04/17/2001 01:20 PM House TRA

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

pdf txt

ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE April 17, 2001 1:20 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Vic Kohring, Chair Representative Drew Scalzi Representative Peggy Wilson Representative Mary Kapsner Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative Scott Ogan COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 12 "An Act relating to the offense of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated; relating to presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HB 12 OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 244 "An Act relating to a grant of state land to the Denali Borough for a railroad and utility corridor and a railroad development project; repealing provisions relating to a grant of a right-of- way of land for a railroad and utility corridor to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD SENATE BILL NO. 88 "An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to establishment of a metropolitan planning organization for the Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE BILL NO. 235 "An Act relating to the handling of and interest on contract controversies involving the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or state agencies to whom the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities delegates the responsibility for handling the controversies." - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 12 SHORT TITLE:REDUCE PERCENTAGE FOR DWI SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/08/01 0026 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 12/29/00

01/08/01 0026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS

01/08/01 0027 (H) MINUTE(TRA) BILL: HB SHORT TITLE:RIGHT-OF-WAY TO DENALI BOR. FOR RR/UTIL. SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)JAMES Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS BILL: SB 88 SHORT TITLE:METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) PHILLIPS Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action REFERRALS DNP: ELTON; AUSTERMAN 532 532 MINUTE(FIN) HOFFMAN, OLSON UNAN CONSENT PASSAGE RECONSIDERATION 203 MINUTE(RLS) READING N7 E1 REFERRALS WITNESS REGISTER ROGER WORTMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of Representative Kott, sponsor of HB 12. HEATHER NOBREGA, Staff to Representative Rokeberg Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed concerns regarding .08 mandate in HB RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 214 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor, Representative James, on 88. MATT KETCHUM Wilder Construction Company Anchorage, Alaska 99515 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB CHAIR KOHRING announced the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 12, "An Act relating to the offense of operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated; relating to presumptions arising from the amount of alcohol in a person's breath or blood; and providing for an effective date." Number 0088 ROGER WORTMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, sponsor of the bill, stated that the alcohol problem in Alaska is significant; Alaska ranks number five in the nation for alcohol-related incidents. He indicated that it's imperative that the state take action by passing HB CHAIR KOHRING turned to the effectiveness of a .08 BAC and asked if there is any substantial evidence to support it. MR. WORTMAN answered that in his research he found no conclusive evidence that the .08 BAC mandate, by itself, is effective. However, coupled with other [drunk driving] legislation, a .08 BAC shows a significant decrease of incidents in other states. CHAIR KOHRING suggested that Representative Rokeberg's legislation [HB4] MR. WORTMAN remarked that Representative Rokeberg's bill is an "omni" bill that is a "catch all for all those happen simultaneously." CHAIR KOHRING asked how effective 4, explained drunk driving, including changing the BAC from .10 to .08. She noted that establishing the .08 BAC standard is mandated by the federal government whether it is done now or in a couple of years. However, it has to be done by Federal Fiscal Year 2004. She indicated that HB but by only lowering the BAC, HB HB CHAIR KOHRING announced the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 244, "An Act relating to a grant of state land to the Denali Borough for a railroad and utility corridor and a railroad development project; repealing provisions relating to a grant of a right-of-way of land for a railroad and utility corridor to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority; and providing for an effective date." Number 0658 An at-ease was called at 1:28 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 1:31 p.m. Number 0674 RICHARD SCHMITZ, Staff to Representative Jeannette James, sponsor of HB that in 1998, HB [Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority] to engage in a number of activities. One was to allow AIDEA to establish a transportation corridor on the north end of Denali [National Park]. He referred to the maps given to committee members, and said it shows the proposed corridor going from Healy to the border of [Denali] park. This project was approved and non- controversial, he said. MR. SCHMITZ stated that under 244, the environment because it would take pressure away from the existing access and all the people that are "flooding into the park" via the road. Number 1452 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out the existing road on the map that goes through [Denali National] Park and goes to Kantishna. Most of the year, only buses and inholders, who have permission to use the road, use it. She said it is a very narrow and dangerous road. She also noted that the road is "near capacity," and that one-third of the people that come to Denali [National] Park are not allowed on that road because a limited number of people can be on it. She remarked that her belief is that anyone who wants to come to a national park like Denali, which is absolutely beautiful, should be able to. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that she was in favor of a railroad, not a road. She noted that this bill would be competing with others who would rather have a road. There have been problems in this area with people camping out and leaving "junk," and thus there have been conflicts with bears and so forth. Furthermore, there have been problems with those who work in the tourist industry here. These people don't seem to make enough money to pay for a place to live, so they "live in the bushes" in the summertime. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that a road [allows] continual access for everyone, including trailers, trucks, and cars camping along the way, leaving "their junk and stuff around, which I think is embarrassing and very expensive to maintain." Therefore, a train that has controlled access would enable all people, "whether disabled or not, old or young" to view the park, which would be a great experience. She mentioned that someday she would like to see train access in and out of the park by making a complete circle (not where the current road is). She said having a train is the environmentally friendly way to do it. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that one of the ways to control the "love the park to death" is to put in a train. A train would enable more people to come in and out of the park. Furthermore, a train would also be "environmentally more friendly and not so devastating to the park area, which is one of our prize areas," she added. Representative James noted that she is enthused and passionate about this project after working on it for nine years. Number 1622 MR. FIELDS referred to the issue of environmental impact on the park and said that the park is restricted to 10,512 vehicles a year. He stated that a 1994 study estimated that up to 1,300 park administrative vehicles could be removed if there was new northern access [to the park]. This could translate into 1300 or more buses or people being able to get into the park as opposed to administrative vehicles. He noted that Alfred Runte, author, Our National Parks, and one of the preeminent environmentalists in the nation, is very enthusiastic about this project, and even toured [Denali National] Park with "us." He said he spoke to David Brower, Sierra Club [Executive Director wouldn't give an "outright endorsement of a railroad he did mention that the failure of Yosemite was because the railroad was taken out in 1941. So, there are a good number of "solid, rational, environmentalists" who are going to be supportive of rail access. He also said, "We think we can accommodate the desires of the visiting public and the need to protect the environment as well. " REPRESENTATIVE WILSON described a trip she took to Denali National Park about seven years before. She said she was "totally amazed" that there was only one way in and out of the park. She remarked that this [railroad] would be wonderful, and would give people a "better advantage to be able to see what they need to see," and more people could do it. So, it's "something we need to do," she said. Number 1737 JOAN FRANKEVICH, Regional Staff, Alaska Regional Office, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), testified via teleconference: We are a non-profit dedicated to protecting and enhancing U.S. National Park System for present and future generations. We have over 450,000 members of which 1,000 live in Alaska. NPCA has opposed the North Denali route since it was first opposed. And specifically we oppose this bill, HB Number 2021 REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked for clarification that Ms. Frankevich disagrees with Representative James' contention that a railroad would be a more efficient way of transporting more people into the park, in a "sound and clean matter" rather than expanding the highway. MS. FRANKEVICH inquired as to what highway he was talking about. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said the road that currently goes to Wonder Lake. MS. FRANKEVICH remarked that [NPCA] does not propose expanding this road either, since it has not reached capacity at this point. She said that very few people are turned away, although someday that will probably happen. She said, "getting people to the same place by a less attractive means, we see no benefit for that." REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI wondered if she had a solution for a better means for the elder population, [and] people who want to visit the park, or if she thought more people should not come. MS. FRANKEVICH replied, "Of course more people should be there." And as far as the elderly population, they are well-served by a bus system that currently goes to a variety of locations, she said. She also mentioned that there are handicapped accessible buses that travel the road everyday. She noted that most of the park's visitors are elderly. MS. FRANKEVICH pointed out that additional facilities such as a learning center and visitor center are in the planning process to be built at the park entrance. More trails and campgrounds are also being built to increase capacity and provide more options to use other areas of the park. She also stated that there have been ideas to build an area south of Denali, up Petersville Road and along the Parks Highway as well. National Parks Conservation Association supports all of these developments, she noted. REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI reiterated his question of whether she saw any benefit to getting more people into the park in a sound matter. He also asked if her alternative was to get other areas in the park utilized. MS. FRANKEVICH said yes, "We think it makes much more sense to expand on the south side of Denali where more of the population lives and where the population comes from than an area that's already served by the Park Road." Number 2117 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to Ms. Frankevich's earlier comments. Regarding Denali Borough powers, the borough only needs planning and zoning powers to transfer this land, which would then be available for lease. So, even though Denali Borough does not have road power, it does not make a difference. She stated that in regard to animals, there are animals, just different kinds. She suggested that the railroad be open for winter tourism, when there are a lot of animals in the area. Skiers could also be taken in. She went on to say, "There's just lots of things that this train could do on a year round basis to be able to have access to the park that is better than the access we have for people today." She remarked that she understands the concerns on this issue since she has been listening to it for a long time. Number 2182 MR. FIELDS commented that that the Denali Task Force 1994 came up with the South Side Denali Plan, which takes place outside of the park. However, "it was in the process." He also said that the National Park System Advisory Board put a resolution forward calling for the creation of a northern railroad route to Wonder Lake, which is what is being proposed in this bill. He mentioned that this project is not park service development. He referred to budgetary concerns and said that although private capital going into the park, the overall control of the (indisc.) would be retained by the park. MR. FIELDS stated that the biggest issue is how to offset the "we" see ways of helping the park this time of year by taking equipment to the far end [of the park] and letting them [park employees] come back via the road. He mentioned that the railroad might enable the park to open a few days earlier. He went on to say: But for management of the park, and access of NPS [National Park Service] employees and access for the inholders, we don't propose that there should be no other access for the inholders. In fact, I've told both of them that we would support their position of having a right to use the road as well as the rail. But I think from a business standpoint, they'd all benefit from a rail in there. Number 2253 MS. FRANKEVICH referred to Representative James' comments and said she did not mean to say because Denali Borough did not have road powers that they would not be able to do this, since it would fall under their planning and zoning authorities. However, it seems appropriate and "hard to believe that with so little experience" in roads that they could accomplish such a large project successfully. MR. FIELDS commented that "they" have a group comprised of former DOT&PF [Department of Transportation & Public Facilities] employees of the highest "range" working on this project. So, he thinks that "they" [Denali Borough] are going to hands and have a good critical view of everything that goes on before they allow anything to happen. They're not going to take any chances with their hometown." Number 2299 CHAIR KOHRING noted that there was written testimony in the committee packets from Linda Pagenelli (ph) of Healy. Number 2313 DICK MYLIUS, Resource Assessment & Development, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference: This bill requires DNR to transfer by September 1 of this year approximately 46,000 acres of state land to the Denali Borough for a future railroad towards Kantishna. In order to reach Kantishna, the railroad will need [to] continue west across National Park land. The borough and private Kantishna holdings would then work to identify and survey a railroad route across this land and then in 2006, the borough conveys the excess land back to the state, estimated to be about 42,500 acres and the borough would keep 3,500 acres. DNR recommends that a more efficient and equally approach would be for the borough and Kantishna Holdings corporation to first identify the corridor, then ask DNR to transfer the land or even to simply apply for a right-of-way. The current proposal requires DNR to convey to the borough a large block of land only to have the borough convey most of it back in five years. This results in unnecessary work at the expense of both the sate and the borough. In addition, because the railroad route is unknown, the route could include land