HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE May 1, 1998 2:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative William K. (Bill) Williams, Chairman Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair Representative John Cowdery Representative Bill Hudson Representative Jerry Sanders Representative Kim Elton Representative Albert Kookesh MEMBERS ABSENT All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR * HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 68 Relating to continued operation of the McKinley Park airstrip for general aviation and access to Denali National Park and Preserve. - MOVED HJR 68 OUT OF COMMITTEE CS FOR SENATE BILL 263(FIN) AM "An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED HCSCSSB 263(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HJR 68 SHORT TITLE: CONT OPERATION OF MCKINLEY PARK AIRSTRIP SPONSOR(S): FINANCE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 4/22/98 3198 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/22/98 3198 (H) TRANSPORTATION 5/01/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 BILL: SB 263 SHORT TITLE: SECONDARY ROADS SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON, Pearce, Sharp Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/27/98 2318 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/27/98 2318 (S) TRA, FIN 2/03/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/03/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 2/04/98 2396 (S) COSPONSOR: SHARP 2/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 2/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 2/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 3/12/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 3/12/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 3/19/98 (S) TRA AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 3/19/98 (S) MINUTE(TRA) 3/20/98 2915 (S) TRA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE 3/20/98 2915 (S) DP: WARD, GREEN NR: WILKEN 3/20/98 2915 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO SB & CS (DOT) 3/27/98 (S) FIN AT 8:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/01/98 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532 4/02/98 3111 (S) FIN RPT CS 4DP 2NR NEW TITLE 4/02/98 3111 (S) DP: PEARCE, SHARP, TORGERSON, DONLEY; 4/02/98 3111 (S) NR: PARNELL, ADAMS 4/02/98 3111 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DOT) 4/07/98 (S) RLS AT 11:25 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203 4/07/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 4/08/98 3199 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/8/98 4/08/98 3200 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 4/08/98 3200 (S) MOTION TO ADOPT FIN CS 4/08/98 3201 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/14 CALENDAR 4/14/98 3244 (S) HELD W/CS MOTION PNDG TO 4/15 CALENDAR 4/15/98 3273 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/15/98 3273 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 4/15/98 3274 (S) FAILED TO ADVANCE TO 3RD Y14 N5 E1 4/15/98 3274 (S) THIRD READING 4/16 CALENDAR 4/16/98 3296 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 263(FIN) AM 4/16/98 3297 (S) PASSED Y15 N5 4/16/98 3297 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE 4/16/98 3297 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 4/17/98 3345 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP 4/17/98 3346 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 4/18/98 3071 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 4/18/98 3072 (H) TRANSPORTATION 4/29/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 5/01/98 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 422 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4457 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 68. JAMES DREW, Flight Instructor 4725 Villanova Drive Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-2212 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 68. TOM GEORGE, Regional Representative Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation P.O. Box 83750 Fairbanks, Alaska 99708 Telephone: (907) 455-9000 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 68. PAUL BOWERS, Director Statewide Aviation, Leasing Department of Transportation and Public Facilities P.O. Box 196900 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6900 Telephone: (907) 269-0724 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 68. PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 424 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3424 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions on SB 263. MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 514 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2828 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on behalf of Senator Torgerson, Sponsor of SB 263. TOM BRIGHAM, Director Headquarters Division of Statewide Planning Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4070 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 263. OCIE ADAMS, Road Service Area Supervisor Member, Road Service Area Advisory Board Matanuska-Susitna Borough HC30 BOX 200 Wasilla, Alaska 99654-9756 Telephone: (907) 373-6690 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 263. DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison Office of the Commissioner Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-3904 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 263. DON ETHERIDGE, Representative Alaska District Council of Laborers Local 71 710 West Ninth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3707 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 263. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-22, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN WILLIAM K. (BILL) WILLIAMS called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 2:15 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Williams, Masek, Cowdery, Hudson, Elton and Kookesh. Representative Sanders arrived at 2:18 p.m. HJR 68 - CONT OPERATION OF MCKINLEY PARK AIRSTRIP CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the first order of business is HJR 68, Relating to continued operation of the McKinley Park airstrip for general aviation and access to Denali National Park and Preserve. Number 0014 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, presented HJR 68. He explained pilots are concerned about the plan that's being developed to phase-out the airstrip in the front country of Denali Park which is located in the broad pass along the Parks Highway. He said, "The concern is that they feel that the discussion, because of the way the proposal was made, it was in one of the 'not preferred' alternatives of the Park Service and then brought forward, and then kind of moved into 'the preferred' one, kind of at the last minute, that lot of people feel that they kind of got blind sighted with the proposal." Representative Davies said they are asking that the Park Service back-off the proposal to allow for more consideration and public input before proceeding. Number 0022 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES concluded that there are a number of the alternatives that the Park Service seems to advocate which do not seem to be realistic given the actual flight conditions in that canyon area. We feel, for the safety of the public, that we need to take a much more careful look at this plan before it moves forward. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted for the record that Representative Sanders is present. Number 0029 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY informed the committee that he has flown through this pass that it is fairly narrow. He said he believes the altitude is approximately seven thousand feet, some times you can get in there but you can't get through, you need a place to land. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied he has flown through the pass in small planes with pilots, and the pilots are also concerned about that, especially if you're coming from the south. He mentioned this is one of the few good places to land. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated, the other concern is that this is the source of information about the weather in the area so it's really important that it be maintained and that there is a good plan for it if there's going to be alternative place developed, that the pilots contribute to where that place is going to be, what kind of information, and what the timing is going to. He said he thinks people also need to comment on how useful it's going to be. Right now it's convenient, you can land there, you can get into the Park Headquarters area, and you can go from there to a camping area. If you move it much farther away from the Park Headquarters, it's going to be less convenient. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reiterated that he believes the plan is moving ahead too quickly. He noted the pass is a major transportation route between Fairbanks and Anchorage and that, since the strip is not far off the Parks Highway, there's going to be continued air traffic in the future. Representative Davies concluded that we need to make sure whatever changes are made, we need to take care of safety first and have adequate comments from the citizens before we make the changes. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY added, "And not only for the benefit of the tourists to be able to land, and stretch, and get out and do their thing after a flight from Anchorage, but as a safety - I think there's two issues that should be addressed." Number 0057 REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH noted Southeast Alaska has been greatly involved with the Park Service in regard to Glacier Bay. He stated one of the problems with the Park Service is that their idea of Alaska is to shut it out to everybody, especially those who have used it before. He said he believes we may have to do is sit down with somebody in authority, especially those who have some oversight with the Park Service because we can't afford to have Glacier Bay or the park closed to access. Number 0070 JAMES DREW, Flight Instructor, testified via teleconference in support of HJR 68. He said McKinley Park Airport is an extremely important safety issue with respect to the flight pattern between Interior and Southcentral Alaska. He stated the major problem they face in Interior Alaska, between Southcentral and the Interior, is that the mountains and the height of the mountains mean that any kind of instrument flight has to be above ten thousand feet. And frequently our atmospheric conditions, either throughout much of the year, or such that icing occurs to that level, most generally the aviation airplanes in Alaska are not equipped to deal with the icing. MR. DREW continued to explain that Windy Pass is the major access point (indisc.--coughing) that is traveled between these two areas. Weather often consists of scattered rain showers or snow showers, in a wider valley it wouldn't make any difference because one can go around those showers, but in a very narrow pass that's not possible. And so consequently the weather conditions in Windy Pass can often be marginal and yet this is the only access that we have, back and forth between Interior and Southcentral Alaska. Mr. Drew stressed that the McKinley Park Airport is an extremely important sight because if any problem, either mechanical or weather occurs, the McKinley Park Airport is the only place available in Windy Pass where a safe landing can be made. Number 0093 MR. DREW referred to the remote transmitting facilities along the route through Windy Pass, we find that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has established remote transmitting receiving sites (RCO) tied into life service stations in both Fairbanks and Kenai. They have also been established in Healy, McKinley Park, Cantwell and Summit. He said he knows of no other place in Alaska, or, in fact, most other places in the rest of the United States where RCO's are located so close together. Mr. Drew stated he thinks that represents operational recognition by FAA to the importance of Windy Pass and the importance of the weather there, and that in turn reflects the importance of the emergency airports within that area. As you know, Healy is at the very north area of the route that goes through the pass and wind conditions are often bad at Healy. And the Denali Airport, which is south from McKinley Park, is a private airport which is not available except in (indisc.) parts and emergency conditions for landing. MR. DREW said we simply cannot compromise if we're going to retain a safe condition for flying. In view of the importance of this route, he strongly urged that the McKinley Park Airport be retained and suggested that it be improved to provide better emergency field conditions. If we close McKinley Park, we are jeopardizing a critical transportation system in Alaska and jeopardizing lives. Number 0122 TOM GEORGE, Regional Representative, Alaska Aviation Safety Foundation, testified in support of HJR 68 via teleconference. He pointed out that the safety foundation is very concerned about the safety of flights through the Alaska Range and Windy Pass. He said McKinley Park Airport is the only public airport in that pass and that it's important to have a place, not only to land in an emergency, but more importantly to make a precautionary landing to be able to await better weather conditions. He explained often the weather conditions are very different between the south end of the pass and the north end of the pass, in fact, it's entirely possible to be in the middle of that area and not be able to go either to the north or the south. MR. GEORGE mentioned, if lost, it's a form of public access to the park entrance as well. He stated the foundation doesn't believe Healy, due to its high winds, is a suitable alternative to meet the concerns of that area, nor does the private airport because the public is not invited to land at that location. Mr. George stated, "The Park Service, as I understand it from reading their plans, intends to convert that airstrip into railroad parking for bus transfers at some point in the future. And the assumption they made there is that the other landing facilities near it are adequate public access. So, that's I think where we disagree with that and we request that they would reconsider that decision." Number 0142 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked Chairman Williams if he was ready for a motion. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted they were still taking public testimony. Number 0143 PAUL BOWERS, Director, Statewide Aviation, Leasing, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), testified via teleconference. He noted DOT/PF strongly supports HJR 68 and agrees with the comments, so far, that the McKinley airstrip is indeed strategically located and is a well used air travel corridor. He mentioned the nearest airstrip is the state-owned strip at Healy Point which is a much windier location than McKinley and is not suitable as an alternative. MR. BOWERS explained the weather reporting facility at Healy does not cover the weather at McKinley and automated weather observation system (AWAS) at McKinley, it covers only that area. If that strip were closed, he said the likelihood is that AWAS, weather reporting station would also go with it and that would be a significant loss. MR. BOWERS said when the National Park Service proposed to close the McKinley Park Airstrip, they said they would not do so until a suitable alternative is available. He reiterated Healy is not an acceptable or suitable alternative in that regard. Mr. Bowers also indicated the Park Service said they were proposing closure of the McKinley strip to accommodate railroad expansion. He said DOT/PF contacted the railroad and was informed the railroad had no plans to expand into that area. He stated it appears the Park Service is following a national mandate to vacate park lands other than park facilities which makes no sense. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it's important to get this resolution to the National Park Service, and to the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior, including others listed on the resolution. She encouraged others to get the message to Congress. Number 0173 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move HJR 68 from the committee with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HJR 68 passed out of the House Transportation Committee. SB 263 - SECONDARY ROADS Number 0179 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced CSSB 263(FIN) Amended, "An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective date," sponsored by Senator Torgerson, is before the committee. Number 0188 PETE ECKLUND, Legislative Assistant to Representative Williams, Alaska State Legislature, presented the working draft, Version L, Cook, 5/1/98. He explained Section 1, page 1, further defines the highway program. Mr. Ecklund noted that we currently have the national highway system (NHS), community transportation projects (CTP) and trails and recreation access to Alaska projects (TRAAK) programs. The added language in Section 1 states that the total federal funds that the state receives, that no more than 65 percent of those federal funds shall go to the NHS program. And further, we said that the federal funds we receive for highway programs, no more than 7.3 percent shall go to the TRAAK program. He noted those are averaged out over three years. MR. ECKLUND mentioned he distributed information on the current statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) and for federal fiscal years 98, 99 and 2000. He said the TRAAK portion ran from 7.24 percent in 1998, 6.73 percent in 1999, and 7.29 in 2000. So, capping the TRAAK program at that level is not going to push anything off the STIP. He indicated this section is basically a policy decision stating that the TRAAK program is good, we just want to keep a lid on its growth as we work on our road system. Number 0206 MR. ECKLUND referred to page 2 of the working draft. He said, "We deleted -- in the previous Section (c), there was language that said that 20 percent of the ranking for CTP projects had to be based on averaged daily traffic. We heard testimony from the department that an overwhelming percentage of those roads are in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and that most of that money would migrate to those two cities. In the work draft, we pulled that out." Deleted the following: In determining the priority of each community transportation project, the department shall determine at least 20 percent of the ranking of the project based on the volume of use of the facility that is the subject of the project. MR. ECKLUND continued, "What we would allow the department to do is, what we charge the department to