Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/25/2023 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| Presentation: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities on Capital Projects |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 40 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 40
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations and other appropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations to
capitalize funds; and providing for an effective
date."
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES ON CAPITAL PROJECTS
1:40:04 PM
RYAN ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced himself and offered
opening remarks. He communicated that the FY 24 Capital
Budget was one of the highest ever for the department due
to the approximately $1.8 billion infusion of federal
money. He wanted to make the most of the investment
opportunities and make improvements across the state. He
presented the PowerPoint presentation "FY 2024 Capital
Program Overview" dated April 25, 2023 (copy on file).
1:41:09 PM
Commissioner Anderson moved to Slide 1 titled "Alaska's
Transportation Share." He explained that the bar graph
reflected the federal revenue from 2019 through 2023 that
was broken down in a chart at the bottom of the slide. He
pointed to the Federal Highways Formula Funds data and
reported that it was the "staple" of DOT funding. The
Federal Highways Allocations were funding specifically
directed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) for
things like the Highway Safety Improvement Program
regarding highway safety and the Carbon Reduction Program,
etc. He highlighted that the FHA, Federal Aviation Program,
and Federal Transit Program numbers depicted the overall
increase in federal funding overtime. He noted that the
2024 figures were not included because the funds had not
yet been allocated but the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT) was anticipating roughly $1.5
billion in revenue due to success in obtaining
discretionary grants and other increases from the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). He
reiterated that he wanted to take full advantage of the
IIJA funding and shared that the department was working
hard on that goal. He communicated that when the act was
first announced the department embarked on arduous research
on how to make the most of the funding and programming. In
addition, the department reached out to the public to hear
what citizens wanted for transportation infrastructure
resulting in identifying 5 investment areas based on the
publics input and the governors priorities.
Commissioner Anderson discussed slide 3 titled DOT&PF
Strategic Investment Areas SFY24 Governor Amend Capital
Program:
Safety: A safe and secure transportation system with a
focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries in
our transportation corridors, recognizing trends, and
establishing programs, projects, and initiatives that
move the needle in a positive direction.
State of Good Repair: A seamless and reliable
transportation system whose infrastructure's condition
is measured systematically with programs and projects
focused on a consistently good condition across
transportation modes.
Economic Vitality: A healthy and thriving multi-modal.
transportation system that efficiently moves people,
fuel, and freight in order to reduce costs and enhance
economic development and provides for infrastructure
to access the Alaskan outdoors.
Resiliency: An agile and resilient transportation
system that protects communities against extreme
weather and climate trends, service disruptions and
other risks, and is able to adapt and recover when
disruptions do occur.
Sustainable Transportation: A modern and sustainable
transportation system that facilitates reduced costs
of energy, cleaner air, and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions.
Commissioner Anderson underlined that the pie chart on the
slide showed the amount (percent) of investment each
strategic investment areas would receive in FY 24. He
turned to slide 4 titled Diversified Investments. He
explained that DOT developed a new online system called
APEX Alaska Project Exchange that connected Alaska with
construction information. The public could log on and find
a listing of the projects in Alaska that would be
constructed that included the extent and location of each
project. He added that the website would be expanded but
currently included information by census area, borough,
municipality, and House or Senate districts.
1:46:44 PM
Representative Ortiz asked if APEX was related to the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Commissioner Anderson responded that the department was
trying to work on an electronic version of the STIP, which
would include outyears. He furthered that APEX was
specifically oriented to what projects would be constructed
in the current year. The further projects were forecasted
out in the future the more schedules shifted and changed.
The APEX project listings were based on established funding
and some projects were already ongoing.