outside of the area in the bill. For example, portions of the existing Stampede Trail which is probably built along one of the easiest ways to get to this chunk of land is not included in the land that closed for transfer to the borough. In addition, the National Park Service has invited the state to participate in a comprehensive study as noticed by access issues and alternatives, because much the route of this railroad crosses Park Service land. This railroad can't be built until there's Park Service concurrence with the (indisc.). Until the efforts to study north side access is completed ... (indisc.) designate and transfer a railroad corridor to the borough and Kantishna holdings. DNR has four specific concerns regarding this bill. Some of these could be dealt with through amendments. The first one is that the bill causes confusion regarding how DNR should treat existing municipal selections (indisc.) by the borough under its municipal entitlement under Alaska Statute 29.65. The legislation actually could preclude the borough from receiving some of this land under its entitlement because the bill limits the borough's eventual ownership from this 3,000-3,500 acres, where the borough has under its previous selections, has selected more than 3,500 acres. We do not believe that this is the legislature's intent or the sponsor's intent. But it is not clear in the bill. Further, it is unclear whether or not the 3,500 acres ultimately conveyed to the borough is supposed to be charged against the borough's remaining existing entitlement. My second concern is that since DNR assumes that since the bill directs DNR to take action and gives us only two months to transfer the land, I believe that it isn't the intent of the sponsor that DNR would be excluded or exempted from the state's (indisc.) finding requirement. However, we'd like to be able to make this clear so that DNR is[n't] explicitly excluded from the requirements of AS [38.05.035] and [38.04.065] simply because ... we've got two months ... to transfer the land. We can't (indisc.) public decision-making process. ... We'd like the legislature to make that clear in the bill. It is also unclear what property rights the bill or the borough would grant against it being a holding corporation. ... Once the corridor is identified, the implication in the bill is that Kantishna Holdings, Incorporated, would have the right to build a railroad within the corridor. DNR believes that the legislation must ensure that the citizens of the state receive some compensation for granting a private exclusive (indisc.) thousands of acres of state land. Finally, our fourth concern is that the bill needs to clarify how DNR should deal with the existing hours, (indisc.) which follows the Stampede Trial. Is the intent that this will be conveyed to the borough or excluded? Current Alaska Statute [does] not allow DNR to transport RS (indisc.) to the borough. We can only transfer them to DOT. Finally, DNR has submitted a fiscal note on this bill. We would need funding in order to identify and reserve existing rights that are on the (indisc.). We would need to do public notice. We would need to do title check (indisc.). In addition, you'll notice on our fiscal note that we have funding requested in 2006, which is when the land would be returned to the state. And at that point we would also (indisc.) to do ... research to make sure the borough hasn't created any third party interest and that we could take them back. We'd also need to do an environmental audit to make sure the land was still in the condition it was when we gave it to the borough. The state isn't receiving any liability (indisc.) along with the land. ... That concludes my testimony and I'm available for any questions. TAPE 01-28 SIDE B Number 2506 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that since "we" have to start somewhere, "we thought it best to start with state land as opposed to park land." She mentioned U.S. Senator Murkowski's interest in this issue, and that he has been working with the National Park Service on it. She noted that the markings on the map are not necessarily where the railroad would go, and that in order for it to be built, many "things" would have to be done. The federal government has appropriated $1.2 million to do a study for this project. She referred to Mr. Field's testimony and said he talked about Don Lowell (ph), a former DOT&PF engineer, who has been hired by the Denali Borough to be an advisor on this project. She said SB CHAIR KOHRING announced that the next order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 88, "An Act relating to metropolitan planning organizations and to establishment of a metropolitan planning organization for the Anchorage metropolitan area; and providing for an effective date." Number 1863 SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS, sponsor of the bill, stated that passed out of the Senate last week. He explained that the purpose of SB 88 is Transportation Study), which only Anchorage qualifies for, by adding one Senate member and one House member from the Anchorage area to the AMATS committee. Currently, the AMATS committee consists of five members: the mayor, two assembly people, and one appointed position from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and one from the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). SENATOR PHILLIPS commented that more direct representation is