Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/25/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB182 | |
| HB23 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2014
9:06 a.m.
9:06:08 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Fred Dyson; Nicki Neal, Director, Division of
Personnel and Labor Relations, Department of
Administration; Kate Sheehan, Deputy Director, Division of
Labor Relations, Department of Administration; Tom Brice,
Alaska Laborers, Juneau; Ron Arvin, Member, Mat-Su Borough
Assembly, Juneau; Paul Fuhs, Project Manager, Fairview
Business Association, Juneau; Roger Purcell, President,
Houston Chamber of Commerce, Juneau; Paul Grossi,
Ironworkers of Alaska, Juneau
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Larry DeVilbiss, Mayor, Mat-Su Borough, Mat-Su; Dan
Sullivan, Mayor, City of Anchorage, Anchorage; Berkley
Tilton, Former President and Current Board Member, Knik
Fairview Community Council, Self, Wasilla; Aves Thompson,
Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association, Grapevine
Texas; Don Dyer, Director, Economic Development, Mat-Su
Borough; Michael Droege, Former President, Alaska
Association of Realtors, Anchorage; James Kenworthy, Self,
Anchorage; Stephanie Kesler, Self, Anchorage; Bob French,
Self, Anchorage; Lois Epstein, Self, Anchorage; Scott
Goldsmith, Self, Anchorage; Verne Rupright, Mayor, City of
Wasilla
SUMMARY
SB 182 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY DIFFERENTIALS
CSSB 183(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "No Rec" recommendation and with a new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
2d CSHB 23(RLS)
KNIK ARM CROSSING; AHFC
2d CSHB 23(RLS) was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CSHB 266(FIN)
APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
CSHB 266(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSHB 267(FIN)
APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
CSHB 267(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
SENATE BILL NO. 182
"An Act relating to salary differences in collective
bargaining agreements subject to the Public Employment
Relations Act that are based on a difference in the
cost of living outside the state and the cost of
living in the state; and providing for an effective
date."
9:07:52 AM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, noted that the Department of
Administration had created a spreadsheet, "Top Three
Earners - Marine Units", which charted the incomes of the
top three earners in the three bargaining units. He stated
that a point of contention in the bargaining units was that
employees with seniority got to choose routes and had first
choice of overtime hours. He said that the most senior
employees did well financially and workers lower in the
ranks were not offered a fair chance for overtime. He felt
that this could restrict a new employee's opportunities for
professional growth.
9:10:21 AM
Senator Olson asked why the bill had not been initially
presented as a fix for outdated statutes.
Senator Dyson replied that he could only speculate, but
thought that the leadership at the time had not wanted to
address a tough issue and anger the unions.
9:11:07 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough shared that the administration had
issued a response to her question from the previous hearing
of the bill (copy on file). She wondered what the term "A-
days" meant.
NICKI NEAL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL AND LABOR
RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, replied that A-
days were typically accrued in the southwest system; an
employee accrued a day of leave for every day that they
worked. She said that when the employee was not at work
they turned in leave so that they had the ability to work
365 days a year.
9:12:32 AM
KATE SHEEHAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR RELATIONS,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, explained that for the A-days
days, with the one crew system, employees worked 3 to 6
months with no break. A day of leave was accrued for each
day worked.
9:12:53 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired whether the route of the
vessel interfered with regularly changing crews.
Ms. Sheehan replied in the affirmative. She said that the
routes were longer; crossing the Gulf of Alaska.
9:13:12 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether employees accumulated
overtime on those long routes, in addition to the day of
leave.
Ms. Sheehan replied that it would depend; employees worked
8 hour days and could potentially accrue overtime, in
addition to the A-days.
9:13:41 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired whether the standard was 8
hours with the stipulation of 40 hours per week.
Ms. Sheehan replied that there was daily overtime; if an
employee worked in addition to 8 hours in one day, they
would receive overtime for that day.
9:14:14 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough understood that employees were
accumulating sick leave and annual leave on top of the
earned day of leave.
