Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/04/1998 01:15 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
March 4, 1998
1:15 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
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HOUSE BILL 412
"An Act providing for the transfer of certain land to the City of
Whittier; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL 227
"An Act relating to the Alaska Capital Improvement Project
Authority; relating to the powers and duties of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 412
SHORT TITLE: TRANSFER RAILROAD LAND TO WHITTIER
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COWDERY, Sanders, Ryan, Ivan,
Hudson, Foster, Martin
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/16/98 2331 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/16/98 2331 (H) TRANSPORTATION, FINANCE
2/20/98 2391 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS, RYAN, IVAN,
2/20/98 2391 (H) HUDSON
2/23/98 2409 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER, MARTIN
3/04/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 227
SHORT TITLE: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) PHILLIPS, Cowdery
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/03/97 923 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/03/97 923 (H) TRANSPORTATION
4/21/97 (H) TRA AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 17
4/21/97 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
2/09/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
2/09/98 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
3/02/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
3/02/98 (H) MINUTE(STA)
3/04/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
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 HB 412.
JERRY GEORGE, Chief Design and Construction
Division of Engineering and Operations
Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities
4111 Aviation Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 269-0410
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 412.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA
Alaska State Legislature
Capital Building, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 412.
CARRIE WILLIAMS, City Manager
City of Whittier
P.O. Box 608
Whittier, Alaska 99693
Telephone: (907)2337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 412.
JOHNE BINKLEY, Chairman
Board of Directors
Alaska Railroad Corporation
C/o Alaska Riverways, Incorporated
1975 Discovery Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-6673
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition HB 412
BILL COUMBE, Mayor
City of Whittier
P.O. Box 608
Whittier, Alaska 99693
Telephone: (907) 472-2337
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 412.
JOE GRAY, Council Member
and Zoning Committee Member
City of Whittier
P.O. Box 613
Whittier, Alaska 99693
Telephone: (907) 472-2431
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 412.
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Cowdery
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 227.
PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Williams
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 424
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 227.
STEVE MORENO, Administrator
Alaska Division
Federal Highway Administration
P.O. Box 21468
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-7180
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 227.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Cowdery,
Sanders, and Elton. Representatives Hudson and Masek arrived at
1:17 and 1:18 p.m. respectively.
HB 412 - TRANSFER RAILROAD LAND TO WHITTIER
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 412, "An Act providing for the
transfer of certain land to the City of Whittier; and providing for
an effective date," before the committee. He said he intends
holding HB 412 in committee for further review.
Number 0010
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY presented HB 412. He said "The
railroad is about meeting the transportation needs of the state.
The State of Alaska acquired the Alaska Railroad from the federal
government because we deemed it necessary to maintain an (indisc.)
rail transportation system that would otherwise be shut down by the
federal government. It has come to pass that the vast real estate
holdings of the railroad are proven to be more of a money-maker for
them than the operation of the railroad. This wasn't the case
under the federal ownership because they didn't operate the
railroad to maximize profit. Now, as a State-owned corporation,
they are mandated to maximize profit. In the process of maximizing
income from the real estate holdings is a large part of what they
do. In as much as the railroad owns land in every community along
the railbelt, the instances of conflict between (indisc.) land use
and the railroad is increasing."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY continued, "Whittier is in the extreme case
of the ratio of railroad land because the ratio of the railroad
land to the city is so great. The City of Whittier cannot carry
out its government functions if it can't control its land. By
virtue of its land holdings in Whittier that railroad dictates land
use patterns to the city instead of vice versa, the railroad that's
in fact assuming the powers of local government, this was not
intended when the state of Alaska bought the railroad because we
wanted to preserve our rail transportation system."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY concluded, "The Railroad Corporation has
progressed from a transportation function to a real estate and
transportation function too, now a local government. It is the
Legislature's responsibility to restore balance among the railroad
and the City of Whittier."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated for the record that Representatives Masek,
Hudson and Kubina are present.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities came before the
committee, he mentioned Dave Eberle and Jerry George of Central
Region, DOT/PF, are on line in Anchorage. He said Mr. George is
prepared to give an overview of the Whittier Access Project.
Number 0052
JERRY GEORGE, Chief Design and Construction, Division of
Engineering and Operations, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, testified via teleconference. He noted he has been the
project manager for the Whittier Access Project since its
conception. The original railroad improvement was built during the
Second World War as a rail improvement. Since that time, there has
been over 19 studies in the intermediate 50 years to convert the
railroad to the joint rail, automobile, transportation corridor
(indisc.) paving over the tracks in the tunnel. He stated they are
looking for alternate routes out of Whittier. Those 19 studies
indicated a growing need over a very long period of time for
improved access to Prince William Sound and to the Port of
Whittier.
MR. GEORGE explained the current study began in 1993. Due to an
Environmental Impact Statement, that process took DOT/PF three
years to complete, it was a rather exhaustive study, not only the
economic and social impacts but also the environmental impacts of
the project. For example, by the year 2020 they anticipate there
will be million-four visitors to the Port of Whittier in form of
tourists, recreation, business, residents transiting the tunnel.
He indicated that mandated DOT/PF to look at what those social and
economic impacts would be, where the infrastructure development
funding would come from, and issues like that were dealt with
extensively.
Number 0077
MR. GEORGE mentioned one of the issues that came up with, of course
was, how would the city would develop land use planning issues. He
stated, "That was something that we could not deal within the EIS
(Environmental Impact Statement) with the federal funding that was
funding the EIS so the railroad, DOT, and the City of Whittier
secured other funds other than the EIS and retained the (indisc.)
which is the International Resort Development Planning
Organization. They develop major projects like the Fishermen's
Wharf in San Francisco, major ski resorts like Vale and are very
successful in planning and developing these destination resorts.
They helped develop a land use plan for Whittier and as part of
that, also looked at how the funding for that infrastructure
development would come to pass. That was all developed in parallel
with the EIS incorporation with the City of Whittier, the (Alaska)
Railroad and DOT/PF."
