Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/25/2021 09:00 AM Senate 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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Department of Transportation: | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 25, 2021
9:00 a.m.
9:00:50 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Rob Carpenter, Deputy Commissioner and Statewide Planning
Director, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Ben White, Director of Program Development,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT/STIP/CAPITAL BUDGET
9:02:16 AM
ROB CARPENTER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND STATEWIDE PLANNING
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES (via teleconference), introduced himself and his
colleague.
9:02:45 AM
BEN WHITE, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, discussed the
presentation "Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan
(STIP) Capital Budget Advance Construction" (copy on
file).
Mr. White turned to slide 2, "How we'll walk you through
it":
STIP
CAPITAL BUDGET
ADV. CONSTRUCTION
IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. White conveyed that the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) was the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities' method of managing
the capital budget.
9:03:54 AM
Mr. White spoke to slide 3, "Statewide Transportation
Improvement Plan (STIP)":
?The STIP is a 4-year plan that is required by federal
regulations (23 USC 135 & 23 CFR 450) that lists out
all the federally funded, and regionally significant
surface transportation projects within the state.
?Must be fiscally constrained.
?Required to be developed with a public process
?Approved by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
?Failure to comply with federal regulations and
requirements will jeopardize federal funding for
transportation infrastructure in Alaska.
9:06:17 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the bullet that indicated that
the STIP had to be "fiscally restrained." He recalled that
the majority of the funding was federal. He asked Mr. White
to elaborate on the statement and asked whether more
federal money could be available to the state if it could
increase the state match.
Mr. White explained that fiscal constraint signified that
DOT could not have more projects in the STIP than there
were funds available. He continued that with each
transportation bill passed by congress there was an
anticipation of how much federal funding the state should
receive. He said that the department could not program more
projects than they had funding for; the department could
not make the federal government provide more funding than
was anticipated.
9:08:16 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the STIP being a four-year
plan. He asked Mr. White to explain the plan in further
detail.
Mr. White stated that the department projected needs out 10
years in advance and that the STIP was the portion required
by the federal government. He reiterated that the
department could project out 10 years and had a Long-Range
Transportation Plan, which was identifying priorities and
needs across the state over 40 years.
9:09:10 AM
Senator von Imhof asked about federal limitations that
might limit how much the department could put toward
administrative costs versus construction costs.
Mr. White relayed that some federal agencies would
establish an indirect cost threshold. He cited that the
Federal Transit Administration a limit of no more than 10
percent administrative costs. He said that other agencies
allowed for negotiations.
Senator von Imhof asked whether there was an upcoming slide
that would show what portion of federal funding going
toward administrative costs.
Mr. White agreed to provide the information.
9:10:39 AM
Senator Hoffman noted that in past years, the state had
taken excellent opportunities in extending STIP
appropriations. He wondered whether the department had
worked to capture any redistributed federal dollars for the
state.
Mr. White stated that the department had worked diligently
to maximize federal funding as well as capture any
redistributed federal dollars. He said that over the
previous two years, DOT had record amounts of redistributed
funds because they had effective plans that were ready for
proposal.
9:12:34 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether there were federal funds
that Alaska was eligible for but had not applied for in the
last two years.
Mr. White affirmed that the department had worked
diligently to procure federal fund available to the state.
He stated that the department had applied to federal
discretionary grant programs. He noted that there was an
upcoming slide that would address federal fund obligations.
9:13:33 AM
Mr. White addressed slide 4, "2020 2023 Planned Funding
Distribution":
Northern Total - $1,029,735,661 26 percent
Central Total - $1,632,895,900 40 percent
SouthCoast Total - $429,062,291 11 percent
Statewide Total $814,247,743 20 percent
AMHS Total - $115,960,000 3 percent
?261 Projects in the current STIP
?$4B total programmed in the current 4 year STIP, or
~$1B/Year
?$660M-$700M/year Highways
?Development of 2022-2025 STIP starts this Fall.
