Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/06/1999 02:20 PM Senate TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
May 6, 1999
2:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jerry Ward, Chairman
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chair
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to public rights-of-way and easements for surface
transportation across the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge."
-HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 84
"An Act relating to international airports revenue bonds; and
providing for an effective date."
-MOVED HB 84 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS SENATE ACTION
HB 131 - No previous action to report
HB 84 - No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
Mr. Jeff Logan, Staff Aide
Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 131
Mr. Patrick Wright, Chair
Anchorage Fish & Game Advisory Committee
PO Box 90386
Anchorage, AK 99509
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131
Mr. Ron Crenshaw, President
Anchorage Trails
1553 H St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 131
Mr. Doug Perkins, President
Bayshore Platte Community Council
2130 Shore Drive
Anchorage, AK 99515
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131
Ms. Deanna Essert
6262 W. Dimond
Anchorage, AK 99502
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131
Mr. Randy Hoffbeck
120 S. Bragaw
Anchorage, AK 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131
Ms. Jane Angvik, Director
Division of Lands
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C St. #1105
Anchorage, AK 99503-5947
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131
Mr. Mike Szymanski, Former Senator
7350 Huntsman #15E
Anchorage, AK 99518
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131
Mr. Smilie Shields
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131
Mr. Dick Bishop
Alaska Outdoor Council
PO Box 73902
Fairbanks, AK 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 131
Mr. Dennis Poshard, Legislative Liaison
Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 131
Mr. Kurt Parkan, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, AK 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 84
Mr. Dave Eberle, Director
Construction & Operations, Central Region
Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities
PO Box 196900
Anchorage, AK 99619-6900
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 84
Mr. Mort Plumb, Jr., Director
Anchorage International Airport
PO Box 196960
Anchorage, AK 99519-6960
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 84
Mr. Jim Kubitz, Vice President
Real Estate/Project Planning
Alaska Railroad
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 84
Mr. Mike Kean
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation
900 W. 5th Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 84
Mr. Cliff Argue, Vice President
Alaska Airlines
Seattle, WA
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 84
Mr. Ron Lance, General Manager
United Airlines
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 84
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-12, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN WARD called the Senate Transportation Committee meeting to
order at 2:20 p.m. and brought HB 131 before the committee.
HB 131-ANCHORAGE COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Number 013
MR. JEFF LOGAN, staff to sponsor Representative Green, stated HB
131 returns to the legislature the authority to approve surface
transportation rights-of-way and easements in the Anchorage Coastal
Wildlife Refuge. The bill was introduced at the request of a
number of South Anchorage residents who have an interest in
protecting the habitat values in the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife
Refuge (ACWR).
SENATOR HALFORD asked what the ACWR will be protected from.
MR. LOGAN replied HB 131 will protect it from a surface
transportation corridor. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
estimates about 80% of "developable" land in the Anchorage bowl is
in South Anchorage and directly abuts the ACWR. Before any type of
development occurs that might include surface transportation or
require a right-of-way or easement in the refuge, the sponsor would
like the legislature to have final approval.
SENATOR LINCOLN brought up an amendment suggested to her that would
delete "surface transportation" on line 12 and insert "a bike path
or trail," to limit legislative oversight to the coastal trail and
ensure the State does not later run into problems if the railroad
upgrades or realigns existing tracks, or if the state expands the
Seward Highway to a four-lane road.
Number 077
MR. LOGAN commented a lot of attention has been drawn to the bill
by people who think it is an effort to kill the proposed extension
of a bike trail. He thought Senator Lincoln's proposed language
might make it look even more like that is the sponsor's intent.
Representative Green is not worried about that specific project but
he does think legislative oversight of a railroad extension could
be a good thing.
Number 100
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)
decides to upgrade or realigns existing tracks, HB 131 would
require prior legislative approval.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked Mr. Logan to provide Senator Lincoln with an
answer to her question during the meeting.
PATRICK WRIGHT, Chairman of the Anchorage Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, stated the Advisory Committee met on April 27 at which
time it reviewed HB 131. Eleven of the 15 members were present
and all voted to support HB 131. The Advisory Committee has a long
history of concerns about the ACWR. HB 131 will help to protect
habitat against any future development. The Advisory Committee's
concerns are about the habitat and uses of that area. The Advisory
Committee opposes any coastal trail that is below the top of the
bluff.