1:47:59 PM
DOM PANNONE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced
himself. He continued on slide 5 titled FY2024 Governor's
Amended:
$1.8B - Capital Budget Overview
$777M - Surface Transportation Program, 127
Allocations
.notdef $4.8M (OTHER) / $772.2M (FED)
$386.4M - Airport Improvement Program, 50
Allocations
.notdef $19.5M (OTHER) / $366.9M (FED)
$196.5M - Statewide Federal Programs, 8
Allocations
.notdef $10M (OTHER) / $185.5M (FED)
$283.9M - Rural Ferry Program, 6 Allocations
.notdef $2.1M (DGF) / $281.8M (FED)
$118M - Federal Program Match, 4 Allocations
.notdef $108.7 (UGF) / $1M (DGF) / $8.4M (OTHER)
$68.3M - State Funded and Named Projects, 6
Appropriations
.notdef $4.8M (UGF) / $22M (DGF) / $41.4M (OTHER)
Mr. Pannone indicated that the slide provided a high level
overview of the FY 24 governor's amended budget request.
The request had 11 appropriations with many suballocations.
The first five bullets denoted the federal capital programs
administered annually by DOT. He elaborated that each of
the appropriations had allocations within them that were
either a project, specific program, and objective tied to
funding, grants, or other directed use. The final bullet
represented the six appropriations that were state funded
and named projects.
Co-Chair Edgmon noted that Representative Tomaszewski had
joined the meeting. He commented that in the prior year the
legislature discovered that much of the IIJA money was
going to go through existing programs that had been "beefed
up." He noted that at the time much of the information
regarding funding was incomplete or unknown. He offered the
commissioner the opportunity to provide comments from the
prior perspective to what actually happened.
Commissioner Anderson responded that many of the programs
had indeed been "beefed up." He communicated that a few
surprises happened since the IIJA funding information was
fully refined. Inflation had eaten into some of the
anticipated funding increases. However, for the larger
programs like safety and road repair the funding resulted
in increased construction in the current year. He reported
that under the Resiliency investment area the department
worked hard to obtain funding for communities for
protection against erosion, etc. In addition, the
department was procuring carbon reduction funds for things
like port electrification in Southeast Alaska and looking
at ways in which DOT could contribute to economic vitality.
He offered that DOT staff and its consulting partners had
succeeded in building the overall program and was
successful in project delivery; the department was
delivering a record number of projects in the current year
and following year.
1:52:48 PM
Representative Hannan pointed to slide 5 and noted that the
first three bullets included only federal and other
funding. She asked if there was any state match for the top
three appropriations. She observed that the following
appropriations included Undesignated General Funds (UGF)
and Designated General Funds (DGF). Mr. Pannone responded
that the first three represented federal funds and other
funds. He delineated that the match for the first three
appropriations were pooled into the fifth bullet point
appropriation, which was how the budget was structured. The
Federal Program Match totaling $108.7 million in UGF,
varied based on the allocations within the top three
appropriations. Representative Hannan asked about the rural
ferry program. She thought that the match needed to be much
higher than the $2.1 million DGF denoted on the slide. She
asked if it was the entirety of the necessary match to
receive the $281.8 million in federal funding. Mr. Pannone
replied that the Rural Ferry Grants were included in both
capital and operating grants. He elucidated that the
operating grant required a 50 percent match. The slide only
reflected the 5 capital projects related to capital
improvements and for some of the projects the match was
already appropriated. In addition, DOT was using a novel
funding tool called match credits, which authorized using
federal dollars in lieu of state matching funds.
1:55:55 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon asked if the department was in the process
of interpreting what the programmatic funding needs were
for the federal funding streams. MR. Pannone answered that
DOT knew the amount of match it needed for the anticipated
revenue. The match was calculated based on the known
revenues. He indicated that discretionary grants were
introduced in IIJA. The grants were competitive, and the
department was not seeking match funding for grants not yet
awarded. The department had alluded to the issue in the
prior year.
Representative Ortiz noted that he did not recall the term
rural ferry being used in prior years versus the Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS). He wondered if the two were
the same. Mr. Pannone responded that it was a new program
and appropriation that housed the newly available IIJA
funding DOT received from the Federal Transit
Administration for AMHS.
