Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
03/25/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB313 | |
| HB267 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 313 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 313-MAINTENANCE OF RAILROAD CROSSINGS
1:09:15 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 313, "An Act relating to the maintenance and
repair of railroad crossings and rights-of-way within railroad
crossings."
1:09:27 PM
JAMES ARMSTRONG, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, stated that
HB 313 is a policy call to determine who should pay for the
maintenance on railroad crossings that are bisected by roads.
The bill would transfer an equitable share of the liability for
annual costs of maintenance and repairs at state
highway/railroad intersections of the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC). He referred to a chart labeled "DOT&PF
Railroad Crossing Maintenance Cost" in members' packets that
outlines crossing fee maintenance costs. In FY 2005, the fees
for maintenance costs were $92,000 and since then have doubled
to over $207,000 annually in the Northern and Central Regions.
The state DOT&PF currently pays $266 per month per crossing,
which totals $212,000 annually. Additionally, the DOT&PF incurs
other maintenance and operation (M&O) fees. The intent of HB
313 is that the ARRC would use its federal transit funding for
operations and more equitably distribute the maintenance costs
at railroad and road intersections. The state has scarce
general funds (GF) available, but the ARRC is a "for profit"
entity and could likely pass though the maintenance costs to its
customers.
1:12:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether municipalities also pay
crossing fees at railroad and road intersections.
MR. ARMSTRONG offered his belief that municipalities also remit
fees. He recalled that the City of North Pole remits crossing
fees. He deferred to the ARRC to further address the crossing
fees.
1:13:03 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF),
related that Mr. Armstrong accurately noted the crossing fees.
He reiterated the crossing maintenance fees are $266 per
crossing per month, which totals $121,287 for annual fees on the
38 crossings. These fees represent ongoing annual fees, which
are not addressed in this bill. Additionally, the ARRC bills
the DOT&PF for M&O costs above and beyond the crossing fees.
The fees represent the ARRC billing for labor, equipment, and
commodity costs incurred by the railroad to maintain the
crossings. He referred to the chart Mr. Armstrong mentioned.
He pointed out the larger maintenance/upgrade projects listed,
including the Hurricane and South Denali Crossing in FY 05
billing of $348,266, and the University Avenue Crossing billing
of $156,808, plus labor, contract, and materials costs.
1:14:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification on the $266 fee.
MR. RICHARDS answered that the charge is for services provided
by the ARRC, but does not cover maintenance fees.
1:15:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification on the
maintenance costs.
MR. RICHARDS explained that when the ARRC determines that work
is needed on railroad crossings on a DOT&PF roadway, the DOT&PF
is charged for the services provided. The work includes
maintenance on rail, ballast, and approaches to ensure safety.
In further response to Representative Johnson, he said he is not
privy to the ARRC's rates. His team's expertise is limited to
asphalt and roadway issues, not rail safety issues, he stated.
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative T Wilson, stated
that the DOT&PF does not have a position on HB 313.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he would like to know the reason
for the bill.
1:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON understood the DOT&PF is charged ARRC
fees. She asked if the ARRC also bills the City of North Pole
for its crossings.
TOM BROOKS, Vice-President of Engineering, Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC), provided a history of railroad grade
crossings. He explained that the railroad originally had a 100
foot right-of-way each side of the railroad. As the state grew,
residents asked the railroad for permission to build roads
across the railroad. During federal ownership and subsequently,
after the railroad was transferred to the state, the railroad
worked to accommodate that usage whenever possible. The terms
of the agreements included that the railroad would allow the
roadway to cross the railroad with no charge for the right-of-
way, but the road owner had to absorb any costs associated with
the crossing. Several types of costs are incurred with railroad
crossings. One cost is the basic maintenance cost, in which a
signal exists to warn motorists of oncoming train traffic and
gates are lowered. Those crossings are heavily regulated and
require regular inspections. Thus, the maintenance fees are
$266 per month for basic maintenance service. The railroad
staff, the signal maintainer, spends about four hours per month
to ensure each signal is working properly. If any trouble or
malfunction is discovered, the owner is charged for repairs to
the signal. Thus, the City of North Pole or Municipality of
Anchorage is billed for any signal crossings plus fees for
trouble calls.