Mr. White noted that the department had historically not
left any federal dollars on the table.
9:15:04 AM
Mr. White advanced to slide 5, "The STIP Process," which
showed four connected flow charts entitled "Needs'
Sources," "Needs Evaluation and Management," "Call for
Projects," and "STIP Cycle." He explained that the slide
showed how the STIP was developed. He noted that the
department would work closely with local constituencies,
industry officials, and the military to determine the needs
of the state. He noted that the department was starting to
look at its own data, including pavement, bridge condition,
and traffic and crash data on highways. He relayed that the
information was pooled together to determine the needs of
the state. He discussed the process from needs sources to
needs evaluation and management. He detailed the process
for the call for projects and the eventual STIP cycle. He
discussed the Project Evaluation Board (PEB), which
consisted mainly of executives within the department. The
PEB was a public process, open to the public for comments
and feedback on the projects and the scoring.
9:18:00 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. White to discuss the PEB. He
asked about the members of the board and how to get a seat
on the board. He assumed that the board made the ranking
and the decisions. He queried how other states prioritized
capital projects.
Mr. White explained that the PEB was spelled out in
regulation and was generally peopled with leadership such
as the commissioner, deputy commissioner, and regional
directors. He explained that every state had a process by
which it evaluated projects. Some states used computer
systems, and others used a board, panel, or committee that
evaluated projects.
Co-Chair Stedman thought some states had a committee
appointed by the governor. He cited that Alaska's committee
was comprised of only upper management of DOT, who ranked
all the decisions. He was concerned that some projects
might never be realized. He appreciated the work of DOT to
clearly relay to communities whether or not projects would
come to fruition and how long those projects would take.
9:21:20 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked how many people sat on the PEB.
Mr. White replied that the board had six or seven seats.
Co-Chair Bishop assumed regional managers were part of the
board.
Mr. White replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Bishop thought that the PEB was similar to a grant
review board.
9:22:30 AM
Mr. White referenced slide 6, "Federal Limitation Over
Time," which showed a bar graph demonstrating what the
departments federal limitation had been from FY 10 to FY
21. He noted that there was a slightly upward trend as the
federal government was putting a little more funding into
infrastructure. He noted that the last three or four years
there had been a significant increase in the state's
federal limitation.
Mr. White continued to address slide 6. The blue on the
chart signified federal funds that came in based on formula
with variables such as population and road miles. The grey
bars indicated monies that were not held to any type of
funding formula. He drew attention to FY 10, FY 11, and FY
12, which contained earmark funding.
9:24:46 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether Mr. White could discuss the
funding split between federal and state highways.
Mr. White acknowledged that there were functional
classifications for the roads in the state for which
federal funding could be applied. In Alaska there was the
National Highway System (NHS) and the Alaska Highway System
(AHS). He said that the public could look to the
department's website to determine whether the road in
question was under state or federal jurisdiction. He shared
that each federal funding source had restrictions on where
the funding could be applied. The most flexible allocation
of funding was the Surface Allocation Block Grants, which
could be used for both the AHS and the NHS. He added that
within statute and regulation there is a defined percentage
of funding that the department could consider when
allocating federal funding to the NHS and the AHS.
9:27:12 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referenced AHS maintenance and
construction needs. He wondered how the legislature could
target areas of funding for the AHS maintenance and
construction while dealing with the regulatory split of the
funds. He asked whether the state was hindered in any way
by the regulatory environment.
Mr. White thought Co-Chair Stedman's inquiry held a few
questions. He noted that the department was working with
federal partners to establish how federal funding could be
spent. He said that federal funding was typically been used
for construction. He explained that maintenance had
typically and historically been a state-funded activity.
The department was working with the federal government to
develop a preventative maintenance program. He shared that
the department struggled to balance NHS needs with AHS
needs. He stated that prioritizing needs was one of the
greatest challenges to the department.
9:29:48 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that over the years the legislature
had considered federal funding and STIP match funding. He
did not want to inadvertently ignore the state's highway
system. He thought everyone had heard the argument against
new construction when there was maintenance needed.
