Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/01/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB86 | |
| Presentation: Port of Anchorage Expansion Project Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 1, 2012
1:37 p.m.
1:37:17 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Bill Streur, Commissioner, Department of Health and Social
Services; Kelly Henriksen, Assistant Attorney General,
Human Services Division, Department of Law; Denise
Daniella, Executive Director, Alaska Commission on Aging;
Marie Darlin, American Association of Retired Persons
Alaska (AARP) Task Force; Pat Luby, American Association of
Retired Persons Alaska (AARP) Alaska; Steve Ribuffo,
Interim Port Director, Port of Anchorage; David Pierce, PND
Engineers, Inc.; Jim Campbell, PND Engineers; Brad West,
President, West Construction; Emily Cotter, Port of
Anchorage.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Scott Sterling, Supervising Attorney for the Office of
Elder Fraud and Assistance, Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Administration; Dan Sullivan, Mayor,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 307 SUPPLEMENTAL/CAPITAL/OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
SB 86 PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS/MINORS
CSSB 86 (JUD)(efd am)was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and
with accompanying previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN9 (DHS), FN10 (ADM), FN11 (LAW),
FN12 (DPS), FN13 (DPS), FN14 (COR), FN15 (CRT).
PRESENTATION:
PORT OF ANCHORAGE EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 86(JUD)(efd am)
"An Act relating to the protection of property of
persons under disability and minors; relating to
the crime of violating a protective order
concerning certain vulnerable persons; relating
to aggravating factors at sentencing for offenses
concerning a victim 65 years or older; relating
to the protection of vulnerable adults; making
conforming amendments; amending Rules 12(h) and
45(a), Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule
77, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17,
Alaska Rules of Probate Procedure, and Rule 9,
Alaska Rules of Administration; and providing for
an effective date."
1:37:25 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze voiced the intention of passing SB 86 out
of committee today.
Representative Gara questioned if the bill had been
previously heard by the committee. He indicated having few
questions concerning the bill.
BILL STREUR, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SERVICES, presented a short overview of the bill. He stated
that SB 86 is the governor's bill that is highly supported
by the Department of Health and Social Services. The bill
deals with the protection of vulnerable adults. He declared
that the senior population in Alaska has grown by 70
percent since the last census; five times the rate of the
rest of the nation. He stressed that the exploitation of
elderly and vulnerable adults is a growing problem.
Although there are many types of exploitation, financial
exploitation by a trusted family member is one of the most
common. Often abuse victims have a difficult time accessing
the courts to receive needed support. A "temporary
conservator" allows the vulnerable adult to retain autonomy
while obtaining emergency protection. The bill also
improves the ability of the investigating reports of crime
to obtain timely vital information that will lead to better
services for vulnerable adults who are abused, neglected,
or exploited and unable to protect their own interests.
KELLY HENRIKSEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, HUMAN SERVICES
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained that the bill is in
two parts. The first part deals with the new concept of
"temporary conservatorship" and financial protective
orders. The second part of the bill is directed toward
adult protective services. The bill updates the statutes.
There is an amendment of the phrase labeled "undue
influence" which is the main function of the bill. She
revealed that exploitation is an enormous problem for
seniors and vulnerable adults, therefore throughout bill
and Alaska Protective Services (APS) Code, the concept of
"undue influence" was added any place there is a list of
"reportable harms." The rest of the bill updates some
definitions and clarifies some of the investigative powers
of APS. She disclosed that the first part of the bill
dealing with temporary conservatorship and financial
protective orders really is the core of the bill, promoted
by the Department of Public Advocacy. In Title 13, where
conservatorship and guardianships are dealt with, there is
the concept of "temporary guardian" so in an emergency
situation it is possible to go and petition the court
immediately. Within 72 hours, there is a hearing before a
judge; permanent guardianship will follow.
1:44:50 PM
Ms. Henriksen reiterated that financial harm is the most
common exploitation to vulnerable adults. The temporary
conservatorship provision, modeled after the temporary
guardianship provision, allows a petition to be filed and
heard in court within 72 hours. The other section of the
bill deals with financial protective orders. The ex parte
financial protective order section is modeled after
domestic violence ex parte hearings. The greatest problem
occurs when a family member, who is trusted by a vulnerable
adult, is able to get money out of an account that could
subsequently be drained before anything is done. If there
is sufficient evidence of abuse, it would be possible to
get a hearing into the court and obtain a protective order
immediately. If necessary, the guardianship can be extended
six months.