1:21:27 PM
MR. BROOKS related another cost associated with crossings is to
repair or rebuild the railroad crossing. Periodically,
approximately every 15 to 25 years, the crossing surface becomes
degraded. The ARRC cannot maintain the crossing in the same way
it would maintain the railroad if the roadway did not exist.
Normally, the ARRC finds that the life of the rail runs
approximately 40 to 50 years life for components, but that
timeframe is reduced to approximately 15 to 25 years on
crossings. When the crossing is degraded, the ARRC "rips out
the roadway, closes the highway, and performs intensive effort
and cooperates with DOT&PF on paving. The ARRC prefers the
DOT&PF to perform the paving work on any approaches. He stated
that about every 15-25 years a fairly large cost is associated
with this effort. Additionally, the DOT&PF works to time the
rail rebuild with planned DOT&PF road projects. Thus, when the
railroad performs the work in conjunction with a major highway
upgrade, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) includes the
crossing rebuild as part of the cost of the project. Mr.
Richards mentioned several railroad projects needed replacement
but were not associated with any highway project so the ARRC
billed the DOT&PF for the work.
1:23:32 PM
MR. BROOKS pointed out another class of cost is for the signal
systems. He explained that the lights and gates upgrades on
crossings are typically covered by the FHWA Safety Improvement
Program.
MR. BROOKS, in response to Chair P. Wilson, stated that the FHWA
sends auditors and determine allowable costs and the ARRC bills
accordingly.
1:25:04 PM
MR. BROOKS explained that the most costly crossing are ones in
which either the highway or the railroad results in an overpass,
which are grade separations that can cost from $3 to $30 million
to build. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds are
associated with passenger service but cannot be used for this
type of work. He offered that under HB 313, the funds would
come from the operating side of the ARRC so it would be
difficult for the ARC to absorb the crossing maintenance costs.
In response to Chair P. Wilson, he explained that the FTA funds
are formula funds used to perform passenger related
improvements, such as new track or coaches.
1:28:09 PM
MR. BROOKS related that the basic question the ARRC has with the
bill are which costs are intended to be included. He stated
that the ARRC would not want the Highway Safety Improvement
Funding to be disrupted for signal upgrades. He offered that
the ARRC has been successful in reducing the number of crossing
deaths. Six people were killed in 1990s. The ARRC upgraded
crossings with HSIP funds, such as adding gate arms at
crossings, which has resulted in significantly increased safety.
1:29:12 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for an explanation of any funds earmarked
for crossings.
MR. RICHARDS explained that the FHWA grants Alaska formula funds
for the National Highway Program, the Community Transportation
Program, the Bridge Program, and the Highway Safety Improvement
Program. Many projects address safety issues. Mr. Brooks
restated the six fatalities on the railroad in the 1990s as an
example. The DOT&PF gathers information on roadways and
attempts to address the safety needs on roads and crossings.
Projects are ranked and the funding is distributed via the
Highway Safety Improvement Program to address the needs. The
most costly and expensive process to a highway crossing is
building an overpass, which usually costs in excess of $10
million.
1:31:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether an agreement is reached
prior to placing a crossing. She mentioned that in her
community a new subdivision is being build and will need a road
crossing the railroad.
MR. BROOKS recalled when the City of Wasilla built a new sports
center in an area across the railroad tracks at the intersection
of the Parks Highway and Church Road. The ARRC looked for an
alternate way to access the building and signed an agreement
with the City of Wasilla to cross the right-of-way. No fee was
charged for access, but the City of Wasilla must pay for all
costs associated with the crossing, including signal maintenance
checks. Thus, the ARRC bills the City of Wasilla $266 per month
for maintenance costs for the crossing, he stated.