1:58:08 PM
Commissioner Anderson reviewed slide 6 titled Surface
Transportation Program:
Program Highlights and Priorities
Program Development: Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan
Program Total $858,514.0
SDPR $4,776.2
Federal Rcpts. $772,237.8
UGF (Match) $81,500.0
Safety
.notdef Highway Safety Improvement Program
.notdef Bridge and Tunnel Inventory, Inspection,
Monitoring
.notdef Rock Slope Stabilization Program
.notdef Winter Trail Marking
State of Good Repair
.notdef Pavement and Bridge Preservation
Economic Vitality
.notdef Ice Roads & Seasonal Roads Maintenance
Program
.notdef Statewide Wayside Improvement Program
Resiliency
.notdef Bridge Scour Monitoring and Retrofit
Sustainable Transportation
.notdef Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
.notdef iWays
.notdef Light up the Highways
Commissioner Anderson remarked that the slide contained the
highlights for programs and projects that were on the
horizon. He explained that the Rock Slop Failure
Stabilization Program was new due to the increased
prevalence of the slope failures around the state. The
Winter Trail Marking Program was an established program
where DOT worked with local communities to support marking
the trails for increased safety. Pavement and Bridge
Preservation was a large program utilizing the Maintenance
and Operation staff in repair work. He offered that the Ice
Roads & Seasonal Roads Maintenance Program was a new
program through IIJA, and 10 communities had applied for
the funding and were awarded, resulting in ice road
building in the current winter. The program would double in
size in the FY 24 budget to $4 million. The Statewide
Wayside Improvement Program was new and would focus on
waysides across the state for improvement and building new
waysides. He indicated that there was a suite of new
sustainable transportation programs like iWAys that
incorporated the use of technology in transportation
systems. Light up the Highways would switch all highway
lighting across the state to LED over several years,
resulting in decreased operational expenses.
2:02:03 PM
Representative Hannan cited the slide and asked what bridge
scour meant. Commissioner Anderson responded that as rivers
changed course, they scour the material on the bed of a
river away from bridge foundations. The department had to
ensure the bridges were safe.
2:02:49 PM
Representative Galvin asked what the goal for the electric
vehicle infrastructure was. In addition, she remarked on
the state of disrepair on roads from frost heaves
exacerbated by climate issues especially in communities
like Bethel. She had hoped to see the issue addressed under
sustainability. Commissioner Anderson replied that there
were many projects that could be classified under
resiliency, and he included frost heaves in that category.
He furthered that there were more opportunities under
resiliency coming out every day and informed Representative
Galvin of a new discretionary grant under the IIJA called
the Protect Program that was focused on resiliency and
increases in funding was forthcoming for roads and
infrastructure protection. He addressed Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure and shared that the department was
partnering with the Alaska Electric Association (AEA). The
department was not an expert in power and was looking to
support entities like AEA and transfer funding to them.
They were examining project bundling opportunities for
things like port electrification. The department was taking
initiative on electric vehicle charging starting with the
Anchorage and Fairbanks International Airports.
2:06:21 PM
Commissioner Anderson moved to slide 7 titled Surface
Transportation Program (contd) that included more project
highlights:
Project Highlights and Priorities
Western
.notdef Bethel Chief Eddie Hoffman Highway
Rehabilitation
.notdef Nome Seppala Drive
Interior
.notdef Airport Way South Cushman Intersection
.notdef Bridges: Gerstle River, Johnson River,
Chena Flood Control, Dalton Hwy Hammond
River
.notdef Richardson Highway MP 266-341 Passing Lanes
Mat Su
.notdef Knik Goose Bay Road Reconstruction Centaur
Avenue to Vine Road
.notdef Bogard Road at Engstrom/Green Forest
Drive;
Wasilla Fishhook Road / Main Street
.notdef Big Lake Road MP 0-3.6 / Fairview Loop
Southeast
.notdef Hoonah Harbor Way Pedestrian Improvements
And Pitt Island Cemetery Walkway
.notdef Prince of Wales Neck Lake Road
Reconstruction
.notdef Haines Highway Reconstruction
South Central
.notdef Gambell/Ingra Streets Improvements
.notdef Sterling Highway MP 45-60
.notdef Cordova Whitshed Road
Commissioner Anderson offered that there were many other
projects in the budget. All the projects listed were
repair, safety, and improvement projects. He noted that the
Interior bridges were prioritized due to their condition
and age.
