Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/02/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB281 | |
| HB276 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 276-FORT ROUSSEAU CAUSEWAY HIST PARK
9:29:09 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 276, "An Act amending the description of
parcels within the Fort Rousseau Causeway State Historical Park;
and providing for an effective date."
9:29:52 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to adopt CSHB 276, Version LS0826\E,
Bullock, 2/1/10, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected for discussion purposes.
9:30:09 AM
REED HARRIS, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Wilson, related that HB 276 will correct the boundary between
the Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport and the Fort Rousseau Park.
The legislation, he explained, forming the park boundary in 2000
mistakenly included uplands, tide lands, and water adjacent to
the airport. He pointed out that a color map in the committee
packet illustrates that the aforementioned lands are within
1,100 feet of the runway center line, which is the designated
safety zone for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This
mistake wasn't discovered until the legislation forming the park
was already in the Senate Resources Standing Committee, at which
time the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) made an agreement with the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to continue to support the legislation with the
understanding that the park boundary would have to be changed at
a later date. The lands in question, as designated in yellow on
the color map, are ones over which DOT&PF has traditionally
exercised control. Moreover, the property in question contains
navigational equipment for the airport, such as wind and
directional monitors. He pointed out that the property in
question is already separated by a security fence.
MR. HARRIS related that DNR doesn't believe DOT&PF controlling
this land would have any impact on future access. The
traditional access to the park, people scampering over the
runway, hasn't occurred since the 1980s. Therefore, this park
isn't accessed through or across the airport runway. At the
time of the park's creation there was no discussion regarding
land access; the intention was for there to be only water access
to the park. He highlighted that the committee packet includes
the minutes for House Bill 176, which was the 2000 legislation
that created Fort Rousseau Causeway State Historical Park.
According to DOT&PF, land access to the park would be extremely
expensive and require either a tunnel under the runway or an
extension of the perimeter around the airport, which would
require a retaining wall that would fall below the tide level at
high tide. Mr. Harris pointed out that the main issue with the
airport is that the area in question needs to remain within
airport boundaries in order to maintain airport safety and
security responsibilities, as specified by the FAA.
Furthermore, the FAA requires that the state demonstrate
adequate property interest in any airport for which it accepts
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds. The AIP grant
funds makeup about 95 percent of [the state's airport funding].
For example, the Sitka Airport has received over $32 million in
AIP funds since 1982. He stated that failure to comply with the
AIP grant assurances can result in FAA withholding additional
grants, additional grants which DOT&PF estimates will total $30
million over the next two years for the Sitka Rocky Gutierrez
Airport. Therefore, the sponsor requests passage of HB 276 in
order to address airport security and continued funding for the
Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport, he related.
9:34:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER inquired as to the difference between HB
276 and Version E.
9:34:33 AM
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, related that
DOT&PF's attorneys felt it would be clearer to use the 1,100
feet description of the property the airport needs as opposed to
including a sub clause that referred to the runway safety area.
Although the 1,100 feet is technically somewhat larger than the
runway safety areas, runway safety areas aren't well defined,
she remarked.
9:35:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR HERRON stated his objection.
9:35:45 AM
DEBRA LYONS, Executive Director, Sitka Trail Works, began by
informing the committee that Sitka Trail Works is a nonprofit
organization in Sitka that has been very involved with the park
prior to it being a park. Ms. Lyons related that the community
of Sitka and members of Sitka Trail Works care very deeply about
the causeway as a recreation area and as an important cultural
component of the community. She noted the incredible effort to
create the park itself and the 8,000 foot causeway road, which
represented the 1945 version of security. Today, the
[community] is wrestling with how to make the airport secure
because the efforts to make the airport secure has cumulatively
denied the public access to this historic landmark. Sitka Trail
Works has tried to have the causeway established as a historic
property to be renovated and appreciated. About $200,000 in
grant funds has been obtained, much of which has been
transferred to the state in order that the state could perform a
survey of the historic artifacts. In fact, the state is
currently being paid to perform an interpretation and management
plan. Sitka Trail Works is committed to this area, she
emphasized. However, it seems that the interest of the public
is being left out as the agencies try to serve their own
mission. Ms. Lyons said that it wasn't a mistake that the land
in question was included in the definition of the park. When
the park boundary was defined, it was the historic definition
[boundary] of Fort Rousseau. She acknowledged that the
aforementioned is causing DOT&PF difficulties as it would like
to have control of the property. To that end, she questioned
why DOT&PF didn't do a management agreement with the state. She
then suggested that perhaps lot 86A belongs to the Bureau of
Land Management not the state because it's over submerged lands.
She further suggested that it would be appropriate to attach a
fiscal note to this legislation in order to fund providing a
dock or other water access to the park in compensation for the
cumulative impact of providing security for the airport and
disallowing the public access to the park via land. Sitka
Trails Work had hoped to work with the contractor of the runway
expansion in order to rebuild portions of the causeway, although
that will certainly not be an option when the airport has total
control of the parcel. Therefore, any construction at the park
would require the use of barges.
9:41:29 AM
MS. LYONS, in response to Co-Chair Herron, explained that the
yellow designation on the color map is a road that was built by
the U.S. Army to access the islands. The islands are attached
by a road built over submerged lands. All of the lots with an
"A" designation are fill over submerged lands and actually owned
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). When the legislature
created the park, all the state lands and uplands without an "A"
designation were included in the definition of the park as well
as the lands owned by BLM. The thinking was to work with BLM on
a recreation and public purpose lease. During the preliminary
discussions, the BLM felt that a state park fit recreation and
public purposes. Ms. Lyons then informed the committee that
portions of the causeway have eroded and are in need of repair.
Therefore, part of the plan was to improve the old road bed in
order to provide walking access to the islands. The hope was to
devise something between the airport and the park such that the
airport would allow at least the park manager to drive out to
the park as maintenance. "We were just trying to develop the
park for use and enjoyment by the public to the most people
possible in the least costly manner possible," she stated. At
the same time, Sitka Trail Works isn't opposed to working with
the department in order to meet its security needs. Still, she
opined that there should be acknowledgement that some sort of
enhancement to water access to the park should be considered as
mitigation for diminishing access to the park.
9:44:32 AM
MS. LYONS, in response to Representative Cissna, clarified that
if the road becomes part of the airport, the airport will
prohibit any and all access because of security needs.
Therefore, access to the park is exclusively via water and
there's no ability to repair the road via access from the
airport, and thus repair would have to be done via barge.
Because there will be no ability to use lot 86A to access the
park, she questioned whether DOT&PF would consider a fiscal note
to construct an ADA accessible dock. If all land access is
being taken away, she implored the committee to help provide
access to the park via the water.
9:48:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to the April 4, 2007, minutes
from the House Resources Standing Committee, pointed out that
Mr. Stone related that Sitka Trail Works provides a skiff for
the public to use [to access the park], which is heavily used in
the summer months by local residents who skiff to the causeway
to picnic and visit the site. Therefore, Representative Gardner
surmised that the park has regularly been accessed via the
water. Representative Gardner further surmised that Ms. Lyons
recognizes that these measures with the park are going to and
have to happen, but that she is trying to minimize the impact in
terms of maintenance access.
MS. LYONS agreed with that assessment. Sitka Trail Works is
trying to address future maintenance of the park by improving
marine access. Furthermore, Sitka Trail Works is trying to
improve the accessibility to the park because one has to be fit
to land a skiff/kayak on the beach and climb up the embankment
onto the park lands. In order to make the park accessible and
capture tourism dollars, there needs to be a dock of some sort.
9:50:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the distance the park is
from the mainland via water.
MS. LYONS responded that it's only 15-20 minutes. She then
asked if skiff traffic would be allowed in that airport security
designated area on the water.
9:51:47 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if DOT&PF would be amenable to an
agreement that would allow a contractor to haul material to the
state park.
MS. SIROKY specified that such isn't allowed under the
agreements with the FAA. In regard to boat traffic through the
airport security area, DOT&PF doesn't anticipate monitoring of
it. The FAA requirements are very strict. In fact, the FAA has
concerns regarding the float plane haul out that is located on
the causeway area. Ms. Siroky then told the committee that when
the park was created there was no discussion of state funding to
upgrade the park.
9:53:51 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON remarked that maintaining the state park proper
is not of primary concern. However, he expressed concern with
Ms. Siroky's testimony that contractors can't be allowed access
via lot 86A. If there is any expansion or improvements made to
the runway, contractors will need to access the runway.
Therefore, he questioned the difference between contractors
accessing the park via the runway and contractors accessing the
airport via the runway.
9:54:40 AM
VERNE SKAGERBERG, Transportation Planner, Aviation Planner,
Southeast Region, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, informed the committee that one of the FAA's highest
priorities is to eliminate events known as runway incursions.
Runway incursions are events on the runway that don't have
anything to do with an airport operation. The FAA has spent a
lot of resources to address runway incursions, which are
reported, investigated, and become part of the FAA's database.
Mr. Skagerberg then informed the committee that following the
completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS), for which
the record of decision was issued in September, there was the
decision to relocate the seaplane haul out because it poses
potential runway incursions. Allowing access across the runway
for purposes other than the direct needs of the airport would
create potential runway incursions. He informed the committee
that at the Sitka Airport there are in excess of 70,000
passenger enplanements annually and 1,800-2,000 air carrier
operations and 6,000-7,000 other aircraft operations. The
runway is also an alternate runway between Interior Alaska and
the Lower 48, and thus must be available for emergency
situations.
9:57:51 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that the hope is that lot 86A will
dissolve into the sea.
MR. SKAGERBERG said that he didn't know that to be the case.
However, lot 86A is important to the airport because the area
adjacent to the runway supports a number of navigational aids,
which are typically susceptible to interference, such as from
truck traffic in the vicinity. Therefore, when construction
projects are being considered, the department must ascertain
whether the traffic moving around the navigational aids would
impede their operation. Currently, the area [holding the
navigational aids] is fenced for that reason as well as other
safety and security reasons.
9:59:28 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that DOT&PF is fine with
contractors working on the runway to be present, but isn't
interested in allowing contractors on the runway for
improvements to the causeway or state park.
MR. SKAGERBERG agreed that DOT&PF has to have construction
equipment on the airport. However, prior to such activity,
DOT&PF's engineering staff and the FAA's Airports Division
provide a thorough scrutiny to ensure that all the safety
requirements are met. The safety plan for airport construction
involving a runway is a detailed document.
10:01:39 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if it's DOT&PF's position that lot 86A
would never be used again.
MS. SIROKY replied yes, other than for airport activities.
10:02:07 AM
MR. SKAGERBERG, in response to Co-Chair Munoz, confirmed that
accessing lot 86A does require crossing the runway at the Sitka
Airport.
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ then related her understanding that the FAA
requires a 1,100 foot center line boundary, which is part of the
park, without which the airport would not comply with security
or funding requirements.
MR. SKAGERBERG replied yes. When DOT&PF negotiated with the FAA
to relinquish the causeway park and island land from the
airport, it was determined that the boundary necessary was 1,100
feet. In further response to Co-Chair Munoz, the center line
boundary varies from airport to airport for various reasons.
10:04:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that the yellow
portion of the color map belongs to the park.
MS. SIROKY specified that by the boundaries established in the
state park, the yellow area [86A] is included in the park's
boundaries. However, DOT&PF has never relinquished control of
that land to the park. In further response to Representative
Cissna, Ms. Siroky related that lot 86A was inadvertently
included in the legislation creating the park. She acknowledged
that DOT&PF didn't clearly review the boundaries of the park
until late in the process, at which point DOT&PF came to an
agreement with DNR to address it with separate legislation to
create the park.
10:05:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated the need to include language in
this legislation that would allow for an agreement that would
allow the park to use the runway for narrow construction windows
in order to ensure that it's a usable park.
MS. SIROKY related her understanding that the FAA is very, very
strict in terms of its security regulations. She then reminded
the committee that when the park was created it was clear that
it was boat access only. There was no discussion of needing
funding for a dock. In fact, there was testimony from Sitka
Trail Works regarding needing to obtain funding for a dock in
the future. Ms. Siroky clarified that prior to the creation of
the park there was no access across the causeway; the causeway
has been in DOT&PF's control the entire time.
10:08:40 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON related the intent of the co-chairs to forward
this legislation. However, he maintained his concern that
DOT&PF is taking an unreasonable stance by not allowing
accommodations, for construction purposes only, access to the
state park for improving the state roads.
10:09:15 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ moved to report CSHB 276, Version 26-LS0826\E,
Bullock, 2/1/10, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CO-CHAIR HERRON removed his objection to adoption of Version E.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA stated her objection.
10:09:35 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Keller,
Herron, and Munoz voted in favor of reporting CSHB 276, Version
26-LS0826\E, Bullock, 2/1/10, from committee. Representative
Cissna voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 276(CRA) was reported
out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee by a vote of 4-1.
10:10:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that she would be in favor of
moving this legislation when the [access to the park for
construction purposes] is addressed. She opined that this
committee should address the issue and that it's a mistake to
forward the legislation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB276-DOT&PF-CO-1-28-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Sponsor.docx |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 281 sponsor statement1.doc |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 276 Sitka Airport Property Boundary correction signed letter 1 28 2010.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 Q & A.docx |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 276 color map.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB281-DFG-BDS-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB281-DFG-WLF-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 276 Committee Mins.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| CSHB 276 Proposal.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 276 |
| HB 281 pro letter.PDF |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB 281 ACE ltr.PDF |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |
| HB281-DPS-AWT-02-01-10.pdf |
HCRA 2/2/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 281 |