1:33:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether municipalities have federal
funds available to pay for railroad crossings.
MR. BROOKS stated that he was unaware of any other funds
available. He recalled a crossing that needed rebuilding in the
Interior. The City of North Pole and ARRC reached an agreement
and rebuilt the crossing. He explained that the cost resulted
in an $8,000 annual fee for the crossing, which was spread out
over 20 years.
1:34:34 PM
MR. ARMSTRONG, in response to Chair P. Wilson, related that the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solution (AMATS)
receives a "separate pot" of funds from the HSIP. He explained
that one DOT&PF coordinator has statewide responsibility for the
funds. He said he did not recall whether a formula exists to
cover crossings within the AMATS boundaries.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if the Municipality of Anchorage or City
of Fairbanks requests its funding for crossings from DOT&PF.
MR. ARMSTRONG suggested that the AMATS or Fairbanks Metropolitan
Area Transportation Solutions (FMATS) coordinators would request
the funds for crossings from the HSIP fund. He related that it
would be up to the coordinator to place the project in their
respective Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS).
MR. RICHARDS related that Mr. Armstrong was describing the
normal capital project process, in which the ARRC would identify
for the community ahead of time the costs to upgrade or repair
the crossing, which can become part of the AMATS or FMATS. The
greater challenge happens when the cost for upgrades "hits the
operating budget" and the DOT&PF must pay Alaska Railroad
Corporation, he stated.
1:37:45 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Chair P. Wilson, explained that the
at-grade and grade separated crossings are predominately funded
with HSIP funds. He related that the needs in the safety arena,
for crosswalks, intersections, and grade challenges, far exceed
the federal funding for that category. He stated that the
DOT&PF always has more needs for projects on an annual basis and
cannot set aside an amount. He offered that the DOT&PF has a
contractual obligation to obligate funds that are ready for
construction.
1:39:00 PM
MR. ARMSTRONG, in response to Representative T. Wilson,
explained that the bill would shift the responsibility of the
maintenance cost from the DOT&PF to the ARRC. In further
response to Representative T. Wilson, he explained that costs
that would be shifted are limited to maintenance costs at
crossings.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that if the ARRC is required to absorb
the responsibility that it might raise the $266 monthly
maintenance fees.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked when the last time the $266 was
adjusted.
MR. BROOKS answered that the fee was raised in the mid-80s based
on the ARRC's analysis of the maintenance costs.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN offered his belief that the costs would
likely be reviewed if the bill were to pass.
MR. BROOKS answered yes, that the ARRC board is interested. He
was uncertain what would be included in "maintenance" and if it
would apply to rebuilds or crossing fees since it could have a
wide fiscal impact.
1:41:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether the bill would require
the ARRC to only take on the $266 fee.
MR. ARMSTRONG answered no, that fee would stay in place. The
maintenance and operations costs (M&O) costs for maintenance and
repair of railroad crossings and rights-of-way within railroad
crossings would be shifted to the ARRC.
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative T. Wilson, clarified
that the bill would address the costs listed in the M&O Costs
column of the members' handout. The costs represent the fees
charged by the ARRC for work they are performing on the crossing
of the road and some features on the rail adjacent to that
crossing.
MR. BROOKS explained that the fees almost exclusively relate to
the crossing signal. He explained the types of costs would
include damage to the crossing, such as when someone drives
through the crossing arm and the ARRC cannot identify the driver
or vehicle, but the crossing arm must be replaced. The ARRC
does not charge for snow removal or track maintenance. Most of
the costs are related to the signal systems, he stated. The
DOT&PF has responsibility for about 36 of the 80 signalized
crossings in Alaska. A number of the other crossings are
located in municipalities, the military, the U.S. Park Service,
and the Usibelli Coal mine and they all receive standard
billings.
1:44:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for an explanation of the maintenance
crossing fee.