do, is to write regulations concerning the ranking and scoring criteria process for the CTP program, the TRAAK program, and the National Highway System program. Right now, they just have an internal policy which can change between Administrations, between commissioners, or at any point in time. We're directing them to write regulations so we we'd have more public input and overview of those processes." Number 0218 MR. ECKLUND referred to subsection (d) of the working draft, line 24. He said we added the following phrase following, "The department shall allocate, for planning purposes under this section, at least 60 percent of the anticipated appropriations,..." averaged over three consecutive years of the program, for the community transportation category for projects in the rural and urban streets and roads subcategory. MR. ECKLUND explained it gave them three years to average out, to spend at least 60 percent on the rural and urban street's road subcategory, because there could be spikes in any one. He said he believes DOT/PF will agree with that. Number 0225 MR. ECKLUND referred to subsection (e), page 3, lines 1, 2 and 3 of the working draft. He said, "This is new section and is a policy call Mr. Chairman. What the effect of this amendment is, is we've heard over time, testified by the department and by the commissioner of many committees, subcommittees, and many committees, that the TRAAK program is funded with our transportation enhancement dollars, and what this language does Mr. Chairman, is it says that transportation and enhancement eligible projects - projects eligible to be funded with transportation enhancement dollars shall be funded with transportation enhancement dollars and not other funding categories. So, that means money that's available to build roads will not go under the TRAAK is what that means basically, Mr. Chairman, and that's a policy call. I bring that to your attention." Number 0233 MR. ECKLUND continued, "Also on page 3, we have changed the name of unimproved secondary roads and we've renamed those substandard secondary roads. And that's what the department -- I think that clarifies part of this bill Mr. Chairman. What we're doing in Section 2 is asking the department by regulation to define secondary roads, and then roads that are substandard to those, to that criteria, will be eligible for this $20,000,000 that may be appropriated to upgrade those substandard secondary roads that may be transferred to municipalities if they request that." Number 0240 MR. ECKLUND noted subsection (4) was added to subsection (d), page 3, to clarify that substandard secondary roads are roads that are not on a national highway system or the TRAAK programs. That means substandard secondary roads are in the community transportation program and are defined in that section. Number 0245 MR. ECKLUND said we added Section (4), page 4, basically what this says is that not less than one percent of our total federal highway funds, for the next six years, shall be used for new bridge construction across waterways which are part of the NHS to access airports in other areas. He mentioned that, after talking to an attorney in Legal Services, a proposed verbal amendment will be offered. Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked approximately what would one percent would be for the years 1998 to 2000 in reference to in Section 4. MR. ECKLUND replied the House version of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is $280 million a year for six years, the Senate version $312 million for six years. He said, if you say we're get $300 million a year for six years, that's $1.8 million, so roughly one percent would be $18 million, that's a rough guess. Number 0255 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked if it's common to appropriate money in a bill that's for a capital project. Isn't a bridge a capital project? MR. ECKLUND replied, in working with Tam Cook [Legal Services, Legislative Affairs], this is not appropriation language, the language is defined in this bill and in the title of this bill, it's not an appropriation. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH reiterated that a bridge is a capital project. MR. ECKLUND replied yes, it is a capital project. This is not an appropriation. It basically sets aside money for a project of this type. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated it sounds like the definition of an appropriation by setting aside money for a project. MR. ECKLUND reiterated according to Legal Services, this is not an appropriation, it's not violating any act or appropriation, it fits within the title of this bill and in this bill perfectly fine. Number 0264 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked Mr. Ecklund where the Gravina Island Bridge is in the state system for funding. Is it currently in the budget? MR. ECKLUND replies no. It's not on the STIP. Number 0267 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON referred to the 7.3 percent requirement, page 1, beginning on line 10 of the working draft. Federal funds allocated to the trails and recreation access to Alaska projects may not exceed 7.3 percent of the federal highway funding available, averaged over three consecutive years. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked how does that affect Anchorage. Does 7.3 percent apply to the federal dollars that are going to Anchorage, and that Anchorage decides how to spend it under their own program? MR. ECKLUND referred to page 6 of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, March 1998, DOT/PF criteria. He explained, "What line 11 says is, ... it shows out for 1998, 1999 and 2000 of the STIP, what's its program is for the TRAAK program of how many dollars are programmed in for TRAAK and those are projects spread throughout the state, not just Anchorage. And, if you divide $22 million like in say 1998 by 304 down below, that percentage is 7.24, and so on. In the year 2000, already in their STIP spent $24 million on TRAAK projects in the year 2000, okay. And that works out to be 7.3 percent of the total of federal funds available for that year as they've estimated. What we've done is, we've said, 'Okay, that's reasonable, we'll put that in statute.' And that's basically a ceiling on how much of a percentage, of our total federal dollars that we can spend on TRAAK. If, in our federal legislation we get more money than we programmed here, they can spend more money, you know, 7.3 percent of that extra money on TRAAK. So, that percentage is not going to wipe out anything that's scheduled in the STIP for TRAAK projects." Number 0286 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, if he remembers the newspaper stories correctly, Anchorage is debating on whether or not they have 10, 15 or 20 percent for TRAAK projects. He asked, if they settle on 15 percent on TRAAK projects in Anchorage, does that reduce the amount of money that's available for TRAAK to other parts of the state. MR. ECKLUND replied DOT/PF can also provide their view of the situation. He further explained the cap of the total federal dollars we receive for a three year period, we're not going to spend more than 7.3 percent averaged on TRAAK. The Anchorage TRAAK projects have to go through the STIP, they're ranked like everything else, they have to go through the STIP just like CTP projects do for Anchorage, they go through the same ranking criteria that every project throughout the state does. What DOT/PF does, is they rank all the projects throughout the state, they take the amount of money they have available for CTP and for TRAAK, and then they pull out how many projects would qualify for Anchorage in CTP and TRAAK, under the amount of money they have, and that's what they allocate to Anchorage for the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS). So, those projects in Anchorage are not going to compete with projects throughout the state and so it's not to pull any off of STIP, it's just going to put a cap on the total dollars we can spend on TRAAK to keep it basic at the level it is now. Number 0301 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated the concern he has is that if Anchorage, for example, decides to spend 15 percent on TRAAK projects, that might diminish the amount of money available to other parts of the state for TRAAK. Conversely, this would be a mandate - this takes away the local option for AMATS to make their own decision on how much they want to spend on TRAAK. MR. ECKLUND said he believes when the state goes through and makes their calculations for CTP and for TRAAK, they give that money then to Anchorage and AMATS decides how they want to spend it. Number 0305 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 2, subsection (c), beginning on line 16. The department shall rank community transportation projects proposed to be undertaken in each year of the statewide transportation improvement program in accordance with the priority of the project. The department shall give priority to upgrading a substandard or hot asphaltic road if the department receives a request by a municipality for the transfer of the road or a portion of the road to the municipality and, after the upgrading is completed, the department shall transfer to the municipality the road or the portion of it that is within the boundaries of the municipality. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if the new priority - is that the first threshold question and whether or not that substitutes for criterion number 6. MR. ECKLUND deferred the question to Senator Torgerson's staff because she is more familiar with the secondary roads program. Number 0312 MARY JACKSON, Legislative Assistant to Senator John Torgerson, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She said she only heard a part of the question. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON reiterated, under subsection (c), beginning on line 16, page 2, it establishes a priority, if the road is going to be transferred to a municipality. He asked if that creates a new priority that substitutes for criteria number 6, and whether the department would have to write a new criterion that this would be the first threshold criterion, and that all the other criteria are... MS. JACKSON interjected that it was not intended to have the department re-rank, this was supposed to conform to the secondary roads program of Section 2. She stated Section 2 was the bill, and then Section 1 became the amendment, so, we were trying to make certain that Section 1's ranking criteria matched the initial bill. Ms. Jackson said, perhaps it doesn't if Representative Elton thinks it reads that way. MR. ECKLUND referred to Section 2, secondary roads, page 3. He said the department is going to write regulations establishing what a secondary road is, and then certain gravel roads, and cold asphaltic roads that don't meet that definition of secondary roads or substandard secondary roads. The department shall identify substandard secondary roads and then rank them. One of the first priorities in that ranking is, if there's a community that's near a substandard secondary road that wants to take it over, once it's improved, they'll get priority in the ranking system that DOT/PF sets up. Number 0327 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he observed that there is a priority for that now, it appoints a warden for example now if the road were to be turned over to a municipality. He reiterated that he is concerned that if it's a threshold question that comes above the other criteria set, that it pushes rural projects further down the list because, if this is the threshold question, and the municipality says they want that road, that we'd never get to some of the rural projects. MR. ECKLUND remarked there is a $20 million cap on roads that can be improved, substandard secondary roads per year, and DOT/PF will be writing regulations, since that is a public process you and the public will have influence on how that ranking system is set up. Number 0335 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to subsection (d), beginning on line 22, page 3. For purposes of this section, "substandard secondary road" means a dirt or gravel road or a road that has received a cold asphaltic application, and that REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked what is the effect of that subsection on the Marine Highway System and whether or not this diminishes the amount of money that would otherwise be available to the Marine Highway System. When you apply at least 60 percent of the anticipated appropriations for projects of rural and urban streets (indisc.) a subcategory, does that diminish the amount of money available to the Marine Highway System. MR. ECKLUND replied that's the current DOT/PF policy. He said, "The Marine Highway System parts that are in the CTP program, are only I guess a couple off, not mainline terminals. The rest of the Marine Highway System is on the National Highway System." He said he believes the criterion shows what's on the National Highway System. Number 0341 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated this would be just for terminal projects, or access to terminals. MR. ECKLUND replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated they need to adopt the working draft for discussion. She made the motion to adopt the proposed HCS CSSB 263(TRA), Version LS1421\L, Cook, 5/1/98. Hearing no objection, Version L is before the committee. Number 0349 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked why Section 4, page 4, beginning on line 2, fits under the existing title. Notwithstanding other provisions of state law, not less than one percent of the total federal highway funds apportioned and available to the state for obligation in the statewide transportation improvement program for federal fiscal years 1998 - 2003 shall be obligated for new bridge construction across waterways that are part of the national highway system that provide direct access to airports and other areas. MR. ECKLUND said he could call Legal Services for a legal explanation. He stated it's not an appropriation. It's okay to be in this bill. He reiterated the drafter is fine with the language being in the bill. He also mentioned he is going to make a small amendment to this language. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS referred to page 1, line 11, of the working draft. He said, along those same lines, you have 7.3 percent of the federal highway funds available will be used for a certain issue. MR. ECKLUND stated the title is very broad, it says, "An Act relating to secondary roads and to the statewide transportation improvement program; and providing for an effective date." He said we are defining what that Statewide Transportation Improvement Program is in this legislation. Number 0361 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked, "When we talk about a (indisc.) statewide common standard for secondary roads, you know we have various -- how would that be determined." MR. ECKLUND replied that would be a good question for the department. He said we're asking them to write regulations to come up with standards for secondary roads because currently there is none. Number 0366 MR. ECKLUND also pointed out a change on page 3, line 6. He mentioned Representative Masek asked a question on Wednesday regarding establishing standards that are uniform throughout the state, and at the department's suggestion, and from talking to Senator Torgerson's staff, we put in the word "reasonably" uniform throughout the state. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "I wonder if the Chairman would like to add a separate repealer in Section 4, say ten years." Number 0374 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked, "What is the justification on page 4, Section 4, line 5, of the designation that this bridge construction across waterways that are part of the National Highway System, it's that or part of the National Highway System. Is there anything in current law or federal law, or any other dictates that we have that would require that? What if you had bridge construction across a waterway that provides direct access to airports in other areas. Why identify it only across waterways, I guess that's what we're talking about, waterways that are a part of the National Highway System?" ...obligated for new bridge construction across waterways that are part of the national highway system that provide direct access to airports and other areas. MR. ECKLUND referred to the waterway in Ketchikan that is identified as a part of the National Highway System. He said that's what was in mind as the legislation was written. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON mentioned a waterway between Douglas Island and the Juneau Airport would provide a similar service. MR. ECKLUND replied we may have excess ferries in the next few years. Number 0393 TOM BRIGHAM, Director, Headquarters, Division of Statewide Planning Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came before the committee to sum up the department's reaction to the committee substitute. He said in general, DOT/PF is happy to see the 20 percent, based on the traffic provision, come out in Section 1. Essentially DOT/PF's position at this point is that they believe Section 1 would best be left to next year. He said, because you're really talking about applying Section 1 to a process DOT/PF set up that's a product of the current Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which is in the process of being reauthorized by Congress. He indicated they will have a new one sometime within a half year. Mr. Brigham explained it makes more sense to address these kinds of issues after we know what the federal stage is because we are talking here about the federal program. So, DOT/PF's recommendation is to delete Section 1. MR. BRIGHAM referred to Section 2. He said, "With the editorial changes that have been made in this committee substitute, we have no particular..." TAPE 98-22, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. BRIGHAM referred to Section 4. He stated that he wants to make it very clear that DOT/PF has no particular problem with the objective that is the crossing with a particular waterway near Ketchikan. But, DOT/PF does object to, in effect placing a specific project in a bill of this sort. They think the place for this is the capital budget. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked where does it say anything about where it is going. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON remarked, "Particularly with my amendment." MR. BRIGHAM replied, "Through a process of deduction Mr. Chairman..." CHAIRMAN WILLIAM added that there are several areas and asked Mr. Brigham to explain his comment. Number 0012 MR. BRIGHAM responded that he only began thinking of the number of projects that were across waterways that would be new bridges that would be part of the National Highway System or eligible the National Highway System that would provide direct access to airports. He said he could only think of one project, therefore, the criteria are limiting enough, that the universe you're talking about is in fact very very small, even if it is larger than one project. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked, "If we were to take out, on line 5, 'that are part of the national highway system,' then you could think of more than one couldn't you." MR. BRIGHAM replied he recalls a suggestion, along those, lines being made here just a few minutes ago and that could well apply he supposed. Number 0024 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it had any implications on the federal authorization for the use of these funds. MR. BRIGHAM responded, in a programmatic sense, to be eligible for federal funds, a project has to go through the federal STIP process, through the public involvement process, and so forth, then it becomes eligible. If, for example, you were to say, put such and such a project in the federal program, and if we simply did it, the federal government would say, "I'm sorry this isn't eligible, it hasn't been through the process." But, if we don't put it in the program, we would then be in violation of state law. So, programmatically it puts us in a bit of a fix. Number 0035 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what if we were to conceptually say, "unless one percent of the total federal highway funds apportioned shall be obligated for federally authorized new bridge construction." He added this would be in compliance with the STIP provisions. MR. BRIGHAM replied, "Or federally eligible, something like that would probably take care of that." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON noted that would probably eliminate the federal concerns. NUMBER 0044 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to page 1. He asked Mr. Brigham if he concurred with what he's heard on the 7.3 percent. He said he would be interested in his view on whether that's a mandate to Anchorage through AMATS, in whether or not that takes away their local option of determining what percent goes to trails. And if it is, if they're still allowed to do that and set for example 15 percent of their funds for TRAAK. Representative Elton asked does that diminish funds available for TRAAK elsewhere in the state. MR. BRIGHAM said Mr. Ecklund did a good job of describing the way the process works. This would cap the amount of - the size of the TRAAK part of the program. Within that, DOT/PF would then evaluate the Anchorage projects along with everyone else's to determine what the allocation to Anchorage would be. As a Municipal Planning Organization (MPO) DOT/PF has to give them an allocation of funding and not tell them which projects they can build. He explained that they would then take the TRAAK allocation, and take their Community Transportation Program (CTP) allocation, they put them together and they can do whatever they want with it as long as it's federally eligible. In other words, they can choose to spend 15 percent or 5 percent. By law, it's their decision and DOT/PF and the Legislature are not really able to alter that. So, this would not interfere with AMATS's decision as how they want to do their TRAAK. Number 0061 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated it's her understanding the federal regulations for the STIP hasn't been finalized. MR. BRIGHAM replied correct. The reauthorization of the service transportation Act is not final. He said there are two competing bills and are at the moment in conference and it looks like it's going to take a while. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, "If we are to make this law, how will that effect..." Number 0065 MR. BRIGHAM said, "Our concern is that we have a process developed in response to the current ISTEA, this codifies much of that process, it adds a few things which we independently object to, but nonetheless, it codifies that process. That's fine if ISTEA is - the new ISTEA is a continuation of the old ISTEA, but to the extent to which you may wind up with different federal requirements in the new federal legislation, it seems to me to make a lot sense to us to take Section 1 out, bring it back next year if there's still a desire to do that. We think we have a pretty good process right now and we'd like to see that continue and carry over beyond this Administration into future Administrations. So, in general we don't have a problem." Number 0075 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what kind of fiscal note does he anticipate for adopting regulations. MR. BRIGHAM replied there are three fiscal impact issues here, there are two sets of regulations to adopt which are not federally eligible by in large and there is a certain amount of staff work to do to inventory the unimproved secondary roads. He noted DOT/PF prepared a new fiscal note which is approximately $150,000 to the bill as it currently stands. If Section 1 were deleted that would remove $50,000 perhaps a bit more from that, it would drop the fiscal impact to approximately $75,000 to $90,000. Number 0085 MR. ECKLUND said he would like to respond to some of DOT/PF's fears about reauthorized ISTEA. He stated, "The work draft, ... is more of a broad umbrella policy, it can fit in -- I'd be interested to know specifically what sections you are really worried about that, in the reauthorized ISTEA, we might be asking to violate because, Mr. Chairman, what we have in front of us is a broad policy, we're going to set up three broad funding categories, NHS, the TRAAK, the CTP program. We're not asking them to rank and score projects. Mr. Chairman, the reauthorized ISTEA, neither version -- Alaska has always had many exemptions to the federal regulations on federal highway programs to create discretion. And in both versions of the bill - we still have Section 118 exemptions and we're exempt from many federal requirements. And, the implementation of this bill is a policy question, and it's a policy question this year or next year, or the following year, and to hold the reauthorization of ISTEA out there is the reason we're not passing the bill I think along Mr. Chairman." MR. BRIGHAM stated, the department's sense is, in the reauthorization of ISTEA there are provisions relating to the National Highway System, to enhancements, and to all sorts of things that are different in the two versions if the bill is passed out. MR. BRIGHAM said, "We simply believe it's premature. You could wind up with provisions that apply to the National Highway System or to enhancements which we believe could be in conflict with the way this Section 1 is structured. And it just seems, procedurally, it seems to make a lot more sense to take Section 1, and set it aside, deal with it once we know, in other words next year, once we know what we have in the way of a federal program that we're relating our programs to." MR. ECKLUND stated, "Right now we have a current STIP for 1998, and we have a capital budget for 1999, and a STIP for FY 99. What we're doing in this document is basically codifying what's in this STIP. So, what Mr. Brigham was worried about, if they pass reauthorized ISTEA, if it's going to -- if this bill would violate anything - reauthorized ISTEA, they're going to have to change it in this document anyway. So, we're not actually - you're going to have to change this document if there's things reauthorized ISTEA that this document violates. Mr. Chairman, I just think it's pretty far fetched, what we've got in this bill is what's in this booklet Mr. Chairman for the most part." REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated, except for Section 4. Number 0116 MR. BRIGHAM responded DOT/PF clearly will change the STIP when they have a new ISTEA. They will have final funding amounts, which their STIP has to be in line with those, and so forth, there's no question. But DOT/PF would change them based on the federally approved process, and so forth, but they would not be constrained. Right now DOT/PF is not necessarily constrained by a particular state law that says here's how you have to put your STIP together. What this would do, it would give DOT/PF that state law, and their concern is our state law winds up being at odds with the new federal legislation and then we are in a pickle. Mr. Brigham stated it is not far fetched, it simply makes good sense. MR. ECKLUND said Alaska, and all states, has always had broad discretion on how they set up their ranking and criteria system to come up with a STIP. They have to have a process that's approved by the Federal Highway Administration. He stated, "This would just be the process, that's all they ever asked for is a process, and that's what we're asking in the bill, we're kind of codifying a process. So, it wouldn't be in violation of anything Mr. Chairman." MR. BRIGHAM said he would continue to disagree. Number 0132 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, from the beginning, what statement by the Legislature predicates the current STIP development. Was there guidance put on the record by the Legislature in how to prepare the STIP or was that pretty much dictated by the federal government or independently by the department? MR. BRIGHAM responded the guidelines are almost exclusively federal. He noted a broad state statute exists that essentially says, go forth and bring back all the federal money you can. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I believe the working draft is a statement on the part of the Legislature to try to direct the influence of whatever funds we get through the federal government for public purpose uses. I think it's part of the Legislature's effort to at least have some intent, maybe even some beyond the intent - even some requirements of the department when you prepare your STIT to try to isolate a percentage of them for this purpose, and percentage of them for that purpose. And I think that is a right role for the Legislature because we are the -- if Ramona Barnes were here she would tell you that we are clearly the policy setters for the State of Alaska." Number 0152 MS. JACKSON stated Senator Torgerson supports Section 1 and understands some of the concerns of the department. She said she thinks the Legislature is the policy setting board, and there's $300 million on the table that the Legislature has not had any direct influence over, and should. MS. JACKSON mentioned the issue of 20 percent which came up in the meeting on Wednesday. She said Senator Donley's staff was here earlier and had an amendment that took it down to 15 percent. She indicated she didn't know what Senator Donley may or may not do when it goes over to the Senate. Number 0165 MR. ECKLUND offered a proposed amendment to Section 4, line 5, page 4. Delete: obligated Insert: used by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities MR. ECKLUND asked Representative Hudson if, that after for, insert "federally eligible." REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Ecklund to read it. Number 0173 MR. ECKLUND referred to the end of line 4, "shall be used by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for" and insert: federally eligible new bridge construction across waterways... CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if everyone understands the meaning. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Ecklund to read it. MR. ECKLUND explained, on line 5, just strike the word "obligated" and insert "used by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities," keep the next word for, then insert right there "federally eligible." Between "for" and "new" insert federally eligible. Mr. Ecklund said he believes that was Mr. Brigham's suggestion. Number 0185 MR. BRIGHAM replied, "I don't believe this was my suggestion. I just might ask for the intent under 'used,' how used is meant here. We may or may not have a technical problem." MR. ECKLUND read Section 4. Notwithstanding other provisions of state law, not less than one percent of the total federal highway funds apportioned and available to the state for obligation in the statewide transportation improvement program for federal fiscal years 1998 - 2003 shall be used by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities for federally eligible new bridge construction across waterways that are part of the national highway system that provide direct access to airports and other areas. Number 0194 MR. BRIGHAM asked would you consider "obligated" as a form of "used," in other words, is this intended to broaden the original sentence, or is it narrowing. MR. ECKLUND replied the term "obligated," as he and as the drafter understands it, is when the state is going to do a project, or wants to build a project, or do right-of-way, or design, or some portion of a project, they apply to the Federal Highway Administration for approval to do that project. When the Federal Highway Administration signs off and approves that project, they, the Federal Highway Administration, have obligated themselves to repay those funds. So, the way it was formally written, with obligated, we could not force the federal government to do anything. So, we've changed that to say that, that one percent shall be used by DOT/PF for federally eligible new bridge construction. MR. BRIGHAM said that's clear enough. Number 0205 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked does that means, once we go through that process, we have one percent available, then you look at the projects that have gone through the federal process to be recognized as need funded, then you would take that one percent and fund that particular project. MR. ECKLUND responded as he sees, is when a project qualifies, under this section, that gets on this STIP, there will be money available. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked did they go through the regular process first. MR. ECKLUND replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated then that one percent is available, then you fund them. MR. ECKLUND replied that's how he understands it. Number 0211 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, how does this work. He said, "We're saying used for a project that meets these criteria. In federal fiscal years 1998, what does that mean - immediately. Are we using federal fiscal year FY 98 dollars this construction season?" MR. ECKLUND responded we are using federal fiscal year 98 construction dollars this season, but the effect of Section 4 is that one percent of the total available to the state for the federal fiscal years 98 through 2000 shall be used for a project that meets this criteria. So, we're not affecting any projects this year, or any projects in the STIP. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said, so, it's not a one percent each year, it's an amount equivalent to one percent over those federal fiscal years. MR. ECKLUND replied that is correct. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any further comments or questions on the amendment. He asked for a motion to move the amendment. Number 0221 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed amendment. There being no objections, the amendment was adopted. Number 0223 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY offered an amendment to Section 4, line 5, delete after waterways, "that part of the national highways system." He asked Chairman Williams if he would consider that amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON indicated he would consider the proposed amendment if Representative Cowdery offered it. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied, right now, probably not. REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, just checking. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were further comments or questions on the bill. Number 0232 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Chairman Williams if he wanted motions for other amendments, or does he want to wait until after public testimony. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied, after the public testimony is closed. Number 0236 OCIE ADAMS, Road Service Area Supervisor, Service Area 17, and member of the Road Service Area Advisory Board for the Matanuska- Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough, testified via teleconference. He said, "The Road Service Area Advisory Board and the Mat-Su Borough have supported SB 263 in its original content and we're following this bill through to this point. I have some severe concerns for some of the amendments that I've heard put into the bill today, though and we will need to discuss these further to continue to support it." MR. ADAMS continued, "I think that the allocation of roads through airport money, there is (indisc.) provisions in the STIP to prioritize and work up through the system to get those type projects done. All this amendment will do is circumvent the process and I didn't think we could support that." MR. ADAMS noted they don't support the removal of Section 1 either, the Road Service Area supervisors and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough staff supports it in its original format. Mr. Adams said he believes there's information contained in it that protects that program from being in conflict with anything. He read Section 1, line 8, 4/15/98 as amended reads: The program shall be prepared and revised as frequently as necessary for state participation in federal highway, transit, and transportation programs or, in the absence of a federal requirement, as frequently as the commissioner otherwise determines appropriate. MR. ADAMS stated he doesn't see how we can have this in conflict with anything if we have a provision in it to revise it as often as necessary to make the program work. MR. ADAMS said he thinks the original format could be supported by the majority of the service areas, if not all the service areas in the borough. Number 0256 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Adams if he was looking at the committee's new committee substitute. MR. ADAMS indicated the Legislative Information Office staff may have not given him the most recent version. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS mentioned a copy of Version L is being faxed. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Adams if he would review it and provide comments. MR. ADAMS responded he needs a few minutes to look over it. Number 0263 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he is more comfortable with SB 263 the way it got to this committee than he is the way it's leaving this committee. For that reason, he proposed Amendment 2: Delete: Section 1 and renumbering the subsequent sections. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thinks the testimony has covered an awful lot of what his concerns are and is willing to speak to that, but he thinks everybody understands what the issues are. If anybody has any questions, he indicated he would be more than willing to answer them. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any questions on Amendment 2. Number 0273 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON made a motion to move Amendment 2. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS objected. He said, as he understands it, it helps us set up a broad policy for what we currently don't' have. He asked Representative Elton what his objection is to that. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out his strongest objection is the way it constricts, especially with the inclusion of the 7.3 percent which restricts the ability that the department now has in the allocation of funds. He said he took to heart, to some extent, also the concerns that DOT/PF has that we're adopting in statute something that we may have to come back and change depending on how ISTEA turns out in this Congress. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Ecklund if this currently is the way TRAAK money is written in the STIP program. Number 0282 MR. ECKLUND responded that's correct, the way DOT/PF has laid out the STIP and funding over the next three years, FY 98, 99, and 2000. In the year 2000 they have programed $24 million to spend on the TRAAK program and that is 7.29 percent of the estimated funds they had that year. So, adoption of this bill, with Section 1 in it, is not going to push any TRAAK project off the STIP, it just puts a ceiling on TRAAK projects and the policy decision is basically that spend enhancement money on TRAAK program and money that's eligible for roads, spend on roads. Number 0290 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said Mr. Ecklund is exactly right, the significant difference is, is that's what they were going to spend. The significant difference is, is that takes away the ability to change their minds three years out, especially when you couple it with subsection (e), page 3. The department may not fund transportation projects that are eligible under federal law as transportation enhancement projects with federal funds from other funding categories. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he understands the desire of some people to codify in law something that is going to be true over the next three years, but he objects to tieing the hands beyond that. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, "With the problems that we're having throughout the state by not spending enough monies on the road system today, and putting more money into a bicycle path, and this sort of enhancements, I still object to the amendment. I think we need to put the money into the road system." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how many motions do we have before us. The second one is deleting Section 1. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied deleting Section 1 and renumber accordingly. Number 0305 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced Amendment 2 is defeated (vote of 2-5). Representatives Elton and Kookesh voted in support of Amendment 2. Representatives Masek, Cowdery, Hudson, Sanders and Williams voted against it. Number 0309 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON offered Amendment 3 which deletes Section 4. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he is uncomfortable with circumventing the regular STIP process in this manner. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said this doesn't circumvent it. He stated he also objects to this amendment also. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked for a brief at ease. Number 0314 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the House Transportation Committee is at ease. [Time not indicated]. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the committee back to order. [Time not indicated]. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON pointed out that the net effect of deleting Section 4 is it would add $3 million a year, over the next five years, back into the road program and away from a bridge program. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, if there wasn't a bridge project it wouldn't take anything from the road program. Number 0322 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Elton and Kookesh voted in support of Amendment 3. Representatives Masek, Cowdery, Hudson, Sanders and Williams voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-5. Number 0326 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON offered Amendment 4, page 4, line 5, after "waterways," delete "that are part of the national highway system." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there are any objections. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted. Number 0330 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted there isn't a fiscal note. MR. ECKLUND replied DOT/PF is in the process of developing one to the working draft. MR. BRIGHAM stated, "Perhaps defer to Dennis (Poshard) on the timing, but I know we've got one in the works." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked when will it be completed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked and what for. Number 0334 MR. BRIGHAM responded to develop regulations, it takes time and money, those are not federally eligible for cost by in large. He said DOT/PF tries to make anything that's federally eligible, eligible, and they would in this case as well. But, generally the federal government says, "No, you can do the federal program without these regulations so they're not eligible." MR. BRIGHAM pointed out there is also a certain amount of time involved in prioritizing and inventorying the secondary roads. He indicated it's not a terrific amount of time. It's his understanding that the total number is somewhere in the neighborhood of $140,000 to $145,000. Number 0339 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if these are just on secondary roads that your regulations were pertaining to. MR. BRIGHAM replied, "There are two sets of regulations called for here. One is on Section 1, on the process to put those in regulation, and the second is on Section 2, which is the substandard secondary roads. Those are separate but related regulatory processes. We estimate, just in round numbers, about $50,000 for process, there's also time involved in - having to get through these kind of efforts, we're not inventing time or cost here, but there is time in cost involved in inventorying and prioritizing the substandard secondary roads that are described in Section 2." Number 0346 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked when can we expect a fiscal note on this. MR. BRIGHAM replied he would assume later today, DOT/PF will get it in here as soon as we can. Number 0350 DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner Department of Transportation and Public Facilities came before the committee. He said DOT/PF had a fiscal note prepared and ready to go but they had not seen the proposed committee substitute and thought it would not be wise to turn it in prior to looking at the committee substitute. He indicated that he didn't believe it will change. So, it will be available probably within an hour. MR. POSHARD stated, "The fiscal note that we prepared was 143 (thousand dollars). Our original fiscal note was for 43 (thousand dollars) and that was for the process for ranking and ordering the secondary roads that Mr. Brigham had mentioned and then we've also included some money because of the addition of Section 1 for the adoption of the regulations." Number 0359 MR. BRIGHAM said, since it looks like Section 1 will remain in the bill, he said he would like to point out a concern in subsection (e), of subsection 1. He stated, "There is, in the early part of Section 1, a limit on total TRAAK spending. The concern I have over section (e) is that we some times, for example we're required to mitigate environmental impacts, occasionally those mitigations take the form of a trail or some kind of landscaping enhancement or something like that which would technically be eligible for enhancement funding. For example, we have a full enhancement program, we've got that, and going onto its way, a road project essentially comes along, as part of the environmental process, we're required to mitigate that. My reading of this would suggest that we would be unable to include that mitigation within the road project. That would then be separated out and sent through the TRAAK process, and that's a concern. I would urge the committee if you can to adopt, amend, or possibly eliminate this section (e) because we're still limiting the TRAAK funding in the early part of this bill." MR. ECKLUND said, "This is a STIP and there are many projects where they break out ... this was partly funded by the NHS, partly funded by transportation enhancements (TE). There are many projects, Mr. Chairman, they identify as they go through the environmental impact statement (EIS) and the scope of the project, the eligibility for different parts of the project and they break them out. So I don't see that as being a problem. They identify what they need to do, and early on in the project, they know the different funding sources that they have available, they even go as far as a program than in the STIP Mr. Chairman." MR. ECKLUND reiterated the intent of subsection (e) is to limit transportation and enhancement