9:30:52 AM
Co-Chair Bishop agreed with Co-Chair Stedman's comments. He
thought people needed a clearer picture. He thought
typically preventative maintenance would fall within DOT's
preview. He thought Mr. White had expressed that the
department was looking to find more ways of funding that
day-to-day maintenance. He commented that the legislature
had cut 180 positions from DOT maintenance and operations
and the motor fuel tax had continued to decline.
9:32:39 AM
Mr. White discussed slide 7, "Federal Funds Distribution,"
which showed a table detailing federal funds distribution.
The two larger funding sources DOT had throughout the year
was the National Highway Performance Program (FAST) and the
Surface Transportation Black Grants (STBG), each of which
had its own eligibility and performance requirements. He
said that the department worked to use the funds that were
most restrictive, and earliest lapsing, first. He noted
that the funding was complex, and many funding codes could
be used on one project.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Mr. White to give the committee an
example of how many federal funding codes might be used in
a year.
Mr. White shared that in any given year, the department had
approximately 20 different funding codes used.
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether there was a fund that was
easier to access than others.
Mr. White explained that the STBG was the most flexible,
and the funds could be used on nearly any highway project
necessary.
9:35:04 AM
Mr. White turned to slide 8, "Federal Obligations by Year,"
which showed a bar graph. He relayed that the department
worked to obligate every federal penny given to the state.
He observed that over the course of time on the graph the
funds had fluctuated. He pointed out the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had contributed to funds in FY
15. He stated that the department had increased efforts
over the last three year to seek out more federal funding
from programs that may not have been maximized in the past.
He noted here had also been a significant increase in
August redistribution in the last two years. The federal
government had also provided additional highway
infrastructure program funding, which had been allocated to
bridge rehabilitation programs.
9:36:26 AM
Senator von Imhof confirmed that the yellow bar represented
funding for the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Mr. White replied in the affirmative.
Senator von Imhof observed that the AMHS funding had been
robust in 2014, 2015, and 2016, but had dropped to zero by
FY 21. She queried the drop in funding.
Mr. White explained that the numbers were not complete for
2021, which was why it was not reflected on the chart. He
said that in the other years the numbers could be because
there had been big program years in 2014 through 2016, and
not in the other years. He noted that funds fluctuated over
time and might be indicative of vessel construction.
9:38:02 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for an example of AMHS expenditures
represented on the graph.
Mr. White stated that much of the expenditures represented
on the graph were for ferry refurbishment. He listed steel
replacement, engine overhauls, and the like.
Co-Chair Stedman reflected on concerns that maintenance had
not been kept up on for older vessels.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about an old project involving a
bridge in Ketchikan (Gravina Island Bridge). He thought
there was some residual clean-up of leftover funds. He
asked how such an event might be reflected in the chart. He
asked whether the bridge appropriation would show up in the
chart.
9:40:31 AM
Mr. White affirmed that there had been earmarked funding
for the project in Ketchikan. There had been a portion of
the funding reused and reappropriated for other parts of
the state. He noted that the chart showed a big increase in
FY 19 and FY 20, which indicated that none of the funding
had lapsed. There had been a big push the previous year to
obligate the funding so it would not be lost. He said that
much of the earmarked funding had been obligated in
Ketchikan over the last two years.
9:41:42 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that there was a federal edict
that required funds from older appropriations had to be
expended within 50 miles of the original project. He was
confused whether the original $90 million for the bridge
project was included in the SouthCoast grey portions on the
chart.
Mr. White explained that there had been such an edict. He
said that the department had worked with the governor's
office to pull the funding and allocate it to Ketchikan.
9:42:59 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for numerics for the chart. He
thought it would be helpful to see the funds for each
category.
Co-Chair Bishop asked Mr. White to provide the updated
numerics.
9:43:39 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked about the status of the Knik Arm
Crossing project.