Co-Chair Stoltze equated the financial protective order to
a domestic violence protective order. Ms. Henriksen replied
that was exactly correct.
Representative Gara disclosed he was comfortable with the
bill and appreciated it being brought forward. He wondered
whether existing staff to handle caseloads would be
sufficient if the legislation passed. Ms. Henriksen
responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara remarked that Representative Chenault
passed a bill that started the Senior Fraud Protection Unit
in the Office of Public Advocacy. He wondered if that unit
would be working with the attorney general's office. Ms.
Henriksen answered that when APS knows about a financial
fraud being perpetrated on an vulnerable adult, a report
will made to the Senior Fraud Protection Unit.
1:48:15 PM
Representative Gara surmised that staff would not have
additional duties under the legislation. Ms. Henriksen did
not believe more staff would be required.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to page 9, line 20
related to the "employee." He wondered what the
responsibilities were when a person is mandated as a person
who reports an abuse. Ms. Henriksen replied that the
consequences were a misdemeanor. She cautioned that it is
hard to bring charges against someone who does not report
an incident, but she indicated that avenue has not been
pursued. It is only meant to be an incentive. She noted
that administrators in many facilities often do not have
direct contact with many of the vulnerable adults.
Representative Guttenberg asked what protections someone
might have for reporting a situation. Ms. Henriksen
indicated there would be immunity if someone made a report.
It could be a problem if someone knowingly did not report a
serious situation, but again she stated that circumstance
has never been pursued.
SCOTT STERLING, SUPERVISING ATTORNEY FOR THE OFFICE OF
ELDER FRAUD AND ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference) indicated
that he was available to answer questions. He explained
that the bill will concentrate new tools for individuals
and state agencies to combat financial exploitation against
vulnerable adults. The financial protection order portion
has been adopted in several states and has been successful
in helping people receive immediate relief.
1:53:27 PM
DENISE DANIELLA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
AGING, supported the bill. She felt the bill offered strong
needed protection. She indicated that there has been an
increase of more than 300 percent over the last five years
of substantiated reports to adult protective services.
MARIE DARLIN, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS
ALASKA (AARP) TASK FORCE, commented that Pat Luby would
speak first.
PAT LUBY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS ALASKA
(AARP) ALASKA, pointed out the increase in elderly abuse,
especially financial exploitation perpetrated by a family
member. He opined that the bill was a great response to
dealing with the growing problem. He believed the bill to
be one of the best examples of government agencies working
together to help the citizens of the state. He remarked
that institutional facility staff is usually the first to
see problems when they arise.
Ms. Darlin supported the bill. She believed it to be a good
bill addressing many of the abuse and exploitation issues
that have been brought forward.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
1:59:27 PM
AT EASE
2:00:36 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-chair Fairclough read the zero fiscal notes: FN9
(DHS), FN10 (ADM), FN11 (LAW), FN12 (DPS), FN13 (DPS), FN14
(COR), FN15 (CRT).
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSSB (JUD)(efd am)
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSSB 86 (JUD)(efd am)was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with accompanying previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN9 (DHS), FN10 (ADM), FN11
(LAW), FN12 (DPS), FN13 (DPS), FN14 (COR), FN15 (CRT).
2:03:58 PM
AT EASE
2:15:25 PM
RECONVENED
^PRESENTATION: PORT OF ANCHORAGE EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATE
2:16:32 PM
DAN SULLIVAN, MAYOR, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
summarized the plans to date and why it was a good path
going forward. He declared that over 240,000 containers
arrive in the Anchorage port annually. The containers
contain goods that are distributed to about 85 percent of
Alaska's population. The Anchorage port has also been
designated by Department of Defense as a National Strategic
Seaport. He wanted to underscore the importance of the
Anchorage port expansion project to upgrade the 50 year-
old-port. During the mayor's transition period into office,
reports came to him of significant construction problems
with the port. In the last two and a half years the work
has been to determine the extent of the problem and to
determine a path forward. For the last two seasons removing
and replacing damaged areas has been the primary
construction activity. The delay, along with the dramatic
increase in the cost of materials and the Beluga whale
designation, has made the project cost increase
dramatically. He revealed that to complete the project the
cost has increased to over $900 million. Due to the high
number, the mayor requested a scaled down design to
accommodate the primary shippers and to provide for new
business with the wet and dry barge dock. The estimated
cost is $350 million. He noted that there had been
misconceptions of the roles in different divisions
including the port, port director, municipality and the
Maritime Administration (MARAD.) He explained that MARAD is
the federal agency in charge of the construction project
who hired the contractors; the contractors then hired the
sub-contractors. The lack of oversight by the city in the
construction was a problem. He indicated that there was a
new memorandum of agreement with MARAD that sets new
parameters. The new parameters would now involve a Project
Oversight Committee, a Technical Committee, a Quality
Control and Assurance Program and the Corps of Engineers.