Representative Stapp asked how long the Gerstle River and
Johson River had been on the STIP. Commissioner Anderson
was unsure and would return to the committee with the
information. He relayed that they were large bridges had
been raised in priority in the past, but with the current
additional funding it was the appropriate time to address
the need. Representative Stapp asked about the funding
match. He wondered if it was a consistent ratio and whether
DOT was leveraging the same amount of money. He noticed
that there was no general fund requirement for any of the
projects in the capital budget. Mr. Pannone responded it
was generally 9.5 to 1 ratio for the FHA. He elaborated
that there were certain projects that were 2 to 8 ratio.
2:10:58 PM
Representative Josephson related that there were a number
of critics regarding the listed Interior bridges. He
inquired whether the bridges were on the list to support
the Tetlin mine and asked if the administration was candid
about the topic. Commissioner Anderson replied that the
bridges were old and with the realization that activity
could be increased with the mine DOT prioritized them.
Currently, the load volumes were very low with 200 to 400
hundred vehicles crossing each day versus 15 thousand to 20
thousand bridge crossings per day in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley (MAT-SU). The potential for increased road volume
was considered and the assessment was a typical function of
DOT that resulted in a typical outcome. Representative
Josephson asked if there was opportunity for people in the
Interior to comment on the parts of HB 40. He wondered if
citizens had the chance to voice their concerns before it
was placed in the budget. Commissioner Anderson responded
that there were opportunities for the public comment
through the STIP and the Capital Budget process. In
addition, DOT had a Tetlin to Fort Knox committee that
afforded the public a comment period.
2:13:54 PM
Co-Chair Johnson referenced the STIP. She asked if the STIP
there was published on a regular schedule. Commissioner
Anderson replied that since there was a current 2020 to
2023 schedule in effect, the department only made changes
to the STIP. The amendments were published on an irregular
basis. He indicated that the department was in the process
of building a new three year STIP for 2024 and the process
would include public outreach. Co-Chair Johnson reported
that her district was not listed on APEX. She relayed
issues regarding the old Glenn Highway and warned that 2
subdivisions were being built connected to the Highway with
hundreds of new homes. She thought that it was frightening
considering how long it took projects to move through the
STIP. She asked if he could explain the process of how
projects were included on the STIP. Commissioner Anderson
responded that there was a process that began by
recognizing a need moving to construction of the project.
He explained that the department collected data on things
like traffic volumes, etc. and the public would also reach
out and communicate needs. Depending on the type of road
the process was different. Roads on the National Highway
System were addressed directly by DOT. Roads not on the
federal system were assessed differently when allocating
funds. He emphasized that DOT listened to the citizenry on
the various needs across the state. State roads were
maintained by the department and roads off the state
highway system were addressed through the Community
Transportation Program where DOT solicited projects from
communities. The projects were scored and prioritized and
included on the STIP. Once on the STIP, the project went
through a project delivery process that included
environmental, right-of-way requirements, etc. that could
affect the timeframe of the project. Co-Chair Johnson asked
how long it took on average from a project beginning until
funding it. Commissioner Anderson answered it took three to
six months to be placed on the STIP. A straightforward
project could be completed in 3 to 4 years, complications
stretched out the timeframe.
2:20:17 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon noted that there was a list of all of the
Capital projects in committee packets titled DOTPF FY 2024
Capital Requests (copy on file). There were 199 projects
on the list.
Representative Ortiz asked if the committee would be
speaking about the list. He wanted to ask a question. Mr.
