Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/23/1993 03:35 PM Senate TRA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                 SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE                               
                         March 23, 1993                                        
                            3:35 p.m.                                          
  MEMBERS PRESENT                                                              
  Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman                                                 
  Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chairman                                        
  Senator Tim Kelly                                                            
  Senator Georgianna Lincoln                                                   
  Senator Jay Kerttula                                                         
  MEMBERS ABSENT                                                               
  All Members Present                                                          
  COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                           
  SENATE BILL NO. 157                                                          
  "An Act relating to the control of outdoor advertising."                     
  HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 28                                                
  Supporting  increased  access  near  Mt.  McKinley   through                 
  establishment of a visitor activity area at Kantishna.                       
  SENATE BILL NO. 148                                                          
  "An Act  relating to  the Alaska  Railroad Corporation;  and                 
  providing for an effective date."                                            
  SENATE BILL NO. 167                                                          
  "An Act relating to the distribution of the revenue obtained                 
  from  imposition  of the  state tax  on  motor fuel  used in                 
  watercraft  of  all  descriptions;   and  providing  for  an                 
  effective date."                                                             
  SB 167 WAS SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DATE.                                
  PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION                                             
  SB 157 - No previous action to record.                                       
  HJR 28 - No previous action to record.                                       
  SB 148 - See Transportation minutes dated 3/11/93.                           
  WITNESS REGISTER                                                             
  Senator Steve Frank                                                          
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol Building, Room 518                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of SB 157.                                      
  David Skidmore, Legislative Staff                                            
    to Senator Frank                                                           
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol Building, Room 518                                             
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on SB 157.                           
  Roger Allington, Director                                                    
  Division of Engineering and Operations                                       
  Department of Transportation and Public Facilities                           
  3132 Channel Drive                                                           
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on SB 157.                           
  Representative Tom Brice                                                     
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol Building                                                       
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HJR 28.                                      
  Irene Morris                                                                 
  Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                   
  P.O. Box 22151                                                               
  Juneau, Alaska 99802                                                         
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 28.                      
  Bob Hatfield, President and                                                  
    Chief Executive Officer                                                    
  Alaska Railroad Corporation                                                  
  P.O. Box 112783                                                              
  Anchorage, Alaska 99511                                                      
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on SB 148                            
  Senator Drue Pearce                                                          
  Alaska State Legislature                                                     
  State Capitol Building                                                       
  Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                    
  POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on SB 148.                           
  ACTION NARRATIVE                                                             
  TAPE 93-16, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 001                                                                   
  CHAIRMAN SHARP called the Senate Transportation Committee to                 
  order at 3:35 p.m.                                                           
  The first order of business  was SB 157 (PROHIBITED  HIGHWAY                 
  ADVERTISING).    SENATOR  FRANK,  sponsor  of  the  measure,                 
  explained the bill is identical to legislation introduced in                 
  the House by Representative Menard.  He said he has received                 
  complaints from people  who aren't  allowed to advertise  or                 
  put  up signs that would direct  people to their businesses.                 
  He referred to  his own situation  and said DOT/PF made  him                 
  remove a sign that directed people to his place of business.                 
  Senator Frank pointed out that state law is more restrictive                 
  than federal law.   The federal  law, commonly known as  the                 
  Lady Bird  Law, outlaws outdoor advertising.   It does allow                 
  for  exceptions in  areas that  are zoned for  commercial or                 
  industrial use.   State law  doesn't contain that  allowable                 
  use.  The purpose  of the bill is to make  state law more in                 
  conformance  with federal  law.   Senator  Frank said  it is                 
  important to recognize that local governments still have the                 
  authority  to  regulate signage  and  would still  have that                 
  right under the  proposed legislation.  He  introduced David                 
  Skidmore of  his  staff, and  indicated he  would give  more                 
  detailed testimony.                                                          
  DAVID  SKIDMORE, legislative  staff to  Senator  Frank, came                 
  before the committee.   SENATOR LINCOLN referred to  page 1,                 
  line 6, "outdoor advertising is permitted outside the right-                 
  of-way of a  state highway,"  and asked if  that means  that                 
  there are no limits in the bill on the size,  content, light                 
  level, noise, etc.   SENATOR FRANK said he is  talking about                 
  private   property   and   indicated   that   there   aren't                 
  limitations.  Senator Lincoln asked if the advertising could                 
  be anything that the  private owner would agree to  relating                 
  to  size, etc.  Senator Frank  said he believes so.  Senator                 
  Lincoln  referred  to page  2, line  12, and  questioned the                 
  meaning of "public nuisance."  Senator Frank said he doesn't                 
  know what the answer is.                                                     
  Senator Lincoln  said according  to DOT/PF's position  paper                 
  they have indicated that they are neutral on the bill.   She                 
  said  there  is  a  zero  fiscal  note  and  the  department                 
  indicated there would  be additional  work for their  crews.                 