Ms. Sheehan responded that it would depend on which union
the employee belonged to. She explained that the Marine
Engineers' Beneficial Association (MEBA) gave A-days or
personal leave but did not offer annual or sick leave. The
Inland Boatmen's Union (IBU) offered a choice between
annual leave, sick leave, or A-days. She furthered that
Masters, Mates and Pilots (MMP) did not accrue A-days,
instead they received a lump-sum payment in lieu of a rate.
9:14:50 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough understood that the accrual rate
worked as such:
1 year = 2 - 4 weeks of leave (depending on your union)
2 years = 4 - 6 weeks of leave
3 years = 4 - 8 weeks of leave
4 years = 8 - 9 weeks of leave
She surmised that the cap was at 8 - 9 weeks. She queried
whether employees received annual or sick leave.
Ms. Sheehan responded that if an employee accrued annual
leave then they also accrued sick leave on days that were
not A-days.
9:15:52 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered how the current negotiations with
the union were going.
Ms. Sheehan replied that the administration was going into
negotiations today with MMP; unfortunately and agreement
had not been made by the 60th day, which was Friday, March
21, 2014. She said that negotiations were ongoing and that
some progress had been made, but some significant issues
were still contentious.
9:16:51 AM
Co-Chair Meyer expressed frustration that the legislature
should not be involved in the collective bargaining
process. He would leave the bill's passage up to the will
of the committee, but maintained that the legislature
should not be involved in union negotiations.
9:18:03 AM
Senator Dyson responded that the bill spoke to one
component that was in statute and was therefore not
bargain-able. He felt that the current administration had
proposed the legislation due to the impending financial
situation as a way to rein in spending. He stressed that
there was a desire to drive down the mandatory personnel
costs. He stated that the budget for personnel costs in the
Alaska Marine Highway System was alarming. He believed that
the bill was before the committee because it was the work
of the legislative finance committees to oversee cost
containment.
9:20:06 AM
Senator Dunleavy requested clarification that the bill
would take the issue out of statute but would not prevent
it from being negotiated back in sometime in the future.
Senator Dyson responded in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy understood that if the system found itself
struggling to find qualified workers to fill positions in
the future then incentives would be built into the
agreements of future negotiations.
Senator Dyson responded that it was possible. He noted that
there was an internal problem of employees lower in
seniority not being able to get the time it took to qualify
for the next license, which would open entry level
positions.
9:21:29 AM
Senator Dunleavy thought removing the statute would not
impact the negotiations process because it did not create a
cap on salaries or benefits.
9:22:07 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the immediate effective
date could extend to a later date.
Senator Dyson responded that the hard date was meant to be
motivational.
9:23:15 AM
Senator Hoffman agreed that the legislature should not be
introducing legislation that would affect or impact
negotiations. He asserted that it was not the committee's
place to interject legislation that would color the
negotiations of the bargaining unit.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the effective date would coincide
with the fiscal years.
9:23:52 AM
Senator Hoffman rebutted that it could take effect during a
fiscal year further in the future.
Senator Dunleavy clarified that the bill would not prevent
future negotiations and believed that the effective date
should remain as written.
9:24:32 AM
Senator Dyson said that the bargaining unit had substantial
leverage.
Co-Chair Meyer was not convinced that the effective date
needed to be changed.
Senator Dyson thought that the administration believed that
it was important that the legislation be implemented as
soon as possible. He felt that the administration had been
generous to grandfather in the existing employees. He said
that if moving the effective date was what it was going to
take for the bill to pass then so be it.
9:26:45 AM
AT EASE
9:26:54 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Fairclough MOVED to REPORT CSSB 182(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 182(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and with a new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
9:27:15 AM
AT EASE
9:30:19 AM
RECONVENED
2d CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 23(RLS)
"An Act creating the Knik Crossing Development
Corporation as a subsidiary corporation of the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation and relating to bonds of
the Knik Crossing Development Corporation."