Pannone responded that he did not think there was time to
go through all 199 projects. The presentation highlighted
projects from each program. Representative Ortiz pointed to
item 5, the Rural Ferry Program for $68.5 million for the
Tustumena Replacement Vessel. He asked who DOT was
requesting the money from. Mr. Pannone responded that the
item was the federal authority DOT was requesting from the
legislature to receive and expend the rural ferry grants.
2:22:22 PM
Representative Galvin asked about process. She was focused
on two locations with a record of accidents. She wondered
how much flexibility existed in the STIP. She referred to
the Seward Highway in the Midtown and Tutor Road areas in
Anchorage where the need had changed due to the pandemic.
She wondered how much flexibility there would be because
the data became outdated. Commissioner Anderson replied
that DOT tracked the data and reached out to local
communities and was currently working to improve the areas.
He Ensured that the department was listening and paying
attention to traffic volumes, changing needs, etc. He
pointed out that nationwide DOTs were no longer highway
departments and were viewed as transportation departments
and were looking at things from a transportation corridor
perspective. He shared that in the areas she mentioned the
department was focused on pedestrian improvements.
2:25:48 PM
Representative Cronk asked whether the Gerstle River and
Johson River bridges were the oldest in the state.
Commissioner Anderson answered that they were the oldest on
the primary highway system. Representative Cronk learned
that the bridges were 79 years old and felt they were past
due their time for being rebuilt. Commissioner Anderson
agreed with the statement. He remarked that there was an
added danger on bridges with an overhead truss system and
that there were many good reasons for replacement.
2:26:59 PM
Commissioner Anderson continued on slide 8 titled Airport
Improvement Program:
Program Highlights and Priorities
Program Total $420,671.4
Int. Airport $19,532.2
Federal Rcpts. $366,896.1
UGF (Match) $25,888.6
Int. Air. (Match) $8,354.4
Project Selection:
.notdef Alaska Aviation System Plan
.notdef Aviation Project Evaluation Board
$96M - International Airport Projects
.notdef FIA Lighting, Apron Improvements, Deicing
Projects
.notdef TSAIA Airfield Pavement Reconstruction,
Dispatch Relocation
$324M - Rural Airport Projects
.notdef Runway Improvements in Adak, Buckland, Chevak,
Deering, Kotzebue, Kwigillingok, Nightmute, and
Unalaska
.notdef Lighting Projects in Chenega and Talkeetna
.notdef Seaplane Improvements in Ketchikan and Hydaburg
.notdef Building improvements in False Pass, King
Salmon, Mountain Village, Seward, and Valdez
.notdef Terminal Improvements in Ketchikan and Sitka
.notdef Fencing Project in Deadhorse / Yakutat
Automated Wildlife Detection System
Commissioner Anderson indicated that DOT had a robust
airport program. The department employed the Alaska
Aviation System Plan, similar to the STIP, which guided the
airport improvement program. The Aviation Project
Evaluation Board evaluated and scored projects and was part
of the project selection process. He briefly listed the
projects denoted on the slide.
2:28:51 PM
Mr. Pannone examined slide 9 titled Statewide Federal
Programs:
Program Highlights and Priorities
Program Total $197,813.0
UGF $1,023.5
Federal Rcpts. $185,489.5
SDPR $25,888.6
UGF (Match) $1,300.0
• $32M - Federal Transit Administration Grants
.notdef 11 Rural Transit Providers
• $8M - Highway Safety Grants
.notdef Public Outreach and Education Campaigns
.notdef Enforcement
• $125M - Nome Emergency Repairs from West Coast
Alaska Storm
.notdef 100% Federal
.notdef FHWA Eligibilities: Nome Council, Teller, Nome Front
Street
.notdef PROTECT Program: Local communities eligible
• $6.5M - Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Program
.notdef 9 Weigh Stations Scale Repairs and Improvements
.notdef Permitting System Upgrades
Mr. Pannone explained that the slide depicted all of the
other federal programs that were not part of the categories
already discussed. He detailed that the largest part of the
other federal programs was the Federal Transit
Administration Grants provided to relatively small transit
agencies that provided rural transport. The funds were
granted to 11 rural transit providers. He briefly listed
the remaining programs.