Mr. White responded that the department was still
evaluating the project. He said some earmarked funding
still remained and that discussions with the governor were
ongoing.
Senator Wielechowski asked how much money was still
earmarked for the project and when the funding would
expire.
Mr. White stated there was approximately $35 million tied
to the earmark for the Knik Arm project. He thought there
was a chance that Congress would bring earmarked funding
back into the next transportation bill. He noted that
earmarked funding did not expire, there was a chance that
congress could sweep outstanding earmarks.
9:45:24 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for a list of earmarked funds.
9:45:40 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked about status of the Juneau Access
Project.
Mr. White stated that the project was at a resting point.
He said that the department had signed off on a record of
decision with the Federal Highways Administration for no-
build. He stated that the project was on long-term pause
due to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process.
9:46:42 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the status of a project to put
sleeping quarters on the two new Alaska Class Ferries. He
wondered whether the project was, or would be, in the STIP.
Mr. White responded that the department was looking at the
project and it could be included in the STIP under ferry
refurbishment. He said that a funding source to move the
project forward had not been identified.
9:47:53 AM
Co-Chair Bishop wanted to revisit an earlier question
regarding FY 15, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funds. He recalled that the state was able to
receive an additional $144 million because of shovel ready
projects.
Mr. White recalled the funds and said that at the time the
ARRA funding had been received there were several projects
already streamlined that could be expedited to take
advantage of the additional funds.
Co-Chair Bishop commented that he hoped DOT had the same
expertise going forward, as federal infrastructure dollars
would again be available.
9:49:13 AM
Senator Hoffman discussed the aforementioned projects:
Juneau Access, the Knik Arm Project, and the bridge in
Ketchikan. He wondered how many new projects had been
developed over the last 5 years to meet the transportation
needs of the state. He asked about the Yukon-Kuskoquim
Crossing.
Mr. White agreed to provide the information.
9:50:55 AM
Senator von Imhof queried the options open to the
legislature to fund specific roads.
Mr. White stated there were several options. He said that
DOT could look to expedite projects using state funding or
incorporating the project into the STIP. He related that
DOT could work with local authorities and share the expense
between federal and state dollars.
9:52:39 AM
Mr. White spoke to slide 9, "Funds Management -
Challenges":
• Inconsistency in federal funding availability
• Multiple years of projects to manage in the STIP,
several phases
• Project delivery is fraught with delays and slippage
• Project funding follows delivery, but is
temperamental
• Maximizing flexibility absorbs this slippage
Mr. White discussed funding challenges. He noted that
funding was given based on the phase of the project. He
shared that there were many different things to manage
outside of funding.
9:54:31 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether Mr. White could address what
happened to funding after a project came in with a low bid.
He wondered where any residual funds would go.
Mr. White informed that if a project came in with a lower
bid, funding could be taken back and allocated to a
different project. He observed that bids were coming in
both lower and higher than anticipated in different parts
of the state.
9:56:15 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether maintenance such as
snowplowing was strictly state funded. He had heard from
his constituents that that there was a problem with snow
plowing resulting in large snow berms that blocked
driveways.
Mr. White noted that maintenance operation was not a
federally funded activity. He cited that depending on the
street the maintenance and snow removal could be locally
managed and likely state funded.
Senator Wielechowski asked how to address the berms left by
plowing in his district.
Mr. White offered to reach out to the maintenance team
within Senator Wielechowski's region. He noted that he did
not manage the maintenance team.
Mr. Carpenter stated that the issue was a challenge. He
explained that vehicles were often plowing at high speeds
and working in an expeditious manner. He was not familiar
with the road mentioned by Senator Wielechowski but would
discuss the issue with regional directors. He reiterated
that providing services could sometimes mean small
inconveniences to residents.
9:59:40 AM
Co-Chair Bishop noted that in years past, before many
positions were cut, a wheel loader would follow behind
plows to clear driveways.