He indicated that the most important change was the
contractual relationship with MARAD and the other
contractors has now been terminated which will allow the
municipality of Anchorage to take over the management of
the project. The city will now be able to contract with
different entities for future contract management, design,
and construction. He stressed that the project is back on
track with the only remaining component being fiscal
certainty. He announced how pleased he was with Governor
Parnell's budget proposal that included $200 million for
the Port of Anchorage. Mayor Sullivan indicated that that
the municipality was not tied to any one method of
financing, but would leave the decision to the judgment of
the legislature.
2:24:07 PM
STEVE RIBUFFO, INTERIM PORT DIRECTOR, PORT OF ANCHORAGE,
cited the PowerPoint presentation, "Alaska's Port. Alaska's
Future. The Port of Anchorage" (copy on file). He began the
presentation with slide 2: "Facts about the Port":
· The major point of entry for containerized cargo
in Alaska
· Services support over 200 rural communities in
the State
· Annually, 240,000 containers move through the
Port
· Since 2000, an average 4 million tons of goods
and materials pass through the Port's facilities
annually
· 90% of merchandise goods for the Railbelt and
interior Alaska.
· 100 million pounds of bypass mail items
· 52,000 vehicles processed annually on average
· 80% of the cement for concrete
Mr. Ribuffo turned to slide 3: "Cargo Distribution Map" the
distribution methods of road, rail, barge and airplane are
shown. Mr. Ribuffo noted that the distribution patterns
support over 200 rural communities with fuel and bypass
mail deliveries.
Mr. Ribuffo moved to slide 4: "Fuel Services" which
indicated that the Anchorage port is a major provider of
jet fuel, unleaded gasoline, heating oil, diesel and
aviation gasoline for the South Central region, rural
communities and the state at large.
· 11 million barrels of fuel annually
· 2/3 of the jet fuel for Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
· 100% of the jet fuel for Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson
· 2/3 of all fuel used by the military in Alaska
· 1.4 million barrels of fuel shipped from POA to
rural Alaska
On slide 5: "Fuel Distribution Map" Mr. Ribuffo pointed out
that the fuel from all three state refineries passes
through the port. He indicated that the upper right corner
of the slide listed the different types of fuel that pass
through the port and the color codes matching the regions
of that state to which that fuel goes. Fuel can be
delivered by tanker, petroleum barge, pipeline, or rail
car. Two pipelines from the port go to joint bases
Elmendorf and Richardson and another pipeline goes directly
to Ted Stevens International Airport.
Mr. Ribuffo continued with slide 6: "The Port and the U.S.
Military," stating that the port is designated by the
Department of Defense as a National Strategic Seaport; one
of only 19 ports in the United States to have this
designation. Since 2001 the port has supported over 30
military deployments moving over 18,000 pieces of military
equipment for the U.S. Army Alaska and the United States
Transportation command.
2:28:20 PM
Mr. Ribuffo showed in slide 7: "Employment and Payroll" the
important economic engine that the port plays in Alaska,
contributing over $750 million to the economy with some
higher estimates of over one billion annually. The annual
payroll from Port Stakeholders was $50 million. Regular
port operations create jobs for a variety of trades
including longshoremen operating engineers, and teamsters.
During the expansion project 150-200 tradesmen and women
will be directly employed annually.
Mr. Ribuffo pointed to slide 8 "Port Stakeholders" and
revealed the companies that either lease land from the port
or rely regularly on port facilities to conduct business
operations. Horizon Lines and Totem Ocean Trailer Express
(TOTE) are the two containers shippers that call on the
port twice weekly.
· Horizon Lines
· Totem Ocean Trailer Express (TOTE)
· Alaska Basic Industries (ABI)
· Tesoro Alaska
· Crowley Marine Services
· Aircraft Service International Group (ASIG)
· Flint Hills Resources
· Alaska Railroad Corporation
· U.S. Army - Alaska and U.S. Transportation
Command's Surface Deployment & Distribution
Command (SDDC)
· Cook Inlet Tug and Barge
Mr. Ribuffo looked at slide 9: "Annual Dock Tonnage" and
explained that over the past ten years the average dock
tonnage is around 4 million tons per year. Dry Bulk Goods
(green) consists of commodities such as cement and steel.