9:31:11 AM
TOM BRICE, ALASKA LABORERS, JUNEAU, testified in support of
HB 23. He stated that environmental regulations were
becoming stricter and construction costs were on the rise.
He said that beginning the project soon would save the
state money and allow for more land to be developed on the
other side of the Knik Arm in Anchorage.
9:32:35 AM
Senator Olson asked whether Mr. Brice would have had the
same support for the project when he was a legislator in
the 1990's.
Mr. Brice replied that in the fiscal issues that the
legislature faced when he was a member outweighed those
faced by the current legislature. He said that during his
time as a legislature he was an aggressive proponent for
the Lynn Canal Highway. He stressed that transportation was
vital for Alaska's economic development and growth.
9:35:16 AM
LARRY DEVILBISS, MAYOR, MAT-SU BOROUGH, MAT-SU (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the HB 23. He felt
that the financial environment was not going to improve in
the near future, but that the regional and statewide
economic development should not be ignored. He related that
the project had been presented to the Conference of Mayors
in 2012. He shared that the mayors in attendance
unanimously agreed that the project should go forward,
which was a rare occurrence. He stressed that the project
was would not benefit only the Mat-Su Borough and
Anchorage. He said that the project was supported by the
trucking industry. He warned that the state would be
investing as much or more money into widening or upgrading
the Glenn Highway if the state did not go through with the
project. He viewed the bridge as a "three legged stool"
along with the railroad and the port. He relayed that the
right-of-way was 99 percent complete and that the borough
was ready to further the project.
9:40:16 AM
DAN SULLIVAN, MAYOR, CITY OF ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 23. He stressed
that the project was necessary to connect the two most
populated areas in Alaska. He said that the bride would
allow for a more efficient and easy commute to the valley.
He worried what might occur should something happen to the
existing infrastructure, leaving people stranded; public
safety concerns should be considered. He highlighted the
positive possibilities that could occur should the project
move forward. He believed that access to the land north of
Anchorage via the bridge would bring tremendous economic
and social growth to the region. He relayed that the bridge
had been on the drawing board for over 50 years and that at
some point in time the decision needed to be made to build
it.
9:44:25 AM
BERKLEY TILTON, FORMER PRESIDENT AND CURRENT BOARD MEMBER,
KNIK FAIRVIEW COMMUNITY COUNCIL, SELF, WASILLA (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 23. He shared that
according to the last census, if it were incorporated, the
Kink-Fairview community would be the fourth largest city in
Alaska. He asserted that a large population of people would
use the bridge. He believed that Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities had enough money in
its budget to be able to allocate funds for the project
without impacting other projects needed throughout the
state.
9:47:37 AM
AVES THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION, GRAPEVINE TEXAS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of HB 23. He believed that the alternative route
would provide important corridor to enable increasing
volumes of freight to be moved safely and efficiently into
and out of the Port of Anchorage. He understood that the
trucking industry would not realize all of the benefits of
the project until all of the connector routes were
finished. He firmly believed that the project was essential
for expanding the association's capability to deliver
freight.
9:49:09 AM
DON DYER, DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, MAT-SU BOROUGH
(via teleconference), testified in support of HB 23. He
related that there were four key projects that would
synergize in the Port MacKenzie area; the Knik Arm Bridge,
Port MacKenzie, the Port MacKenzie Rail Extention, and the
As Soon As Possible Pipeline Project. He said that there
were eight other enterprises that were currently working in
the area and that the sum of all the activity created an
opportunity for the state. He felt that the main advantage
for Anchorage and the Mat-Su would be the fluid
transportation corridor that would be created by the
bridge. He stated that there were 20,000 commuters
traveling from Mat-Su to Anchorage, and back, daily. He
said that the bridge would ease traffic congestion and
increase safety. He noted that the state should purchase
any necessary materials from overseas soon, to protect
against currency fluctuation.
9:52:51 AM
Senator Olson asked whether studies had been done in order
to determine the number of crossings.
Mr. Dyer replied that there had been several studies done
by KABTA and by the borough's planning department. He could
not speak to the actual number of crossings.
