Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/04/2004 09:07 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. 395(TRA)
"An Act relating to application of municipal ordinances
providing for planning, platting, and land use regulation to
interests in land owned by the Alaska Railroad Corporation;
authorizing the Alaska Railroad Corporation to extend its rail
line to Fort Greely, Alaska; authorizing the Alaska Railroad
Corporation to issue bonds to finance the cost of the
extension and necessary facilities and equipment; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that this bill has two sections: one
would authorize the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) to issue up
to $500 million in tax-free revenue bonds to pay for a rail line
extension to Delta and Fort Greely; and the other would exempt land
owned by the Railroad from municipal land use regulations. He
pointed out that CS SB 395(TRA), Version 23-LS1965\H, and its
accompanying fiscal note were before the Committee.
Senator Therriault, the bill's sponsor, explained that the original
bill was developed in response to a recent State Supreme Court
ruling, Native Village of Eklutna v. Alaska Railroad Corporation,
regarding the Railroad's right to continue to operate a granite
quarry in the Eklutna area. Section 1, he continued, contains
language that would ensure that Railroad operations could continue
and not be subject to differing planning and zoning ordinances as
rail lines flowed from one community to another.
Senator Therriault recounted that the bill was expanded to include
bond package language that would fund extending the rail line to
Fort Greely with the possibility of connecting with Canadian rail
lines and continental lines in the Lower 48. He assured that the
bonding language would not jeopardize Railroad or State assets, as
long-term federal contracts would support the bond requirements. He
reviewed the planned route of the rail line as well as the goods
that could be transported on the line. He concluded that numerous
economic benefits would result were this rail line extended.
Co-Chair Wilken, noting that the bill sections were very "distinct
from each other," specified that the two sections would be
addressed separately.
PATRICK GAMBLE, President & CEO, Alaska Railroad Corporation,
Department of Revenue, communicated that there has been positive
response to the bonding proposal, as defined in Section 2, to
finance the rail line extension to Delta and Fort Greely. He stated
that the federal Department of the Army is interested in the
railroad extension as it would provide the Army greater access to
training areas as well as to land in the Fort Greeley area slated
for an expanded federal missile program to be staffed by the
National Guard. He conceptualized that the rail line "would serve
as a two-lane road" that could transport military personnel, their
families, and contractors, on a year-round basis. He declared that
this rail line extension is "very attractive" to the military.
Mr. Gamble explained that in order to fund the extension, the
Railroad would act as the bond fiduciary and use its tax-free
bonding authority, which has never been utilized before, for the
$500 million project. He stated that a portion of the bond debt
would conceptually be paid by usage contracts between the Railroad
and two separate federal military entities: the Department of
Defense Army and Missile Command, as, he explained, the contract
would be less expensive to the military than their annual
operations and maintenance (O&M) expense budgets would be were the
rail line extension not in place.
Mr. Gamble stated that while discussions have transpired with
military personnel within the State, they have not occurred with
the Department of the Army. He also noted that discussions with
affected Alaskan communities are scheduled in the near future.
Senator Bunde referenced comments indicating that the bond issuance
would not incur any expense to the State. However, he questioned
whether the fact that "the Railroad is an instrument of the State,"
would not make the State "the ultimate guarantor of these bonds."
Senator Therriault responded that due to the fact that "this is not
conduit funding," Senator Bunde is correct in that, were there a
default on the part of a State owned entity, the State would be
responsible. However, he declared that a default would be unlikely,
were a contract in place with the federal government. He pointed
out that language addressing the federal government agreement is
located in Section 4, Subsection (b) beginning on page two, line 30
and continuing through page three, line seven which reads as
follows.
(b) Before issuing bonds to provide the financing described in
this section, the Alaska Railroad Corporation shall enter into
an agreement with the United States government that will, in
the judgment of the corporation, provide sufficient
consideration to
(1) pay the principal of and interest on the bonds as
they become due;
(2) create and maintain the reserves for the bond
payments than the corporation considers necessary or
desirable; and
(3) pay all costs necessary to service or additionally
secure the bonds, including trustee's fees and bond insurance
premiums, unless those costs are to be paid by a party other
than the corporation.