MR. BROOKS explained that the federal law requires the ARRC to
perform monthly maintenance inspections.
1:45:01 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that if the bill passes, other
entities may ask the ARRC to absorb the costs, such as the
military and the municipalities since only 38 crossings are
DOT&PF crossings.
MR. BROOKS answered he believed that DOT&PF has responsibility
for 36 crossings.
1:45:39 PM
MR. BROOKS, in response to Representative Johnson, explained
that the ARRC Board's policy on new crossings is to determine if
a reasonable alternative exists, but if it meets the criteria of
a safe crossing, the ARRC will permit the crossing. In further
response to Representative Johnson, he offered that if HB 357
passes the ARRC would be more resistant to add new crossings due
to the financial burden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled from earlier testimony that
major upgrades are funded from the operating budget. He asked
what types of projects would be funded from the GF.
MR. RICHARDS referred to the bottom of page 1, to the DOT&PF's
handout, labeled "Railroad Crossing Maintenance Cost." He
stated the projects, such as Hurricane and South Denali
Crossings (FY 05) would include the type of projects that would
be funded from GF funds. In response to Representative Johnson,
he explained that the project would be under contractual
obligations and normally is expended in the operating budget.
1:47:50 PM
MR. RICHARDS offered the challenge for DOT&PF is that the ARRC
will identify a crossing upgrade need but the billing is
remitted to the DOT&PF after the project is completed. It is
difficult to request a capital appropriation for a prior
expenditure, he said.
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Johnson, stated the
funds used are funds that are reappropriated from other capital
projects as well as other funds. He explained that sometimes it
takes several years to repay the expenses. Thus, a combination
of reappropriation and year-end funds pay the expenses for
crossing upgrades.
1:49:05 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the $1.3 million cost for the
projects listed was spread over several years.
MR. RICHARDS answered yes. He recapped that the ARRC billed the
DOT&PF, but it took several years for the DOT&PF to find funding
sources. Ultimately, the DOT&PF paid the crossing bill by using
reappropriations and year-end savings.
1:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether the ARRC provides an
estimate of the costs prior to the work being done.
MR. RICHARDS replied that typically the ARRC submits a billing.
MR. BROOKS explained the process. He stated that the ARRC
examines crossings and provides the DOT&PF as much lead time as
possible, sometimes several years' notice on rebuilds. He
assured members that the DOT&PF works to find funding sources,
either from the general funds or federal funds for the work. At
some point before the tracks become impassable, even when the
funds are not available, the ARRC must move forward with the
project. In those instances, the ARRC will initially bear the
costs of the crossing. The ARRC expects the DOT&PF to reimburse
the corporation for costs in accordance with the formula. He
pointed out an instance in which the ARRC exceeded its estimate
of $285,000 at the Hurricane and South Denali Crossings. When
the DOT&PF pointed out the discrepancy between the estimate and
the actual cost, the ARRC ate the difference."
1:51:44 PM
MR. ARMSTRONG recalled that the DOT&PF contractual funds will
sometimes lapse. He anticipated that may happen this year and
if it does the DOT&PF would likely go into the sub-component of
the allocation account to pay the ARRC.
MR. RICHARDS disagreed. He did not believe the DOT&PF's
contractual funds will lapse this year, although he acknowledged
that it depends on the legislature's action on the DOT&PF's
supplemental request.
1:52:39 PM
MR. BROOKS, in response to Chair P. Wilson, stated that the
crossings that will need work are part of a group of crossings
built in the mid-80s and have come due again. He stated that
the ARRC will continue to build crossings on an ongoing basis.
1:53:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for the ARRC's profit margin with
the DOT&PF.
MR. BROOKS answered that the auditors establish a rate 60 to 70
percent plus the raw cost.
MR. BROOKS, in response to Representative Johnson, explained
that on a job that cost $100,000 that the DOT&PF would pay
$160,000.
1:54:25 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how long the agreement has been in effect.