9:54:16 AM
Senator Olson examined a report that showed that KABATA's
numbers were 14,337 crossings, while the Mat-Su Borough
plan showed only 4,515. He wondered whether the numbers
could be rectified.
Mr. Dyer replied that he would need to see KABATA's most
current numbers from summer 2013. He added that the numbers
from a report conducted several years ago had been based on
old assumptions and were inaccurate.
9:55:28 AM
MICHAEL DROEGE, FORMER PRESIDENT, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in favor of
HB 23. He stated that there had not been a significant
infrastructure project, in terms of roads, built since
1970. He opined that affordable housing in the Anchorage
market was a problem for both homeowners and renters
because of the lack of affordable, available land. He
calculated that there were approximately 300 available,
affordable building sites between Anchorage and Chuigiak.
He believed that the issue was one of public safety; the
bridge would take significant traffic off of the Parks
Highway. He stated that supporting this project spoke to
the charge of the association to protect private property
rights and promote affordable home ownership. He strongly
believed that tolls on the bridge would service the state's
debt.
10:00:17 AM
JAMES KENWORTHY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
expressed concerns regarding Section 37.15.255, subsection
(g). He felt that the issuance of the bond was dependent on
the toll revenue and that the language represented a
standard moral obligation of the state. He asserted that
with a shortfall of toll revenue KABATA would either
default on its obligation or the legislature would need a
guarantee each year that the bond payments would be
replenished. He noted that the federal TIFIA loan had been
denied six times in the past. He guided the committee
thorough how the project would fail under the current
financial assumptions based on toll revenues. He asserted
that the latest KABATA crossing numbers were unreliable and
inflated. He spoke to the most recent KABATA cost
projections of $1.6 billion, which included the cost of
Phase 2. He asserted that the one page summary of the
project provided to the committee by KABATA, included the
revenue from four lanes of traffic, but only the cost of a
two lane bridge. He hoped that the committee would further
investigate the revenue expected to be generated by tolls.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that Mr. Kenworthy could send his
written testimony to the committee (copy on file).
10:07:37 AM
STEPHANIE KESLER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
expressed concerns regarding HB 23. She said that the $1
billion project required cash flow analysis; timelines for
bond payments, toll revenues and TIFIA payments. She did
not believe that the legislature could make an informed
decision without this information. She asked where new
demographic numbers were, and why they had not yet been
released. She questioned the credibility of a project that
had been publicly stated to cost $900 million and privately
admitted to costing $1.6 billion. She stated that KABATA
had been turned down six times for TIFIA loans, and that it
was unrealistic to expect that the project would be issued
federal funds. She believed that the project was a gross
misuse of state funds. She asserted that the state could
only afford one large project and that the gasline should
be the priority.
10:10:26 AM
BOB FRENCH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
against HB 23. He expressed concern with the financial
details surrounding the project. He pointed out to the
committee that the packets before members did not include a
fiscal note to estimate the potential cost to the state. He
probed what would happen if the bridge tolls were not
enough to pay off the TIFIA loan. He worried that the
state's credit rating would be in jeopardy. He relayed many
reasons the project was not economically viable for the
state. [Secretary Note: Mr. French's full 7 page testimony
can be found on BASIS under the HB23 documents tab.]
10:14:27 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the committee would not make a
decision to move the legislation out of committee until it
had reviewed all of the pertinent fiscal information.
10:14:58 AM
LOIS EPSTEIN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
expressed concerns regarding HB 23. She shared that on
April 6, 2013 the Legislative Budget and Audit (LB&A)
issued its report on KABATA with the following
recommendations:
"KABATA management should revise traffic and toll
revenue projections to address deficiencies."
"Overstated traffic volume in KABATA's traffic
modeling process had the effect of overstating
projected toll revenues."
