Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/12/2001 09:13 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 123(TRA)
"An Act relating to legislative approval for the design and
construction of facilities of the Alaska Railroad Corporation and
railroad line realignment and railroad corridor projects of the
Alaska Railroad Corporation."
SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, sponsor of SB 123, indicated that they had a
work draft before them.
Senator Leman moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for SB
123, 22-LS0522\P, Utermohle, 04/10/01, as a work draft.
Co-Chair Kelly asked if there were any objections.
There were no objections and Version P was adopted.
Senator Pearce indicated that Version P changed dramatically the
direction that she was going in terms of approval of projects on
the facilities that the railroad would be building. She explained
that the CS would require the railroad corporation to obtain
legislative approval for the program of projects, which were the
lists of federally funded projects required by the federal transit
administration and the federal highway administration. The CS
represented the collaborative effort between herself and the
railroad, which would require approval for major construction
projects while excluding regular maintenance projects, minor
construction and realignment project and projects outside of
communities that were entirely on federal lands. She pointed out
that the bill required the railroad board of directors to present
their program to the legislature on the first day of each regular
session; that program would be referred formerly to the House and
Senate Finance Committees for review. She indicated that the
legislature would be able to disapprove, by law, the expenditure of
federal funds for a project during the first 60 days of session.
She noted that failure of the legislature to disapprove would be
recognized as approval for the expenditure of funds. She commented
that the process was very much like that of the Local Boundary
Commission.
Senator Pearce further stated that the bill was introduced in
response to the Alaska Railroad Corporation's multi-million dollar
rail station project at the Ted Stevens International Airport in
Anchorage. She pointed out that the railroad received direct
federal appropriations for that project. She indicated that there
was no input or coordination with the legislature prior to the
project and, more importantly, there was no public review process
in Alaska at any level before the project was begun. She noted
that the project would impact a large number of Anchorage
residents. She said that there were also concerns with the
feasibility and economic practicality of the project; the original
appropriation for the terminal was $28 million and the realignment
project was expected to cost $18 million. She pointed out that the
market analysis did not support spending $46 million on the
project. She believed, in response to the concerns with the
Anchorage rail station, that they should require the railroad to
obtain legislative approval for future projects.
[Note: Microphones inoperable for Co-Chair Kelly, Senator Leman,
Co-Chair Donley, Senator Green and Senator Austerman]
Co-Chair Kelly referred to the CS with a question [exact statement
inaudible].
Senator Pearce pointed out that on page 2 of the CS there were
exceptions that did not apply to the subsection; those being that
the facility construction cost be less than $5 million and the
track realignment construction cost be less than $10 million.
Therefore, there were exemptions for the smaller projects.
Senator Olson understood where the concerns were toward the current
projects, but if they looked at the long-term effects of the
increased traffic through the Anchorage international airport how
were they going to accommodate for the increase in the amount of
people traveling nowadays without a rail facility.
Senator Pearce pointed out that the Anchorage airport terminal
project was going to go forward. She noted that Europe did have a
much better rail system. Unfortunately, in Anchorage they would be
held back because the track would only go north and south. She
maintained that in the United States while the market analysis
spoke about cities where there was a lot of commuter traffic to and
from airports every city where it had been successful was a city
with millions of people. She noted that a city the size of
Anchorage would not have the population to support constant
commuter service.
Senator Wilken wondered what Senator Pearce's intent was if the
project construction costs were larger than $10 million and the
legislature were to disprove it.
Senator Pearce indicated that the railroad would have to readdress
the project and the concerns. She did not believe that the
legislature would turn down a project unless there was an outcry by
the people in the locality of where the project would take place.
She stressed that it would be very difficult to ask the legislature
to act within 60 days and reminded the Committee that the Governor
could always veto the bill. Therefore, they would have to have
two-thirds of the legislature fighting against a project before one
would actually be turned down. She believed that it was important
for the railroad to be required to come before an elected body,
like the legislature, for the purpose of bringing the people into
the process and assist the railroad in being more cognizant of the
issues.
Senator Wilken voiced his appreciation for the changes that were
th
made. He wondered if on the 58 day the legislature were to turn
down a major project whether the railroad would have to wait until
the next session to move forward on the project.
Senator Pearce replied, "Yes. For construction."
Senator Wilken clarified that they would not have another look at
it until the next session.
Senator Pearce explained that the legislature would authorize the
use of federal funds exactly like they did with the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities on building roads. She
predicated that the minute the railroad saw enough concern with a
project they would be working with the legislature.
Co-Chair Kelly [indiscernible].
Senator Pearce agreed with Senator Kelly. She added that in seeing
the ideas of the railroad for the future and their opportunity to
receive money from the federal government it would not surprise her
to see the railroad come to the legislature for help with matching
funds, because most of the federal programs do require matching
funds. She pointed out that the railroad had matched dollars over
the years, but if they were handed $100 million for a huge
realignment she did not see how they would come up with a 20
percent match. She believed that the legislature would become more
active in railroad expansion.
Senator Green wondered if the language on page 2, line 4 would
apply to the Mat-Su Borough.