Senator Bunde continued to voice concern, as he argued, the federal
government could change its position in regards to the contract.
Therefore, he asked, that were this a consideration, whether this
bond package could affect the State's bond rating ability.
Senator Therriault deferred to Mr. Gamble to address the affect the
bond package might have on the State's bonding ability. However, he
exampled that while one Legislature "could not bind" future
Legislators, the State would be obligated to fulfill any legal
contracts entered into. Similarly, he argued, that were federal
military plans to change and were the missile base dismantled, a
signed federal/State contractual arrangement would continue to be
honored.
AT EASE 9:27 AM / 9:27 AM
Senator Bunde voiced a wildlife resource concern as he reminded
that the Railroad currently has problems with moose on the rail
line. He questioned whether bison could pose a similar problem
along the proposed Delta area rail line route.
Mr. Gamble responded that the "good news" is that the geography of
this route is relatively flat and as such, would allow animals to
move out of the way of a train as opposed to the difficulty
presented to them by "the deep channels" that the train tracks have
in other areas of the State. He acknowledged that this concern must
be adequately addressed and the federal government must approve the
plan before contract negotiations are finalized.
Co-Chair Wilken, being "very familiar with the terrain" the
proposed rail line would transit, asked regarding the "physical
scope" of the project as described in Section 4, subsection (a) on
page two, lines 23 and 24 as he perceived the costs to be high. In
addition, he asked whether the project might extend beyond Fort
Greely.
Mr. Gamble specified that the $500 million project cost estimate is
all-inclusive in that it would sufficiently fund any required land
acquisition, existing rail line improvements, maintenance,
equipment, sidings, small depots, and the terminus of the rail line
at Fort Greely amongst other things. He pointed out that the
proposal also contains a "healthy contingency piece in the cost
estimate for engineering and construction." He noted that the
project cost also includes $45 million that would be used to
construct a bridge across the Tanana River to assist the military
in accessing their land. In summary, he concluded that, including
contingencies, the $500 million estimate is not a conservative
number.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the aforementioned bridge would be
located at Flag Hill Bridge.
Mr. Gamble concurred.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the bridge construction project would
additionally include a rail line extension into the Blair Lakes
area.
Mr. Gamble stated that, in addition to the main rail line being
extended toward Delta Junction, an 11-mile rail extension into the
Blair Lakes area would also be constructed in order to allow
military vehicles to be offloaded within the parameters of the
military training range rather than being offloaded and hampering
transit on the main rail line.
Co-Chair Wilken asked regarding the terminus slated for
construction in Fairbanks.
Mr. Gamble responded that in addition to a terminal at the Fort
Wainwright military base to accommodate military freight
operations, a passenger terminus would be constructed in Fairbanks.
Co-Chair Wilken requested that a complete project scope be
developed to accompany the bill.
Senator Therriault, referencing Co-Chair Wilken's question about
whether the rail line would be extended beyond Fort Greely, noted
that language in Section 4, subsection (b) on page two, lines 30
and 31, specifies that before the bonds could be issued, an
agreement between the federal government and the State must be in
place. Continuing, he noted that extending the line beyond Fort
Greely would not benefit the federal government and therefore, it
would not be expected that their contract would include anything
beyond that point.
Co-Chair Wilken noted that in previous years, discussions had
included building a rail line that would bypass the City of
Fairbanks. Therefore, he voiced concern, for the record, that
constructing an 11-mile spur line into the Blair Lakes area might
rekindle that discussion, which, he attested, "would not be in the
best interest of Fairbanks."
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the selling of these bonds would
negatively affect the State's ability to bond for the gas pipeline.
Mr. Gamble responded no, as he reminded the Committee that the
Railroad's tax-free bonding ability is not subject to the bonding
limit of the State. In addition, he stated that this bond issuance
would not affect the Legislature's previous year's [unspecified]
authorization to allow the Railroad to issue bonds up to a 17-
billion dollar limit.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that the discussion would now shift to
Section 1, which pertains to local municipality regulations and
their applicability to the Railroad.
Mr. Gamble commented that the core issue of Section 1 might "be
misunderstood." He quoted from the Supreme Court ruling on the
aforementioned case that prompted this legislation as follows:
"because the Legislature did not clearly express its intent to
exempt the Railroad from local zoning laws, we reverse and remand."