Ms. Epstein expressed concern that the committee would move
forward without updated projections. She asserted the
committee would be ignoring the recommendations of the LB&A
audit if it were to move the legislation without first
reviewing updated projections. She explained that the
federal transportation law would expire on October 1, 2014,
and the new law may dramatically reduce federal funding to
states. She said that the TIFIA loan money may increase,
but represented a small amount of federal transportation
funds. She did not think that the project would be a
priority on the federal level. She added that since the
pipeline for transportation projects was continually
replenished as infrastructure aged, traffic increased or
design criteria changed, some projects would have to be
cancelled to fund the Knik Arm Bridge. She felt that the
secret that the legislature knew, but was unwilling to
admit, was that Alaska spent millions on roads, bridges and
energy development studies without the financial resources
to complete any projects. She said she would be sending a
copy of the study, "Easy to Start, Impossible to Finish:
3", to each member's office. She said that the bottom line
was that the state had in hand only eight percent of the
approximately $17 billion needed to complete ten, currently
planned, transportation and energy projects.
10:18:39 AM
SCOTT GOLDSMITH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), read
from prepared testimony (copy on file).:
My name Scott Goldsmith and I am a Professor Emeritus
of Economics. I worked for 37 years at the Institute
of Social and Economic Research at the University of
Alaska Anchorage.
I am testifying today as an individual.
My concern is with state fiscal health.
This year we have a $2 billion shortfall in the
general fund and we are currently drawing down our
cash reserves at the rate of about $7 million per day.
We don't yet seem to realize the path we are on and
where it is taking us.
As a retiree, I am concerned that unless we get our
fiscal house in order I will soon lose my dividend and
be forced to start paying income and sales taxes. I
am concerned that a fiscal crash will lead to an
economic crash that will cut the value of my house in
half. I am concerned that my children may be unable
to find jobs in Alaska and be forced to leave the
state.
And the more I learn about the cost, financing, and
so-called benefits of this project the more concerned
I become.
Now is not the time to take on new obligations that
require the state to write blank checks.
There is one blank check of up to $450 million if
bridge tolls fail to repay $300 million in new state
debt.
A second blank check of unknown amount would be to
repay the TIFIA loan if bridge tolls fail to cover
that obligation.
A third blank check of unknown amount would be to
cover the cost of connector road upgrades to access
the bridge on both ends.
A fourth blank check of unknown amount would be to
cover the cost of potential cost overruns on bridge
construction.
A fifth blank check of unknown amount would be to
cover the cost of bridge expansion from 2 to 4 lanes.
A sixth check would be to pay for the highway projects
we won't be able to fund because of the diversion of
federal highway funds to this project.
And finally a seventh blank check would be just to
keep this project on life support-- even if it
eventually expires.
How can we evaluate the so-called benefits of this
project unless we know the potential ultimate cost?
Project proponents tell us not to worry and assure us
that the project actually will be generating enough
tolls to pay for other road projects around the state.
But no bank would write a check based on assurances
without analysis. And it would be irresponsible for
the state to do so, particularly as we face a future
of growing deficits.
Unfortunately we have no credible project analysis
against which to measure the toll projections of
project advocates or to evaluate the financing
proposal.
Last year at this time an audit requested by the
legislature concluded, and I quote,
"The audit concludes that KAC toll and revenue
projections are unreasonably optimistic, and the
projected cash flow to the State are likely overstated
as a result. These are important considerations for
policymakers since the P3 compensation arrangement
requires KABATA to make payments to the private
partner regardless of the projects ability to generate
toll revenues. The deficiencies in KABATA methodology
for generating toll and revenue projections are
addressed in Recommendation No 1."
Recommendation No 1 said--KABATA management should
revise traffic and toll revenue projections to address
deficiencies.
Subsequent to publication of that audit KABATA hired a
consulting firm to conduct an independent peer review
and update socioeconomic data used in the Knik Arm
Crossing Traffic and Toll Revenue projections.
In the press release announcing the study KABATA
stated "It is important to periodically update this
information as time passes and new facts become
known."
Time has passed. The final report of that peer review
was due September 20, 2013, but 6 months later it has
still not surfaced. The Alaska partner in the
preparation of that report-Agnew Beck-is a well- known
and respected planning firm. They would not be six
months late on a three month contract. We can only
speculate as to why we don't have that study in front
of us today.