  The position paper  also states  the department has  concern                 
  with billboards being an encroachment on scenic beauty.  The                 
  Division  of Tourism considers the highway  system to be the                 
  single largest  attraction for visitors visiting the Alaska.                 
  The consequences will be that  businesses located at similar                 
  highway settings will be treated  differently under the law.                 
  Senator Lincoln said it is unclear  to her as to whether the                 
  department supports the  bill and whether  a fiscal note  is                 
  involved.  She referred to page 2 of the fiscal note, "There                 
  is likely to be  an increase in illegal signs  as businesses                 
  to try to equalize their  visibility with businesses located                 
  along highways where the relaxed advertising standards would                 
  apply."  Senator Lincoln said the position of the department                 
  isn't clear.   SENATOR FRANK  said currently the  department                 
  spends money telling people to take  down their signs.  They                 
  also  spend money taking  signs down.   Businesses along the                 
  highway have expressed frustration that they can't advertise                 
  their business or direct  someone to their business.   It is                 
  inconvenient for the traveling public that is trying to find                 
  a place of  business.   Senator Frank said  he doesn't  know                 
  what the  department's position  is as  they do  seem to  be                 
  vague.    He   said  it  isn't   his  intent  not  to   have                 
  restrictions.   Senator Frank said  he hopes that during the                 
  committee process a  reasonable set  of restrictions can  be                 
  developed which would help businesses along the highway and,                 
  at  the  same  time,  not  result  in some  of  the  onerous                 
  undesirable billboard advertising.                                           
  CHAIRMAN SHARP said  there are still remaining  mandates and                 
  restrictions on  certain category  roads throughout  Alaska.                 
  He said it is  his understanding that signs will  be allowed                 
  on  private  land in  areas  not prohibited  by  the federal                 
  government.   SENATOR  FRANK  said he  would  work with  the                 
  committee  to  try and  write  amendments to  accomplish the                 
  purpose but not open it up to an undesirable situation.                      
  DAVID SKIDMORE, legislative staff to Senator Frank, said the                 
  legislation  would repeal the  statutory basis  for Alaska's                 
  comprehensive prohibition of  roadside outdoor  advertising.                 
  The intent is to bring state law in conformance with federal                 
  law.  Currently,  Alaska statute  provides that all  outdoor                 
  roadside advertising is prohibited except  as provided in AS                 
  19.25.105.  The  statute provides  that such advertising  is                 
  prohibited within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-                 
  of-way  along an interstate,  primary, or  secondary highway                 
  except for the following types of signs:  (1) Official signs                 
  and notices; (2)  Signs advertising property sale  or lease;                 
  (3) Landmark  signs, school  signs, and  advertising on  bus                 
  benches and  shelters.   Mr. Skidmore  said current  federal                 
  law, Title 23 of  the U.S. Code Section 131,  prohibits most                 
  outdoor advertising  along interstate  and primary  highways                 
  while secondary highways  are not  regulated by the  federal                 
  government.    However, with  regard  to the  interstate and                 
  primary highways,  there  are  two  significant  exceptions.                 
  Section 131 of Title 23 provides that, "signs may be erected                 
  and maintained within  660 feet of  the nearest edge of  the                 
  right-of-way  within  areas adjacent  to  an  interstate and                 
  primary  systems which  are zoned  industrial  or commercial                 
  under authority  of state  law or  in unzoned commercial  or                 
  industrial areas as  may be determined by  agreement between                 
  the  several states and  the secretary."   Mr. Skidmore said                 
  the reference to unzoned areas will apply where the land use                 
  pattern  fits the  designation of industrial  or commercial.                 
  He referred to  unzoned commercial  and industrial  activity                 
  and pointed out that according to Jeff Ottesen, Chief Right-                 
  of-Way  agent  for  DOT/PF,  one  business enterprise  would                 
  create an area eligible for off premise outdoor advertising.                 
