Imágenes de páginas

undoubtedly would enhance our support capabilities in emergency, and I feel that from this standpoint a port in Anchorage would be desirable.

With the endorsement from the people of Anchorage, city officials, and the military, it becomes truly evident that an Anchorage port will be a tremendous step in the economic development of this portion of Alaska. Therefore, this project should be in complete harmony with the programs developed by the Department of the Interior to develop Alaska and all its phases of economic stability for the Territory. We are hopeful that the Congress will recognize that this Anchorage port project will not be contrary to the objective for which the Alaska Railroad was constructed. Cheaper transportation will encourage trade, manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and all phases that make up a balanced economy in any community. As the economic growth increases, freight hauls will increase, thus assuring that the Anchorage port will augment the purpose of the Alaska Railroad rather than be in competition or tend to defeat its usefulness.

We urgently request that this committee support legislation early in the 1956 session of Congress which will provide authorization for the Anchorage port as a civil works project to be built by the Corps of Engineers so that any work which Anchorage may perform will be credited as a local contribution to the ultimate project proposed by the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Axford. Later, I imagine the committee members and counsel will desire to ask you some questions. In the meantime you may proceed with the rest of your witnesses.

Mr. SHANNON. Mr. Chairman, as our third presentation, we would like to discuss the Alaska public works program as it applies to Anchorage and the general community facility problems which have been created as a result of Federal Government impact on the community. Alaska public works is designed to help the Alaska governmental units construct facilities that would help develop Alaska. For the past several years we have been keenly disappointed in the share of appropriations that have been designated for the city of Anchorage. Because of time limitations, I will not present figures of annual appropritions, but I should like to summarize the total appropriations that have been made available to Alaska's four largest communities. They are presented in the order of total appropriations for each community. Population figures are also given for comparative purposes.

[blocks in formation]

1 Aug. 30, 1955, Alaska Resources Board population figures released and printed in local press.


The above summary of appropriations has been provided by the director of Alaska public works and includes the 1956 appropriations. You can see from the comparison of appropriations that, either on a per capita basis or on a growth basis, Anchorage has not received what appears to be a sufficient share to provide the needed community facilities for the influx of people since 1950 which has been caused primarily by Federal impact. Again, we want to emphasize that the people of Anchorage are extremely appreciative of the assistance that has been given the community by the Alaska public works. are hopeful that the facts submitted, plus the presentation of our city engineer, will lend weight when future considerations of Alaska public works appropriations for Anchorage are considered.

Anchorage is interwoven geographically with Federal governmental operations such as military establishments, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Railroad, Alaska Native Service, Civil Aeronautics Administration, Fish and Wildlife Service, and other departments and bureaus under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This presents many governmental jurisdiction problems of right-ofway which are a constant source for negotiations between the local government and the Federal governmental agencies. We have had many difficult situations develop which have not always been resolved in the most desirable fashion. I point this out at this time because

I would like to introduce George Matkin, city engineer, who will present (1) the city's request for Alaska public works assistance in the development of community facilities, (2) problems of highways and military access roads, (3) water rights, and (4) agreements for joint usage of available facilities. I would like to present at this time Mr. Matkin, our city engineer.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Shannon.
Mr. Matkin, would you identify yourself for the record.



Mr. MATKIN. My name is George Matkin, city engineer for the city of Anchorage.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you have a prepared statement?
Mr. MATKIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BARTLETT. Do you care to read that statement?
Mr. MATKIN. Yes; I would.
Mr. BARTLETT. You may proceed then.

Mr. MATKIN. Since the Alaska public works program was initiated, the city of Anchorage has received $4,400,000 in appropriations for water extensions, sanitary sewer, and public buildings of which 50 percent of $2,200,000 will be repaid to the Federal Government by 1973. During the same period, the city has expended $6,698,000 in capital improvements without Federal assistance. This includes $1,310,000 for electrical, $1,680,000 for telephone, $760,000 for public buildings, $350,000 for water extensions, $490,000 for storm sewers, and $2,378,000 for street improvements.

The city of Anchorage has immediately utilized the funds appropriated for projects except for 1 sanitary sewer project where negotiations have been in progress for over 2 years with the Air Force for joint use of facilities. We received no appropriations for projects in the 1954 or 1955 APW program and only $591,000 in 1956. Through careful planning and administration, we were able to realize a savings in appropriations of about $220,000 in two recent projects. We planned to utilize these funds in the 1955 construction; however, when the APW appropriations were cut from $5 million to $3 million the surpluses were needed for their 1956 program. The scope of our construction was reduced accordingly and in effect the city only received $371,000 in new appropriations. Only part of the water project, as advertised for bids, was awarded. The theory expressed by the APW officials for the small allocations to Anchorage was that larger cities are in a better position to arrange their own financing than the smaller cities.