10:00:02 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought there might be a substantial
infrastructure package coming later in the year due to
Covid-19 federal funding. He wanted a briefing on the
ability of DOT to respond and absorb the funds. He asked
how to respond to a large sum of funds when programming was
so tightly programmed into the next 4 years.
10:01:47 AM
Mr. White addressed Co-Chair Stedman's question about
potential significant federal funding. He said that his
team was tracking the infrastructure bills as they moved
through congress. He related that the department was
working to identify projects that could advance quickly
once the federal funding was allocated. He said that most
of the projects in the 10-year plan were waiting for
federal funding. He shared that the department was working
with regional teams to be sure projects were ready to
maximize funds once they were released.
10:03:05 AM
Senator von Imhof thought the ports in the state were a
huge asset and commented on the size of Alaska's seacoast.
She wondered who was responsible for the Port of Anchorage.
She understood that the Port of Anchorage was a strategic
seaport. She pondered whether the funding would come from
the United States Department of Defense as the seaport was
strategic. She thought the issue had been clouded as
previous federal funds were involved in a failed upgrade
that was currently the subject of a lawsuit. She pointed
out that the port fell under transportation, commerce, and
defense; federal, state, and municipal. She queried
whether the Port of Alaska was on DOT's radar in any way.
Mr. White stated that the long-range transportation plan
included consideration of the marine highways and ports. He
said that there had not been anything allocated to state
transportation departments for port construction. He shared
that the port would be considered in the department's long-
range planning.
10:06:19 AM
Senator von Imhof hoped that DOT communicated with the Port
of Anchorage and other state departments and the federal
government. She emphasized that the port was vital to the
state. She hoped the port could be elevated in importance
and become a higher priority.
10:07:11 AM
Mr. White addressed slide 10, "Advance Construction (AC):
Purpose and Need":
?AC is a critical financing and funds management tool
for DOT&PF
?US DOT gives States the authority to use AC
?No obligation of funds & authorizes work
?Supports Effective, Efficient, & Continuous Project
Delivery
?Bridges gaps in delay in federal budget or State &
Federal fiscal year overlap
?Assists with STIP fiscal constraint by spreading
large projects over several years, similar to
amortization
?Maximizes available funding
?Alaska DOT&PF uses "Planned AC" and "Managed AC"
Mr. White noted that AC (advanced construction) was a
method used by DOT to advance projects through the STIP and
Managed AC was more short term to get through the federal
fiscal year.
10:10:08 AM
Mr. White advanced to slide 11, "Planned Advance
Construction (AC)":
Programmed in the STIP with "payback" or conversions
?Project phases must be fully obligated all at one
time
?Causes issues with very large projects,
Examples:
?Tustumena @ $200M+ (33% of 1 year program)
?Cooper Landing @ $500M+ (92% of 1 year
program)
?Using AC allows the State to smooth out the
effect to obligation authority
Project can proceed without committing federal or
State funds
?As expenditures begin to accrue, those are
converted to Federal funds
Supports Effective, Efficient, & Continuous Project
Delivery
?Maximizes funds available
Mr. White sited the conversions on the slide, which
indicated when the federal payback occurred. He mentioned
that AC allowed for spreading out payments over several
years for larger projects. He said that the process helped
to expedite the various aspects of a project; project
development moved faster and more efficiently.
10:12:26 AM
Co-Chair Bishop discussed AC funds. He said that there were
50 federal agencies the department had to work with in
order to build a project. He thought the rule of thumb was
from inception to going out to bid, the time frame was six
years provided there were no delays. He wondered whether
this timeframe was still relevant.
Mr. White estimated, depending upon the scope of the
project, it took five to ten years to develop. He noted
that remote locations could see faster development. He
thought six years was a fairly good estimate. He shared
that the commissioner had tasked the department with
finding ways to provide faster project delivery.
10:14:51 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether DOT used AC dollars for
front-end permitting and engineering for projects.
Mr. White explained that DOT used AC to streamline projects
to deliver the final product faster.
Co-Chair Bishop asked about the timeline to build a road if
DOT was using pure state General Fund (GF) dollars.