Number 170
RON CRENSHAW, President of the Anchorage Trails Coalition, stated
the Coalition is confused about legislative involvement in this
issue at this time. He questioned whether the issue concerns
discussions about the shooting range being jeopardized by a new
trail. [The remainder of Mr. Crenshaw's testimony was inaudible.]
DOUG PERKINS, President of the Bayshore Platte Community Council,
consisting of 11,000 residents who border the Anchorage Coastal
Wildlife Refuge, stated support for HB 131. He called the
committee's attention to a study conducted by Wayne Pishaun [ph]
faxed to committee members. He noted the ACWR issue is not a local
issue because ACWR is state land. If HB 131 passes, the
Legislature will be taking back control from DOTPF and ADF&G.
Despite ADF&G's strong opposition to a trail through the refuge,
DOTPF recommends that the refuge be considered for a possible trail
route. He urged committee members to pass the bill from committee.
DEANNA ESSERT, spokesperson for the Sand Lakes Community Council,
and representative for AMAT, the working advisory group for the
South coastal trail, made the following comments. The Sand Lakes
Community Council unanimously supported a resolution keeping the
refuge as is. At present there are nine access points to the ACWR.
Additional development of these access points should be considered,
and legislative oversight should be provided. Sand Lakes supports
preserving the refuge for the wildlife and for those who come to
view and photograph the wildlife. Destruction of the nesting and
breeding areas of waterfowl by allowing hundreds of recreation-
oriented runners, bikers, and joggers is completely unacceptable.
All of the recreational groups have been represented in this
discussion, however no representatives for the elderly or
handicapped have participated.
Number 314
RANDY HOFFBECK, Park Beautification Manager for the MOA, testified
in opposition to HB 131. The language in HB 131 limits the
potential options for the south extension of the coastal trail.
This will come at the very time the public involvement process for
this trail project is underway. The public involvement process is
intended to bring together all interested parties to discuss the
guidelines that will be used to determine approval of the location
of the trail.
MR. HOFFBECK reminded the Committee that the Anchorage Coastal
Management Plan that was adopted by the Municipality of Anchorage
in 1979 had final approval from the Legislature in 1980 and allowed
for the local governments to develop and implement their own
program to suit local needs. The Alaska Coastal Wildlife Refuge
was created by the State Legislature in 1988. After significant
input, the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge Management Plan was
published by the ADF&G in 1991 allowing that under certain
conditions, coastal trail access may be allowed within the Refuge.
This was later crystallized in the Anchorage Area wide Trail Plan
which had years of public process. Even without legislative
approval, there has already been lots of public input. Legislative
approval is not necessary as they will not establish protection of
the habitat which is already protected.
MS. JANE ANGVICK, Director, Division of Lands, opposed HB 131. The
bill requires legislative approval of executive branch action. The
fear is that it would require oversight for any future realignment
of the Seward Highway with the Alaska Railroad. She encouraged
them to consider Senator Lincoln's amendment.
Number 365
SENATOR LINCOLN responded that a note before her says the
Railroad's 200 ft. right-of-way might accommodate the language in
the bill.
MS. ANGVIK replied that she wasn't sure, but thought this bill
would affect the right-of-way of the Railroad and causes
significant concerns.
MR. MIKE SZYMANSKI said he drafted the original legislation that
passed ultimately in 1988. The proposed amendment was inserted
after he negotiated with the Cook Inlet Regional Corporation who
wanted access to Fire Island. The second section was first
intended to give specific geographic locations for access, but he
was assured alignment would be better if developed through the
existing public process. He thought the only reason for the
legislation was to try and throw a road block into the ultimate
decision process for any type of extension to the coastal trail.
If the adjacent land owners are the only ones who have access, it
is an extremely difficult situation because 98% of the access is
from the bluff.
MR. SMILIE SHIELDS said he is a Doctor of Biology in animal
behavior and ecology. He thought the ACWR is such valuable habitat
that there is no way it should be risked at any point.
There are many risks with putting a bike trail in a marsh. For
instance, the wind blows too hard sometimes for a person to ride in
it. He supported HB 131.
CHAIRMAN WARD noted that Mr. David Carter, who had to leave,
supported HB 131.
