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.