MR. GEORGE continued, "In 1996 we finally got a record to the
decision on the EIS and properly defended it through the Ninth
Circuit Court and successfully defended it. After the EIS was
completed, we completed the designs of the Portage segment which
was now under construction. And the segment that goes from Portage
Visitor's Center, across Portage Creek through a short tunnel and
on into Bear Valley where there will be a staging area to (indisc.)
the vehicles up for one-way passage through the converted railroad
tunnel. That project is scheduled for completion this fall, and
the road and two bridges will be passable for the contractor that
the (indisc.--noise) tunnel. That tunnel contractor is presently
advertised and we should be selecting the contractor for that
project by the end of this month. The tunnel conversion will be
done by a designed-built contractor and is scheduled to be complete
by April of 2000."
MR. GEORGE concluded that DOT/PF will be looking at a variety of
issues both in terms of short-term needs, the immediate-needs of
the city as well as developing planning for long-term.
Number 0115
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many cars will utilize this on a
daily basis.
MR. GEORGE replied there will be a mixture of vehicles, there will
be approximately 8,000 vehicles a day depending on how the cruise
ship business develops, how much of that is captured by the
railroad versus how much is captured by the busses. He said that's
projected out to occur by the year 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many parking spaces would have to
be made.
Number 0136
MR. GEORGE replied that was developed as part of the intra plan,
the plan that was adopted by the City of Whittier as the land use
plan did provide parking for the number of vehicles that was
anticipated for the year 2020. He said he doesn't know what that
number is.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked are the present parking facilities in
Whittier are adequate.
MR. GEORGE replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the restrooms and power hookups for
RV's (recreational vehicles ) are adequate for the year 2000 and
2020, or is it going to take major improvements.
MR. GEORGE responded they identified those needs were in the EIS so
it's clear to everybody what the projected needs for parking, for
toilets, for (indisc.) space, the impact on the school system. All
of those kinds of impacts were quantified in some detail in the EIS
so that everybody knows what is available there today and what the
needs would be for the future. He noted the infrastructure is not
in place today to handle that influx of people.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many visitors are anticipate in
the year 2000.
MR. GEORGE said, "We're arranging for 800 vehicles of our capacity
and anticipation with the cruise ships will be coming back and that
the day cruisers and those types of operations will take advantage
of the new road as quickly as possible. It's difficult for us to
predict until we see what the industry is going to do to react to
this project. I think that they are, now that the law suites are
over, believe that the project is real and are now beginning to
share their plans with us. And that's rather a new wrinkle here is
getting everybody to share those plans with us. We anticipate that
it will probably be 600,000 probably within the first summer."
Number 0164
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked are there plans for further
development of small boat facilities.
MR. GEORGE replied DOT/PF has no current plans for the expansion of
the small boat harbor in Whittier or for the development of Shotgun
Cove. However, the City of Whittier and the Corps of Engineers
have been working on those projects.
Number 0173
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA asked if DOT/PF has met their
commitments that they have given the City of Whittier while this
project was in the planning stages. Is the department planning to
do everything that they have committed to do?
MR. GEORGE replied DOT/PF has gone above and beyond the call of
duty in helping the City of Whittier on this project. They have
asked that information by the citizens be included in the EIS, and
they've held numerous public meetings in Whittier which was highly
complimented by the citizens of Whittier. The citizens were also
pleased with the environmental document, with the work that Intra
did in coming up with the infrastructure and land use plans. He
said he believes the city may be frustrated in areas where DOT/PF
is not in the position to help - DOT/PF is not in the police
business, the fire business, or school business. However, DOT/PF
was able to identify those needs clearly in the EIS so that they
can plan for them.
MR. GEORGE concluded, "We have to be very careful because we're
using federal highway dollars for this project so we're constrained
on how we can use those funds and what we can do for the city with
those funds."
Number 0204
CARRIE WILLIAMS, City Manager, City of Whittier, came before the
committee. She said the city, its councilmen and public have
supported the road access since its conception, they've been
involved in the comments and impact issues. Now it's become a
reality, however, the city is not in a position without help to
handle these impacts. She pointed out they have sought after ways
to attain lands for parking lots and restrooms because they
currently have 100 parking spaces and one public restroom. There
are three volunteer EMTs (emergency medical technicians), one of
which is herself, trying to deal with the visitors that they have
now of 177,000 a year. She said they are contacted daily by
individuals wishing to come in on a privatized basis to develop the
infra-structural needs.
MS. WILLIAMS mentioned the 1994 study that made large assumptions
that the railroad service would be gone from the area. She said,
if you review this document, they have turned Whittier into a
parking lot with a single rail ability. She noted they support the
railroad's presence in Whittier, they anticipate doubling freight
traffic in the next few years and hopefully providing passenger
service to cruise ships, should they return. So it's a valuable
service to Whittier.
MS. WILLIAMS stated Whittier is looking at providing the other
services. She said, "We have one gas pump, we need to provide
areas for motor homes, we need to provide public information fee-
free areas. Those of you who are familiar with Whittier are aware
that there are two boat ramps, constantly now lined up, our
kayakers are launching within that harbor. ... We have applied for
and received some of our tidelands, and the balance of the
tidelands is currently under application." She said the BLM
(Bureau Land Management) lease in the Dog Lake area would make an
ideal parking lot, a RV facility, and possibly even an additional
harbor area. However, they are unable to access that land because
they are landlocked. They can't get in by road and cannot get to
the waterfront in the current situation. She stated, when they
come through, 800 capacity per hour, or 400 an hour, they will come
through the tunnel on a two-lane road and thusly need those areas
at the head of the bay and diverse throughout the city.