Number 479
MR. DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council, said they are proud of
Alaska's record of providing support for outdoor recreational
opportunities. He thought this hearing and the legislative process
was part of the public process. He was with ADF&G at the time this
Refuge was created and recalled the prolonged and sometimes
contentious efforts to establish and sustain the Refuge and the
rifle range. He appreciated Senator Szymanski's efforts. However,
he was concerned with some uses that might detract from some of the
traditional values and uses of this particular Refuge. There are
decades of experience with the interplay of competing agendas and
how the interests of wildlife conservation and traditional uses,
such as hunting, viewing, shooting, fishing may suffer if not
insulated from rapidly growing competing uses.
He thought it was within the Legislature's purview and their
responsibility to oversee the continued integrity of state refuges.
HB 131 properly meets that responsibility.
MR. DENNIS POSHARD, DOT/PF said they are sensitive to the concerns
of people regarding the ACWR. They have a project in conjunction
with AMATS in the root analysis and preliminary engineering stage
that will be directly affected by passage of HB 131. He explained
that the southern extension is being developed by AMATS. This
project is the missing link between trails heading north out of
Anchorage on the Glenn and Parks Highways and south out of
Anchorage on the Seward Highway. The process of planning how to
extend the coastal trail from Kincaid Park shelter south is
currently under way with the first public meeting being held on
March 31. They are going through an extensive public process; no
decision has been made on any particular alternative.
He pointed out that the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
Management Plan, published by ADF&G states that "coastal trail
access may be allowed within the Refuge where disturbance to fish
and wildlife populations and their habitat is avoided, where safety
considerations and conflicts to existing refuge uses including
water fowl, hunting, and rifle range use, and where compatible with
management of refuge public access points in the goals of this
management plan. This is a pretty big burden for them to meet.
Additionally, since they are using federal funding for the
extension project, the environmental process will have to be in
conformance with the National Environmental Protection Act. HB 131
would add an additional approval step to the project process if
some portion of the trail is proposed to be located within the
Refuge adding time and expense to the development.
The language of the bill shifts the responsibility for land use
management of ACWR from ADF&G to the Alaska Legislature and could
influence the development of potential alignments and bias the need
for process. The Legislature ultimately has control of the project
through the budget process.
He pointed out that there are other urban wildlife refuges in this
state that have bike trails in them - one in Juneau and one in
Fairbanks. They are highly used and will thought of. ADF&G has
stated clearly they will not issue any permit for any trail
alignment that goes across the ACWR, but that is not true. They
have concerns, but have not stated they will not issue a permit.
Regarding Senator Lincoln's concern about the Railroad and Seward
Highway and whether this bill could affect those, he discussed it
with Dave Eberly, Director of Construction and Operations for the
Central Region and with Jim Kubitz, Vice President of Real Estate
and Planning for the Railroad. Mr. Kubitz confirmed that they do
have a 200 ft. right-of-way for the Railroad. The Seward Highway
is two lane as it goes through the marsh, but it's given that it
will become a four lane at some point. It's envisioned that the
two lanes of the highway could take over the existing railroad bed
and move the railroad further away from the Potter's Marsh area.
He didn't know if that could be done within the 200 ft. corridor.
So this bill could have an effect on that project when it happens.
Removing surface transportation and adding trails in Senator
Lincoln's amendment would narrow the focus of the bill to what it's
really about.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked how much time there is between the time a
project is conceived until they need the legislative approval.
Could it miss one legislative session.
MR. POSHARD replied that the process would normally end at the
environmental stage after receiving appropriate permits from ADF&G,
the Corps of Engineers for the wetlands. Now they would be forced
to take an additional step when the environmental document comes
out to take it to the legislature and go through the whole
committee process.
TAPE 99-12, SIDE B
SENATOR LINCOLN clarified that she meant if they missed the
legislature's 120 day cycle, would that put them back one or two
years.
MR. POSHARD answered that would depend on when they completed the
environmental document. He didn't think it would set them back
more than a year.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if he understood HB 131 to apply to any type
of surface transportation like a bridge.
MR. POSHARD said that was his understanding.
CHAIRMAN WARD noted there was no more testimony.
SENATOR LINCOLN said she was still unsure what would happen if they
left "surface transportation." She moved to delete "surface
transportation" and insert "a bike path or trail" on page 1, line
12.