  Federal  law  does allow  for  exceptions in  commercial and                 
  industrial areas along interstate  and primary highways, but                 
  does  not regulate  such activity along  secondary highways.                 
  Mr. Skidmore said there has been  some confusion as to which                 
  highways  would   be  effected  by  the  bill  as  the  1991                 
  Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) did                 
  away  with the  interstate, primary,  and secondary  highway                 
  classification  system  and  replaced  it  with  a  national                 
  highway system.   He noted the federal government  does plan                 
  to  continue to  utilize  the  same  highway  classification                 
  scheme in dealing solely with  outdoor advertising for those                 
  highways which were  classified as interstate or  primary at                 
  the date  of passage of ISTEA.   Section 10.46  of ISTEA did                 
  amend federal law to  stipulate that most new signs  may not                 
  be erected along highways that  are designated scenic byways                 
  under a state program.   That means if and when DOT/PF  does                 
  establish  a  scenic highway  road  system in  Alaska, those                 
  positions which are made up of highways that were classified                 
  interstate or primary as  of the passage of ISTEA,  will not                 
  be subject to the industrial commercial signage exception.                   
  Mr.  Skidmore  explained  that  there  are  three  potential                 
  results of SB 157.  The first is secondary highways would be                 
  released  from state  restrictions  on outdoor  advertising.                 
  Second, signs could be erected and maintained in areas zoned                 
  industrial  or   commercial  along  interstate   or  primary                 
  highways.    Third,  unzoned areas  in  which  commercial or                 
  industrial activity  takes place would also  apparently have                 
  the  ability  to  erect  and maintain  signs.    This  would                 
  facilitate  efforts  by roadside  businesses  to  make their                 
  presence and location known to highway travelers.                            
  Number 316                                                                   
  SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS  asked Roger Allington why  the state                 
  law is so  much more  restrictive than federal  law.   ROGER                 
  ALLINGTON, Director, Division of Engineering and Operations,                 
  DOT/PF,  said he doesn't  know the answer.   He  said at the                 
  present  time the state  has an  agreement with  the Federal                 
  Highway Administration that dates back to 1968.                              
  SENATOR LINCOLN asked  Mr. Allington why the  position paper                 
  is neutral to the legislation.  Mr. Allington said he thinks                 
  that  probably  there  are  mixed  emotions  within  DOT/PF,                 
  officially and individually.  He said he believes that there                 
  are  some legitimate reasons  for outdoor advertising signs,                 
  but on the other hand, many  of us have seen areas, such  as                 
  Highway 101 out of Los Angeles  where you can't see the hill                 
  because  of all  the  signs  along  the right-of-way.    Mr.                 
  Allington said  the department  believes that  it is  public                 
  policy position that the legislature needs to address.                       
  There being not further testimony, CHAIRMAN SHARP asked that                 
  Senator Lincoln's office work with Senator Frank's office on                 
  the concerns of the legislation.                                             
  Number 355                                                                   
  The  next order  of  business  to  come  before  the  Senate                 
  Transportation Committee was HJR 28 (SUPPORT  KANTISHNA AREA                 
  TOURISM DEVELOPMENT), sponsored by Representative Tom Brice.                 
  REPRESENTATIVE  BRICE explained  that  HJR  28 requests  the                 
  National Park Service  to establish a rail  utility corridor                 
  between the Healy  area and  the Kantishna mining  district.                 
  It endorses  the  idea of  private sector  development of  a                 
  railway into the Kantishna area as a tourism operation.                      
  SENATOR LINCOLN questioned  why there is a  zero fiscal note                 
  when  a  new  park is  being  built.   Representative  Brice                 
  referred  to  page  2,  line   15,  "FURTHER  RESOLVED  that                 
  appropriate state  agencies  should work  with the  National                 
  Park  Service  and  interested  members  of the  public  and                 
  private sectors  to thoroughly investigate  the potential of                 
  establishing a rail  utility corridor to Kantishna  in which                 
  the   private   sector  could   construct   and  operate   a                 
  transportation system and other facilities  that would serve                 
  the  public needs."   He  said the  resolution supports  the                 
  private sector in accomplishing the rail utility corridor.                   