Petroleum Shoreside (light blue) refers to petroleum
products passing through the valve yard in route to either
on-port storage facilities or on the way over the dock, but
were initially delivered to the port by pipeline or rail.
Petroleum Dockside (dark blue) refers to petroleum products
that pass through valve yard while entering or leaving the
port and which are transported there by a fuel tanker or
barge.
2:30:19 PM
Mr. Ribuffo referred to slide 10: "Port that is 50 years
old in a deteriorated condition" and slide 11: "Intermodal
Expansion Project." In 2011 the port celebrated its 50th
anniversary; a timeline that underscores the port's
deteriorating condition. Severe corrosion is found
throughout the facility. A 2011 memo estimated that there
are 1300 pilings requiring repairs due to age and
corrosion. Since 2004, 111 pilings have been repaired at an
annual cost ranging $750,000 to $1.6 million. The annual
cost amount covers approximately 16 pilings. It would take
15 years to complete all the necessary repairs and would
not be adding any increase seismic protection or
modernization of the facilities.
Mr. Ribuffo moved to slide 12: "Project will replace the
current container facilities while providing modern,
reliable and expanded infrastructure for our future." He
pointed to the project area that is outlined in yellow. He
noted that it has been scaled back and now focuses on two
new barge berths and two new ship berths in the North End
of the port. When completed, the new facilities will allow
the current container ship tenants to move their ships off
the old deteriorated facility into new larger and modern
berthing spaces built to a higher level of seismic
stability and operational safety. The two barge berths will
provide new economic and business opportunities for
shippers in the region and ready access to a rail line that
will extend the full length of the port. He disclosed the
expansion of 65 acres of land for commercial or industrial
use. The combination of increased berthing space will allow
for better military deployments, accommodate larger
vessels, and support resource development projects in the
state and region.
2:32:49 PM
Mr. Ribuffo listed in slide 13: "Expanded Opportunities"
the non-tenant customers who have used the port facilities
within the past 18 to 24 months. Under the categories of
New Customers it lists businesses that have formally
indicated their intention of using the port facilities. The
last section describes how the port facilities could be
used in the future. He commented that everyone recognizes
the importance of making logistics operations at the port a
success.
Mr. Ribuffo directed attention to slide 14: "Funding,"
which would be through a combination of port, state and
federal funds with $331 million received to date:
· Federal Funds $138.7 million
· State Funds $ 121.3 million
· Port of Anchorage Funds $ 71.0 million
Mr. Ribuffo remarked that the port also qualifies for a $75
million line of credit and is currently allowed to draw up
to $51 million. Currently the port has drawn $40 million
from the credit line. The Port has also put $31 million
towards the project from savings and revenues since 2001.
There is currently $29 million in uncommitted
appropriations and the port is able to draw another $11
million on a line of credit providing a potential access of
$40 million.
Mr. Ribuffo provided a brief overview of the project in
slide 15: "Project History:"
1999 The Port's 10-year Master Plan recommends an
expansion program to meet future needs.
2003 The Port partners with the U.S. Maritime
Administration (MARAD) to implement the
program.
2005 The preferred alternative is selected
(current project design) and the permitting
process begins.
2006 Terminal Road Rail Extension and Coast Guard
floating dock completed.
2007 The project receives final permits.
2008 North and South Backlands filled and
Port/Tidewater Rd. improvements completed.
Bulkhead construction in the northern phase
begins.
2009 Dry Barge Berth bulkhead and mooring
complete. Bulkhead construction continues.
The port is made aware of problems in the
spring of 2009.
2010 Bulkhead construction halted when the extent
of the damage was revealed.
2011 Work focused on completing sheet pile
inspections to establish the integrity of
the structure.
2:37:42 PM
Mr. Ribuffo showed in slide 16: "Funds Expended on Project"
that money spent or obligated to date in all the areas
listed is $301 million. Roads have been dug up to repair
the problem and a haul road was built to move earth to
create the 65 acres. He acknowledged that there had been a
misconception that the total $201 million was spent in the
North End of the port. The actual money spent goes back to
2003 with work on other parts of the port, including
realigning all the roads to make them safer for truck
traffic and putting all the utilities underground. He also
confirmed that two miles of rail track was put on the port,
a haul road connecting the port to joint base Elmendorf and
Richardson was built, and earth had been brought down to
create the 65 new acres.
