Click here to subscribe today or Login.
By ANTHONY COLAROSSI and RENITA FENNICK; Times Leader Staff
Writers
Wednesday, March 13, 1996 Page: 1A
State Rep. Kevin Blaum needs an answer from U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, and
he needs it soon.
If Kanjorski does not commit federal highway funds to the proposed Exit 46
in the near future, the Interstate 81 egress will be delayed until the next
century, Blaum said.
And without the exit, the success of the proposed Luzerne County
arena/convention center will be jeopardized, Blaum said Tuesday.
“This uncertainty must end,” said Blaum, D-Wilkes-Barre. The federal
dollars for Exit 46, he said, are “essential to the financial success of the
arena.”
Kanjorski on Tuesday said the federal money Blaum is referring to was never
earmarked for Exit 46, but that he will work to help local officials to find
funding for the project.
Blaum’s claims are reiterated in a forceful letter he sent Monday to
Kanjorski. In it, he points out that special federal funding for an I-81 exit
at Wilkes-Barre was cited in federal legislation passed in 1991.
Last November, Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke, removed the mention of Wilkes-Barre
and Mountaintop exits off Interstate 81 from the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act.
Exit 46 has an estimated $25 million price tag. Federal funding is supposed
to cover 80 percent of the project’s cost, while the state has said it will
cover the remaining 20 percent.
On Tuesday, Kanjorski said the “special funds” were never specifically
earmarked for Exit 46. “It always was a contingency,” Kanjorski said. “Those
funds never were committed to (Exit) 46. The arena wasn’t even a gleam in
anybody’s eyes at the time that money was appropriated, and if it was, it
wasn’t related to me.”
Kanjorski said he broadened the language in the legislation because for
more than four years the state had not used the funds to construct the exit
and the funds were in jeopardy. Now those funds may be used for any number of
area highway projects, he said.
Kanjorski said the re-wording could translate into funds for Exit 46 plus
other projects.
He said the state receives about $1 billion in federal highway funds a
year. Traditionally, he said, Northeastern Pennsylvania has not received its
fair portion of those funds.
Kanjorski said he is willing to join local politicians and state
legislators in lobbying the state for a more equitable percentage of those
funds — a figure he estimates at about $55 million per year for this area.
If the area were to receive its fair share, there would be money for Exit
46, he said. The broader funding he has authorized then could be used for
other projects.
Kanjorski said he will try to earmark a portion of the $1 billion for
specific projects — such as Exit 46 — in his district if local officials
cannot negotiate with the state for a fair share.
“The Department of Transportation is trying to squeeze our local
legislative delegation,” Kanjorski said. “The state is playing games with the
legislators. We’re now in a poker games with the state of Pennsylvania.”
But Charles Mattei, PennDOT’s Region 4 district engineer, echoed Blaum’s
uncertainty surrounding Exit 46. His question is the same: Will Kanjorski’s
“special funds” pay for the federal share of Exit 46?
“We’re still trying to clarify whether Exit 46 falls under the federal
law,” Mattei said Tuesday. “The state put Exit 46 on hold and that’s where it
still is.”
Federal funding cuts of $2 billion have forced PennDOT to shelve some
highway projects, Mattei said.
But those projects specifically mentioned in federal legislation have a
higher priority, he said. After Kanjorski changed the language, an exit off
I-81 is not specifically mentioned in federal legislation. It is unclear what
effect, if any, that will have.
“Some projects will be paid for through federal funds that have been
specially earmarked,” he said. “Those would be the ones that would be
considered a `go’ when the state Transportation Commission makes a decision.”
Blaum’s concerns
Blaum said he has researched Kanjorski’s amendment and determined a
definitive answer on the exit’s funding must be provided so the arena and the
exit can be constructed during roughly the same time period and completed by
late 1998.
Blaum would not go as far to say the arena’s very construction is dependent
on the exit.
Exit 46 also is supposed to include road widening and improvements along
Mundy Street in Wilkes-Barre Township. The poor condition of Mundy Street
would turn off first-time arena visitors and discourage them from returning,
Blaum said.
In the letter, Blaum asked Kanjorski to assure PennDOT that federal funds
for Exit 46 are committed to the project.
The letter raises two areas of concern:
First, Blaum questions Kanjorski’s apparent broadening of language, which
had been in place for four years. The wording was changed from a specific
mention of I-81 exits in Wilkes-Barre and Mountaintop to any “highway and
transportation projects within 30 miles of I-81 or I-80 in northeastern
Pennsylvania.”
Second, Blaum mentions PennDOT’s own uncertainty as to whether the federal
funds are committed to Exit 46.
Blaum writes, “Due to your recent amendment, I have received a distinct and
unmistakable response from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation that
they are uncertain whether or not you intend to commit the necessary federal
`special funding’ to construct this exit.”
A Feb. 6 letter from PennDOT addressed to Blaum confirms that statement. In
that letter, Mattei outlines his department’s confusion.
“In November of 1995, a revision to the language of the original (highway)
bill was approved which designates that this money can be used to construct or
rehabilitate highway and transportation infrastructure projects within thirty
miles of I-81 or I-80 in northeastern Pennsylvania,” Mattei writes. “It is
extremely important to know if the Exit 46 project will be constructed with
this special funding.”