Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB237 | |
| HB230 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 237 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 230
"An Act designating Pipeline Road 34-ALP-3 as Arctic
Man Way."
2:21:41 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 230, Work Draft 29-LS1135\W (Bruce,
3/25/16). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
explained the changes in the Committee Substitute (CS). The
CS removed the identifying pipeline road marker number
reference and inserted the old name for the road: "Old
Isabel Camp Access Road." He detailed that Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were amenable to the
change.
Representative Wilson asked if the road covered by the bill
was a state-owned.
Mr. Anderson deferred the question to the bill sponsor.
Representative Kawasaki asked for the history of the road
name and who Isabel was. He spoke to a recent platting
board issue in Fairbanks related to whether Terminal Road
should be renamed to Citizen's Way to reflect that the road
lead to the borough chambers area of town. He explained
that there was a historic reason why the name had not been
changed.
Mr. Anderson deferred to DOT or the bill sponsor. He
relayed that the name change had been requested by property
owners to use the pipeline road marker reference rather
than its old name. He believed the property owners had
requested a better designating name.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM COLVER, SPONSOR, spoke to the bill. He
relayed that on the pipeline drawings and in the original
version of the bill, the access route to what once was the
Isabel Pass camp was designated 34-ALP-3 (a design
designation included on a drawing). He relayed that the
road ran across general state land. He detailed that the
Arctic Man held an event down the road. He explained that
in the area that had been called Isabel Pass there was a
pad, which once contained trailers and buildings the
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company had used to build the
pipeline. The site was currently the location of one of the
largest events in Alaska; attendees at the Arctic Man event
were estimated at 13,000 in 2015 and 15,000 in the current
year. He elaborated that the race included a combination of
skiing and snow machines where speeds reached up to 80
miles per hour. He noted that the governor had participated
as a forerunner on the race in 2014.
Representative Colver explained that the reason for the
proposal to change the name was mostly to commemorate that
it was the event location. He elaborated that there was not
really any signage indicating the location; part of the
purpose was to point to the location of the event. He
believed the name change was appropriate due to the
popularity of the event. The name in the bill had been
worked out with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company; the
company had wanted the Old Isabel Camp Access Road included
in the bill. He relayed that Arctic Man had agreed to cover
the cost of the sign and had committed to pay $800 to
$1,000 for installation; he did not expect DOT to do the
work. The department had initially included a fiscal note
of $200, which had been zeroed out by the House
Transportation Committee; the Arctic Man Classic
organization would provide funding and resources to install
a new road sign - up to $1,000. He relayed that Mr. Howard
Thies (Arctic Man president), had testified on record that
they would replace the sign in the event it was ever
knocked down. He spoke to the unique nature of the event;
there was no other race like it in the world. He asked
members to support the legislation.
2:29:06 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether it was a state road.
She relayed that if it was not a state road, a statute was
not required. She explained that if it was not a state road
they could work with the property owner to put the sign up
- she was unsure whether the owner was the Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company or the state.
MIKE LESMANN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, relayed
that the road was not maintained by DOT. The department
believed the road was on DNR land with an easement to
Alyeska.
Representative Wilson did not believe a statutory change
was necessary. She relayed that she lived on a road that
was not owned by the state - they had to go through the
borough to change the street name. She wondered if there
was currently anything preventing Arctic Man from making
and posting a sign on its own. She explained that once it
was in statute it would become DOT's responsibility.
Mr. Lesmann replied that he did not know.
Representative Wilson reiterated that if the road name was
put in statute it would become a DOT issue. Alternatively,
if the road was on private property, they could request DNR
to install the sign, but if it came down, no one would be
responsible for putting it back up.
Co-Chair Thompson did not know what the regulations were
for putting up a sign along a state road. He explained that
the bill ensured that the state had been amenable to having
a sign put up in the state right-of-way along the
Richardson Highway.
Representative Wilson explained that road service area
commissioners could not put up a sign that falls down; the
borough would not allow it. She explained that it would be
a public road and would have to abide by those rules. She
elaborated that if the entity had permission from the
property owner it was much easier to hang the sign that
way. She was trying to simplify the situation if statute
was not needed.
2:31:57 PM
Representative Colver answered that the road was on state
property; it was not about the sign it was about the event.
He furthered that the sign had a safety implication. He
elaborated that without the road-sign people had gotten
lost in the area; ambulances responded to the area when
needed [and needed to be able to find their way]. He
explained that there had recently been an unfortunate
incident involving an avalanche. He reiterated that it was
state land and was appropriate for the state to designate
right-of-way. He reasoned that if the sign went away, the
sign went away; but the statute memorialized that Arctic
Man took place in that location. He stated that pipeline
camps came and went; likewise, Arctic Man may come and go.
He restated that it was state land and it was appropriate
to designate the road a certain name.
Representative Wilson explained that she did not have a
problem with the sign. She elaborated that her concern was
about the proper process and procedure. She detailed that
it was helpful to know if another person in the future
wanted to put a sign on a road in the area. She believed it
would be easier if the designation was not in statute. She
did not have a problem renaming the road. She wondered if
because the road did not belong to DOT that Arctic Man
could merely ask DNR for permission to post a sign. She
thought that may be easier and less costly. She noted that
the state was required to post certain kinds of signs
(which were more expensive) as opposed to a sign purchased
on the internet.
Representative Kawasaki had never known the road to be Old
Isabel Camp Access Road or anything else. He had always
just known the location as where Arctic Man was held. He
asked if the current name had historical meaning or value.
Representative Colver answered that it had been designated
as Old Isabel Camp Access Road on Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company maps. The legislation would enable a person to look
back to see that what the road had previously been named.
Representative Kawasaki spoke to his concern about
historical meaning. He remarked that the current name was
historically speaking not extremely old - it was from the
pipeline era.
Representative Guttenberg did not understand the reason for
putting the name in statute. He relayed that in his former
district he had to threaten DOT that he was going to
personally put up a sign if the department failed to do so.
He stated that "in my neighborhood we put up road signs."
He continued that when the state put in a subdivision,
legislation did not name the roads or streets. He discussed
that legislation was expensive. He remarked that the name
change in the bill was a $200 issue. He would have merely
bought a sign and installed it. He elaborated that a sign
shop could make a sign that would be indistinguishable from
a state sign. He asked about the precedence the bill was
setting. He asked about Alyeska Pipeline Service Company's
position. He would understand memorializing a highway after
a group such as the Purple Heart Highway. He emphasized
that the bill would name a street in statute. He wondered
about other streets named by statute. He thought the
commissioner could have merely checked the request off and
put the sign up.
Mr. Lesmann replied that he could not answer the question.
He deferred to the Department of Law or Legislative Legal
Services.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that to change the name of a
street in Fairbanks it was necessary to go through the
entire process with the city council; it had to be
identified on maps for public safety (i.e. police, fire,
and ambulance). He explained that inside the borough the
name change had to go through a process. He explained that
current bill went through the same process - if there was
an accident and someone needed to find the location it
would show up on a map. He believed it was important to get
the information in the state's ledgers.
2:39:09 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler suspected that an Arctic Man Way sign
may be a target of opportunity. He thought it would be a
souvenir for people to capture as part of their time spent
at the Arctic Man event. He wondered about the potential
for the sign to be stolen or vandalized. He wondered who
would be responsible if so.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that Mr. Thies had provided a
letter to the committee stating that the Arctic Man
organization would pay for and replace the sign if it was
vandalized or stolen.
Representative Edgmon spoke in support of the bill. He
reasoned that it was about naming a particular highway, but
more importantly it was about formally designating an event
- that was important to thousands of Alaskans - in state
statute. He added that other infrastructure items
throughout the state were enshrined in statute time and
time again. He believed it was a worthy designation. He was
ready to move on to more weighty matters before the
committee.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler highlighted the zero fiscal note from
DOT.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that Alyeska
did not currently have a sign posted at the location.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that there was currently a
numbered highway marker sign posted. He relayed that his
office had spoken with Alyeska and DOT along with
Representative Colver's office. He explained that because
of various problems, Alyeska wanted the numbered marker
reference removed from the bill so its designation of the
location would not be included. All parties had agreed to
the proposed change.
Representative Wilson assumed that the numbers would remain
posted on the highway along with the new sign.
Co-Chair Thompson confirmed that the numbers would still
remain.
Vice-Chair Saddler voiced his concern that the sign could
be stolen. He hoped the Arctic Man organization would
commit to replacing the sign as often as necessary.
2:43:21 PM
Representative Pruitt referred to a letter from Mr. Thies
dated February 8, 2016 (copy on file). The letter stated
that Arctic Man would "provide funding and resources to
install a new road sign estimated by DOT to cost $800-
$1000. Please pass this legislation." He echoed Vice-Chair
Saddler's comments that the letter did not specify the
organization would pay for and reinstall a new sign that if
it was damaged or stolen. He relayed that he had looked
through statutes during the meeting and had been surprised
so many things were named.
Representative Colver would provide the committee with a
copy of Mr. Thies's testimony to the House Transportation
Committee. He relayed that Mr. Thies had testified that the
organization would replace the sign. He added that the
Arctic Man event was currently underway. He noted that Mr.
Thies had been the northern director for DOT.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Mr. Thies had been the
director of maintenance and operations for DOT.
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT HB 230 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She emphasized that the
bill would require DOT to do work on the issue. She
explained that whether or not someone had specified that
they would replace the sign, it would be another thing for
DOT. She was concerned that there were many other events
that happened. She understood that Mr. Thies would keep his
word as long as he was with the organization. She remarked
that the state was not going to sue someone over a sign.
She WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
HB 230 was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (DOT).
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the agenda for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 237 Dr. Hornberger letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 237 |