CHAIRMAN WARD objected.
SENATOR LINCOLN said there is a public process in place and right
now the concern is the bike path and trails.
SENATORS PEARCE, HALFORD, and LINCOLN voted yes; SENATOR WARD voted
no and the amendment was adopted.
SENATOR WARD announced that there were no further comments from the
committee and that they would hold HB 131.
HB 84-INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS REVENUE BONDS
CHAIRMAN WARD brought HB 84 before the committee for consideration.
TAPE 99-12, SIDE B
Number 545
MR. KURT PARKAN, Deputy Commissioner for the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF), stated HB 84 would
authorize $25 million in additional bonding authority for the
Anchorage International Airport Terminal expansion project. He
introduced Mr. Dave Eberle, Program Manager for Gateway Alaska in
charge of the construction of the project; Mr. Mort Plumb, Director
of the Anchorage International Airport; Mr. Jim Kubitz with the
Alaska Railroad Corporation; and Mr. Devon Mitchell, Debt Manager
for the Department of Revenue (DOR).
MR. PARKAN explained the purpose of HB 84 is to provide the airport
a means of interim financing to enable the terminal redevelopment
project to be constructed in a timely manner. The Governor
introduced legislation last year to authorize $204 million in
revenue bonds to finance the terminal redevelopment project. In
addition to the bonding, DOTPF included $26.3 million in federal
highway funds for a portion of the roads leading up to the
terminal.
The Senate bill that ultimately passed the legislature last year
reduced the amount $25 million. The expressed intent of the
legislature was that DOTPF secure additional federal dollars from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). During the summer,
DOTPF received those discretionary dollars through a Letter of
Intent. In February of 1999 the DOR issued $170 million in revenue
bonds for the project. Currently the project is about 5% complete
and major construction will begin this summer.
DOTPF received the bonding authority coupled with federal highway
funds to do the roadside and land-side improvements. However, the
funding will be received over a 10-year period which creates a cash
flow problem. The project's completion date is anticipated to be
3 to 4 years. To solve the cash flow dilemma and maintain the
current project schedule, DOTPF is asking that the previously
requested $25 million in bonds be authorized for interim financing.
As proceeds from the FAA are received, they will be used to offset
the additional bonds the department is requesting.
Overall, the project cost remains at $230 million as anticipated;
the $25 million in bonding authority will simply provide forward
funding to allow the project to be completed as originally
scheduled. Additional bonding authority will not increase the cost
of the project and it will ultimately reduce the impact on the
airlines. HB 131 will benefit the airport by allowing the terminal
project to be completed on schedule, and the airlines because it
reduces their costs. The airline carriers voted to approve the
project with the full $204 million in bonding authority; DOTPF is
reducing that amount by supplementing the cost with federal funds
thereby reducing the costs borne by the airlines and the traveling
public.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked Mr. Plumb or Mr. Eberle to address the
questions he had faxed to them.
Number 488
MR. DAVE EBERLE, Program Manager for Gateway Alaska, said one
question asked whether the design plan still contains five new jet
gates and seven gates for smaller aircraft which, he said, has
changed somewhat. The regional carriers now have the benefit of
exclusive use of seven gates; the jet gates have been moved to the
new Concourse C and reduced to four full-time gates for a net loss
of one gate. One additional jet gate is currently earmarked as an
alternate; in the event that bids come in higher than anticipated,
that gate will not be built.
MR. EBERLE presented the committee with a contingency analysis
he had prepared. The original contingency amount was $30.6 million.
He has accepted requested additions totaling $11.8 million and
suggested reductions of $4.8 million. He said these additions and
reductions will occur until the project is completed, and balancing
them is a means of managing the contingency in order to stay within
the $230 million budget.
MR. EBERLE said he has identified potential alternates to reduce
the scope of construction by not building certain aspects with the
objective of staying within the original project budget.
Number 445
MR. MORT PLUMB, Director of the Anchorage International Airport,
said one question was whether the traffic projections were "too
rosy" and have already fallen short in the first year. He said
they had identified many shortcomings in the terminals, such as
baggage claim and ticket cuing areas, and forecasted traffic in the
year 2005. The Asian economy and other factors have impacted
Alaska's economy, more particularly in cargo business with some
impact in passenger business. He believes the forecast will be
fairly representative and the only impact to the airport will be
when to build additional infrastructure and what that trigger point
would be.