needed from the legislature in the roads and projects process, because they are delayed. He went on to say that two of the five appointed committee members are not "held accountable directly to the people," which he does not think is appropriate. This has led to a lot of frustration over the past ten years. SENATOR PHILLIPS mentioned a project that was supposed to occur in Eagle River and Muldoon last year, but that got "bumped down or sideways" on the list, which upset a lot of constituents who were counting on it happening at a certain time. The constituents then contacted their legislators who couldn't do anything about the situation, because of the way the process is set up. He said: So, in order for constituents to have a more direct say in what's going on, I propose this bill to simply add one senator, [and] one house member, and increase the policy committee from five to seven. SENATOR PHILLIPS acknowledged that those outside the Anchorage area might view this issue as an Anchorage fight. However, "It will be coming to your neighborhood, maybe sometime soon. And I do not wish this on anybody," he said. SENATOR PHILLIPS pointed out a letter in the committee packet from the Federal Highway Administration dated February 22, which says there are no problems with having legislators on the policy committee. However, he noted that the administration has opposed this legislation on a couple of points. The first concern of the administration was the issue of dual office- holding. However, Hawaii has legislators on their version of AMATS. He said Hawaii has "virtually the same constitution as we do when it comes to dual officeship." He stated his belief that the Division of Legal and Research Services [Legislative Affairs Agency] has provided a legal opinion that this bill is "OK" while the Office of the Attorney General has be done. However, he said "it's pretty straightforward." Number 1710 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER related her experience with some of the roads in the Dillingham area. She said her understanding was that legislators get a directive from the local municipality, so "it's not top down." She asked why this Senator Phillip's area. SENATOR PHILLIPS replied that it was not working because elected state officials are not directly involved in the process. He reiterated that the committee consists of the mayor and two assembly members representing the municipal side, and two non- elected people, from DEC and DOT&PF, who are appointed by the governor. SENATOR PHILLIPS commented that the Glenn Highway situation is very frustrating. The Glenn Highway needs to be repaved, but it won't be [until] a couple of years from now. At the end of session, "the only thing we get is ... a list [that says] gives us your money and we'll just do what we have to do without no say." Legislators have no direct say other then to send letters to the technical or policy committee. This is just "another layer that makes it real difficult to get your projects through," he said. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that having three elected officials on a five person committee means that they would have the majority vote, and be held accountable by municipal election. She inquired if "that's still not working." SENATOR PHILLIPS said no because "generally speaking" there is a "90-10 split," 90 percent federal funds and 10 percent state funds. He believes as a legislator representing 30,000 to priorities go. He went on to say: We're paying part of the bill and I don't mind the process. It's just that when you're elected and people come to you and say why isn't this being done, [and] I say its because of AMATS, they don't understand it. I'm the guy who's getting the flak, because I'm the most visible. I'm elected [so] I should be held accountable for my actions and all I'm asking is to make me accountable for my actions. Let me be part of the decision process in setting up these priorities. You'll hear from DOT[&PF]. They've come up with another ... excuse why they don't support [this bill]. I just wish they would say they don't support it and leave it as is. But anyway, I just think it's very difficult as a legislator, explaining ... to a constituent, why isn't your road being paved. Number 1553 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that she empathizes with his situation because she has the same problem in Dillingham with the Wood Tik Chik (ph) Road. However, she would not ask to be on the Dillingham City Council. She stated that one of the concerns with this bill is the dual office holding prohibition in the Alaska State Constitution. She asked if this should be waived for this situation. Number 1524 SENATOR PHILLIPS reiterated his belief that the Division of Legal and Research Services has said SB 88 area, to appropriately deal with this issue. MR. BRIGHAM explained that federal law established MPO more than between local and state government in how these federal transportation dollars were spent. He described this conflict as being: Big cities in particular who were saying, "give us the money, we know how to spend it, this a local issue," ... and the states on the other hand were basically saying "no, give us the money we see the big picture and we know where to go...." MR. BRIGHAM remarked that this conflict has not gone away. The MPO process applies to communities in an urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000. He