Mr. White estimated that such a project could be completed
in three to five years. He added that most of the time
there was a federal permit process that would come into
play, which could cause delays.
10:16:35 AM
Co-Chair Stedman commented that he did not see much of a
time difference between the two types of projects in his
district. He appreciated DOT trying to accelerate the
process. He mentioned the M/V Tustemena and Cooper Landing
examples from slide 11. He asked for an update on the two
projects, including how long each had been in the planning
process.
Mr. White shared that the department currently had the
construction phase in the STIP for the M/V Tustemena
project. He said that the project could be advanced at any
point to a year when there was funding for construction. He
relayed that the design was at 60 percent and additional
work was boing don't to identify fund sources.
10:18:59 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about Cooper Landing.
Mr. White shared that DOT was currently clearing the right-
of-way and involved in the final design process. He said
that the project had been split into four phases in the
STIP and DOT was staring on either end of the landing. He
stated that the first phase of construction would begin in
2021.
Co-Chair Bishop asked how many miles of road were involved
in the Cooper Landing project.
Mr. White estimated that the STIP listed 45 to 60 mile
points, but the figure did not equate to road miles.
10:20:28 AM
Mr. White referenced slide 12, "Managed Advance
Construction (AC)":
Managed AC is typically not included in the STIP and
does not have planned AC paybacks. This is AC that is
programmed and converted typically in a fiscal year.
Supports Effective, Efficient, & Continuous
Project Delivery
?Bridges gaps due to delay in federal budget
?Maximizes funds available
Mr. White noted that an upcoming slide would address the
use of more advanced construction at the beginning of the
federal fiscal year. He shared that managed AC was a funds
management tool within fiscal years and did not appear in
the STIP as planned AC.
10:21:49 AM
Mr. White discussed slide 13, "FFY20 Net Use of Advance
Construction (AC)," which showed a bar graph depicting
federal obligations and advance construction for the period
of time from October 2019, to September 2020. He noted that
AC was being used more for to expedite the process. He
pointed out that federal obligation dropped off in December
2020, but January and February 2021 offered more federal
funding. He pointed to the pink bars below the axis on the
graph, which indicated where conversions had been applied
and funds had been paid back.
10:23:15 AM
Mr. White spoke to slide 14, "AC Year-End Balances, by type
(in millions)," which showed a table listing the types of
fund balances from FY16 through FY20. He shared that DOT
had set internal thresholds of $250 million. He stressed
that maintaining the programmed AC was a priority for DOT.
Co-Chair Bishop queried the "Other AC" column.
Mr. White explained that the "Other AC" referred to
programs that the department had beyond surface
transportation and the railroad. He related that the
category was a "catch all."
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the AC funds were used for
the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST) or the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions
(AMATS).
Mr. White replied that DOT was crafting a policy to
establish thresholds and limits to apply when working with
both entities.
10:26:16 AM
Mr. White advanced so slide 15, "Improvements to Program
Development":
Performance Based Planning & Programming (PBPP)
?Data-driven decision making
?Establish performance targets and priorities
?Uses asset condition, performance,
socioeconomic, and other metrics to drive
investment decisions
?Creates a hierarchy of authority, starting with
the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Policy
& Procedure, the STIP, etc.
Capacity Enhancement Make New"
Modernization "Improve What we Have"
State of Good Repair "Maintain What we Have"
Recurring and Required Programs
Mr. White emphasized that DOT was trying to make the best
investment decisions with federal funding.
10:30:32 AM
Senator Hoffman acknowledged there was always more projects
than funds available. He asked whether the department
considered all areas of the state and equal access to all
areas as part of performance-based programming.
Mr. White acknowledged that there was a challenge to
balance projects in Alaska. He discussed urban capacity
needs compared to simple access issues in rural Alaska. He
said that establishing statewide priorities and looking a
fund allocation to ensure equitability were key drivers to
project conversations.
10:32:24 AM
Co-Chair Stedman spoke of pavement life concerns. He asked
how the pavement metrics fit into DOT's planning.
Mr. White affirmed that the asset management plan was meant
to address the pavement issue. He elaborated that DOT
considered pavement condition as well as exploring new
types of pavement. He said that the projects would be
preventative to solve maintenance issues before they became
major problems.
10:34:17 AM
Co-Chair Bishop thought Co-Chair Stedman brought up a good
point. He thought there was a way to get more life out of
the state's asphalt through public education. He discussed
his past commuting from Anchorage to Palmer. He suggested
having drivers splitting their tracks on the asphalt to get
more life out of the asphalt.
10:35:23 AM
Senator Hoffman recalled several years previously DOT had
done an educational outreach regarding use of studded
tires. He discussed improved tire technology and asked
whether DOT was looking into the issue.
Mr. White stated that studded snow tires were a concern of
DOT. He pointed out that there was a social media campaign
to educate drivers on the impact of studded tires. He
discussed the concern of asphalt rutting, which was
prevalent in areas and stemmed from studded snow tire use
on pavement. He noted that DOT's research group was looking
into the issue. He cited that educating the public was a
priority.
10:37:27 AM
Mr. White turned to slide 16, "Improvements to Program
Development":
eSTIP: Technological solution to expedite STIP
development and update data.
?Leveraging innovative solutions
?Public Involvement Portal with all projects
mapped
?Information Systems within the Department
linked:
?This allows us to automate tasks -
increasing efficiency
?Connects STIP to Federal funding system for
more real-time data/status
?Enhanced reporting
Mr. White relayed that the department was still working on
getting a contractor to facilitate the project of eSTIP. He
shared that the new system would provide access to the
public for seeing details on STIP projects. He noted that
eventually the system would tie into a system for tracking
federal funds. He said that the program would provide more
real-time data to the public. He relayed that the project
had been under discussion for over 10 years.
10:39:54 AM
Senator Olson asked about the movement of personnel in the
Northern region of the state. He thought it seemed as if
professionals were being moved from Nome to Fairbanks.
Mr. White deferred the question to Mr. Carpenter.
Mr. Carpenter was not sure he could fully address Senator
Olson's question. He referenced agency-wide and statewide
recruitment problems, which could be a function of finding
the right people for the jobs and employing them in areas
where they wanted to live. He agreed to provide the
information at a later date.
Senator Olson asked whether a response would come before
the end of the current legislative session.
Mr. Carpenter answered in the affirmative.
Senator Olson asked about a snow blower for Golovin. He
discussed the runway at the airport in Golovin and stressed
that the taxiway filled with snow necessitating help from
DOT. He was troubled that there were no DOT representatives
available in the area to address the issues.
Co-Chair Bishop hoped the snow blower could be a reality in
Golovin.
10:43:23 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to help with some reconciliation
between slide 6, and slide 14, concerning the AC year-end
balances. He pointed out that the year-end balance on slide
14 was $286.9. He asked how the offset was reflected on
slide 6 for FY 20. He wondered whether the 286.9 was
reflected in the bar for FY 20 on slide 6.
Mr. White stated that for AC, the department only tapped
into federal funding at the time on conversion. He
explained that a portion of what was showing in the AC
balance was tied into the total obligations for the year,
however; AC was more of a placeholder until the project was
obligated with federal funds.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the totals on slide 14. He
understood that a percentage of the funds were paid back
each year. He asked Mr. White to provide figures as to how
much was paid back per year and how much was added, as well
as the ending balance.
Mr. White agreed to provide more detail on the allocation
and the AC conversions.
10:45:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thanked the department for the
presentation. He thought Mr. White had done a good job
presenting complex information.
Co-Chair Bishop echoed Co-Chair Stedman's comments.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping including the agenda
for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
10:47:58 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 032521 Senate Finance DOT STIP presentation for Thursday 25 March 2021.pdf |
SFIN 3/25/2021 9:00:00 AM |
DOT STIP |