2:30:21 PM
Representative Hannan asked about highway safety. She
referenced a law passed in the prior year that allowed four
wheelers and snowmachines access to roads unless the
community specifically excluded it. She did not support the
bill out of safety concerns. She shared that her concern
was over increase in accidents and asked if accidents had
increased. Commissioner Anderson responded that there had
not been a marked increase in accidents related to four
wheelers and snowmachines over the past year. The
department wanted to design lanes that accommodate the
types of vehicles, so they do not have to use the roads.
Representative Hannan was happy to hear that accidents did
not increase.
2:32:00 PM
Mr. Pannone advanced to slide 10 titled Rural Ferry
Program:
Program Highlights and Priorities
Program Total $283,925.4
Vessel Repl. $2,147.9
Federal Rcpts. $281,777.5
• $46.2M - Climate Responsive Ferry Vessel Options
.notdef Electric Ferry
• $8.6M - Design of a New Alaska Mainliner
• $45.5M - Critical Upgrades to Ferry Dock
Infrastructure in Five Rural Alaska Communities
.notdef Auke Bay, Chenega, Pelican, Tatitlek, Cordova
.notdef FTA Conversations on-going
• $68.5M - M/V Tustumena Replacement Vessel
.notdef Phase 1: Focus on Propulsion System
• $72M - Vessel Modernization
.notdef Kennicott, Tazlina, Matanuska, Columbia
Mr. Pannone reported that the Rural Ferry Program was
included in Section 7-1102 and Section 7-1102 of IIJA. The
first section was structured specifically so only the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) could qualify and the
second section was written for ferry electrification and an
electric ferry pilot program. The department applied for
the ferry grant program and received a significant amount
as listed on the slide. He provided a brief listing of the
projects.
2:34:17 PM
Representative Stapp related that he was unfamiliar with
the concept of an electric ferry. He wondered what the
long-term operational costs would be for an electric ferry.
Commissioner Anderson responded that the hope was that it
would help reduce operational costs. The type of ferry
would be used for short runs. The department had embarked
on a research project and would ultimately make a trial run
on an electric ferry to ensure it worked. Representative
Stapp asked if the study would occur first or the purchase
of the ship. Commissioner Anderson answered that DOT was
currently undertaking the study and it would be purchasing
a ferry.
2:36:05 PM
Representative Hannan pointed to vessel modernization and
asked what would be modernized on the Tazlina, which was
one of the newest ferries. She wondered whether it was the
installation of crew quarters. Commissioner Anderson
replied in the affirmative.
2:36:38 PM
Mr. Pannone discussed slide 11 titled Rural Ferry Program
(cont'd):
Program Highlights and Priorities
• $40.1M - Federal Toll Credits for Match
.notdef Toll Credits use 100% Fed Revenue
.notdef Earned from AMHS Revenues reinvested as capital
improvements
.notdef Potential for over $42M of credits earned over
the last five years alone
• Novel Funding Tool
.notdef Started in 1992 through Federal Highway
Administration
.notdef Toll Credits Accepted by Federal Transit
Administration
.notdef Including Legislative Finance Division in
Process
• Used by Washington State Ferries and Numerous Other
State DOTs
Mr. Pannone indicated that DOT was looking at creative ways
to meet the state match requirement of 20 percent for the
rural ferry grants of which $22 million was necessary. He
spoke to the TOLL credits denoted on the slide. He
elaborated that it was a program that allowed the state to
use toll revenue, AMHS passenger fares, as federal credits
if the toll revenue was reinvested as capital improvements
in the ferry system. The federal credits were applied and
federal revenue supplanted state revenue for matching
funds. The states toll revenue was enough to cover the
state match in toll credits. The credits had been
established by the FHA in 1992 and were accepted by the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The department worked
with the Legislative Finance Division and were kept
informed of all the technical details. The department had
consulted with the New Jersey DOT that had many toll roads
and exclusively used toll credits for federal matching
funds. In addition, he discovered that the Washington state
ferries used toll credits.