The bottom line is that there is no new information
today to address and evaluate the concerns raised by
the legislative audit a year ago.
Why are we even here today trying to make policy based
on a foundation of known discredited information?
Thank you.
10:23:09 AM
Senator Hoffman requested that the Mr. Goldmsith submit his
written testimony to the committee.
10:23:25 AM
Senator Olson wondered if Mr. Goldsmith could provide more
accurate project numbers.
Mr. Goldsmith replied that he had not conducted any
analysis over the last several years. His concern stemmed
from the absence of any response to the audit and the wide
range of assertions as to the expected use of the bridge.
10:24:21 AM
Co-Chair Meyer thought that seven points highlighted by Mr.
Goldsmith should be discussed in further detail by the
committee.
10:24:41 AM
RON ARVIN, MEMBER, MAT-SU BOROUGH ASSEMBLY, JUNEAU, spoke
in favor of HB 23. He spoke to whether the Mat-Su was ready
for the potential connectivity. He stressed that the
project had been thoroughly vetted by the assembly. He said
that the borough had created the Knik Town Site and
presented two collector and arterial road bond packages to
the public, which passed. He shared that the borough had an
8500 acre port district and the port master plan had been
redone. He relayed that there was overwhelming support for
the project in his community. He stressed that the Mat-Su
Borough was ready for the bridge to be built. He spoke to
the safety issues for people commuting between the Mat-Su
Valley and Anchorage. He opined that simple traffic stops
on the highway disturbed thousands of people for miles on
end.
10:29:12 AM
Co-Chair Meyer added that the Glenn Highway needed
maintenance as well. He agreed with the points that the
testifier raised.
10:30:00 AM
Senator Bishop understood that the borough was considering
a Burma Road connector.
Mr. Arvin replied in the negative. He clarified that form
Point MacKenzie road to connectivity to the Parks Highway,
along the same alignment as the railroad, Burma through Big
Lake would ultimately be connected for traffic into the
Interior.
10:31:18 AM
Senator Olson requested Mr. Arvin's credentials.
10:31:44 AM
Mr. Arvin replied that he had been on the Mat-Su
Borough/Point MacKenzie Port Commission and the Mat-Su
Borough Transportation Advisory Board.
Senator Olson asked if he had been involved in the Goose
Creek Prison project.
Mr. Arvin replied no.
10:32:06 AM
Senator Olson thought that a simple traffic stop on a two
lane bridge would stop traffic for thousands of people for
miles on end, as well.
Mr. Arvin rebutted that if there was traffic using two
arterials, rather than one, the Glenn Highway would not be
overburdened with the traffic because the traffic would be
rerouted over the bridge.
10:33:09 AM
Senator Olson contended that it would be more difficult to
clean up an accident on a two lane bridge than on the Glenn
Highway.
Mr. Arvin replied that the question did not speak to his
expertise.
10:33:29 AM
Senator Olson said that as a helicopter pilot that flew
search and rescue on the North Slope, he found it easier to
land on a road and not a bridge. He felt that in the event
of an earthquake, the Glenn Highway would be a safer place
to be than on a bridge.
Mr. Arvin responded that there was a lot of speculation
surrounding natural disasters. He believed that the project
was on the right track with the current design standards.
10:35:00 AM
VERNE RUPRIGHT, MAYOR, CITY OF WASILLA (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 23. He noted that
in 2009 Wasilla and Huston had brought an injunctive relief
in order to keep the project alive. He stated that the
bridge was a strategic avenue for economics and commerce,
but also for defense of the state. He offered an anecdotal
story involving his father. He believed that the bridge
would inevitably be built.
10:39:19 AM
PAUL FUHS, PROJECT MANAGER, FAIRVIEW BUSINESS ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU, expressed concerns regarding HB 23. He offered some
ideas about how the project could interface with Gamble
Street. He opined that each time the association had
approached KABATA they had been rebuffed and told that the
environmental impact statement ended at Third Avenue. He
stressed that KABATA needed to work with the communities in
the area that the project was going to go through in order
for the benefit of all involved parties.