Therefore, he communicated, the intent of this legislation is "to
request the Legislature to clarify itself for the good of the
Court" and thereby "reinstate the status quo" that the Railroad has
operated under since the original legislation was implemented 18-
years prior.
Mr. Gamble declared that the original bill enacted by the
Legislature was approved with the knowledge that federal law
exempts railroads conducting interstate commerce from local
planning and zoning regulations. He stated that that law "is
codified in federal law and remains "intact and exists today." He
argued that the State's Supreme Court determination that the intent
of the Legislature was unclear is wrong, as he submitted that the
Legislators "knew what they were doing" as attested by the fact
that the bill has been in effect for 18-years. With respect to the
Court, he stated that he agreed with "the three-to two hotly
contested" minority decision of the Court, and that the two
minority Court members "were very pointed" in their remarks that
the federal exemption "as mirrored by the State" should prevail for
economic development purposes," and that the Railroad, as an entity
of the State, should be controlled by the State rather than by an
array of differing local municipality planning and zoning
regulations. Were the Court ruling to be upheld, he argued, this
kind of local zoning "control over a State entity" would result in
economic chaos, as approval would be required for each local
municipality case. The Court ruling, he continued, would have
severe impact on commerce. He therefore, requested that the
Legislature clarify that the status quo mode of operation should
continue.
Senator Therriault supported the Railroad's request that the
Legislature clarify the intent of the 18-year old legislation. He
voiced support for the continuance of the Railroad's zoning
exemption, as he declared that requiring the Railroad to adhere to
13 different jurisdictional zoning and planning regulations would
create problems. He noted, however, that Section 1 could be amended
to address municipalities' concerns.
Senator Bunde understood the range of problems that might occur
were each municipality's regulations a consideration. He asked
regarding the comment that "the Railroad is a State agency and
should be under State control."
Mr. Gamble clarified that the Railroad is a State instrumentality.
He voiced that the Railroad's position is that any control over an
instrumentality of the State should be limited to the State.
Senator Olson pointed out that the reason for the Court's
involvement was due to the fact that numerous citizens feel that
the Railroad has been abusing its authority" in laying down track
and acquiring land for 500-foot right of ways without consideration
for those affected. He asked how these concerns would be addressed.
Mr. Gamble clarified that a 200-foot right-of-way is authorized,
and that most construction occurs on Railroad property. He informed
the Committee that the Railroad was awarded 36,000 acres of fee-
simple property when the ownership of the Railroad transferred from
the federal government to the State. He declared that 80-percent of
all Railroad construction projects encompass federal funding and
therefore, before any work on those projects could occur, an
audited "extensive community out-reach" process is required per
federal law. Therefore he attested that these projects have
"considerable public input."
Mr. Gamble noted that the majority of the 20-percent balance of
Railroad projects, not supported by federal funding, involves minor
things such as roof repair and "other nuts and bolts" non-
construction projects. He stated that he would be willing "to
address specific cases" in this regard; however, he voiced being
unaware of any situation in which the Railroad did not take public
concern into consideration.
Mr. Gamble acknowledged that public concern and speculation could
occur in regard to future Railroad operations such as whether the
Railroad might develop a gravel pit in a suburb or construct a
hotel that would compete with a another hotel. However, he assured
that, were federal funds involved in the development of a gravel
pit, it would not be located near a suburb. He also stated that the
Alaska Railroad Board serves as one component of the Railroad's
"check and balance system," and he noted that the Board's position
is that the Railroad is in the Railroad business. Therefore, he
noted that such things as the Railroad constructing a hotel would
not occur, as it would be outside of scope of things permitted by
the Board. In summary, he opined that these concerns are addressed.
Senator Olson shared that the primary concern he hears pertains to
the Railroad track leading to the Ted Stevens International Airport
in Anchorage. He stated that Railroad land in this area is
"sizable" and that it could be more appropriately utilized for
other transportation purposes.
[NOTE: Senator Bunde chaired the following portion of the meeting.]