Representative Hannan asked whether the FTA had accepted
the toll credits or if it was a request to the FTA. Mr.
Pannone replied that through their discussions with the FHA
and FTA, the department was assured by the FTA that it was
a viable and acceptable practice.
2:39:57 PM
Mr. Pannone continued on slide 12 titled State Funded and
Named Projects:
Appropriation Highlights
• Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) Vessel Overhaul,
annual Certification and Shoreside Facilities
Rehabilitation
.notdef Focus on Advanced Planning and Modernization
.notdef $22M AMHS Revenue Fund
• Dalton Highway Delineators Improvements
.notdef $2.1M UGF
• Public Building Fund Deferred Maintenance,
Renovation, Repair and Equipment
.notdef $6.2M Public Building Fund
• State Equipment Fleet Replacement
.notdef $35M Highway Equipment Working Capital Fund
• MH: Coordinated Transportation and Vehicles
.notdef $1M UGF, $300k Mental Health Trust Authority
Authorized Receipts
Mr. Pannone relayed that the projects in the appropriation
typically used state funds, and some were annual requests.
He briefly discussed each listing on the slide. He
delineated that by using $22 million in AMHS revenue the
state would gain more federal credits. He noted that the
final listing provided grants to the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA) to provide transit for trustees.
2:41:52 PM
Commissioner Anderson advanced to slide 13 titled
Delivering the Program:
Project Delivery
• In House Design Engineering and Construction
Services
.notdef 843 Budgeted Positions, approximately 700
filled (17% Vacancy Rate)
.notdef Includes planners, engineers, environmental
analysts, surveyors, right of way agents,
procurement staff, and administrative support
• Consultant Services
.notdef Consultants utilized as part of In-House teams
in various capacities
.notdef 50% -70% typical utilization rate based on
project priority and needs
• Construction Contractors:
.notdef Over $800M in Awards in FFY2022
.notdef Anticipate close to $1B in construction
contract awards in FFY2023
Commissioner Anderson briefly described the slide.
2:43:22 PM
Co-Chair Johnson asked how available the outside
contractors were. Commissioner Anderson answered that there
had been responsiveness to the bids. He noted that most
consultants were busy but not to the point where projects
needs were not filled.
2:44:35 PM
Commissioner Anderson relayed information related to
project delivery. He discussed the series of discretionary
grant opportunities that the department aggressively
pursued and had so far won some such as the Port
Improvement Program. The department applied for $100
million for the Bridge Improvement Program and were waiting
for a reply. In addition, DOT applied for the RAISE program
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and
Equity. He elucidated that the department's approach was to
take projects from the STIP and applied for the
discretionary grants making room for other STIP projects to
be prioritized. He mentioned the Promoting Resilient
Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving
Transportation (PROTECT) Formula Program with over $848
million nationwide [to help make surface transportation
more resilient to natural hazards and disasters]. In
addition, DOT would pursue the Wildlife Crossings Pilot
Program (WCPP). He reiterated that the department was not
requesting matching funds until a grant was awarded.
2:46:26 PM
Representative Josephson asked if there were any programs
where the state did not receive any funding. Commissioner
Anderson responded that there were not any he could recall.
The department was seeking $1 billion in grants, and some
had already been applied for and won.
2:47:16 PM
Mr. Pannone advanced to slide 14 titled Inflation. He
reported that since the pandemic, highway construction
costs had increased 30 percent since 2020. However, from
2019 to 2024 there was about an 80 percent increase in
federal revenue, which helped him deduce how much of the
value went for cost increases.
2:48:27 PM
Representative Galvin asked how much of a built in number
was figured in for things like maintenance. She understood
that the new federal programs were beneficial, but she was
concerned about deferred maintenance costs in the future.
She wondered if there was a specific maintenance number
factored in or how the department dealt with ongoing
maintenance needs.