mentioned the possibility of Wasilla, Mat-Su Valley, or Fairbanks becoming MPO's as a result of the 2000 census. He noted that Anchorage is "way beyond the threshold and the basic idea is that what the MPO or in this case AMATS is, is a joint local/federal decision-making body that together determines where this funding should be spent." He said it is an additional layer, but one that was established by Congress; all federal money has to go through the MPO to be spent in the Anchorage urban area. Number 0891 MR. BRIGHAM declared that [DOT&PF] does not support because it diminishes local control; it upsets the balance between state and local roles in deciding how money is spent in the Anchorage urban area. He noted that since AMATS was created, there has always been one more local than state vote. Originally it was two local votes to one state vote and now it is three local votes to two state votes. Although there aren't many state-local divisions, the idea behind this in voting is if "it comes down to state versus municipality, the municipality can outvote the state." This [bill] would change this, which would result in having four state votes and three local votes. MR. BRIGHAM indicated that another reason DOT&PF does not support this bill is that MPO is the group that needs to decide what the most important projects are. He noted that [DOT&PF] might not agree at times with what AMATS decides. However, according to the law, AMATS can choose. He also mentioned the attorney general's position that this bill violates the constitutional prohibition against dual office holding. He noted that legislative council has a different opinion on this matter. However, he said "it's a cautionary light at minimum and urge your caution in this regard." MR. BRIGHAM referred to letters [included in committee packets] from the Federal Highway Administration. The February 22, 2001, letter says, "Federal regulations do not preclude the participation of state legislators on the AMATS Policy Board. He then pointed to the April 5, 2001, letter that discusses how legislators get to the AMATS Policy Board. He agreed that there is no prohibition against having legislators on the MPO Policy Board. However, he said the point of this letter was that the MPO has to vote in order to add new members. So if the legislature were to say "we want to put two more members on the MPO," it would be in violation of federal and state regulations. Number 1136 MATT KETCHUM, Wilder Construction Company, stated that he supports Senator Phillips' testimony. He remarked that he was referring to "financial responsibility and accountability." He believes that Senator Phillips' frustration is that the people making the project decisions concerning where the $70 million will be spent, have the financial responsibility to constituents for direct money. MR. KETCHUM commented that as a contractor who bids AMATS work and has worked on AMATS projects, he has seen many projects that "don't make sense" priority wise. He said, and that's what we do, we're contractors, we sign contracts but as citizens in the town, [we see] ... a lot of work that we do [that] does not seem to make sense." He noted that the AMATS committee might have prioritized the projects. But, "we" have the time to attend the meetings to "establish these AMATS priority lists," he said. However, if there were some legislative influence, projects of a higher priority would probably come first, which would be "better for the community and particularly the constituents that the legislators represent." Number 1215 REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER wondered how he determines what is a priority [project] in the community. MR. KETCHUM said, "I live there." REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked him to provide an example. MR. KETCHUM described a project that consisted of building a bike path near Peter's Creek. He said that the beginning and end of the path went nowhere; it was not in a relatively high- density community. He noted that there was a school nearby, but the "access and egress" of this bike path did not make much sense. One part of the bike path was so steep, it could not be paved, and so a gravel surface was put in, which supposedly met some AMATS standards. This job cost $1.7 million for a two-mile bike path. He commented that those who lived there were saying, "What in the world is this for?" REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if that would be the fault of the AMATS Board or an engineering fault. MR. KETCHUM replied that it was the fault of the [AMATS] Board. He said, "DOT is marching to the beat of AMATS and that's why I think they're more in favor of not having the AMATS control in there as well." This is the frustration; "people see things like that and then they see a road in [Senator Phillips'] area that very much needs [work] for safety, maintenance, for everything." He indicated that if someone wanted to provide input for the list, one had to attend the meetings. But one needs to call ahead to make sure the meeting has not changed, he added. MR. KETCHUM stated that he supports Senator Phillips because this bill would add legislative "interactment" to the process. He suggested that this would make the legislators feel obligated to attend the meetings, and this would enable higher priority projects to get completed first. He mentioned that Anchorage has more trail miles than road miles and DOT&PF probably realizes this, but it "can hardly maintain trails much less build more." He said his comments are from a contractor's perspective and from a company that consists of people living in this area. Number 1344 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH surmised that as a contractor even though Mr. Ketchum thought the aforementioned [bike path] went nowhere, he was still willing to take the contract and accept state money to build it. MR. KETCHUM replied, "Without a doubt, that's business for, is contracts." Number 1420 ANNA FAIRCLOUGH, Legislative Chair, Anchorage Assembly; Committee Representative, AMATS; testified via teleconference. She pointed out AR No. 2001-44 that announces the Anchorage Assembly's unanimous opposition to SB 88 04/04/01 0944 (S) PASSED Y15 N4 E1 04/04/01 0944 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS 04/04/01 0944 (S) OLSON NOTICE OF 04/04/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 04/05/01 0960 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD 04/05/01 0961 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y12 04/05/01 0961 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) Y19 N- E1 04/05/01 0962 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/05/01 0962 (S) VERSION: SB 88 04/06/01 0875 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - 04/06/01 0875 (H) TRA, CRA 04/17/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 12 and HB 4. /22?Root=HB244'>HB 244. /Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244. 750 West Second Avenue, Number 205 s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244. 550 West Seventh Avenue Suite 1050 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244, Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88. s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88. 3132 Channel Drive against SB 11301 Lang Street href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88. s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88. s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88. 12-REDUCE PERCENTAGE FOR DWI /22?Root=HB12'>HB 12, which lowers the BAC [Blood 12 could be recognized as a policy decision or issue. would help make HB 12 effective. situations to Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB12'>HB 12 would be if it was of HB that HB 4 encompasses a wide variety of topics on 12 is accomplishing the same goal as HB 4, /Detail/22?Root=HB12'>HB 12 is only addressing "one /Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 does not become law this href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB12'>HB 12 would be href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4. ail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4 is in the House Finance HB 12. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB12'>HB 12 from committee Detail/22?Root=HB12'>HB 12 moved from the House href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB4'>HB 4]. However, 4 might not pass this session. 244-RIGHT-OF-WAY TO DENALI BOR. FOR RR/UTIL. 244, provided background on the bill. He stated 386 was signed into law. This authorized AIDEA l/Detail/22?Root=HB386'>HB 386, Kantishna Holdings was HB 386 href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244 is for the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB386'>HB 386, to survey 2?Root=HB366'>HB 366. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244, remarked that As far as So, "we" are end up going off href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244] would have that they don't call the of HB his impression was that this project would be a benefit to 1952-1969], a couple of years before his death, and although he anywhere," href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244, for the href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244 is (indisc.) href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=HB386'>HB 386, again, gave 244. Thank you very much. 500,000 people who come to the park entrance. He indicated that be in "good /Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB3'>SB 3 includes a $300,000 in a "clean and railroad going into 2006. All but 3,500 acres will be transferred back. She Detail/22?Root=HB244'>HB 244 would be held over until 88-METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS SB 88 to assist AMATS (Anchorage Metropolitan Area said it can't was not working in 40,000 people, [he] should have a "little say" over where these is/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88 is not a problem, spring" on it's getting to a SB 88, is not the mechanism, at least for the Anchorage 20 years ago as a congressional way to deal with the conflict SB 88 "It's work to us, don't what we're in s/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88]. href='/basis/Bill/Detail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88 out of etail/22?Root=SB88'>SB 88 would be held over until s"> id="docLink">Open document in new windowX ght:100%;min-height:600px" id="docFrame"> width="105" height="107" bills, locate ist-whos-who.php">contact information. g.gov/webmaster.php">help

SMS Bill Tracking

Text a bill number (ex: HB1) to 559-245-2529 to enroll in text alerts. You will receive an enrollment confirmation and instructions on how to stop receiving the alerts.

04/17/2001 01:20 PM House TRA

SMS Bill Tracking

WHO REPRESENTS ME??

Quick Links

Legislative Links

senate

house