  Number 393                                                                   
  IRENE MORRIS,  representing the Alaska  Environmental Lobby,                 
  testified against  HJR 28.   She  said during  this time  of                 
  severe  state  and  federal  budget  cuts,  the  cost  of  a                 
  potential  corridor cannot economically  be justified.   Ms.                 
  Morris said  the Denali Access  Task Force, in  its November                 
  1991 Report, found that the level  of business activity, new                 
  businesses,   visitation,  and   mining   did  not   justify                 
  additional access.  The same report  concluded a new road is                 
  not justifiable for  park purposes, wildlife, economics,  or                 
  visitor services.  The National Park Service has been buying                 
  private  inholdings  in  Kantishna  and  is opposed  to  new                 
  commercial  construction.    Ms.  Morris  said HJR  28  also                 
  suggests that  the private sector could build a rail utility                 
  corridor  into   Kantishna.    Currently,  DOT/PF   has  not                 
  evaluated  the  cost  of  such  a   railway  system.    Road                 
  construction  estimates were over $80 million  in 1992 and a                 
  rail  corridor would  be even  more  expensive.   Ms. Morris                 
  continued to give testimony against HJR 28.                                  
  Number 417                                                                   
  There being no  further testimony, SENATOR KELLY  moved that                 
  HJR 28 pass out of  the Senate Transportation Committee with                 
  individual recommendations.  SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS objected                 
  for the purpose of stating that  people like to see the area                 
  in its natural state and that is  what attracts people.  The                 
  railroad  would detract from the  very thing that the people                 
  are trying to see in the first place.  He said  he would put                 
  his own recommendation in the committee report.                              
  SENATOR KERTTULA said  if the  right-of-way is acquired  for                 
  the facility  the right-of-way  should be  limited for  this                 
  particular use.   CHAIRMAN SHARP said  the way he reads  the                 
  resolution is that it is restricted to railroad access only.                 
  He asked if  there was objection to Senator  Kelly's motion.                 
  Hearing no objection,  the HJR  28 moved out  of the  Senate                 
  Transportation Committee.                                                    
  Number 475                                                                   
  The  next order  of  business was  SB  148 (ALASKA  RAILROAD                 
  CORPORATION).  SENATOR KERTTULA gave  committee members some                 
  information regarding the corporation.  CHAIRMAN SHARP asked                 
  Mr.  Hatfield  if  he  had  any  comments.    BOB  HATFIELD,                 
  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Alaska  Railroad                 
  Corporation,  indicated   the  committee  members   has  the                 
  corporation's position paper.   He  said he would  highlight                 
  some of the corporation's concerns relating  to SB 148.  Mr.                 
  Hatfield  said he  is  troubled  by  the  sense  of  urgency                 
  surrounding  the  bill  and  questions  the  need  for  such                 
  urgency.  The  state law  that created  the Alaska  Railroad                 
  took four years to write and pass, which doesn't include the                 
  time spent  with the  federal government  which allowed  the                 
  Transfer Act to  begin.  The Alaska Railroad Corporation Act                 
  was  considered  by and  debated  in  both chambers  of  the                 
  twelfth   and  thirteenth   legislatures   headed  by   both                 
  Republicans  and  Democrats.   The  bill  was  also reviewed                 
  officially and unofficially  by an array of  industry, civic                 
  groups,  and  government  bodies  to  ensure that  the  best                 
  possible environment would  be created  for such a  delicate                 
  business as a  railroad.  There is  now a bill, which  is in                 
  its  third  week  of  existence,  that would  make  sweeping                 
  changes to the  Corporation Act.   To date, the only  public                 
  testimony that has  been heard by the  Senate Transportation                 
  Committee is that given by a union employee, several members                 
  of one interest group, and himself.  Mr. Hatfield said he is                 
  troubled by some of the contents  in the bill.  Federal  law                 
  mandates that the Alaska Railroad Corporation be entitled to                 
  engage in all business opportunities available to comparable                 
  railroads.    State  law dictates  that  the  corporation be                 
  allowed to conduct its business consistent with that federal                 
  law.   State law  further dictates  that the corporation  be                 
  self  sustaining while  prudently  operating  a railroad  in                 
  accordance  with sound business  practices.  He  said in his                 
  view, there is a very good reason for  the provisions in the                 
  two laws  that created the Alaska Railroad Corporation.  Mr.                 