Number 0236
MS. WILLIAMS said, "We currently have no water, sewer or streets,
a sight protection, all our wells set on railroad property and can
be deposed in one year. Our sewer system, primary treatment,
(indisc.) main and much of the main service lines are on railroad
property, can be deposed in 90 days. Our streets, we have none,
once you leave, what you see is the red encompassed area (on the
map), we are in a trespass state and on very little general funding
are plowing those roads at risk to ourselves and to the railroad
properties. It is all owned and controlled by the Alaska
Railroad."
MS. WILLIAMS said they were losing their road last fall to erosion
at Whittier Creek.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Ms. Williams to point that area out on the
map.
MS. WILLIAMS explained the Department of Defense, who has ceased
operations, still maintains the permit. She said they did
everything they could to address this problem and the State
Department of Emergency Service did come out. She indicated, when
inquiring of the railroad for assistance, the response was that
they are railroad and did not care about the road situation unless
it affected the railroad operations of the operational tracks.
After three months the railroad did volunteer to bring in the
riprap, machinery and manpower to put a temporary fix on that. She
added that it will face them again this spring.
MS. WILLIAMS said the city council was very responsive for years,
they have negotiated for licenses, permits, leases, anything to
move forward. She referred to a document that lists specific
items. She stated the only one that they even come close on is a
possible water-sewer-storm-sewer license and there is not
clarification to this point whether that will even protect their
wells.
MS. WILLIAMS mentioned the city didn't ask for any land that would
interfere with any transportation functions what so ever. They
simply want to be able to get this process moving and are not
asking for funding from the state to address any of these issues.
She said they believe they can solve these problems through
privatization.
MS. WILLIAMS concluded, "I just built a home and it took me a year,
these people need to build a city to provide for a million and a
half visitors a year and 5,000 cars. And we want to do this in a
responsible manner. There are many with the concern of the impact
on the (Prince William) ..., but it's no where to take a road. We
want to keep those vehicles there and keep Whittier able to support
that."
Number 0268
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated, if they came to a resolution, the
bill wouldn't be needed. He mentioned over $200,000 was spent in
attorney fees for negotiations in a city of 260.
MS. WILLIAMS replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY mentioned assurances were made that a
resolution was supposed to be made last week. He asked Ms.
Williams what she got for spending $200,000 in attorney fees to
negotiate a settlement.
MS. WILLIAMS replied the $200,000 is strictly over a period of the
last three years. She said the progress is slow and painstaking,
she and the council have negotiated and worked on simple things
over the last year or so, such as a RV park which they haven't been
able to get resolution on. What they have is a dedication of
DOT/PF and railroad funds to address immediate and long-term
impacts. Ms. Williams said they were given hopes and promises,
immediate and swift and positive resolution to specific problems.
She indicated nothing has essentially moved at all.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked, can you tax the railroad for their
property.
MS. WILLIAMS responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the city has any leverage to
negotiate with the railroad.
MS. WILLIAMS replied no, she doesn't know what it would be. She
said they are not liable under the state statute to even collect
the city's sales tax. Railroad improvements and properties are
fully tax exempt so there are no revenues, although there is great
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked someone to point out the land that the
city would like to acquire.
Number 0300
MS. WILLIAMS pointed out the watershed area that runs up the hill
to the front of the glacier and comes down Whittier Creek, and
taking in the road. She noted there has been talk of trying to
relocate them because there is such small land mass, but as we know
that's an expense and a long-term project in seeking a secondary
water source.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked does the city currently maintain that
road.
MS. WILLIAMS replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked does the railroad maintains any of it.
MS. WILLIAMS responded no, it is not a railroad obligation. If
there is a true blizzard situation, they all help each other.
MS. WILLIAMS reported the city currently leases the small boat
harbor upland, a portion above the whited area (on the map) is
currently under a long-term lease from the railroad and they would
like to acquire that. The city has asked for ownership of the
harbor to be transferred from DOT/PF and they will be going out for
bonding to expand that harbor when they find the design that will
accommodate that. The other area that they are interested in is
the non-rail essential area by the airport.
MS. WILLIAMS pointed out they would like to provide a fee-free
visitors area at McNeil Creek. She said the Parks and Recreation
Division has a plan for a public information area.
MS. WILLIAMS noted, in looking at the Alaska Railroad's leasing
pattern, the city realized this was not going to be rail-developed
in the near future because of a long-term obligation lease that
just went in here cutting off access - there's a big building going
in there facilitating fiber optics cable. And that road of course
belongs to the railroad and the city maintains that to the end of
the bay.
MS. WILLIAMS explained they are away from rail operations and want
to provide for the economic growth, possibly alternate housing, RV
parking, basic essential services. She indicated there is private
money wanting to come to Whittier. One of the most important
pieces for livability is the Whittier Manor. She said, "Our sewer
system sits southwest of that on railroad property. We would ask
that that come to the city. Almost more importantly, these people
live in a military - a former housing unit that needs desperate
repair and because they do not have those properties, cannot even
obtain funding to get rid of the asbestos and address it. They
should be transferred that property for a buck so they can develop
it."
Number 0335
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said if this bill passed, or you come to
some agreement with the railroad, who would pay for the survey.
MS. WILLIAMS replied she believes that would be the City of
Whittier's responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked what is the city's tax base. How much
are you able to raise in taxes to run the city with what you're
currently able to tax?
MS. WILLIAMS replied the tax base is nine million dollars and they
have a five mil, it's taking into account everything within the
city, real and personal property. They are also able to tax boats.
Number 0347
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to page 3, lines 6 through 12.
He said it refers to a perpetual easement that would be retained,
and an exclusive-use easement. He asked would those provisions
impede the city at some point from selling the land to private
parties and therefore getting that land that the city receives on
the tax rules.
MS. WILLIAMS replied the perpetual easement in this would be in
regard to the rail that parallels the road right-of-way going out
to the tunnel. She explained the DOT/PF plan calls for a seaward
expansion of that road in the future, although not designed at this
point. As the city grows, it will need to cross this. She said
one of her larger concerns is pedestrian safe crossing. Those
things are workable with the railroad. So, an easement left for
that rail right-of-way, she thinks protects the Alaska Railroad
from future municipal direction that may violate the intent of the
statute to maintain transportation service. And if they are going
to increase freight, they need to have those lands protected. Ms.