Co-Chair Green recalled that the federal government, rather than
the Railroad, specified the land around the Anchorage airport as
Railroad holdings in order to address national airport security
concerns. She understood that the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities was involved in this process.
Senator Olson voiced appreciate for this information as he could
now more adequately respond to public concerns.
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes the word "an" in Section 4,
subsection (b) on page two, line 31 and replaces it with "a
binding". Continuing in subsection (b) on page three, line one, the
word "will" is deleted and replaced with "shall"; and on that same
line, "in the judgment of the corporation" is deleted. Also on that
same line, "consideration" is deleted and replaced with "revenue".
The amended language would read as follows.
(b) Before issuing bonds to provide the financing described in
this section, the Alaska Railroad Corporation shall enter into
a binding agreement with the United States government that
shall provide sufficient revenue to…
Senator B. Stevens moved to adopt Amendment #1 and objected for
explanation.
Senator B. Stevens stated that this amendment would eliminate some
ambiguity in the language and would clarify the intent of the bill.
Mr. Gamble stated that the Railroad does not object to the
amendment.
Senator Therriault stated that this amendment would serve to
alleviate some concerns.
Senator B. Stevens removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment #1 was ADOPTED.
SARA HEIDEMAN, Attorney representing the Native Village of Eklutna,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage in opposition to
Section 1 of the bill. She noted that the Village takes no position
on Section 2.
Ms. Heideman informed the Committee that another component
incorporated in the aforementioned State Supreme Court case is the
"balancing of interest test," which is a test that has been adopted
by the majority of national courts "to address the issue of
governmental immunity from zoning in the last 30 years." She stated
that this test has enhanced the public input process in regards to
zoning. She respectfully disagreed with Mr. Gamble that the intent
of Alaska Statute AS 42.40 is clear as she argued that sufficient
testimony regarding the adoption of this Statute did not indicate
that all Railroad land would be exempt from local zoning authority.
Continuing, she noted that the Legislature could have specifically
included exemption language in the Statute at the time, but chose
not to.
Ms. Heideman stated that the federal "Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act" referred to by Mr. Gamble "abolished"
the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), "placed restrictions on
State and local regulation of railroads and created the Surface
Transportation Board." She stated that this federal law specifies,
"that State and local economic regulations which would
significantly interfere with core rail operations is prohibited."
The meaning of this law, she continued, is that any attempt by a
State or local government to prevent the operation, construction,
or the discontinuance of a rail line would be prohibited by federal
law. Therefore, she explained that no local entity could block the
construction of a rail line to Fort Greely or regulate the track as
it transits from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. She stated,
therefore, that the Railroad is protected by federal law as well as
by the balancing test that was utilized by the Supreme Court. She
reiterated that an extension of a line, placement of a line,
whether to discontinue a line, the location of a train depot, and
other core things would be protected by federal law, and would
therefore not require the balancing test to be put into place.
Ms. Heideman stressed therefore, that, "there is a very finite
field within which local governments could regulate in regards to
the Railroad." This narrow field, she attested is that to which the
balancing test could be applicable. She stated that the Court's
implementation of this test "is very fair to everyone," in that it
would require the Railroad "to comply with local zoning when
compliance would not create a hardship for it…"
SFC 04 # 105, Side B 09:54 AM
Ms. Heideman reminded the Committee that Alaska Statute Title 35
mandates that, in a similar fashion to the federal ruling for the
railroad, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities must comply with local zoning ordinances but would be
immune from local zoning ordinances "in appropriate cases."
Ms. Heideman stressed that under the balancing test guidelines,
public and local officials are able to have input, in limited areas
that "are not pre-empted by federal law" in regard to the essential
operation of the Railroad.
Ms. Heideman declared that were Section 1 adopted, it would serve
to "eliminate all public input, all input from local governments,
and eliminate any need for Railroads to consider any legitimate
public or local interest." In addition, she pointed out that
immunity from local government zoning is not required in order to
operate a railroad. She noted that nationally, the majority of
railroad ownership is private, and she stressed that these
companies are not immune from local zoning ordinances and continue
to operate within and across multiple state lines.
Ms. Heideman declared that Section 1 would change "a system that is
not broken" and would deny public and local government from
infusing legitimate input. She urged that Section 1 be deleted.