Senator Pearce understood that boroughs count as communities. She
clarified that if they allocated state funds for a federal match
than that would be considered approval.
Senator Green indicated that she was not sure what the language
stated exactly, but that the money was appropriated as leverage for
federal money. She wondered if they would have to wait an entire
session for that approval.
Senator Pearce referred to page one of the bill on the bottom of
the page and indicated that if a project were substantially changed
then the railroad would have to come back to the legislature for
approval.
Senator Green requested clarification that the project would not
have been approved. She pointed out that there were miles of
railroad to interconnect and wondered if those projects would fall
under the requirement for additional legislative approval.
Senator Pearce answered probably, because in order to get on the
federal list for projects they would have to come back to the
legislature. She assumed that the project would have to go through
the process at the federal level already. She further clarified
that if a project wanted to receive federal funds then it would
have to appear on the program at some point and the first time it
appeared there with construction money would be the year for
legislative approval.
Senator Leman seemed to him that if the legislature were to
disapprove, by law, then the legislature could also approve, by
law, if there were a change in the project sometime after the
disapproval. He clarified that it could be during the rest of the
regular session or even during a special session rather than on the
first day of the next session and the legislature would not be in
violation.
Senator Pearce agreed, but believed that it could not be through
the capital budget process, rather there would have to be an actual
law passed.
Senator Leman agreed.
Senator Pearce reiterated that they could not get to it through the
Legislative Budget and Audit process.
Senator Leman interpreted it the same way.
Senator Pearce noted that when they ran into problems at the
legislative level there would be enough scurrying about that some
accommodation would be found before the end of session.
Senator Leman agreed. He questioned whether the definition of
"substantial" with regards to the pipeline ride-of-way would
concern them or the railroad.
Senator Pearce stated that she was comfortable with the definition
of "substantial" provided by Mr. Utermohle. She explained that if
the railroad had funds to build to Point Mackenzie and they decided
to build to Skwentna instead that would be considered a
"substantial" change. On the other hand, she noted that if the
railroad had to change a route a little bit to accommodate a wolf
den then that would not be considered a "substantial" change. She
reminded the Committee that in federal law if those projects change
then there would need to be a reauthorization process.
Senator Leman clarified that in federal regulation there would
probably be a definition of "substantial."
Senator Pearce said that she was not sure if it was defined or not
in the federal regulations. She did not expect the railroad to go
outside of what they intended. She noted that the railroad did
have a lot of land and it was hard to say what they might come up
with in terms of development.
Senator Ward commented that the Alaska railroad was an interesting
entity. He wondered why they would pass this legislation rather
than putting the railroad under the executive budget act.
Senator Pearce parlayed that this would be a "slap on the hand"
whereas that would be a "sledgehammer."
Senator Ward questioned the specifics of it and wondered if this
legislation would impede the railroad's ability to do what they
felt was best.
Senator Pearce answered that sure it would impede their ability to
some extent, but not much. She believed that it was something that
the railroad should do and she worked with the railroad to come up
with something that they were willing to do. She pointed out that
the railroad was an asset of the state and all Alaskans were
shareholders of the railroad. She indicated that if they want the
railroad to be able to act like a business than putting them under
the executive budget act would not be the way to go. She said that
she did not feel that the government acted well as a business.
JOHN BINKLEY, Chairman of the Board, Alaska Railroad Corporation,
testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, thanked Senator Pearce
for the CS, Version P, and indicated that it was a tremendous
improvement to the CS that came out of the Senate Transportation
Committee. He pointed out that it was an effort on Senator
Pearce's part out of frustration that she had felt with the
construction of the project at the Ted Stevens International
Airport in Anchorage. He gave some background from the railroad's
point of view on that project. He explained that the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities approached them when the
department began the reconstruction of the terminal at the airport.
The airport had dictated that if the railroad wanted to maintain
their existing line than they had to be apart of the project. He
said that the intent of the railroad was to preserve that corridor.
He urged that they tried to communicate with the legislature on
their projects and never did get a huge reaction or negative
reaction. He noted that they did as much as they could to inform
the public about the project. He referred to the additional cost
of the rails going into the airport and noted that it was being
looked at for future projects if there was a tremendous amount of
use of those rails. He thought that if they got to the point to
spend additional money to realign the rail it would be a tremendous
success. He said that they hoped there would be acceptance of
commuter rail in the Anchorage area and that they would increase
the number of trains going in and out of the airport. He commented
that he would see that as a success if it indeed were to happen.
Mr. Binkley continued that two of the key pieces in the legislation
were that it forced a close working relationship between the
railroad and the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
and secondly, that the railroad would have autonomy. He noted that
the number one consideration was safety and number two was the
customer. He expressed that where there was concern with the
original CS from the Senate Transportation Committee with regards
to it crossing the line with regards to the legislature becoming an
integral part of the decisions of the railroad. He again thanked
Senator Pearce for her work on the legislation.
Senator Leman moved to report CS SB 123, 22-LS0522\P, Utermohle,
4/10/01, from the Committee.
There was no objection and the bill was reported from Committee.
AT EASE 9:49 AM/9:51 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|