Mr. Ribuffo turned to slide 17: "Funding," which showed
that $350 million of state funding still needed. Full
upfront funding will allow for the creation of multi-year
bids and provide for an efficiency not presently enjoyed.
The funding would eliminate the need to pay for constant
contractor mobilization and demobilization, allow
contractors to purchase materials at the best available
prices and eliminate the risk for further increased cost
through delays from lack of funding.
Mr. Ribuffo explained in slide 18: "Old Paradigm" that the
three boxes showed the divided labor between the Federal
Lead Agency (MARAD), the Project Owner (Port of Anchorage),
the Project Manager (Integrated Concepts and Research
Corporation.)
2:41:07 PM
Mr. Ribuffo showed the Old Paradigm Problems and the New
Paradigm Solutions in slide 19: "New Paradigm":
The Old Paradigm included:
· No direct authority over project contractors
by Port/Muni.
· No on-site MARAD representative at Port.
· No direct liability or bonding protection
for Port/Muni.
· No Port directed construction oversight
authority.
The New Paradigm Solutions include:
· New agreement establishing oversight
committee.
· Established a technical advisory committee.
· On-site MARAD representative.
· A performance bond has been established for
Port/Muni.
· On-site construction observers reporting
directly to Port.
· Direct involvement in quality control &
assurance program and monitoring.
In September, 2011, the Municipality of Anchorage signed a
new Memorandum of Agreement with MARAD shown in slide 20:
"Enacted Solutions." The new agreement provides increased
accountability from all parties and ensures local control
of the project moving forward. Mr. Ribuffo thanked the
committee for their attention.
2:43:08 PM
AT EASE
2:44:02 PM
RECONVENED
DAVID PIERCE, PND ENGINEERS, INC., introduced their company
as the developer of the OPEN CELL® TECHNOLOGY system. He
indicated that the intent was to show the ABCs of the OPEN
CELL system and answer any questions.
JIM CAMPBELL, PND ENGINEERS, presented the PowerPoint
program "OPEN CELL SHEET PILE® Technology" (copy on file.)
He explained that the port of Anchorage has an OPEN CELL
design which uses sheet pile filled with gravel to
construct the dock. In slide 1: "OPEN CELL Sheet Pile
Retaining Wall System" he explained that the open cell
design was developed for Alaska in the early 80s.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked how long PND Engineers had been on
the project. Mr. Campbell replied from early 2005.
Mr. Campbell continued that the system consists of flat
piles which link together as shown in slide 2: "OPEN CELL
Components." PND Engineers design the OPEN CELL system
using flat sheet pile with extruded or welded connectors.
In the upper left corner of the slide the example shows the
face sheets and the Tailwall back from the Y-cell. He
explained the engineering components of internal and
external stability in slide 3: "OPEN CELL Structural
Stability." He stressed that if not designed correctly the
wall could be over stressed and that would then fail the
internal structure. The entire cellular structure acts as a
large cohesive block. He pointed out that due to the port
of Anchorage being in a huge seismic area, the Tailwalls
were extended for more stabilization.
2:49:46 PM
Mr. Campbell referred to the retaining wall which is also
called the Mechanically Stabilized Embankment (MSE) or
reinforced earth. The soil carries a lot of compression
loads then is reinforced with steel for tension load. He
equated the process to reinforced concrete. Mr. Campbell
directed attention to slide 4: "OPEN CELL Performance"
where he stressed that the long term durability of the dock
comes down to corrosion. An advantage to the system is a
lot of the structure is contained back within the fill, not
exposed to Cook Inlet corrosion, and the face sheets have
been galvanized to make them more corrosion resistant.
Corrosion is worse at the low tideline. The Tailwall Length
is how the wall is designed for seismic load. The port of
Anchorage has long Tailwalls to allow for the high seismic
safety factor.
2:52:44 PM
Mr. Campbell moved to slide 5 "Open Cell: Applications"
that showed four pictures of the OPEN CELL system
applications. He pointed to slide 6 "OPEN CELL System
Locations" depicting system locations. OPEN CELL structures
could be found around the world, with over 185 completed
structures. He pointed out that the structures are cost
effective and incredibly strong. He revealed in slide 7
"Kloosterboer Dutch Harbor Marine Terminal Dutch Harbor"
that Dutch Harbor has the same seismic barometer as
Anchorage. He pointed to a picture of the construction
sequence of an OPEN CELL structure located in the bottom
left corner. He signified that closed cells do not allow
for an extension of the Tailwalls which would not make it
the practical choice in high seismic environments.
