that's eligible for roads, spend on roads.
Number 0290
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said Mr. Ecklund is exactly right, the
significant difference is, is that's what they were going to spend.
The significant difference is, is that takes away the ability to
change their minds three years out, especially when you couple it
with subsection (e), page 3.
The department may not fund transportation projects that are
eligible under federal law as transportation enhancement
projects with federal funds from other funding categories.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he understands the desire of some
people to codify in law something that is going to be true over the
next three years, but he objects to tieing the hands beyond that.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, "With the problems that we're having
throughout the state by not spending enough monies on the road
system today, and putting more money into a bicycle path, and this
sort of enhancements, I still object to the amendment. I think we
need to put the money into the road system."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how many motions do we have before us.
The second one is deleting Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied deleting Section 1 and renumber
accordingly.
Number 0305
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced Amendment 2 is defeated (vote of 2-5).
Representatives Elton and Kookesh voted in support of Amendment 2.
Representatives Masek, Cowdery, Hudson, Sanders and Williams voted
against it.
Number 0309
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON offered Amendment 3 which deletes Section 4.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he is uncomfortable with circumventing
the regular STIP process in this manner.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said this doesn't circumvent it. He stated he
also objects to this amendment also.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked for a brief at ease.
Number 0314
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the House Transportation Committee is
at ease. [Time not indicated].
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the committee back to order. [Time not
indicated].
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that the net effect of deleting
Section 4 is it would add $3 million a year, over the next five
years, back into the road program and away from a bridge program.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, if there wasn't a bridge project it
wouldn't take anything from the road program.
Number 0322
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Representatives
Elton and Kookesh voted in support of Amendment 3. Representatives
Masek, Cowdery, Hudson, Sanders and Williams voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5.
Number 0326
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered Amendment 4, page 4, line 5, after
"waterways," delete "that are part of the national highway system."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there are any objections. There being
none, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 0330
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted there isn't a fiscal note.
MR. ECKLUND replied DOT/PF is in the process of developing one to
the working draft.
MR. BRIGHAM stated, "Perhaps defer to Dennis (Poshard) on the
timing, but I know we've got one in the works."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked when will it be completed.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked and what for.
Number 0334
MR. BRIGHAM responded to develop regulations, it takes time and
money, those are not federally eligible for cost by in large. He
said DOT/PF tries to make anything that's federally eligible,
eligible, and they would in this case as well. But, generally the
federal government says, "No, you can do the federal program
without these regulations so they're not eligible."
MR. BRIGHAM pointed out there is also a certain amount of time
involved in prioritizing and inventorying the secondary roads. He
indicated it's not a terrific amount of time. It's his
understanding that the total number is somewhere in the
neighborhood of $140,000 to $145,000.
Number 0339
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if these are just on secondary roads that
your regulations were pertaining to.
MR. BRIGHAM replied, "There are two sets of regulations called for
here. One is on Section 1, on the process to put those in
regulation, and the second is on Section 2, which is the
substandard secondary roads. Those are separate but related
regulatory processes. We estimate, just in round numbers, about
$50,000 for process, there's also time involved in - having to get
through these kind of efforts, we're not inventing time or cost
here, but there is time in cost involved in inventorying and
prioritizing the substandard secondary roads that are described in
Section 2."
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked when can we expect a fiscal note on
this.
MR. BRIGHAM replied he would assume later today, DOT/PF will get it
in here as soon as we can.
Number 0350
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities came before the
committee. He said DOT/PF had a fiscal note prepared and ready to
go but they had not seen the proposed committee substitute and
thought it would not be wise to turn it in prior to looking at the
committee substitute. He indicated that he didn't believe it will
change. So, it will be available probably within an hour.
MR. POSHARD stated, "The fiscal note that we prepared was 143
(thousand dollars). Our original fiscal note was for 43 (thousand
dollars) and that was for the process for ranking and ordering the
secondary roads that Mr. Brigham had mentioned and then we've also
included some money because of the addition of Section 1 for the
adoption of the regulations."
Number 0359
MR. BRIGHAM said, since it looks like Section 1 will remain in the
bill, he said he would like to point out a concern in subsection
(e), of subsection 1. He stated, "There is, in the early part of
Section 1, a limit on total TRAAK spending. The concern I have
over section (e) is that we some times, for example we're required
to mitigate environmental impacts, occasionally those mitigations
take the form of a trail or some kind of landscaping enhancement or
something like that which would technically be eligible for
enhancement funding. For example, we have a full enhancement
program, we've got that, and going onto its way, a road project
essentially comes along, as part of the environmental process,
we're required to mitigate that. My reading of this would suggest
that we would be unable to include that mitigation within the road
project. That would then be separated out and sent through the
TRAAK process, and that's a concern. I would urge the committee if
you can to adopt, amend, or possibly eliminate this section (e)
because we're still limiting the TRAAK funding in the early part of
this bill."
MR. ECKLUND said, "This is a STIP and there are many projects where
they break out ... this was partly funded by the NHS, partly funded
by transportation enhancements (TE). There are many projects, Mr.
Chairman, they identify as they go through the environmental impact
statement (EIS) and the scope of the project, the eligibility for
different parts of the project and they break them out. So I don't
see that as being a problem. They identify what they need to do,
and early on in the project, they know the different funding
sources that they have available, they even go as far as a program
than in the STIP Mr. Chairman."
MR. ECKLUND reiterated the intent of subsection (e) is to limit
transportation and enhancement eligible projects to transportation
enhancement funding so they don't use other road eligible funding
to do TRAAK enhancement projects. He said that's a policy decision
and doesn't see it being that much of a problem for DOT/PF.
Number 0384
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would make the department feel
somewhat better if we put on the record that we are not talking
about mitigation projects that are required by the authority that
makes the approval in this instance. He said he doesn't believe we
are. We're talking about just not mixing apples and oranges.
Representative Hudson said it's his understanding, if we pass this
bill, we are not trying to preclude the department from meeting a
mitigation responsibility in order to pursue a project. If that's
the intent of this bill, then that would satisfy the intent.
Number 0391
MR. BRIGHAM indicated that it would take care of that concern. He
asked, in terms of clarification, "Do you mean though, that the way
say any of those projects are organized, and the different funding
sources are called out, and that's acceptable under this, the way
the STIP is written currently is acceptable under this."
MR. ECKLUND said, if in fact, the portion of the project, the TRAAK
is coded, is funded for transportation enhancements (TE) are TE
eligible, then yes, that's the intent.
MR. BRIGHAM stated he thinks that takes care of some of DOT/PF's
concerns, but they will continue to discuss it.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Adams if he had a chance to review the
committee substitute.
Number 0407
MR. ADAMS replied, "I've been talking to the Mat-Su Borough on the
latest changes. The..."
TAPE 98-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, "If you feel a little more comfortable,
this bill is going to go to Finance and you can talk about it at
this time."
MR. ADAMS replied, "I think we're probably too late to affect
anything you're going to do today anyway, listening to it."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied yes.
MR. ADAMS noted it will give the borough an opportunity to digest
it too because they had lost track of it also.
Number 0012
DON ETHERIDGE, Representative, Alaska District Council of Laborers,
Local 71, came before the committee in opposition to SB 263. He
stated Local 71 does have some concerns with this bill because it
turns over secondary roads to the local governments to take the
maintenance over.
MR. ETHERIDGE noted that they might be losing positions for some of
their maintenance employees that are out there. He stated, "This
has happened in the past, there's been several Southeast
communities that have taken over their own maintenance. They do it
for two or three years, and find out that it's a lot more expensive
than what they thought it was going to be and they start losing
their money. They can't take care of their roads properly, so the
state has to move back in and start doing the maintenance again.
In the meantime, our members have been laid off and moved onto
something else. So then all the equipment's moved out, so the
state has to pay for moving new equipment back in there, they have
to find employees to put back into these positions. And this is
one the major concerns that we have is that eventually they might
wind up doing this to all of them and all of our guys will be out
on the streets that are currently there, and they've been longtime
public employees."
MR. ETHERIDGE contined, "When they took over Kake, we had a guy
that had been there for almost 20 years, he got put out on the
streets. He had to take an early retirement and lost a lot of
money -- the same thing over in Hoonah. And now we've taken over
Hoonah again, we've taken over Gustavus again, we're in the process
that the State's taking back Hyder again because of the same
issues, that once the local governments find out just how expensive
it is to take care of those roads, they say, 'Hey, we don't want
them no more.' And this is our concern."
Number 0035
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called an at ease. [Time not indicated].
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called them back to order. [Time not indicated].
Number 0038
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS said he intends to vote to move the
bill today. He said he understands it is going to the House
Finance Committee and hopes they can address some of the questions
Mr. Etheridge, from Local 71, brought up because he is concerned
about them. He indicated he didn't want to hold the bill in
committee.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS remarked he could work more on this bill and make
assurances that we will have it worked on in Finance.
Number 0044
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 3:00 p.m.
Number 0047
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the meeting back to order stating they
adjourned prematurely.
Number 0051
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I wish we would have had benefit of
your input before, Don [Etheridge], but is there any recommendation
that you would have, for example it (indisc.) wrapped around
informally as to whether or not any road that was transferred over
had to remain over, or caveat was that it had to be shown to be
more cost effectively to be done through the local auspices than
the State auspices."
MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "What's happened in the past, Representative
Hudson, was that the municipalities or the local governments would
take over the roads at the same cost as what the State was doing at
that present time. One of the major problems that came out of this
is when the local government was looking at this cost. The main
thing they look at is, 'Oh, this just means to grade the surface of
that road so we keep it smooth like this.' They don't consider in
the cost of guardrails, they don't consider into the cost of
maintaining the culverts, they don't consider in the cost of
maintaining the roadbed itself, they just look at, 'Oh, they're
going to pay me $85 a mile to create this road, they're going to
give me the equipment to do it, so we'll do it for that cost."
MR. ETHERIDGE continued, "Well, when it comes down to the actual
cost of doing this project, and they find out that the roadbed's
fallen out from under it in a year, well we've got to add cost for
that. We've got to add cost because this piece of equipment is
just about shot, so we've got to go buy a new piece of equipment so
we're going to add cost for that. So, after this second or third
year, they're wanting to triple the cost per mile in order to come
up with the dollars that it would require to maintain that road.
And that's one of the problems that we see in calculating all these
different types of things is this is the problem, is we just look
at only doing part of the project, we don't look at the whole
project in what it consists of all the way through. And that's
where I have a major concern over turning these over."
Number 0079
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Etheridge if there is any way that
this could be worked out to address the problems he has with this
bill -- if we had some time here.
MR. ETHERIDGE responded that he is sure if there was time we could
look at it. He said, "If the true costs were prevailed as to what
it would cost a municipality, and they had to work at the same
thing like our subcontracting language, there would be no problem
with it because we could prove that they can't do it any cheaper
than what we can do it. And with the State being able to buy their
materials involved, buying their equipment through the fleet
process and everything, they can always do it cheaper that way than
a local community can by buying one or two of these individual
pieces."
MR. ETHERIDGE concluded that he doesn't know how we could get the
language put into the bill yet that would give it that protection
that is in the contract for subcontracting out saying that they
have to prove that they can do it cheaper than what the State can
do it. He said if we could have something in here then it would be
fine, but there would have to be some way of doing that.
Number 0093
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would be willing to work with Mr.
Etheridge and some of his people to take a look at the language
that's in his contractual language and be prepared to offer an
amendment at the Finance Committee or on the House Floor. He said
he believes that the provisions in this bill are good, they are
wonderful public policy which will lead to more road building and
more projects and perhaps even meaningful bridge development and
things of this nature.
Number 0104
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSSB 263 as amended
with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He stated that he believes if we're
going to improve the bill, it should be done here. Moving it on
under the assumption that we can fix it, it may work, it may not.
He said he would like to be part of that process and the way he is
part of that process is doing it in this committee.
Number 0109
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Representatives
Masek, Hudson, Sanders, and Williams voted in support of moving SB
263 out of committee. Representative Elton voted against it.
Therefore, HCS CSSB 263(TRA) passed by a vote of 4 to 1 and moved
from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|