  Hatfield said all  the study and  debate that went into  the                 
  creation of the  railroad uncovers  the fact that  railroads                 
  need to use all assets available  to them in order to remain                 
  viable  and  competitive.     Undue  restrictions  of  their                 
  activities can bring them down.                                              
  Mr. Hatfield said SB  148, in its present form,  would cause                 
  the legislature  to have to  approve the capital  budget for                 
  the Alaska  Railroad Corporation each  year.  It  would also                 
  make it difficult of  the corporation to effect  large scale                 
  emergency  repairs to  docks,  buildings, and  right-of-ways                 
  without sacrificing all other investments for that year and,                 
  perhaps subsequent years.   SB 148 would prohibit the Alaska                 
  Railroad  Corporation from  taking  advantage of  attractive                 
  deals  for acquisition of  equipment when they  arrive.  The                 
  bill would  put tremendous  pressure on  the corporation  to                 
  increase revenues solely for the purpose of avoiding leasing                 
  or  borrowing.    Mr.  Hatfield  said traditionally  in  the                 
  transportation industry,  revenues are  increased either  by                 
  increasing or lowering rates according to market conditions.                 
  It would force  the corporation to apply to  the legislature                 
  to  subsidize various aspects of  their business such as the                 
  Hurricane  Turn  and the  Whittier  Shuttle and  others that                 
  aren't  currently  compensatory  to avoid  borrowing.    Mr.                 
  Hatfield  said  it  may  cause  the  corporation  to  charge                 
  municipalities and other  public entities fair market  value                 
  for  permits  and leases  in order  to  make up  for revenue                 
  shortfalls  that  could be  caused  by some  aspects  of the                 
  legislation.  It  further would  provide a disincentive  for                 
  bankers  or  other financial  institutions,  to lend  to the                 
  corporation  for capital  projects for  fear that  all  or a                 
  portion  of  that  does  not  have  the  proper  legislative                 
  approval.  There may be other unintended results that cannot                 
  be adequately be addressed at this point due to the haste of                 
  which the legislation is being considered.                                   
  Mr. Hatfield said  it is troubling  to the corporation  that                 
  there is a phrase which limits them to railroad and railroad                 
  related transportation services  in the state.  He  said the                 
  phrase   "limited   to   railroad   and   railroad   related                 
  transportation services in the state"  can be interpreted to                 
  mean "no leasing of real estate  for any purpose, no drayage                 
  service, no marketing in  sales offices in the lower  48, no                 
  true rates for points off of the Alaska Railroad Corporation                 
  property, no  warehousing or  trans load  services could  be                 
  conducted outside of  the state, no charitable  fund raising                 
  activities, sponsorships..."   Mr. Hatfield  said one  final                 
  result  is  that  it was  and  still is  the  intent  of the                 
  legislation that created the Alaska Railroad  Corporation to                 
  sell the property at some point.  If the property isn't kept                 
  at its highest and best order  and if the corporation is not                 
  competitively viable as a railroad property, any chance that                 
  may exist for the sale of the property, if at the time seems                 
  the  appropriate  thing to  do,  would probably  be lessened                 
  rather than heightened by the legislation.                                   
  Mr.  Hatfield   said  currently  the  corporation   has  not                 
  considered  any  suggested  amendments  as  there  are  some                 
  confusing  aspects  surrounding  the  legislation  in   that                 
  originally when discussions  have occurred with  the Finance                 
  Committee and  others, the primary concern seems  to be that                 
  the Alaska  Railroad Corporation  had taken a  participatory                 
  interest in a hotel in Anchorage.  The  thought was that the                 
  corporation may be doing  that again in Fairbanks.   He said                 
  they  are  in the  process of  addressing  that issue.   Mr.                 
  Hatfield  said that  the corporation  was  hoping to  do is,                 
  thorough the committee  process, is perhaps  to get a  clear                 
  idea of  what results are  intended from the  legislation so                 
  that they could perhaps suggest  particular amendments if it                 
  is appropriate.                                                              
  TAPE 93-16, SIDE B                                                           
  SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS said the Alaska Railroad Corporation,                 
  the  Alaska Housing Corporation,  the Student  Loan Program,                 
  and AIDA have  to walk  that fine line  between private  and                 
  public.  He  said for the last two days he  asked for a page                 
  by page -line by line  suggestions from the Alaska  Railroad                 
  Corporation.  Most of  those requests were denied.   He said                 
  the  railroad is  not a  privately held corporation.   State                 
  statutes say the definition of  a "corporation" is "a public                 
  corporation and is an instrumentally of the state within the                 
  Department of Commerce  and Economic Development."   He said                 
  it was unfortunate that his request was denied.                              