eligible projects to transportation enhancement funding so they don't use other road eligible funding to do TRAAK enhancement projects. He said that's a policy decision and doesn't see it being that much of a problem for DOT/PF. Number 0384 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would make the department feel somewhat better if we put on the record that we are not talking about mitigation projects that are required by the authority that makes the approval in this instance. He said he doesn't believe we are. We're talking about just not mixing apples and oranges. Representative Hudson said it's his understanding, if we pass this bill, we are not trying to preclude the department from meeting a mitigation responsibility in order to pursue a project. If that's the intent of this bill, then that would satisfy the intent. Number 0391 MR. BRIGHAM indicated that it would take care of that concern. He asked, in terms of clarification, "Do you mean though, that the way say any of those projects are organized, and the different funding sources are called out, and that's acceptable under this, the way the STIP is written currently is acceptable under this." MR. ECKLUND said, if in fact, the portion of the project, the TRAAK is coded, is funded for transportation enhancements (TE) are TE eligible, then yes, that's the intent. MR. BRIGHAM stated he thinks that takes care of some of DOT/PF's concerns, but they will continue to discuss it. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Adams if he had a chance to review the committee substitute. Number 0407 MR. ADAMS replied, "I've been talking to the Mat-Su Borough on the latest changes. The..." TAPE 98-23, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said, "If you feel a little more comfortable, this bill is going to go to Finance and you can talk about it at this time." MR. ADAMS replied, "I think we're probably too late to affect anything you're going to do today anyway, listening to it." CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS replied yes. MR. ADAMS noted it will give the borough an opportunity to digest it too because they had lost track of it also. Number 0012 DON ETHERIDGE, Representative, Alaska District Council of Laborers, Local 71, came before the committee in opposition to SB 263. He stated Local 71 does have some concerns with this bill because it turns over secondary roads to the local governments to take the maintenance over. MR. ETHERIDGE noted that they might be losing positions for some of their maintenance employees that are out there. He stated, "This has happened in the past, there's been several Southeast communities that have taken over their own maintenance. They do it for two or three years, and find out that it's a lot more expensive than what they thought it was going to be and they start losing their money. They can't take care of their roads properly, so the state has to move back in and start doing the maintenance again. In the meantime, our members have been laid off and moved onto something else. So then all the equipment's moved out, so the state has to pay for moving new equipment back in there, they have to find employees to put back into these positions. And this is one the major concerns that we have is that eventually they might wind up doing this to all of them and all of our guys will be out on the streets that are currently there, and they've been longtime public employees." MR. ETHERIDGE contined, "When they took over Kake, we had a guy that had been there for almost 20 years, he got put out on the streets. He had to take an early retirement and lost a lot of money -- the same thing over in Hoonah. And now we've taken over Hoonah again, we've taken over Gustavus again, we're in the process that the State's taking back Hyder again because of the same issues, that once the local governments find out just how expensive it is to take care of those roads, they say, 'Hey, we don't want them no more.' And this is our concern." Number 0035 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called an at ease. [Time not indicated]. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called them back to order. [Time not indicated]. Number 0038 REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS said he intends to vote to move the bill today. He said he understands it is going to the House Finance Committee and hopes they can address some of the questions Mr. Etheridge, from Local 71, brought up because he is concerned about them. He indicated he didn't want to hold the bill in committee. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS remarked he could work more on this bill and make assurances that we will have it worked on in Finance. Number 0044 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee at 3:00 p.m. Number 0047 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS called the meeting back to order stating they adjourned prematurely. Number 0051 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I wish we would have had benefit of your input before, Don [Etheridge], but is there any recommendation that you would have, for example it (indisc.) wrapped around informally as to whether or not any road that was transferred over had to remain over, or caveat was that it had to be shown to be more cost effectively to be done through the local auspices than the State auspices." MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "What's happened in the past, Representative Hudson, was that the municipalities or the local governments would take over the roads at the same cost as what the State was doing at that present time. One of the major problems that came out of this is when the local government was looking at this cost. The main thing they look at is, 'Oh, this just means to grade the surface of that road so we keep it smooth like this.' They don't consider in the cost of guardrails, they don't consider into the cost of maintaining the culverts, they don't consider in the cost of maintaining the roadbed itself, they just look at, 'Oh, they're going to pay me $85 a mile to create this road, they're going to give me the equipment to do it, so we'll do it for that cost." MR. ETHERIDGE continued, "Well, when it comes down to the actual cost of doing this project, and they find out that the roadbed's fallen out from under it in a year, well we've got to add cost for that. We've got to add cost because this piece of equipment is just about shot, so we've got to go buy a new piece of equipment so we're going to add cost for that. So, after this second or third year, they're wanting to triple the cost per mile in order to come up with the dollars that it would require to maintain that road. And that's one of the problems that we see in calculating all these different types of things is this is the problem, is we just look at only doing part of the project, we don't look at the whole project in what it consists of all the way through. And that's where I have a major concern over turning these over." Number 0079 REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked Mr. Etheridge if there is any way that this could be worked out to address the problems he has with this bill -- if we had some time here. MR. ETHERIDGE responded that he is sure if there was time we could look at it. He said, "If the true costs were prevailed as to what it would cost a municipality, and they had to work at the same thing like our subcontracting language, there would be no problem with it because we could prove that they can't do it any cheaper than what we can do it. And with the State being able to buy their materials involved, buying their equipment through the fleet process and everything, they can always do it cheaper that way than a local community can by buying one or two of these individual pieces." MR. ETHERIDGE concluded that he doesn't know how we could get the language put into the bill yet that would give it that protection that is in the contract for subcontracting out saying that they have to prove that they can do it cheaper than what the State can do it. He said if we could have something in here then it would be fine, but there would have to be some way of doing that. Number 0093 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would be willing to work with Mr. Etheridge and some of his people to take a look at the language that's in his contractual language and be prepared to offer an amendment at the Finance Committee or on the House Floor. He said he believes that the provisions in this bill are good, they are wonderful public policy which will lead to more road building and more projects and perhaps even meaningful bridge development and things of this nature. Number 0104 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to move CSSB 263 as amended with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He stated that he believes if we're going to improve the bill, it should be done here. Moving it on under the assumption that we can fix it, it may work, it may not. He said he would like to be part of that process and the way he is part of that process is doing it in this committee. Number 0109 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Masek, Hudson, Sanders, and Williams voted in support of moving SB 263 out of committee. Representative Elton voted against it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 263(TRA) passed by a vote of 4 to 1 and moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee at 3:15 p.m.