Co-Chair Green asked for further clarification of language on the
testifier's handout titled "Historical Statement by Sara Heideman
(Hedland, Brennan, & Heideman) [copy on file]; specifically the
language located in the last paragraph that reads as follows.
It requires the railroad to comply with local zoning when it
can do so without hardship. It permits the railroad to obtain
immunity from local zoning when local zoning would interfere
with its operations.
Ms. Heideman commented that the balancing test would be applied
were the Railroad to seek immunity from a local zoning requirement,
after the Railroad made an attempt to comply with local zoning by
going to the local planning and zoning commission and applying for
a conditional use permit. Were this the case, the Court, she noted
would seek to balance the public's and Railroad's interest and
determine whether any local interference with Railroad operations
might incur. She stated that were the Railroad's interests to
outweigh the others, it would prevail in being immune from local
zoning. She shared that the balancing test evolved from a case in
New Jersey in which a state university attempted to place multi-
family housing in a community in which that zoning was not allowed.
She stated that, in that case, it was determined that abiding by
local ordinance would hinder the function of the university, and
the university was granted immunity. Therefore, she continued, were
the Railroad to prove that abiding by local ordinance would hinder
its ability to perform an essential State function, it would be
granted immunity.
Co-Chair Green understood that the balancing test would be applied
by the Superior Court, and therefore, she asked whether the non-
prevailing party could appeal the immunity determination to the
Supreme Court.
Ms. Heideman stated that either side could appeal the ruling.
Continuing, she noted that in a situation where the Railroad
prevailed, "it would not likely be hindered in its operation unless
the opposing party could, during the appeal process, show that it
could likely prevail on the appeal or" the opposing side could
prove it had the economic means with which to post a bond.
[NOTE: Co-Chair Wilken resumed chair of the Committee.]
RON LONG testified via teleconference from Seward on his own
behalf. He voiced support for Section 2, as it is, he declared, "an
exciting project." In addressing Section 1, he stated that, while
"the need for consistency across jurisdictional boundaries for
rights of way" might supersede those of local planning and zoning
commissions, it is important to recognize the rights of
municipalities pertaining to planning and zoning ordinance
variances as outlined in Title 29. This direction, he continued,
would allow the Railroad's essential services to be weighed in
relation to municipality interests. He stated that a process should
be developed that would consider the Railroad's right of way
interests as opposed to its real estate development interests. He
pointed out that a recent Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOTPF) right-of-way model exemption would be a good
model as it addresses federal, State, and local discrepancies and
incongruities.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that, in his view, Section 1 "is
problematic." Therefore, he noted that the Committee has the option
of adopting the original version of the bill that does not include
Section 1 with the understanding that legislation addressing that
issue could be considered early in the next Legislative session.
Mr. Gamble stated that, as per the recent Court ruling in the
Eklutna case, the Railroad would be required to acquire a
conditional use permit for each forthcoming project that affects a
municipality and, were the local planning and zoning commissions
conditions not deemed to be in the best interest of the Railroad,
would be required to litigate each case utilizing the balancing
test. This, he shared, would serve to delay the process on a case
to case basis on "the entirety of the line." Continuing he attested
that, in addition to requiring municipalities and the Railroad to
agree on a project, the Court ruling has "opened the door" to allow
private individuals or private group to challenge a permit. He also
commented that "tying up a case" via challenges and appeals "is a
tactic" utilized by various groups. He reiterated that in addition
to the length of time required to conduct the permit process, the
litigation process would serve to further delay a project. He noted
that the Court ruling is not retroactive.
Co-Chair Wilken, while being sympathetic to the Railroad's concerns
as he recalled the delay experienced by the Pogo Mine operations
due to "tactics;" voiced concern regarding balancing "the needs of
the Railroad against the responsibilities of our assemblies to have
planning" in today's environment and in the future.
Co-Chair Wilken referenced a suggestion of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough Mayor, Jim Whitaker, in his letter [copy on file] to Co-
Chair Wilken, dated May 3, 2004 in which he proposed language that
would read as follows.