MR. BROOKS related that the right-of-way agreement has been in
effect since the 1940s. In further response to Chair P. Wilson,
he explained that the auditors establish an annual reimbursement
rate.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that she thinks the DOT&PF is paying
too much. She asked who does the work.
MR. BROOKS responded that generally it is ARRC employees, but
sometimes the work is contracted out. In further response to
Chair P. Wilson, he explained that the ARRC bills direct cost
for labor, plus a percentage for costs associated. He said,
"What you are asking is what audit standards DOT&PF uses and I
don't know the details on those."
1:57:05 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Chair P. Wilson, offered to have
the internal auditor present the information on the DOT&PF audit
determinations in terms of the allowable expense.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN stated that when a contractor charges
$50 per hour, that the contractor may pay the helper $18 per
hour. The additional charges cover the contractor's overhead,
including maintenance, unemployment insurance, and workers'
compensation insurance. He acknowledged that "cost plus 60"
sounds pretty good.
MR. ARMSTRONG agreed that defining "maintenance" is something
that other legislators are struggling to identify in the
Governor's budget.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his belief that "cost plus 60
percent" seemed high.
MR. RICHARDS described the internal auditor process. The DOT&PF
accepts federal dollars and accepts the responsibility for the
federal funding. The DOT&PF has a team of internal auditors to
review fees and contracts that fits within the federal Office of
Management and Budget requirements. The team of auditors
reviews contractors, design consultants, and contractual
obligations. Normally, the DOT&PF personal services includes
the base rate, overhead, leave, insurance, and small profit
margin. He said he was uncertain what the ARRC rate includes,
but when DOT&PF considers whether to perform work internally or
by contract, the overhead rate is 70 percent. Thus, a person
who is paid $10 per hour is charged out at $16.27 per hour, he
stated.
2:02:07 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative T. Wilson, related
that the DOT&PF has an agreement for the monthly crossing fee of
$266, plus maintenance costs billed. At times, like the
estimated cost for the Hurricane and South Denali Crossings
(FY05) the DOT&PF rejected the higher billing of $348,266. In
further response to Representative T. Wilson, he related that
the ARRC's practice is to provide estimates and some of the
costs are higher since the ARRC sometimes contracts out the
work. The contract costs are higher, he commented.
CHAIR P. WILSON said she did not understand the higher costs.
MR. BROOKS, in response to Representative Johnson, explained
that the $348,170 includes the indirect costs.
2:05:01 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:06 p.m.
2:06:12 PM
DOUG ISSACSON, Mayor, City of North Pole, stated that the City
of North Pole is a small community and entered into a contract
with the ARRC with several misunderstandings. He became Mayor
in 2006. The City of North Pole had two unregulated and
dangerous crossings. He detailed the specific crossing issues
and problems to address the congested traffic to the high
school. The ARRC's solution was to shut down one crossing,
which he disagreed with and believes the closure has increased
the safety concerns. He seeks to obtain realignment funds to
move the railroad away from the highway system.
2:10:25 PM
MR. ISSACSON related his understanding that the community of
Wasilla is paying less than $3,200 per year for its crossing,
based on $266 per month fee, while a community that is 10 times
smaller is charged $8,000 annually for its crossing. He
stressed the safety issues and economic issues related to the
nearby refinery as reasons the ARRC should pay for safe public
transit at the crossing. Instead of encouraging development,
the ARRC shut down half of the crossings and will not allow
additional development, he stated. He detailed a problem that
occurred with a school bus on the railroad crossing. He
objected to the closings of crossings that run through
homesteads in North Pole, which predated the Alaska Railroad.
He pointed out the City of North Pole passed a resolution and
transmitted a letter that articulated its arguments. He offered
his support for HB 313. He suggested members amend the bill so
the maintenance fees do not apply to the North Pole and other
small communities. He would like equitable solutions and
believes unreasonable profit margins are built into the ARRC's
crossing fees.