2:57:34 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested that Mr. Campbell move to the
most important areas due to the limited schedule.
Mr. Campbell moved to slide 8: "Port MacKenzie Deep Draft
Dock, Cook Inlet, AK" emphasizing the project was a
successful project built very quickly and at low cost.
Material below the waterline were "vibracompacted" while
upper layers were roller compacted. In the upper right
corner he pointed out construction cells. Mr. Campbell
continued to slide 9: "Liberty SDI Development, Prudhoe
Bay, AK" discussing the use in the North Slope region. Due
to the ice conditions, the pile supported docks are not
strong enough, therefore almost all structures in that
region are bulkhead type docks. In the upper right corner
of the slide he pointed to a large module landing at the
port. He moved to slide 10: "Owensboro Riverwall,
Owensboro, KY"
Vice-chair Fairclough requested he advance to slide 20:
"OPEN CELL Technology: Unique Applications, Skagway, AK."
She acknowledged that PND Engineers have been responsible
for a series of designs, but Skagway has technology with
unique applications. Mr. Campbell indicated that the
purpose of the Skagway slide was to show the structure
features which are incredibly durable and flexible.
3:01:34 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze requested a summarization of how the
technology works with the port of Anchorage. Mr. Campbell
responded that he wanted to provide an explanation and
background of the design perimeters for a better
understanding.
3:03:04 PM
AT EASE
3:04:54 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thomas reconvened the meeting.
BRAD WEST, PRESIDENT, WEST CONSTRUCTION, indicated that his
company had been working on the port of Anchorage for the
past few years. He noted that his contract is complete and
has been demobilized. He wanted to speak on issues that had
been in the press and provide some accurate information in
going forward with funding the project. He expressed his
confidence that the port project can be built with the
design. The important point is how it is installed and the
techniques that are used. He explained that two reports,
now being produced, will be the final opinion of what
happened at the port.
Mr. West commented in slide 1: "Who is West Corporation?"
that West Construction is an Alaska based marine contractor
with over 30 years of experience in OPEN CELL®
construction. West Corporation has more OPEN CELL
experience than any other contractor; 22 OPEN CELL projects
to date. He also mentioned that the last container port
facilities projects built in Alaska were successful
projects constructed by West Construction. He pointed out
that the port of Anchorage is a difficult site with high
tides and many other issues. He referred to slide 2:
"Unalaska Marine Center 1991" showing the Horizon Lines
that also uses the port of Anchorage. In slide 3: "American
President Lines" he pointed to the port in Dutch Harbor, AK
that is used for the international trade. He also mentioned
work in Cook Inlet with oil platforms and the Knick and
Matanuska bridges.
Mr. West stressed in slide 4: "What went wrong at port of
Anchorage" that a strong management team is needed to
handle issues at the port to go forward in the future. The
Anchorage port has 40 foot tides, fast currents, heavy ice
and environmental considerations that need to be
appreciated as the work moves forward. In his experience it
is better to keep the fill away from the face as the sheet
pile are being installed to keep the soil pressure neutral
on the sheet pile. Had the previous port work been properly
done there might not have been some of the problem issues.
West Construction's initial project was to complete the
bulkheads that had been started by the previous contractor.
There were four connection points to complete the bulkhead,
unfortunately when the sheets were pulled up to make the
connections; a lot of damage was revealed. (The next few
slide show pictures of damage.) He explained that when
dealing with government entities it takes a long time for
changes to be understood and then more time tofind the best
way forward. He indicated that he wanted to show examples
of how the work can be constructed successfully. He moved
to slide 9: "Sample Project Showing Proper Land Based
Approach, Dutch Harbor Ports, Dock Facility" to show and
explain pictures through to slide 14. He noted that the
control placement of the fill is the key to success of
these jobs. Once the grade is brought up, it is compacted
well so that there is no settlement and then a vibratory
compaction is done to speed up any long term settlement.
The structures shown in the pictures took eleven calendar
months; nine months on-site. It shows a thousand foot
bulkhead with a one hundred year design life and a twenty
five hundred year seismic zone.