Commissioner Anderson replied that some of the new programs
would fix current problems or accomplish things that would
reduce maintenance costs like replacing existing road
lighting with LEDs. The department had been able to find
some efficiencies. However, for things like increased lane
miles future operational costs would be needed. When they
were, DOT attempted to effectively communicate the need to
the governor and the legislature.
Co-Chair Edgmon welcomed former Co-Chair of the House
Finance Committee, Representative Alan Austerman, who was
in the audience.
2:51:41 PM
Mr. Pannone continued on slide 15 titled Preliminary Hours
by Job, CY 2023. He explained that as part of the
strategic modeling on how the department would deliver the
capital program it was using AASHTOWare [certified payroll
tracking] that accounted for all the information on the
projects project delivery, construction contracts, and
professional services. The slide provided an example of the
top seven categories of skillsets in workforce needs and
the department planned to rely on more of this data for the
department as well.
Commissioner Anderson felt positive about the program. He
added that by the contractors submitting their certified
payroll into AASHTOWare, the system enabled DOT to
understand the hours needed to complete a project.
Therefore, DOT could start making projections on project
costs moving forward. He elucidated that the system was in
its infancy but believed that it was a helpful tool and
also for understanding the reasons for increased costs.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented on the prior slide [slide 14] and
pointed to the 30 percent increase in highway construction
costs. He thought that the slide really illustrated that
there was a significant difference between increasing costs
and an annual valued attached to inflation.
2:54:26 PM
Commissioner Anderson moved to slide 16 titled Training:
Human Capital Plan. He explained that the plan was part of
IIJA and was a workforce development and training plan. The
plan attempted to address the challenges of the current
labor environment. The plan provided federal dollars for
training and other types of activities that supported the
workforce to get people back to work. The department was
developing its plan and assessing the stresses of the
workforce and the needs to build Alaskas transportation
system in the future with an adequate workforce.
2:55:57 PM
Representative Galvin was excited about the plan and
believed that the Human Capital Plan was a roadmap for
the states educational system and offered students
assurance of future jobs. She asked how the department
would implement the plan and if they were considering
working with educational partners or developing their own
trainings. She hoped DOT would implement the plan quickly.
Commissioner Anderson answered that DOT was getting
started on this. He indicated that they were partnering
with groups like the the Association of General Contractors
and the consultant community on the design side and had to
consider all aspects of delivering projects. He related
that the department would view the educational task as a
project by building goals and objectives and allocating
funds. He was currently looking at demonstration projects
where a rural community built its own roads as a part of a
training program. Representative Galvin relayed that 70
percent of students were not going on to a 4-year degree
programs and observed them choosing jobs in the trades. She
hoped the plan was a success for the opportunity it
afforded young people.
2:59:39 PM
Representative Hannan cited the photo on slide 16 and
wanted to confirm that the photograph of kitchen workers
represented five licensed mariners working in a skilled
agency with an unusual duty station. Commissioner Anderson
responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Edgmon commented that the UGF required for the
capital budget match was about $109 million. The governors
original capital request was about $303 million. He asked
if the $109 million figure was accurate. Mr. Pannone
answered in the affirmative and added that the amount was
the UGF revenue necessary to capture all of the federal
funding presented in the slides.
3:01:27 PM
Representative Cronk thanked Commissioner Anderson for his
time and creativity in working with communities in his
district to get things done.
Co-Chair Edgmon thanked the congressional delegation for
securing the funds. He hoped in future years when the
projects were completed Alaskans would see the difference
they made. He noted there was a recent bill to name a Don
Young [HB 141- ESTABLISHING DON YOUNG DAY, Chapter 24 SLA
23, 08/26/2023] day and felt it was fitting.
Co-Chair Edgmon reviewed the agenda for the following day's
meeting.
HB 40 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 40 DOT HFIN Capital Budget 2023.04.25.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 40 |
| HB 40 DOTPF - Capital Allocations 042523.pdf |
HFIN 4/25/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 40 |