(c) By January 10 if each year, the corporation shall provide
notice to municipalities of any new land use proposed for that
year by the corporation within municipal boundaries. The
corporation shall provide amended notice if a proposed land
use is changed or an additional land use is proposed during
the course of the year. Except in the event of an emergency,
an affected municipality shall have at least 30 days after its
receipt of the notice to provide advisory comment to the
corporation. In the event of an emergency, the corporation
will provide notice to an affected municipality promptly after
the event.
Co-Chair Wilken opined that the suggestion that a community task
force be involved in the process might indicate that more time
should be required to address this situation. He noted that other
communities such as the Matanuska-Susitna Borough have also voiced
concern regarding Section 1. Therefore, he reiterated that in order
to provide communities and the railroad proper consideration in
this matter, Section 1 should be addressed separately the following
Legislative session.
Co-Chair Green suggested that the incorporation of precedent-
setting litigation rulings that could not be reversed and the
establishment of a more rigorous permitting process might assist
this matter. She asked whether there is any "logical distinction"
between Railroad operations and its real estate holding as she
opined that the real estate holding usage, rather than railroad
operation projects, are the underlying issue.
Mr. Gamble responded that determining the boundary lines in regards
to these two issues "is a real interesting question," as he
continued that since the recent Court ruling, the Railroad has
noticed that the vast majority of the issues pertain to land use.
He stated that the determination regarding separation between land
use and operations could be very controversial and subjective. This
he continued is exampled by the controversy surrounding the
Anchorage Ship Creek railroad land wherein the Municipality of
Anchorage's planning and zoning commission requirements specify
that a certain type of landscaping scheme, including the planting
of trees, must be in place. In this regard, he explained that were
trees planted per commission's instructions, they would negatively
impact the operational ability of the crew manning the line's
observation tower. Furthermore, he shared that when the Railroad
requested a waiver regarding this issue, the municipality denied
one. He stated that were every project required to address things
of this nature, it would be very time consuming. He concluded that
this situation signifies the intent of the original exemption.
Senator Therriault pointed out that this example applies to the
development of a piece of Railroad land that would be used for
operational purposes.
Senator Therriault pointed out that language in Section 1, lines 11
and 12 specifies that any Railroad land leased to another entity
would not be provided the Railroad exemption and would be subject
to local planning and zoning requirements. He noted that leasing of
Railroad land is a revenue generating mechanism.
Mr. Gamble clarified that land leased in this fashion today, is not
subject to the Railroad exemption.
Senator Therriault stated that the aforementioned amendment
suggested by the Mayor of Fairbanks is acceptable to the Railroad,
even thought the Mayor's letter states that the Railroad disagrees
with it.
Mr. Gamble voiced that the Railroad's comments in this regard were
taken out on context.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this would be clarified.
Senator Olson asked the number of Railroad projects that would be
negatively impacted were Section 1 removed from the bill.
Mr. Gamble responded that a borough-by-borough analysis would be
required to answer that question; however, he noted that there are
approximately 113 projects under consideration. He stated that this
information would be forthcoming.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that the struggle with Section 1 is
acerbated by the upcoming Legislative Session adjournment date,
which, he declared, does not provide significant time to properly
address the issue. He noted that the Mat-Su and Kenai Boroughs have
evening meetings planned to discuss this issue, and that their
feedback would be helpful. He suggested that a committee substitute
be developed that might eliminate Section 1 from consideration at
this time.
Senator Dyson encouraged the Committee to consider a committee
substitute that would, rather than omitting Section 1, limit it to
specific "high priority" projects.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that the intent would be to protect the
Railroad until due consideration could be provided. He opined that
perhaps a termination date or other measure would be appropriate at
this time.
Senator Therriault stated that the adoption of Mayor Whitakers'
language suggestion or a termination date in this legislation might
increase the Committee's "comfort level" without hindering the
Railroad's ability to operate. This action, he continued would also
provide time to develop alternate language that could be considered
during the next Legislation Session.
Co-Chair Wilken ordered the bill HELD in Committee in order to
develop a committee substitute that could serve as "a bridge during
this press of time." He reiterated his concern about the long-term
affects of any action taken because the language "is very
explicit." He noted that the Railroad's position as stated in Mayor
Whitaker's would be further clarified.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|