3:12:58 PM
Mr. West moved to the next project starting with slide 15:
"Sample Project Showing Water Based Bar Approach, Iraq" and
pictures of the projects in the following slides. The
design is an OPEN CELL structure from the waterside which
is the company's recommendation on how the port of
Anchorage should proceed. slide 17 shows a diagram on how
the company recommends the fill be placed at the port of
Anchorage and slide 18 shows the soil pressures against the
face and the distortion caused. In slide 19, he commented
on the busy site with a multi-national working crew. He
indicated how impressed the people were with the skill
level and hard work of the American workers. On slide 22 he
pointed out soil issues and access to the work. In Iraq the
soil was soft and bridges needed to be constructed to get
the fill to the face. In slide 23 a conveyor system is
shown.
3:16:37 PM
Mr. West explained that an issue at the port of Anchorage
was dense soils or armor rock, but a simple solution was to
dig it out. Then the space is replaced with competent
backfill material which alleviates a lot of the issues. He
was proud to show on slide 8 that the project was given the
2011 AGC International Construction Project of the year. He
then moved to slide 29: "Current Status of POA: where we
are and what we know." He explained that development of
work plans and techniques that deal with difficult existing
site conditions. They successfully installed 900 sheets in
2010 and verified they were driven without damage in
locations where the cells had previously failed. He
believed that the OPEN CELL design is appropriate for the
Anchorage site if it is installed properly. He also noted
that future steps have been identified to mitigate the
remaining damage and successfully complete the project. He
pointed out in slide 30 a very active construction site in
2010. The pictures show a combination of the off-shore
construction equipment with the land based equipment taking
over. slide 31 shows the Tailwalls and the work that goes
along with it. The posts are able to drive into a slope
because the soil pressure on either side of the Tailwall is
neutral due to it being on the same grade. Mr. West moved
to the picture on the left of slide 32 showing the
coordination between the offshore and shore activity. The
picture on the right showed some of the armor rock found
that needed to be dug out.
3:20:39 PM
Mr. West referred to some of the causes of failure.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the failures were before
Mr. West's company started. Mr. West acknowledged that was
true. slide 33: "Summary of Causes for Failure":
· Difficult site requires a qualified and highly
experienced team.
· Improper means and methods used on previous contract.
· Poor communication and complicated management process.
· No clear chain of command and dysfunctional decision
making process
· No Accountability
· Federal Agency, Construction Management Firm and
previous Contractor were not prepared to meet the
challenges of this difficult of a project.
· The process has been the goal, not the success of the
project.
Mr. West urged the committee to look forward and use a
"best value" contracting approach so that the municipality
or state has a say in the selection of the contractor. The
contractor submits the money costs, but also needs to
provide their work history, work plan, resumes, financial
capabilities and all the other things to be considered
before awarding a contract. He also thought it important
that the project be managed and controlled locally. An
experienced construction or engineering firm should be
hired to oversee the project to make sure that the
contractors are performing and that there is oversight of
quality issues. He stressed that the port of Anchorage
project is too important to fail. He agreed that a lot of
expensive lessons had been learned and urged that the
funding be moved forward so that the important port could
be completed.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether Mr. West had purposefully
not dwelled on what went wrong with the port of Anchorage.
Mr. West replied that he did not want to dwell on the past,
but move forward to the future.
3:23:40 PM
Co-Chair Thomas asked whether Ron Martin had worked for
him. Mr. West responded in the affirmative. Co-Chair Thomas
told a personal story. He wondered why the problems on the
port of Anchorage were allowed to go on for so long. Mr.
West could not answer the question.
3:26:37 PM
Representative Gara asked Mr. Ribuffo how much the project
would cost over the long term. He noted that Governor
Sheffield had the cost at $1.2 billion, now the cost has
been scaled back. He wanted to know how much money would be
required from the state. Mr. Ribuffo replied that the
municipality's request from the legislature was $350
million and no more. Representative Gara asked whether the
amount would cover all future costs. Mr. Ribuffo responded
that the costs would cover the North End of the project.
Future monies would be for whatever maintenance
requirements are needed for the entire port which hopefully
can be funded from the profits. Representative Gara noted
that the North End covered a huge amount of dock space, but
the Middle and South parts were also important. He noted
that the South End is fuel storage and would require $350
million and the Middle Section where the port building is
located is also in need of repair. Mr. Ribuffo replied that
the project had been scaled back to include only the North
End and the remainder of the port will be maintained in its
current configuration. Representative Gara asked whether
the company was committing to no further money requests for
the Middle and South Ends.