  SENATOR KERTTULA said he  thinks it is a very  short time to                 
  expect a  detailed response  to each  and every  suggestible                 
  amendment.  He said there is a time that the railroad has to                 
  report and should report, but said  he doesn't believe it is                 
  the same as the function of  the other departments.  Senator                 
  Randy Phillips said he doesn't see  a difference between the                 
  Alaska  Railroad  Corporation,  Alaska Housing  Corporation,                 
  AIDA,  or  the  Student  Loan  Program.   All  of  them  are                 
  quasi/private  agencies.    There  was continued  discussion                 
  regarding requesting information from different agencies and                 
  policy issues.                                                               
  Number 052                                                                   
  SENATOR LINCOLN referred  to page  7, line 19,  and said  it                 
  requests that the  corporation must come to  the legislature                 
  as  the legislature  must approve  action.   She  asked what                 
  happens when the legislature isn't in session.                               
  MR.  SKIDMORE  said  he  supposes  it  would be  up  to  the                 
  committee to  either draft a provision for  a procedure that                 
  the railroad would follow  in the interim or amend  the bill                 
  to say the provision doesn't apply.                                          
  SENATOR DRUE PEARCE referred to the language in the bill and                 
  said  the corporation can't issue bonds or convey its entire                 
  interest in land  or incur debt  except for the  acquisition                 
  and maintenance of rolling stock and bonds and debt incurred                 
  through  a short-term, less  than one year,  line of credit.                 
  The railroad would  have to do  exactly the same thing  that                 
  other agencies of  the state do.   They have to plan  a head                 
  for  major purchases.   If they weren't able  to come to the                 
  legislature during the legislative  session, they would have                 
  to come before the legislature during the next session.                      
  SENATOR LINCOLN inquired as to whether the corporation would                 
  be able to purchase a car.  Senator Pearce said the cars are                 
  railroad  rolling  stock  and  they  wouldn't  count.    She                 
  referred to  page 7, lines 27  through 28, and  said you can                 
  incur  debt that does not apply to  rolling stock.  She said                 
  railroad cars can be purchased.                                              
  Mr. Hatfield said the locomotives are not rolling  stock nor                 
  are locomotive cranes, etc.  He said rolling stock is a term                 
  of art.  It  refers to a group of freight  or passenger cars                 
  and railroad cars only.  He  said as he interprets the bill,                 
  the corporation  would not  be able  to acquire  locomotives                 
  when they  come on  the market.   Further,  should there  be                 
  damage to one of their docks,  they might be able to get  it                 
  fixed but they wouldn't be able to borrow money directly for                 
  that.  Mr.  Hatfield said the  corporation is a  corporation                 
  meant to be self-sustaining.  There was continued discussion                 
  regarding the term "rolling stock."                                          
  CHAIRMAN SHARP said  he thinks  it is his  intention and  an                 
  obligation of the committee to weigh the  testimony and make                 
  decisions on proposed amendments.   He noted the bill  has a                 
  Senate  Finance  referral.    Chairman   Sharp  said  it  is                 
  intention  to  hold  the  legislation  until  the  following                 
  Tuesday.   He encouraged  that the  committee members  bring                 
  suggested  amendments to the next hearing  and noted he will                 
  take public testimony.                                                       
  SENATOR  LINCOLN  suggested  appointing  a  subcommittee  to                 
  devise   language  to  bring   back  to  the  Transportation                 
  SENATOR  KERTTULA indicated  concern  with creating  inhouse                 
  SENATOR  RANDY  PHILLIPS  asked  that  the  Alaska  Railroad                 
  Corporation supply the committee with page by page - line by                 
  line suggestions.                                                            
  CHAIRMAN SHARP said he believes that there are several areas                 
  of the bill that need serious  review and consideration.  He                 
  said he would check with  committee members to possibly have                 
  a work  session over  the weekend.   He  indicated the  bill                 
  would be heard again the following Tuesday.                                  
  Number 133                                                                   
  Chairman Sharp adjourned the Senate Transportation Committee                 
  at 4:52 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects