Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/19/2009 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Department of Transportation Statewide Capital Projects and Stip Process | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 19, 2009
9:12 a.m.
9:12:]06 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Frank Richards, Deputy Commissioner, Highways & Public
Facilities, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Jeff Ottesen, Director, Division of Program
Development, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Andy Hughes, Regional Planning Chief, Southeast
Region, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities;
Nancy Slagle, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Gary Davis, Director, Southeast Region, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
SUMMARY
^Overview: Department of Transportation Statewide Capital
Projects and STIP Process
9:12:08 AM
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that statewide transportation
projects need to be viewed in regards to where they fit into
the state's long-term infrastructure improvement plan in
concert with gas line infrastructure requests and federal
economic stimulus projects. He noted concerns that funding
of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities'
$130 million request for gas line related work would delay
or otherwise affect other projects in the state. He observed
that a discrepancy exists between the value placed on the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process
by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
and the legislature. He emphasized that a review of projects
at the regional level would allow a base for extensive
discussions on these issues.
9:16:43 AM
FRANK RICHARDS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HIGHWAYS & PUBLIC
FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES, announced the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities' (DOT's) intention to present "the
universe" of active highway, aviation, and transit projects
currently in the design phase, and those projects
anticipated or under construction throughout the state. He
noted the inclusion of all fund sources: general, federal,
and general obligation (GO) bonds. He added that the three
regional directors would supplement bid dates and cost
estimates, and offer up a brief scope of area specific
projects and status updates.
Mr. Richards explained that the information in its current
condensed format represents hundreds of projects. He
promised to provide an electronic version with the same
information organized into a spreadsheet.
9:19:49 AM
GARY DAVIS, DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST REGION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (testified via
teleconference), referred to the list of 75 projects in the
Southeast region spanning Yakutat to Metlakatla. (Alaska
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities; Southeast
Region; Design & Construction Projects 2009-2010)(Copy on
File) He cited a range of spending from $50,000 for the
Ketchikan-Hoadly Creek Bridge project to $40 million
allocated for the Petersburg-Airport Runway Safety Area
Expansion.
Co-Chair Stedman queried Petersburg airport construction
costs totaling less than $40 million. He learned, upon
further examination of page 13 (Copy on File), that the
project had been split into two phases. Mr. Davis
interjected that the first phase, already underway, required
the city to shut down the airport for one month to address
drainage issues.
Co-Chair Stedman expressed concern over the lack of projects
in the Southeast region to keep the construction industry
engaged.
Mr. Davis believed that economic stimulus projects that
would go to bid shortly and those currently in various
stages of completion would be enough to keep companies busy.
9:23:52 AM
Co-Chair Stedman inquired into the Bob Ellis Replacement
Ferry in Ketchikan as it is linked to delays surrounding the
Gravina Access Highway.
Mr. Davis pointed out that the department needs additional
money for the project as bids exceeded the available
funding. The department can option to pursue general fund
dollars or include the ferry project in a bid for federal
aid monies in the stimulus package.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for clarification regarding the
project's inclusion in the governor's capital budget and
perceived removal from the stimulus package.
Mr. Richards answered that funding springs from federal
highway dollars rather than federal transit funds.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about extending the bid process to
avoid the absence of a ferry.
Mr. Richards affirmed the current open bid as prepared using
general funds. If supplementing with federal funds, the
administration faces a challenge in that it must follow the
federal process in terms of procurement and development.
This would mean back-tracking to rebid the project and
taking out Alaska specific provisions.
Co-Chair Stedman listed several items hindering the
construction of the ferry. He maintained his inquiry into
ways the project could proceed despite obstacles.
9:27:29 AM
Mr. Richards reiterated that the first option would be to
use state general funds; and the second option would be to
utilize federal funds.
Co-Chair Stedman queried uninterrupted access to Gravina
Island and by extension the Ketchikan airport.
Mr. Richards assured the committee of the Borough of
Ketchikan's concern and the Coast Guard's awareness of the
importance of ferry access to the community. The two
entities are working diligently to identify challenges and
produce an alternative.
Co-Chair Stedman commented on the $5.7 million appropriation
made formerly to DOT to facilitate the construction of a
vessel. He remarked that depending on the methodology
implemented, this amount could double.
Mr. Richards concurred that an amount above $4 million would
now be needed to cover the cost of bids made above the
original appropriation plus administrative costs. Employing
the federal process would necessitate even more time and
money.
9:29:10 AM
Senator Elton asked about the Juneau-Glacier Highway, Amalga
Harbor to Eagle Beach project on page 6 (Copy On File). He
pointed out that the project had a previous funding source
that was not stimulus dollars. He solicited clarification of
the provision that allows substituting stimulus dollars for
money already committed to a planned project and thereby
defeating the purpose of a stimulus.
Mr. Richards acknowledged that the Glacier Highway project
appeared in the STIP as a federal highway project using the
federal highway process. As the project had no defined
funding, the department hopes to use economic stimulus
monies to perform the work. Mr. Richards deferred the
ultimate nature of this project and others to legislative
authority. He emphasized that the administration simply
recommends and justifies a priority order of projects.
JEFF OTTESEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, did not
recall the specific funding history of the Glacier Highway
project. He unequivocably affirmed substituting federal
dollars for non-federal dollars but explained that the state
must still spend the non-federal dollars. He described
stimulus dollars as an additive to a state's overall program
not a swapping of funds.
Mr. Ottesen clarified that the state can move federally
funded projects into the stimulus proposal and then use the
liberated federal dollars to fund future projects: "As long
as at the end of the day we are in fact spending more
dollars than before stimulus." He continued that it takes
more than the four-month timeline allotted by the federal
government for Alaska to develop a project. Without the
ability to move existing projects up in the queue,
individual states would not meet this deadline.
9:33:13 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered about the availability of stimulus
money for a community that follows federal guidelines but
not the STIP process.
Mr. Ottesen replied that a community is eligible if it
follows the necessary steps outlined by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). He interjected that most communities typically do not
follow the often "time-consuming and clumsy" federal process
when granted money from another source.
Mr. Ottesen summarized that absolutely no federal funds can
flow unless a project appears in the STIP and has undergone
that public process.
Co-Chair Stedman expressed puzzlement at hearing conflicting
answers regarding DOT's involvement. He questioned whether
money could go directly to a community if the project
exercised a federal process independent of DOT.
Mr. Ottesen acceded the existence of a small number of
federally funded projects that are not managed by DOT. He
mentioned a few entities including the Denali Commission,
Western Federal Lands, and some FTA funded projects where
the administration works directly with the local
governments.
Mr. Ottesen maintained that to a large extent federal
highway funds flow through DOT and the department acts as
responsible administrator as the rules require. Even if the
state sub-allocates money to a local government that makes a
mistake, repayment expectations lie with the state of
Alaska.
Co-Chair Stedman described an emergency bridge repair in
Ketchikan, which appears to have qualified but evaded
integration into the STIP. He marveled at the project's
automatic exclusion from the process.
9:36:08 AM
Senator Hoffman referenced the Sand Point [School Loop] Road
project. He objected to the cumbersome STIP process and
wished to see projects expeditiously completed. He wondered
if the Alaska Legislature holds the authority, as it has in
the past, to modify the STIP in order to get projects
accomplished more speedily.
Mr. Ottesen spoke to the risks one runs in modifying the
program. He said that the department works hard to deal with
the federally required body of law known as the STIP in a
normal process. Because of substantial changes in the past
two years, DOT finds itself struggling with staffing and new
rules. He named five lawsuits brought against the state of
Alaska within the last decade. In the proceedings that won,
the state played by the rules, and in those that lost, the
state deviated from the rules.
Co-Chair Hoffman called for an explanation of the current
STIP process and for specifics regarding the timeframe for
modification. He also wanted to know if DOT needed extra
staff to cope with the effects of the numerous changes and
comply in a timely manner.
9:39:18 AM
Mr. Richards described the Department of Transportation's
proposed Amendment #18 to the 2006 - 2009 STIP [dated May 6,
2009 and located on the department's webpage at:
http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/cip_stip/assets/06_09sti
p/06_09amendments/00-STIP-Amdt18-Approved.pdf] which now
encompasses a 90 day process. Previously DOT had the ability
to make funding changes to projects on a routine basis. At
this time, any changes require an extremely cumbersome
amendment process.
Co-Chair Hoffman iterated that a portion of the stimulus
package is available to start projects within a 12-month
period. He underlined the legislature's duty to identify a
broad spectrum of projects that could begin the 90-day
process and fall into the timeframe.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a reiteration of STIP Amendment
#18 specifically regarding community response as it applies
to timing.
9:42:21 AM
Mr. Richards restated that STIP Amendment #18 requires DOT
to seek public comment on projects. This is also the time
the legislature can comment publicly. The projects in the
stimulus package must have been in the federal process for
the preceding several years. Fifty percent must be
obligated. The department was not aware of projects with the
potential to receive economic stimulus money. He cautioned
major changes to STIP Amendment #18, which might halt
distribution of funds around the state.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for clarification regarding
notification to communities.
Mr. Ottesen reported that notice went out when the state
introduced the draft STIP Amendment #18. The department had
considered a public nomination process before launching the
amendment but in the state's collective best interest,
decided to use projects already in the pipeline. The
determination was made with an aim to follow stimulus
parameters, get a group of projects funded and capture
dollars from other states not as nimbly able to adapt to the
new STIP rules.
Mr. Ottesen stressed that any project that does not get
funded by stimulus dollars will be lifted with regular STIP
funding. He stated that the communities will not care about
the funding source. The challenges with STIP have been due
to inflation and the setting aside of dollars, which causes
the state of Alaska to have less dominion over funds.
Currently Alaska has the opportunity to take projects that
have been waiting and get them funded. This will allow the
next generation of projects to come forward. He urged timely
action.
9:46:53 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for those projects that do not appear
in the STIP but would qualify.
Mr. Richards informed the committee that existing staff
works overtime doing designs. The department has not hired
additional employees, but it uses contracted consultants to
augment existing staff and the elevated need.
Co-Chair Hoffman questioned whether the department needs
additional staffing to prevent a loss of the funds.
Mr. Richards stated that DOT has enough staff to capture the
stimulus funds coming.
Co-Chair Stedman stated the need for presented materials
that are useful to the committee.
9:50:28 AM
Mr. Ottesen said a project could be added to the STIP but
observed that the necessary processing would very likely not
be completed on time. Bridge projects in particular have
significant environmental and permitting challenges. He gave
the example of three bridges on the Steward Highway. He
recommended against using federal funds to solve this type
of problem.
Senator Elton opined that communities and the committee need
to know the complete list of projects potentially
appropriate for stimulus funding. He feared lessening the
pool of projects without a comparable context. He referred
to the statement that communities do not care where the
funding comes from. He gave an example of a community
puzzled as to why stimulus dollars are not being spent on
their priority projects.
9:55:55 AM
Mr. Ottesen pledged a forthcoming complete list of stimulus
eligible projects. The department has analyzed the bill. The
second deadline became twelve months, which took a half-
dozen projects off the list. The two projects mentioned
remain. He stated that the community did not talk to the
department about the priority project. He warned about a
paring of capital transit funds as a result of a loss of $25
million in the stimulus draft. Statewide transit money for
vehicles remains at $9 million.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered at the inclusion of the Juneau-
Library, Archive, and Museum Facility on page 8 (Copy on
File) in the STIP Amendment.
ANDY HUGHES, REGIONAL PLANNING CHIEF, SOUTHEAST REGION,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
explained the availability of Preliminary Engineering (P.E.)
money to scope out the project. The Southeast region
included all design and construction projects in its
material. The facility is not in the STIP.
Senator Elton inquired whether the Juneau-Library would be
eligible for STIP dollars under the education component of
the stimulus package. Mr. Hughes could not supply the
answer.
10:00:20 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested assistance with category and
funding source totals in the Southeast region.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, offered
to provide the committee with a cost total of active
projects.
In response to a request by Co-Chair Stedman, Ms. Slagle
noted that she was able to generate a spreadsheet of active
projects in excel format. She elaborated on the two computer
programs DOT uses to track projects. One system lets the
department bill the federal government for project activity.
The Management Reporting System (MRS) provides information
specific to each project. The 228 page spreadsheet shows
programming, a cost history and balances for each project
sorted by region. The electronic version can be organized at
will.
10:03:54 AM
Ms. Slagle referred to a bid schedule on the department's
web page. The schedule shows projects that the department
anticipates putting out to bid for Summer 2009. Descriptions
include a project's cost range. A third report has a list of
projects with estimated advertising dates sorted by region
that might not yet appear on the public schedule.
Co-Chair Stedman urged swift arrival of the relevant data in
a form beneficial to the committee.
Ms. Slagle noted the spreadsheets do not have some
additional information contained in the word documents.
10:06:19 AM
Co-Chair Stedman appreciated the broad view of information
given by the department. He asked for a flexible format that
makes the amounts accessible. He stated that the committee
could not comfortably move forward without high-speed means
to handle the complex data. Ms. Slagle agreed to comply with
the request.
Co-Chair Hoffman queried the total amount of stimulus fund
available for construction in Alaska. He expressed concern
that all regions receive stimulus money.
Ms. Slagle summed up the state's proposed federal stimulus
funding as $175 million for highways and bridges, $40
million for transit funding, and $75 for aviation projects.
The department will provide a locator map along with the
list of projects. She judged the projects to be widely
dispersed throughout the state.
Co-Chair Hoffman requested a total of the three regions:
Southeast, Central and Northern. He asked if all projects in
the handouts were available for stimulus money.
10:10:19 AM
Ms. Slagle said the current list includes all active DOT
projects and their status. A subset qualifies for the
economic stimulus package. She repeated the promise to
provide a readable spreadsheet that would calculate funding
totals.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for a rough monetary figure of the
total amount eligible for stimulus funding.
Ms. Slagle estimated that the list of potential projects
tallies over $300 million. The state has more eligible
projects than money it is slated to receive.
Mr. Ottesen added that eligible highway and bridge projects
total $325 million. He reported that the $150 million that
cannot make the list will hopefully capture forfeited
stimulus money from other states. He cited the state's
readiness and focus on a group of projects poised to meet
the deadlines.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for an approximation of the total
amount eligible for stimulus under transit.
Mr. Ottesen answered that the transit list extends
potentially into the billions of dollars, which almost
negates its meaning. The state has discretion over about $9
million. He continued that the federal government directly
allocates the other $32 million to the Anchorage
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (AMATS) or Fairbanks
Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (FMATS). The Alaska
Railroad receives a portion of AMATS money sub-allocated by
law.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for an approximation of the total
amount eligible for stimulus under aviation.
Mr. Ottesen re-affirmed $75 million for aviation projects.
He said the state advocates for projects, but the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) holds the discretionary power
to decide where the money goes. The list is much larger than
the amount allocated.
Co-Chair Hoffman solicited a ballpark amount of aviation
projects eligible for the stimulus package.
Mr. Ottesen thought at least $200 million and maybe as much
as $300 million.
10:14:56 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to look at the municipalities of
Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Mr. Ottesen emphasized that the two organizations collect a
share of stimulus dollars as required by law.
Co-Chair Stedman pressed for a list of projects from these
two cities. He expounded that from a policy perspective, an
overall picture of the state informs decisions that affect
Alaska's budgeting process.
Mr. Ottesen verified the existence of both lists and his
nearness to obtaining them.
Co-Chair Stedman voiced a concern with the lack of work
happening in parts of the state as members struggle with the
current mosaic of projects.
Mr. Ottesen assured members that problems with available
work will greatly diminish when the final stimulus
recommendation comes before the committee.
10:17:28 AM
Senator Elton contemplated SE region bid dates placed
seemingly far out into the future. He wondered if reasons
for the deferment centered on not having the permits or not
having funds.
Ms Slagle affirmed a variety of reasons for an estimated bid
date.
Senator Elton asked the department to include reasons for
bid dates as they prepare spreadsheet documents.
Ms Slagle answered that she would work on providing the
information.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for formatted data for the other
regions as well. Reformatted data would make better use of
the committee's time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Central Region 2009-2010 Project Summary.pdf |
SFIN 2/19/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Northern Region 2009-2010 Porject Summary.pdf |
SFIN 2/19/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SE Region 2009-2010 Proj Summary .pdf |
SFIN 2/19/2009 9:00:00 AM |