MR. PLUMB explained HB 131 will allow the airport to get the bond
money up front to finance the construction costs, and over the ten
year period, it would receive the money from the federal government
to repay the bond debt.
MR. EBERLE stated no cost overruns have occurred thus far, and he
repeated that overall they would stay within the project budget.
The total spent on administration, engineering, design and other
non-construction expenses was $7.2 million through the end of
March.
Regarding the question of whether anything has been scaled back,
MR. PLUMB said overall the square footage has increased based on
the needs of the airlines. He offered to address specific
questions regarding scope items.
Number 380
SENATOR PEARCE expressed concern about the scope of the project.
The original design work was done by a company considered to be an
expert at airport design worldwide. She questioned why the
airlines are now demanding more from DOTPF when their needs were
defined in the scope by the expert designer. She noted the
domestic carriers are not the only ones paying for the expansion,
cargo carriers are involved as well. She questioned how DOTPF can
justify this expansion if the design was for a certain size.
MR. EBERLE said the original concept was based on averages, a
numerical model of other airports around the nation. At the time
the plan was developed, the design concept was based on
deplanements and preliminary discussion with the airlines and
tenants. The design concept contained an assumed square footage
without a floor plan; it was very general in nature. Now, as they
advance from the concept to the details of the schematic design in
the design development process, discussions with the airlines and
tenants have given rise to the various space increases. The goal
is to meet all the users' needs and to accommodate the traveling
public.
SENATOR PEARCE commented that DOTPF should never have brought the
project to the legislature and asked for bonding authority last
year. It should have come with the actual design and actual cost.
The cargo carriers bear the cost of the Anchorage International
Airport, not the passenger carriers, and now they will carry more
because the domestic passenger carriers want "new bells and
whistles after the fact."
MR. EBERLE responded the project cost remains at $230 million. The
project presented to the legislature last year was expected to cost
$204 million in bonding to be paid through airline revenues. That
figure has been reduced to $179 million due to additional federal
funding of $25 million. HB 131 requests bonding authority for
interim financing, but the net cost to the airlines is $25 million
less.
SENATOR PEARCE countered that she disagrees, because some of the
reductions are deferrals until a later date, including the North
terminal connector and completion of the third floor space. She
said that does not reduce the cost of the project or allow for
completion with the same amount of money.
MR. EBERLE replied he couldn't say the two projects referred to by
Senator Pearce will never be necessary, but whether they get added
will be subject to a vote of the airline carriers.
SENATOR PEARCE said the airlines should not run the AIA, the State
should.
Number 269
MR. PLUMB said the gate configuration changed in the past year.
The original concept had five additional gates, three of which
would be cross-utilized. In the end, the regional carriers got
three exclusive gates instead of three part-time, and domestic
carriers lost three. To accommodate the domestic carriers they
reduced the square footage of the regional carriers' area, the
square footage was added to the "C" extension. He noted that, and
a small amount of square footage added to the concession area, is
the cause of the change.
SENATOR PEARCE said the last time the group briefed the committee,
they said the square footage increased because they had to build a
mechanical utility underneath the terminal. MR. PLUMB said that
was correct. SENATOR PEARCE repeated they are not reducing, just
deferring some things. She emphasized that her point is that the
original plan attached to the North terminal, so that in the long
term, the North terminal would be fully utilized. Now, it is not
being attached so the white elephant is still sitting there and
$230 million will have been spent. She maintained that the project
will not be complete after the $230 million is spent and the group
will be before the legislature asking for more money to make the
project work.
SENATOR HALFORD asked the cost of the international terminal. MR.
PLUMB said it was about $26 million. SENATOR HALFORD asked if it
would sit vacant. MR. PLUMB said, "No, sir, it's 100% utilized
right now by Delta and international carriers." It was built as a
shopping center for international travelers, not as an
emplanement/deplanement terminal.