10:40:41 AM
Senator Olson inquired of the issues that the business
community had been encountering aside from the KABATA
project.
Mr. Fuhs replied that businesses had been looking at
redevelopment of the entire area, tax abatement issues with
the community, and chronic inebriates. He said that
transportation was a key factor in improving any area.
10:41:15 AM
Senator Olson wondered why the association had been
rebuffed by KABATA personnel.
Mr. Fuhs replied that he did not know. He felt that there
had been communication and planning on the Mat-Su side, but
that planning on the Anchorage side did not appear to be a
priority for the authority.
10:41:39 AM
Senator Olson shared that he had heard similar complaints
from people living on Government Hill in Anchorage. He said
that KABATA had bullied people by threatening to take over
land.
10:42:16 AM
ROGER PURCELL, PRESIDENT, HOUSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
JUNEAU, spoke in support of HB 23. He said that he had
worked to keep the project alive over the years. He shared
that the first comprehensive plan for the bridge had been
drafted in 1972. He discussed the benefits that the bridge
would bring to his community. He relayed that the City of
Huston had companies from the Lower 48 that were ready to
come up and build factories and employ locals. He asserted
that the project would open op thousands of jobs. He said
that his community was the fasted growing population in the
state; over 60,000 people. He pointed out to the committee
that the new prison was driving prisoners 95 miles to
courtrooms in Anchorage, and back again, daily. He said
that it would be a 20 minute drive from the prison to the
courthouse once the bridge was complete. He opined the
money wasted in the past for studies on the bridge. He
asserted that the bridge would be the greatest economic
engine since the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
10:46:41 AM
PAUL GROSSI, IRONWORKERS OF ALASKA, JUNEAU, spoke in
support of HB 23. He believed that there would be
development on the north side of Knik Arm that would lead
to private sector investment, which would lead to more jobs
for Alaskans. He relayed a story of fiasco that occurred on
the Glenn Highway that had caused an upset in traffic. He
expressed concern about safety on the Glenn Highway.
10:50:02 AM
Senator Hoffman understood that the project might bring
jobs to the state, but he wondered if the financial risk
that the state would be taking should be taken into further
consideration.
Mr. Grossi replied yes. He understood that the project
could take money away from other necessary capital
projects. He believed that the project was creative in the
sense that it provided alternative ways of funding. He
found it hard to believe that there would not be at least
10,000 cars crossing the bridge per day.
10:52:56 AM
Senator Olson wondered if people would chose to drive a
route that charges a toll rather than drive on the free
road.
10:53:45 AM
Co-Chair Meyer noted that people who used the bridge and
highway would figure out the economics of gas expense
versus using the bridge and paying a toll.
10:54:08 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Meyer appreciated the public testimony. He said
that the committee would address many of the public
concerns during future discussions of the legislation. He
relayed that it would be convenient if the two fastest
growing communities in the state were connected, but there
was concern about the project's financing.
10:54:57 AM
HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:55:11 AM
Co-Chair Kelly said that Operating Budget amendments would
be discussed at a later date.
CSHB 266(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CSHB 267(FIN) was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
10:56:04 AM
Co-Chair Meyer discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:56:33 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB182 - opposition - Tengs 2.msg |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 182 |
| SB182 opposition Nelson.msg |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 182 |
| HB 23 - Knik Arm Bridge -Fread.msg |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |
| HB 23 - Knik Arm Bridge -Fread.msg |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |
| HB23 Testimony Catchpole.pdf |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |
| HB023SCSCS(FIN)-DOR-KABATA-03-25-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |
| HB023SCSCS(FIN)-DOT-KABATA 3-21-14.pdf |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |
| HB23 Public testimony - French.pdf |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |
| HB23 Goldsmith KABATA Senate Finance Testimony March 25 2014.docx |
SFIN 3/25/2014 9:00:00 AM |
HB 23 |