EMILY COTTER, PORT OF ANCHORAGE, responded that the mayor
of Anchorage had committed to one funding request of $350
million. Representative Gara responded that the commitment
related only to Mayor Sullivan's request and the port would
outlive the mayor's term in office. He reiterated if the
port would be coming back to request another $350 million
for the South and Middle End. Mr. West responded that there
were no plans to come back to the legislature for
additional funds.
3:30:43 PM
Representative Gara asked Mr. West whether it would be less
expensive to require future contractors to guarantee a
price with a bond. Mr. West responded in the affirmative.
There should be a payment performance bond where there is a
requirement that the contractor finish the work and pay the
bills. If the contractor does not complete the work, then a
surety steps in to finish the work or pay out a large
check. Representative Gara asked for a statement in writing
that would guarantee the legislature that there was no
intent to request any funds past the $350 million. Mr. West
replied that he would have to discuss the matter with Mayor
Sullivan and the municipal manager.
Vice-chair Fairclough echoed concerns voiced by
Representative Gara related to the mayor's term in office.
She argued that the mayor could only submit a letter good
for his term of office and not for the future. She asked
the municipality if they were making payments to the line
of credit and, if they are, who is making those payments.
Mr. Ribuffo said the line of credit is being paid by port
revenue. Vice-chair Fairclough questioned the terms. Mr.
Ribuffo responded that it varies. The paper is rolled over
from 90 to 180 days. The interest is paid when it rolls
over. Vice-chair Fairclough asked in a given year how much
can be spent. Mr. Ribuffo replied that it depends on the
planning and design in any given year. The $350 million
request came from a preliminary design, but expressed that
he was not comfortable committing to a number right away.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted it would be helpful to the
committee to know what can be spent each year. She wondered
if the loan needed to be paid off. She asked Mr. West if a
contractor was bidding on a mega project such as this one,
what would be the spend rate. Mr. West responded these are
political questions and he hesitated to answer. He did
answer that in the first year of the project there is a
well-known program that needs to be completed. The existing
North End bulkheads have large openings that need to be
finished. A lot of planning is needed and stakeholders need
to be involved. He quoted a $100 million burn rate a year.
3:38:11 PM
Mr. Ribuffo interjected that the municipal manager online
may have a better take on the figure.
Co-Chair Stoltze responded that the municipal manager, the
mayor, and others should get together to look at all the
scenarios. He believed those individuals would be able to
give the legislature a number.
Vice-chair Fairclough thanked all for the concerns being
raised, but wanted reassurance that the mayor was not going
to return to the legislature asking for more money.
3:39:57 PM
Representative Neuman understood the importance of the port
of Anchorage, but was concerned that the 50 year old port
may be vulnerable to a sizeable earthquake. He asked what
would be considered a sizeable earthquake. Ms. Cotter
responded that she would be happy to provide the committee
with that information. Seismic stability is approached in a
different method in the construction business. It outlines
each level of the dock and possible damage at different
levels of earthquakes.
3:42:12 PM
Representative Doogan voiced that his concerns were the
same as Vice-chair Fairclough and Representative Gara. He
agreed that the amount of money requested may not be all
the money that will be requested over the next 50 years. He
stressed that there needs to be a guarantee that the work
will be completed, the total amount it will cost, and other
relevant assurances put into a written document. He was
concerned about the success of the port, but not ready to
just go with any number thrown out. He believed a written
guarantee is required stating that the port will not be
requesting any more than the $350 million.
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked the presenters.
3:47:51 PM
RECESS TO CALL OF THE CHAIR
[Secretary Note: The meeting was adjourned at 1:37:10 PM on
March 2, 2010 with no further action.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Talking Points for SB 86.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 86 |
| SB86 Gov Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 86 |
| Port of Anchorage Presentation 3.1.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| PND OPEN CELL Alaska Legislature 3-01-2012.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| PIEP October 2011 Quarterly Report copy.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| PIEP 4th Quarter Report 2011 copy.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Presentation PDF Final.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Alaska's Lifeline- POA Cargo Distribtution .pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB86 AARP Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 86 |
| CSSB 86 Sectional Analysis 2-29-12.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
SB 86 |
| PND Open Cell Literature.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 86 HB 150 comparison 3-1-12.pdf |
HFIN 3/1/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 150 SB 86 |