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 |