2:15:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what led to the closure of crossings.
MR. ISSACSON recalled the ARRC shut down the crossings to reduce
liability at the crossing.
2:16:57 PM
MR. ISSACSON, in response to Representative Munoz, answered yes.
The City of North Pole would like to develop properties and have
economic diversification.
MR. ISSACSON, in response to Chair P. Wilson, explained that the
crossing fees contain egregious numbers and he will not budget
for the crossing, which the City Council affirmed. He brought
this matter to the attention of the President and CEO of the
ARRC, Pat Gamble. He would like the ARRC to review this in lieu
of the low fees other communities are paying. He said, "In many
ways, I feel we have been overcharged."
2:18:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the community had been
consulted before the at-grade closures occurred.
MR. ISSACSON stated that the City of North Pole was not
consulted for all at-grade closures although he recognized that
some crossings fall outside the actual city boundary. He
specified that with respect to the Ruby crossing, that the City
of North Pole offered to replace wooden planks, but the ARRC
said it would be unsafe for trains, although wooden planks have
been in place for the past 50 years. The only option the City
of North Pole had available to them was an "expensive fix." He
characterized the ARRC's method of consulting as "dictatorial."
2:19:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked for the amount of the cost.
MR. ISSACSON explained that the crossing was near the easement,
from Peridot Street to Homestead Road and the estimated cost
ranged from $80,000 to $120,000 to repair the crossing.
2:20:56 PM
BONNIE WOLSTAD stated that the homestead was filed for in 1946.
In response to Chair Wilson, she stated she was asked to permit
the crossing. The railroad cuts a diagonal line through the
homestead. At the Parkway crossing the road was closed and the
ARRC dug out the crossing. Another crossing nearby remained
open, she said. On the other side of the homestead, the
crossing at the section line at Peridot Street and Homestead
Road is known as the Ruby Crossing. In 2003, the railroad moved
to close the Ruby crossing. She said, "We have never paid the
permit fee." In 2003, the process started, with notice that
hearings would be held.
2:23:31 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked how far away from the crossing is her home
located.
MS. WOLSTAD offered her belief that the Parkway crossing that
was closed is just a matter of hundreds of feet from her home.
The Cross Way crossing is within a fourth of a mile of her home.
In further response to Chair P. Wilson, she stated that the Ruby
crossing is about a half a mile from her house.
CHAIR P. WILSON recapped the effect is that instead of having
three crossings that only one crossing remains.
MS. WOLSTAD stated she refused to pay any fees, no matter what
they were, because the railroad crossed her property and she did
not cross the railroad's property. This is evident since the
homestead predated the railroad. She related that if a person
drew a square and then drew a diagonal line bisecting the
square, the top portion would represent her property. In
response to Chair P. Wilson, she said her complaint is that the
ARRC closed the crossing, which should remain open. The
crossing runs along a section line and it is a matter of safety
since the existing three crossings are frequently blocked by the
railroad. The potential exists for the train to block access to
the refinery or the subdivision. If an accident subsequently
happened and the train could not move and the refinery also had
an emergency, the refinery would be blocked. She recapped that
the three crossings are impacted when the refinery is fully
operating. Thus, the situation creates a potential safety risk.
2:26:39 PM
MS. WOLSTAD, in response to Chair P. Wilson, answered that the
location of three crossings are at 8th Avenue, 5th Avenue, and
Cross Way. She offered her belief that Cross Way is one of the
RS 2477 trails since it was part of the old Valdez Trail. She
reiterated that the railroad crosses a trail that predates the
railroad.
2:27:18 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 313.
2:27:38 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled the fee structure of $266 per month
crossing fee. She asked for an explanation of the fees.