Almost one-third of the population in the city is still without the necessary sanitary sewer and water facilities. Applications are filed with APW for improvements amounting to $3,320,000 for water extensions, $1,310,000 for sewer extensions, and $6 million for storm drains and street improvements, totaling $10,630,000. The city's construction plans are far enough advanced that many of these projects could be advertised for bids almost immediately. To provide the urgently needed sanitary facilities, the city will be largely dependent upon the APW program.


The city of Anchorage has many problems which are peculiar only to Alaska and the officials in the Federal agencies recognize these problems; however, they are unable to be of assistance due to regulations governing their operations. A prime example of this is the recent controversy over certain sewer facilities constructed by the military where negotiations have been in progress for over 2 years. In the construction of the Elmendorf Air Force Base hospital outfall sewer, the Air Force provided adequate capacity to serve the Mountain View area which was outside the city at the time of construction but has recently been annexed. Air Force regulations provide that where base collection systems are furnished, the rate shall be $1.50 per 100,000 gallons of sewage flow, providing the rate shall be doubled outside the continental limits of the United States. The application of these rates means the city will pay in excess of $300,000 to the Air Force during the life of the contract which is 30 years. Initial costs of the increased capacity of the line amounted to $95,000, and it does not appear justifiable that this profit should be the objective of the Government which in effect means an impractical application of the rates.

The city offered to make the Government whole on their expenditure of overbuilding the line by paying the full cost of construction amounting to the $95,000 and a fixed percentage of the annual maintenance costs. Local officials recognized the inequities and recommended the city's proposal be approved. This was denied on the Washington level on the basis of strict adherence to Air Force regulations. No distinction is made in the rate as to the type of service rendered. This rate would be equitable if the complete service was furnished as indicated in the regulation where reference is made only to base collection systems. In this particular case the Air Force is furnishing only outfall service and the city is expending over $400,000 to provide the collection system.

Mr. ABBOTT. At that point: when you refer to "local operations,'' you are referring to the Alaska Command military personnel here?

Mr. MATKIN. Yes, sir.

Air Force regulations also require totalizing flow meters. This has been another controversial issue during the 2 years of negotiations. Three metering points are required and the city has not installed the meters even though construction of the collector systems are well under way.

We receive notification September 14, 1955, that all construction in connection with the outfall sewer was to stop until the meters were in place and ready for operation. Construction of the facility is now at a standstill. To install the type metering required due to a technicality again in the regulations, it would cost over $60,000 for installation. Adequate metering equipment could be provided for approximately $5,500, and again local officials concur with the city's proposal. The problem is vet to be resolved before construction can commence. We urge that consideration be given to our problem and to put Alaska on a par with the United States on these types of service charges and not foreign countries.

(The following statement was subsequently received.)


October 13, 1955. Mr. LEO W. O'BRIEN, Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. O'BRIEN: The city of Anchorage again wishes to express their gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity to present their problems to your committee during the hearings in Anchorage.

The following is additional substantial information as was requested by your committee during the hearings:

1. Assessed valuation for nontaxable governmental properties: The total assessed valuation of the city of Anchorage, exclusive of governmental properties is $99,407,274. Federal properties within the corporate limits of the city have been estimated by the city assessor as follows: Alaska Railroad

$30,000,000 Elmendorf Air Force Base housing -

22, 000, 000 Public domain under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

336, 000 Land owned by the Federal Government on which schools derive the revenue from the leases

320, 000 Total...

52, 556, 000 2. Air Force regulations for utility service: The following are extracts taken from Air Force Regulation 91-5A for utility operation and service.

“9. Determination of Rates.--The rates to be charged for furnishing utilities services within the continental United States will be determined as shown below. Except for the item of purchase price, rates for bases outside the continental United States will be twice those shown below. Average purchase prices will be computed from base-cost-account records for the last 12 calendar months for which records are available.”

(d) Sewage disposal:

(1) For a base collection system with no treatment plant, the rate for sewage disposal service will be $1.50 a year for each family unit.

(2) For a base collection system with a base treatment plant owned by the Air Force, the rate for sewage disposal service will be $3.50 a year for each family unit.

(3) When sewage disposal service is purchased by the Air Force, the yearly rate for furnishing sewage disposal service to each family unit will be $1.50 plus the average purchase price, assuming the estimated annual sewage flow from each family unit to be 100,000 gallons.

(4) Where service is rendered to other than family units, applicable fixed charges indicated in (d) (1), (2), and (3) above, will be assessed for each 100,000 gallons of annual sewage flow or portion thereof."

We will be happy to furnish any additional information at any time at the request of your fine committee. Very truly yours,


Acting City Manager. Another peculiarity to the city of Anchorage is the fact the city is almost surrounded by Federal property. The expansion of any utility requires encroachment on these properties and the best easement obtainable is a 20-year permit with a 90-day cancellation clause. One Federal agency stated the city would not be able to furnish any utilities if they exercised their right of cancellation. Ordinarily, under stateside conditions, these types of easements would rule out the municipalities ability to provide the utility service.

« AnteriorContinuar »