SENATOR PEARCE said she and Representative Hanley requested an
audit on the domestic terminal project, and at that time the
auditor concluded the project scope was not finalized prior to the
construction commitment. The scope was revised both before and
after the concession contract award date, which is partially why it
went way over budget. Airport tenants' requests for scope
revisions to the project necessitated redesign by the design
consultant at the State's expense. The large number of design
deficiencies resulted in the general contractor submitting over 750
design clarification and variation requests. The general
construction contract was awarded for $17.8 million with an
original contingency of $1.6 million through June 19, 1985.
Ninety-nine change orders totaled $3,126,000 above the original
contingency. SENATOR PEARCE said, "I hope that we've learned
something from that previous experience. You gentlemen weren't
there at the time, but we've been through terminal expansions
before, and as far as I can tell, we are starting down the same
road. That's why I am bothered by this."
SENATOR LINCOLN asked about DOR's fiscal note which states that the
airport has secured a federal grant, called a Letter of Intent, for
$25 million, to be appropriated by Congress over a 10-year period,
and whether the grant is secured or anticipated.
MR. PARKAN responded the Letter of Intent is a promise by the FAA
to pay over the course of 10 years, subject to appropriation by
Congress every year. The grant totals $32 million in federal
discretionary funds, and $16 million promised from the airport for
their entitlements to be used toward terminal development. Letters
of Intent are frequently and most commonly funded by front-loading
with bonds. He said other airports use the same process.
MR. JIM KUBITZ, Vice President of Real Estate and Project Planning
with the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), stated the ARRC
secured a $28 million grant from the federal railroad
administration to build a passenger rail station at Anchorage
International Airport. A year ago he became involved in the
planning process of the airport at Commissioner Perkins' and Mr.
Sheffields' request in order to protect its right-of-way into the
airport for future development of a rail station. Through an RSA
agreement with DOTPF, ARRC was able to work with the project
architect to conceptually design a rail station into the airport.
ARRC continued to work with the airport, and was successful in
getting a grant from Alaska's congressional delegation. ARRC is
now geared up to be a full participant in the airport project.
MR. KUBITZ said ARRC uses its own revenues without subsidies and is
careful with its operating funds. The project is designed to stay
within budget. The schematic design is final, and because of
procurement rules, ARRC will go out to bid for a final design. The
estimated construction budget is $20 million with a 16-17%
contingency built in. The elevated track portion, or rail station,
will be about $10 million, with the rest used for contingency or
the tunnel. The tunnel will be built underneath the circulation
road that will connect to the main part of the terminal. Benefits
to the airport include the new tunnel to help connect the rail
station and long-term parking area to the airport terminal. The
Board has committed to the tunnel; DOTPF will build it. ARRC is
providing rights-of-ways to the airport for the circulation of the
road, and along the rail line for a bike path designed into the
project.
The Board has not given full approval until ARRC provides it with
a market identification study in June. ARRC intends to seek its
approval to continue with full design and construction of the
airport.
CHAIRMAN WARD asked who this will benefit.
Number 030
MR. KUBITZ said the potential markets identified for the rail
station are cruise ship passengers motor-coached by Princess and
Westours, as well as charter operations. Groups brought in on
charter aircraft could be put on a train and taken directly to
Denali Park, Fairbanks, Seward or Girdwood. ARRC is looking at the
commuter market because line changes between Anchorage and Wasilla
can speed up the train.
TAPE 99-13, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN WARD stated three people are waiting on teleconference to
testify on HB 84.
MR. MIKE KEAN, Transportation Director of Anchorage Economic
Development Corporation (AEDC), testified in favor of HB 84. He
said AEDC believes the Anchorage International Airport is an
"economic engine" of the City of Anchorage its expansion is much
needed.
Number 028
MR. CLIFF ARGUE introduced himself as Staff Vice President of
Properties and Facilities at Alaska Airlines, and Chairman of
Anchorage/Fairbanks Airport Affairs Committee which represents 25
airlines. He said his comments represent Alaska Airlines and most
of the airline members of the committee. The airlines support HB
84. The bill is not a request for new or additional funding, it
will provide for a steady cash-flow to pay for the terminal project
as originally approved.
MR. RON LANCE, General Manager of United Airlines, expressed
support for HB 84 and agreed with Mr. Argue's comments.
Number 072
SENATOR PEARCE moved HB 84 out of committee with individual
recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
With no further business to come before the committee, CHAIRMAN
WARD adjourned the meeting at 3:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|