MR. BROOKS offered that during his 24 years working for the ARRC
that railroad crossings have been his responsibility. He
pointed out that railroad crossings are complicated issues, with
intricacies, opinions, and a variety of costs are associated
with them. He said, "We do our level best to treat everyone
equally." He related that at Cross Way in North Pole, the
crossing had deteriorated to the point that vehicles could not
cross. The City of North Pole wanted it rebuilt. The ARRC
worked with the City of North Pole and arranged to allow the
costs to be repaid over a period of time. Thus, the ARRC
amortized the cost for the rebuild so it would not be onerous
for the small community. That project is different from the
railroad crossing built to access the sports center in Wasilla,
since the Wasilla railroad crossing project was completed in
conjunction with a roadway project. Thus, the cost of the
crossing was absorbed into the project. There is not any
monthly charge associated with it. The projects may not have
been treated the same, but "I think our heart's in the right
place."
2:29:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether any interest is charged
to the City of North Pole.
MR. BROOKS offered to check. He was not certain, but believed
the railroad crossing fee rebuild did not include any interest.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the reason the ARRC closed the
railroad crossings in the community of North Pole.
MR. BROOKS explained two crossings were closed. One crossing
was located between Lawrence and the Veterans' of Foreign Wars
(VFW) hall, which served several residents, but the residents
also had other access to cross the railroad. The roadway that
led to the crossing on the north side did not follow an easement
and the property owners to the north were in favor of closure.
The other crossing was the Ruby crossing. That crossing is not
on a section line, but the homestead alignment is on the section
line. The ARRC has discussed with the City of North Pole adding
a new crossing, but the discussions are preliminary. The Ruby
crossing deteriorated to the point that vehicles had difficulty
traversing the crossing. The crossing was not part of any
agreement with the City of North Pole and the ARRC viewed the
crossing as a private crossing.
2:31:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked when the ARRC discovers an upgrade is
necessary, whether the community always bears the cost of the
upgrade.
MR. BROOKS stated that the ARRC works with the DOT&PF and
communities on financing crossings.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the community or DOT&PF
always bear the crossing costs.
MR. BROOKS recalled that the ARRC does sometimes absorb the
cost.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the process the DOT&PF uses to
interact with the communities.
MR. BROOKS explained the process includes posting notices at the
crossing and the ARRC holds a public meeting to discuss the
crossing and try to come to a logical decision. He detailed the
North Pole crossings, including the crossing at 12-mile
Richardson Highway, the closed Ruby crossing, Cross Way, 5th
Avenue, 8th Avenue, Lawrence Road, a closed crossing at Marnee,
and one at the VFW. Thus, in the North Pole area two crossings
were closed and five or six crossings remain.
2:33:15 PM
MR. BROOKS, in response to Chair P. Wilson, related the right-
of-way is typically 100 feet on each side of the railroad.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether a private party could ask for a
crossing.
MR. BROOKS agreed. In further response to Chair P. Wilson, he
said he was not certain if the circumstances were that a party
wanted to open a business and the ARRC declined to put in a
crossing.
2:34:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the community wanted to keep a
crossing open but cannot afford the costs to do so what the
process would be and what would happen.
MR. BROOKS answered that generally the ARRC is able to "figure
out something." He acknowledged that some support did exist for
the Ruby Crossing, but the railroad crossing was closed. In the
instance of Cross Way, the ARRC financed the construction and
passed on the reconstruction costs. Thus the project amortized
the $80,000 total cost of the project over 20 years.
2:35:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for an historical perspective of
whether the railroad requests easements and if the ARRC
maintains a history of the easements.
MR. BROOKS explained that most of the right-of-way was
established during the original railroad construction in 1920,
but the Eielson branch from Fairbanks to Eielson AFB was
established in the 1940s and crossed some private land, so some
questions on property rights exist.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether the ARRC is not certain if
it has a legal easement across property.
MR. BROOKS explained that the ARRC believes it has the legal
right, but that everyone is entitled to their legal opinion.
2:36:32 PM
[HB 313 was held over.]
2:36:48 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 313 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 313 |
| HB 267 Ver N.pdf |
HTRA 3/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 267 |