Williams indicated the community would prefer to see the cruise
industry come in with the railroad.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, if he understands it correctly, these
easements make sense and wouldn't get in the way of transferring
lands.
MS. WILLIAMS replied she doesn't believe they would because they
need those protections and respects their right to have those.
Number 0372
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 412 will be held in the House State
Affairs Committee, possibly Monday.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said there appears to be a reluctance of
providing this transfer from the railroad. He asked what is the
railroad's official position.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced people from the railroad will be
testifying.
MS. WILLIAMS responded that she doesn't want to speak on behalf of
the railroad. She indicated the reason stated to the City of
Whittier is that it is against railroad policy to give up title to
land.
Number 0384
JOHNE BINKLEY, Chairman, Board of Directors, Alaska Railroad
Corporation, testified in opposition to HB 412 via teleconference.
He said he currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Alaska
Railroad and has since the spring of 1996, and more recently as
Chairman of the Board of the Alaska Railroad Corporation since
September 1997.
MR. BINKLEY pointed out the position paper that was prepared by the
management of the Alaska Railroad that pertains to their position
on HB 412. He also mentioned three management officials of the
Alaska Railroad are available to answer questions and provide
information.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the committee does not have the statement.
MR. BINKLEY said it was relayed to Juneau. He said he would
outline what their position is and will comment on prior testimony.
TAPE 98-11, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. BINKLEY continued, "...the Department of the Army to choose
Whittier as a port and to construct the tunnel necessary to provide
additional ice-free port to a railhead in addition to Seward and
that was accomplished during World War II. In the 1960's the
Alaska Railroad initiated rail-barge service from Prince Rupert,
British Columbia, and also from Seattle into Whittier. Whittier
was really an ideal location for the transit of railcars on barges
from the Pacific Northwest up to Alaska. ... That really is our
rail-link to the Lower 48. Railcars that are loaded and hauled by
rail up to Seattle and Prince Rupert, that freight stays right on
those actual railcars - those actual railcars roll right on barges,
... and it's a very efficient rail-link between the Lower 48 and
Alaska. During the 60's, when Whittier ceased to (indis.) an Army
post, the city really began to evolve at that point as a community.
The State of Alaska, during that time, recognized the needs to
provide better access to the newly formed community and they
actually contracted with the Alaska Railroad, then owned by the
federal government, to provide shuttle service for the people of
Whittier between Portage and Whittier. At that time the State of
Alaska paid to the federal government, through the Alaska Railroad,
about $900,000 to provide that service. When the Alaska Railroad
was purchased by the State of Alaska in 1985, then of course that
subsidy was terminated and the Alaska Railroad absorbed those costs
to provide that shuttle service to the people of Whittier."
MR. BINKLEY stated the State of Alaska, as Mr. George mentioned,
has recognized the need for better access, not only for the people
of Whittier to a vast number of people in Southcentral Alaska to
utilize the Prince William Sound area for recreational and
commercial purposes. And that of course began the work on the
tunnel which should be completed in the year 2000.
MR. BINKLEY said since the time that the state seriously began
looking at constructing the tunnel, up through the recent court
decision that allowed it to continue on, the railroad has made
numerous efforts to assist the City of Whittier. He indicated the
state has been lacking in not looking at what the impacts are going
to be on the community on Whittier, the state should help Whittier
prepare for those impacts that are going to be inevitable as that
tunnel is completed.
Number 0040
MR. BINKLEY mentioned a few examples that have been ongoing and
some that the Alaska Railroad has concluded. In 1996 the Alaska
Railroad agreed to a longstanding tidelands dispute that was
between the railroad and the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. That agreement directly benefited the city by making
tidelands available for conveyance from the State of Alaska to the
city. He said they stepped forward in 1996 and initiated the talks
and got them concluded so the City of Whittier could have title to
those tidelands. Mr. Binkley also noted they worked closely with
the City of Whittier to provide a lease for the small boat harbor
area for expansion and commercial development that really
recognized the city's needs and made railroad land available for
far less than fair market value to the city to accommodate those
needs. He mentioned he was personally involved in that and noted
the railroad was very sincere in their efforts to reach an
agreement with the City of Whittier to give them every benefit in
terms of profiting from the operation of the small boat harbor and
providing public amenities through parking, restroom facilities,
movement for city equipment in terms of running the small boat
harbor.
MR. BINKLEY reported they recently finalized an agreement with the
city for lands that are occupied by various basic utilities, it's
a long-term 35-year contract with no annual fee, and renewable up
to 35 years to really allow the city control of the community's
utility infrastructure. Mr. Binkley said he thinks it's important
that the city maintain control over those utilities, as was pointed
out by Ms. Williams, and they have done that through a long-term
contract. He mentioned they recognize Whittier's geographical
situation and the city's lack of funds. The utility systems
themselves, were previously inherited from the federal government,
were donated to the city a number of years ago. A roadway
agreement, similar in structure to the utility agreement is next up
for finalization and is very close to being finalized right now.
Number 0071
MR. BINKLEY stated, "Some time ago the Alaska Railroad committed to
donating $35,000 to the city on a matching basis for a land-use
plan and infrastructure plan to meet the needs that will arise -
obviously when the road opens and the people and cars flood into
the community. Recognizing that, Whittier itself has no funds to
contribute to the effort, we increased our commitment to $50,000
and persuaded the State DOT/PF, as Mr. George pointed out, to
donate another $50,000 from DOT/PF to help the city plan for those
effects, when the tunnel opens. The meeting that was referred to
last Wednesday was the first meeting of that group to start on the
planning process for the Department of Transportation. ... Hoping
that all these other issues would be solved, but I think the real
intent of that was simply to start the planning process for the
needs of the community of Whittier. Mr. George also pointed out
the study that the Alaska Railroad participated in with the firm
Intra - that talked about land-use planning. Within the next week
a contract should be in place facilitate some of the planning
documents that will be necessary to be drawn up. And within three
months we expect to have a short and long-term projects that are
identified with time lines and with the scope of work necessary."
MR. BINKLEY further explained a number of these may require some
time to develop funding sources, both federal and other parties
that can participate in the funding of these projects. He noted
they have entered into an agreement with the City of Whittier to
build the Viking Harbor, utilizing Corps of Engineers funding, $1.5
million from the Corps of Engineers, approximately $187,000 from
the city, and between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 from the Alaska
Railroad. For their participation, the city will receive one-third
of the gross revenue from the harbor with a guaranteed minimum
floor of one dollar per passenger that crosses the dock. He noted
the bulk of the money and the risk involved in constructing that
project will come from the Alaska Railroad. He also mentioned
there is another proposal for another small boat harbor in the
Whittier area that really has called into question the overall
economics of the project, so they are currently reviewing that and
anticipate that will go forward.
Number 0105
MR. BINKLEY said they have also committed to leasing other lands to
the city at far less than fair market rates, such as an area near
the airport and for the RV camper park that is in the core of the
city that was referred to earlier. The Alaska Railroad has also
approached the federal government for financial assistance in
building a pedestrian crossing over the road and the railroad
tracks in the core city area. He pointed out a major impediment
for pedestrian traffic will be the rail-yard which lies between the
core of the City of Whittier and the waterfront. Mr. Binkley said
they are trying to work with the federal government for financial
assistance in constructing those improvements and are fairly
confident that they will be successful in that regard as well.
MR. BINKLEY clarified the Alaska Railroad did provide, on short
notice and at no cost to the City of Whittier, approximately 500
tons of riffraff to help the city stabilize the road into town at
Whittier Creek last year. He mentioned the railroad has also
provided special rates for passenger shuttles, removed scrap from
the city, and cleaned up the rail line between Portage and
Whittier. The railroad also contributes approximately $24,000
annually to help fund the Whittier Police Department.
Number 0132
MR. BINKLEY referred to Ms. Williams testimony regarding the
thirteen areas the need to be worked on between the City of
Whittier and the Alaska Railroad in which she indicated that only
one of those had been completed to their satisfaction. Mr. Binkley
stated he met with the city manager and the mayor two weeks ago, on
February 18, and that was the first time he saw that list. He said
his recollection, they could agree that at least seven of those
were either completed or substantially complete to the satisfaction
of the City of Whittier.
Mr. Binkley mentioned any future projects the railroad will be
working on, for example if the cruise ships hopefully come back to
Whittier, the Alaska Railroad will need to repair and upgrade the
dock facilities at the passenger access. He said that takes a
tremendous amount of capital, all of which are done at the
railroad's expense, they are not subject to the general fund or
expenditures by the State of Alaska. The real estate revenues that
they generate help provide for some of those capital upgrades that
they are able to accomplish to improve the area in order to
increase the commerce coming into the community.
MR. BINKLEY stated the Alaska Railroad is not taxed on its real
property in the community, however, the real value to the City of
Whittier will be when private sector development takes place,
development on that raw land is what drives your tax base. Mr.
Binkley said Ms. Williams testified that every day she has private
sector developers who were coming into her office asking about her
to lease land. He said he asked Ms. Williams to please send those
people to the Alaska Railroad so that they can work with them to
develop those lands. He mentioned he also asked for a list but was
not provided one person who had actually contacted her.
MR. BINKLEY said the Alaska Railroad has worked closely with the
City of Whittier and that they are open, willing and ready to lease
any piece of property to help develop the infrastructure in
Whittier and to help increase the tax base on which the community
can operate. The real estate revenues within the Alaska Railroad
have allowed them to finance their own improvements and
infrastructure. He reiterated that the income from the real estate
has kept the railroad going over some very lean years. He noted
the ratio between upgrading revenues and real estate revenues has
shifted to where they are about equal between operating revenues
and real estate revenues. It used to be the real estate that
carried the railroad. It's not any longer. He stated the real
estate allows them the ability to go out and finance the heavy
capital cost that it takes to develop their properties in Whittier.
Number 0196
MR. BINKLEY noted there are some technical problems with the bill
which deal with the original Alaska Railroad Corporation Act, the
utility corridors that were provided for in that Act. There are
also technical concerns in the present structure of HB 412
regarding the liability of some of those lands - when they were
transferred from the federal government to the Alaska Railroad and
what happens in the course of transferring those lands onto the
City of Whittier. He urged the committee to take the time to look
at some of the real technical problems with this legislation and
will work with the railroad's legal council in trying to straighten
out some of those problems.
MR. BINKLEY stated they feel that the Alaska Railroad has made
every effort to be responsive to the city's needs, although
admittedly the relationship between the parties in past years has
been adversarial at times. He said he thinks the current
management of the railroad has demonstrated a real change in the
attitude of railroaders in dealing with the city. Mr. Binkley
reiterated that the items he's listed indicate that some progress
has been made, they still feel they have a lot more to do. He
stressed that the railroad needs to conclude those negotiations to
solve those problems so that we can have a healthy viable community
that provides services when the tunnel is open. Mr. Binkley
stated, "I think we can accomplish these things to the benefit of
the City of Whittier and the benefit of the Alaska Railroad, we can
all win in this situation, we're committed to do it and we're going
to go forward and hopefully this bill won't be necessary to make
that happen."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he didn't want to get into a debated but
there have been a lot of accusations made on both sides. He
mentioned he does remember the adversary role that the railroad was
taking a few years back and feels that it's still there.
Number 0225
MS. WILLIAMS said she would like to give the current and correct
status of the list provided by the railroad. She indicated there
is not in place at this time the 35-year water sewer - storm sewer
agreement, the $35,000 and $50,000 are planning monies of DOT/PF
and the railroad and a lot of discussion was held on what could be
done in the wharf area, the Viking Harbor situation is not going to
become a feasible situation, the fish pond project - the city is
unable to sign the 28-page document because of the various as
sundry items in it. She said, as of this moment, none of the 15
items have come to fruition, and when they speak of the $24,000
donation to Public Safety, that's erroneous, that is a service
contract for the police department to patrol private railroad
property at the wharf. The riprap brought in, they were rearing
their own lands.
MS. WILLIAMS said she doesn't understand the $260,000 of lost
revenue in 1997 that they show for real estate holdings. She said
the key point is that all of the discussion is centered around as
what the city sees as a real estate development or a real estate
developer might speak, not an industry that was developed by the
State and statutorily protected for rail service transportation and
passenger. The lands that do belong to the state and are
legislatively controlled need to stay inside that statute that
tells them to provide our transportation.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there is anyone on teleconference who
can't participate on Monday that would like to testify at this
time.
MS. WILLIAMS mentioned Mayor Bill Coumbe, and members of the public
are on teleconference in Whittier.
Number 0274
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the Alaska Railroad's position
statement, page 5. He asked Mr. Binkley to provide information on
other right-of-ways which would tightly constrain the railroad's
operations if HB 412 were to pass to make comparisons and explain
the railroad's proposed changes that the railroad would like to
make over time in conjunction with mutual agreement with the city
and the potential revenue generations for the railroad of $1.9
million.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA pointed out, in the previous administration,
the City of Whittier had a sales tax to raise money, however the
railroad said you can't sell a round-trip ticket so you couldn't
tax the round-trip, you could only sell a one-way ticket. He said,
if you were a city official you could feel the frustration there.
He also mentioned the city tried to put a head tax on the cruise
ships, the cruise ships responded, fine, we're going to Seward. He
noted Bill Sheffield, as Chairman of the Alaska Railroad Board,
they have been talking a lot more and explain things a lot better.
He said Mr. Binkley has helped that out even more so. He mentioned
to the 28 page lease agreement - no wonder they spent $200,000, the
tideland issue - we did solve that issue, fighting for easements
for their utilities and the roads and not have a guarantee that the
road's going to be there 90 days from now - that doesn't make
sense. He indicated getting these lists, which he requested, is a
step in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced he would like to have testimony by
people who are not employed by either the state, railroad or the
city, with exception of the mayor.
Number 0319
BILL COUMBE, Mayor, City of Whittier, testified in support of HB
412 via teleconference. He said the bottom line is money, the
railroad by statute is required is to make the best use of their
resources to make the railroad work, we understand that. And their
intent, clearly in Whittier is to maximize their profits and their
real estate it helps the railroad get through the lean times. He
said, "It's not a personal thing, I think they're fine people and
I understand their doing the job the best way they can. What we're
trying to do, is we're trying to build a community that we can be
proud of. It isn't our business, we don't want to see our town
turn into concrete and asphalt in every direction, we would like to
see some green (indisc.) areas, maybe a city park where kids could
play without paying a fee to the Alaska Railroad to improve it.
We'd like to see some recreational buildings built on land that we
don't now own so that we could in the long, dark, cold winters have
some sort of a (indisc.) social environment, Maybe a swimming pool
so our kids that are always at the waterfront can learn to swim.
So it isn't just (indisc.) and I think it's important to understand
what some of our motivation is in that regard."
Number 0333
JOE GRAY, Council Member, and Planning and Zoning Committee Member,
City of Whittier testified in support of HB 412 via teleconference.
He said he is one of the few people who live in the Whittier Manor
Building which is on railroad property. He said it is true,
although he has a long-term lease, with the road coming in much of
that property is being sold to people who have cash or are
typically from out of town because they can't get financing on
leased property. He said that's rather frustrating. Mr. Gray said
he hasn't seen the special rates offered to the citizens of
Whittier.
Number 0363
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 412 will be held over until Monday.
HB 227 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AUTHORITY
Number 0367
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 227, "An Act relating to the Alaska
Capital Improvement Project Authority; relating to the powers and
duties of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities;
and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Speaker Gail
Phillips is before the committee. He said the committee has heard
this bill several times and indicated he would like to move HB 227
today.
Number 0376
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would like to hear from the Office of
Management and Budget, as well as the department while they're
here.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted he would first like to hear from the
sponsor who is currently attending another meeting. Chairman
Williams called for an at-ease at 2:50 p.m.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the meeting back to order at 2:51 p.m. He
asked Mr. Pignalberi to tell the committee what has transpired.
Number 400
MARCO PIGNALBERI, Legislative Assistant to Representative Cowdery,
Alaska State Legislature, brought the committee members up-do-date
on the changes made. He referred to Version LS0789\F, Utermohle,
2/27/98, page 6, lines 24 through 27. He said the drafter was
asked to make that sentence easier to understand.
TAPE 98-12, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. PIGNALBERI continued, "...that leaves this committee. In
addition, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned to the committee that on page
5 of the bill, on line 14, the words 'construction season,' at the
end of line 14, it had been suggested to us by the FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration) that we change construction season to
'fiscal year.' And Representative Elton was kind enough to point
out that splitting the fiscal year splits the construction season,
it could be problematical so we discussed this matter with people
at DOT/PF and with Federal Highways, and amongst staff, and the
drafter of the bill and decided that -- I tried to reach Mr.
Simpson, I believe is on line now to let him know that we would not
be recommending that as a change, and prefer to leave construction
season as it is."
MR. PIGNALBERI referred to page 2, line 15, the section of the bill
that has the findings and the intent of the legislature. He said
the subparagraph is added at the suggestion of Mr. Simpson, FAA.
It reads the authority will:
(4) Evaluate and prioritize projects with a method that is
consistent with criteria required by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and other
funding sources.
MR. PIGNALBERI asked that be incorporated as an amendment also.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to the amendments as F.1 and F.2.
Number 0026
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move proposed Amendment F.1,
Utermohle, 3/3/98 and asked for unanimous consent.
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "facilities"
Insert "facility procurement"
Page 16, line 24:
Delete "its"
Insert "the commissioner's [ITS]"
Page 16, lines 26 - 28:
Delete "approval and for submission of the findings, plans,
and recommendations, as approved, to the governor and to the
appropriate state agency to facilitate the development of
agency capital improvement budget requests."
Insert "approval [GOVERNOR AND TO THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY
TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGENCY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
BUDGET REQUESTS]."
Number 0028
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He said, I've gotten to the first
two things that this amendment accomplishes, and so far I would
describe them as technical amendments. I would like to have that
confirmed by the maker of the amendment." He also asked the third
component, beginning on line 7, be explained.
MR. PIGNALBERI asked if he was asking for an explanation of lines
8 through 13 means.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied yes, what that change through the
amendment accomplishes.
MR. PIGNALBERI referred back to Version F, Utermohle, 2/27/98, page
16, subsection 6, lines 24 through 28. He said, "The reason why
this sentence was so convoluted is because it was trying to do, in
one section of the bill - this section having to do with what the
commissioner shall do, it was also trying to say what the authority
shall do in the section that says what the commissioner shall do,
and so it resulted in a very convoluted sentence." Mr. Pignalberi
explained the drafter had to put part of the language in different
sections of the bill. He said, "The gist of it is that the
approval and submission of findings, plans, and recommendations, is
being done by the commissioner in this section."
PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams,
Alaska State Legislature, explained the amendment cleans up
confusing sentences in Version F, line 24, subsection (6), the
commissioner is going to:
submit his findings, plans and recommendations to the
authority for their review, revision and approval.
PETE ECKLUND reiterated that they took a convoluted sentence and
tried to clarify it. It is saying that "the commissioner is going
to submit his findings, plans, and recommendations to the authority
for their review, revision and approval." He then referred to
Version F, 2/27/98, page 4, lines 14 and 15 of Version F:
the authority shall be submitted to the governor for inclusion
in the state capital projects budget and to the legislature.
Number 0062
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON for clarification stated the commissioner
submits to the authority and the authority submits to the governor.
PETE ECKLUND replied for the findings, plans and recommendations in
this section is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON withdrew his objection.
Number 0067
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was any other objections. There
being none, Amendment F.1 was adopted.
Number 0070
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to proposed Amendment F.2, page 2, line
15.
(4) Evaluate and prioritize projects with a method that is
consistent with criteria required by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Federal Highway Administration and other
funding sources.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment F.2 and
asked for unanimous consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were objections, there being none,
Amendment F.2 was unanimously adopted.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Pignalberi if he would like to discuss
the fiscal notes that he signed a few minutes ago.
Number 0081
MR. PIGNALBERI explained the fiscal notes simply takes the amount
of money that is in the FY 99 budget, for statewide planning BRU
(Budget Review Unit), and moves it under a new BRU called the
"Alaska Capital Improvement Project Authority." He said the
organization chart, the (indisc.) from the budget, gives a more
vivid picture of what is paid for by the money, basically this is
the statewide planning BRU - and the DOT/PF that would, under this
bill, would simply be transferred to the authority.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he was expecting to see a fiscal note
from the department and indicated this seems to be a little bit
unusual. He asked if the department has had a chance to review the
fiscal note that was prepared today for this transfer.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS mentioned they will hear from the department.
MR. PIGNALBERI added that they went over the approach to our fiscal
note with the department last evening and even made some
suggestions that they correct theirs now that they understand how
it works. He said, "But the department cannot admit how this bill
works because they simply don't like it, and they're not going to
prepare a fiscal note to reflect how it really works. ... There was
a statement put on the record at our last meeting that this
authority would be federally funds ineligible and we checked with
both the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation
Administration, both of them I believe have representatives on-
line. ... Basically the Federal Department of Transportation is
mandated to work with whatever setup the various states come up
with. And among the 50 states, there are a variety of planning
organizations and authorities that are eligible for federal funds
of which this will just be one. They are concerned that there be
no redundant overhead expense and redundant activities so they
wouldn't have to pay for the same thing twice. And that obviously
is not the case because we're simply taking an existing BRU and
putting it under the new authority and there is no redundancy in
that. So, the information that was put on the record, was based I
believe on an honest misunderstanding of the intent of the bill but
we need to have that corrected."
Number 0114
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said this not only transfers the money, but
it also transfers all the positions out of DOT/PF into the new BRU.
He asked if it stipulates where these positions will be located if
we approve this.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied no, there's no reason why they can't remain
where there are. He said he supposed something would be worked out
with the department rather than putting them in a separate
building.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated there wouldn't be any major transfer
of positions to new offices or setting up a new quasi-agency with
all of these positions. He said he assumed that all the positions
remain the same.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied, "It's my own vision and I can't speak for
the sponsors of the bill directly in this because they have
probably their unique vision on their mind, but I think we're
roughly on track with minor differences that the authority would
probably have an administrative office in Anchorage and that they
would have some minimal administrative support there. But in terms
of actually moving all of these positions you see on the
organizational chart out of Juneau, I don't think - that's not
contemplated."
Number 0128
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would not support it if it positions
were moved out of Juneau because he believes the interrelationship
between the planning and the development side, and the operational
side is a very important element. He indicated he does see value
in the bill of establishing continuity within the planning
mechanism, but he doesn't want this thing to become a hindrance or
a harm to the department and the rest of its functions. He
reiterated that he is not about to vote to move this out of
committee until there are very good assurances.
MR. PIGNALBERI stated he is sure that the sponsors recognize and
desire the authority to be an independent body for the purpose of
making the selections and doing the rating so that it's external
and there is more accountability that it's an external check on the
DOT/PF, recognizing that they absolutely must have a continued
working relationship at the staff level - with other people in
DOT/PF and that's been a given in the whole process.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said that he's not sure that he's was
reassured. He said it sounds like we're still "putting lipstick on
the hog" and we don't know where these positions are going to be
(indisc.--laughter). He referred to the organizational chart and
asked who hires these people. Representative Elton stated, "If
we're taking these positions, my assumption is that they would
report to the director that's hired by the authority."
MR. PIGNALBERI responded that's right, the chairman of the
authority.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON continued, "This director gets the positions,
but I would imagine would have the authority to fill them with
whomever he or she wants. They get the positions, they don't
necessarily get the people. So this director could say, 'well, I
don't want this planner..."
MR. PIGNALBERI interjected, they are state employees still.
Number 0151
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON remarked they are. He said he is assuming the
director is going to have the hiring authority on whom they want
reporting to them. He asked if the director is mandated to keep
the people that they're getting, or is he only getting the PCN'S
(Position Control Numbers).
MR. PIGNALBERI responded there is no mandate in the bill for the
director or the authority to keep anyone as an employee. He said
he didn't know if there was much choice in the matter and didn't
know why the desire would be there. He added these positions are
classified.
Number 0157
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, are we assuming that the director is
going to be a range 26.
MR. PIGNALBERI replied yes - whatever it is now.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said it doesn't look like he's going to be able
to get this bill out of here today, so it will be held over until
Monday. Chairman Williams asked Mr. Moreno to come forward since
he will not be available to testify on Monday.
Number 0169
STEVE MORENO, Administrator, Alaska Division, Federal Highway
Administration, said his purpose in being here is to register some
concerns he has about the wording that's in the bill and noted FHA
is neutral on the proposal.
MR. MORENO stressed that he is concerned with HB 227 because there
are words that could get us in trouble here. He said he knows
we're talking about a situation in which you have a director who
reports to the authority, and the bill as it's written, also has a
commissioner in there as well. He noted, because he hasn't seen
the organizational chart, he doesn't know who's in charge of DOT/PF
in that sense. Mr. Moreno stated, "My relationship is one with
typically, and it is in all states, with either the commissioner or
the secretary of transportation, depending on what the state is.
So now I see we now have a director and we have a commissioner, so
who's in charge, I don't know. So I would have a concern about
that, whom am I supposed to deal with as an organization."
MR. MORENO also noted there were words that were previously in the
bill that the authority would review, revise as appropriate and
approve capital improvement projects - budgets, and programs, and
projects, and those kinds of words. Mr. Moreno told the committee
his concern is whether or not the authority would insert or delete
projects or programs of projects from the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program document, which is a federally required item.
He said those words appear to still be in here. There was an
attempt to put other words in. He referred to page 8 of Version F,
lines 11 through 15:
The authority may make amendments to an approved program that
affects projects for construction or maintenance of highways
approved by the Federal Highway Administration only if the
amendments are adopted in accordance with the program review,
revision, and approval process established by the authority.
MR. MORENO asked is that the same process that the balance that
DOT/PF uses, or is that a new process that just the authority uses.
Do we have two processes now, or one? He stated it's not clear to
him.
MR. MORENO concluded those are basically his concerns. He said
they're similar to what he had earlier, it was whether or not the
authority, or the authority's staff, in this case would substitute
their judgement for all the processes that came into play to get to
the final list of projects.
MR. ECKLUND said, "We did include language in the bill that talks
about the authority maximizing the use of federal funds and not
doing anything to make our program federally ineligible. The
amendment process he was talking about on page 8, we envision the
authority working with the federal government to come up with an
amendment process that meets both the federal requirements and that
the State can live with. We don't envision the authority just card
blanche changing things and making projects federally ineligible.
We've included language to try to make that clear."
Number 0206
MR. MORENO gave a specific example, he said, "If the authority put
in a project in year one of the document and said, all right this
is now the DOT/PF's highest priority - we the authority stick it in
there. Our first reaction would be that that was not an eligible
project. What would have to happen is that project would have to
go back through the entire process again, the STIP (Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program) process, and if it was in
Anchorage, the AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Study) process, and be ranked according to the standard procedure
that the department uses. So I don't know how long that takes,
whether that's a full legislative season so that it's not until
year two that the thing actually becomes eligible for federal aid.
Again, it's going to depend on what this modification process is."
MR. ECKLUND explained some of the problems we had in drafting is,
a lot of these things that he's talking about are policies, they're
not in statute now, they're not in regulation now, and so we had to
give the authority some guidance - not to break federal law, to
apply with federal law, but also given the latitude to come up with
their own policies with the federal government to address these
issues. Because it's not in statute now, it's not in regulation
now, it's hard to put into a bill. We tried to craft it to give
them some leeway, but also make sure that they would follow federal
requirements and not make our program ineligible.
MR. MORENO mentioned the last time he was here there was a comment
made to the effect that we haven't built any new roads for a long
time in Alaska. He referred to two national charts, federal fiscal
1992 to 1996. Mr. Moreno said, "If you look at it in terms of the
number of miles that are under construction in any given fiscal
year, for the five-year period that I just mentioned, only about 3
percent, that's this little dark slice of the pie here, only about
3 percent of the roadways that are under construction are new
roadways on new alignment. Alternatively, if you look at that and
say, well forget about the mileage, let's look at out of eight
billion dollars a year that's under construction, nationally, how
much of that is new roadway. That number for those same years is
in the range of 13 to 17 percent. So again, it's a relatively
small piece of the pie, the rest of it is going toward system
preservation and capacity improvements."
Number 0229
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK stated for the record that she is
concerned and would like answers regarding questions Mr. Moreno
asked - who is in charge since we didn't put in the commissioners
and address his comment regarding page 8 as well.
Number 0234
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS commented, "With this, you're
referring to a mature road system which we don't have here in
Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "Down town Anchorage don't need more
streets or more roads, there's no new roads down there, but
certainly some new roads in rural Alaska. And Alaska is maybe more
unique than the others."
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 227 will be held over until Monday.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0239
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|