Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
01/17/2008 01:30 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: State Transportation Issues by Commissioner Von Scheben | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 17, 2008
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrea Doll
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: STATE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES BY COMMISSIONER von
SCHEBEN
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
LEO VON SCHEBEN, Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an update of state transportation
issues.
NANCY SLAGLE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner
of Highways and Public Facilities
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
ANDREW NIEMIEC, Executive Director
Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KYLE JOHANSEN called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:34:04 PM. Representatives
Johansen, Neuman, Fairclough, Doogan, Keller, Johnson and Salmon
were present.
^PRESENTATION: STATE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES BY COMMISSIONER VON
SCHEBEN
1:34:19 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN informed the committee he asked Commissioner Von
Scheben to update members about what is going on at the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF). He
then said that next Tuesday's meeting will be about current
issues facing the Alaska Marine Highway System. He planned to
follow up on those issues later in the session. He also planned
to begin an extensive discussion about the procedures used to
develop the Statewide Transportation Improvement Projects (STIP)
list next week. Chair Johansen asked that information from the
departments be provided to the committee the day before the
meeting so that members have sufficient time to review it and
formulate questions.
1:36:27 PM
LEO VON SCHEBEN, Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, told members he has been the DOT&PF
commissioner for a little under one year and thanked the
committee for inviting him to speak. He introduced Frank
Richards, Professional Engineer and Deputy Commissioner of
Highways; Dennis Hardy, Professional Engineer and Deputy
Commissioner of the Alaska Marine Highway System; Nancy Slagle,
Director of Administrative Services; and Mary Siroky, Liaison
Officer.
1:38:00 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN provided the following presentation:
On December 11 of 2007 I put together about 14 of the
DOT management and had a strategic planning meeting in
Fairbanks and developed a mission vision and re-
evaluated my business goals and came up with my
business philosophy and goals for the department. I'd
like to share those with you.
On page 1, the mission of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities is to provide for
safe movement of people and goods and delivery of
state services. This business philosophy I've had
over the years of private practice of over 40 some
years. I believe in customer satisfaction and
employee satisfaction, a quality product, manage the
money and have some fun. I believe in those five
principles and have brought those to the department.
When I first came on board a year ago, Senator Olson
asked me do I have a vision for the department and I
went, uh, no, I don't. Since then I have developed
one and I'd like to share that with you. At that
strategic planning [meeting] on December 11, we came
up with a Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities that plans, designs, constructs, operates
and maintains quality, safe, efficient sustainable
transportation and public facilities that meet the
needs of Alaska's diverse population, geography and
growing an economy. That's our vision. Now the goals
th
- we came up with four goals at our December 11
meeting.
We're still working on that strategic plan. I still
have to do some fine tuning of it but ... the four
goals that came out of that meeting [were] improve the
safety of transportation systems, develop a
transportation system for economic development,
increase efficiencies and become more transparent, and
I'll go a little bit into each one of those and share
some points with you. Those are the four goals that
I'm going to be using in our strategic planning in the
next three years with the department during the Palin
Administration.
1:40:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN welcomed Commissioner Von Scheben and
asked what procedures he plans to change to accomplish his
goals.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he sees no need to change DOT&PF's
mission statement; it does not differ much from the past but he
does see a need to change the goals. His goals are measurable
so he can be judged on accomplishing them during his three year
tenure.
1:41:11 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he thought DOT&PF has statutory missions and
measures written by the legislature. He asked if the
commissioner's goals differ from those missions and measures.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he is not aware of the statutory
goals but he met with 14 staff to determine the new goals so he
believes his staff is aware of the statutory missions and
measures.
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he would like to see the two sets of goals.
He told the commissioner that the committee would send him a
list of the questions that are not answered today.
1:42:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked whether the economic development
goal pertains to economic development in communities or for
DOT&PF.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said the economic development goal is
for the state in its entirety. He said his strategic plan will
identify specific, measurable goals in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked the commissioner to include
statewide projects that need infrastructure to be developed.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN agreed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted a road in the Izembek [National
Wildlife Refuge] connects to communities that need attention.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he supports road building and will
be happy to do so. He continued his presentation, as follows:
On slide 2, I think what I'd just like to share with
you is - and I'm not going to read all of these
numbers, but in 2007, we put on the street under
contract $564.8 million worth of work, a significant
injection of money into the economy: Central had
$220, Northern had $147.7, Southeast had $78.9,
Aviation had $176.8, Highways $229.7, and Facilities
$139.6 and $18.7 for Marine. That is what went out on
'07. I think what's more interesting is what we're
going to do in '08. We're going to put out there
$675.3 million divided up through Central, Northern
Region and Southeast. You can see those numbers:
$398, $130, and $140. The Aviation community will get
$182.4, the Highway community will get $343,
Facilities, which is one I'm very interested in
elevating and I'll share that with you later, $102.5,
and Marine will get $47 million. That kind of gives
you a spread of where we're putting our money out
there.
1:45:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked to see the 2006 breakdown. She
noted the governor vetoed many items in the capital budget. She
said it is her understanding that some of the architecture and
engineering firms have less work going forward so she would like
to see the trends of state investment before 2007.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN offered to provide that information.
He remarked that he was part of the engineering community in
2006; there was no concern about a downturn at that time but he
believes there is now because the federal highway fund is
"starting to go south."
1:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH concurred and thought the engineering
industry may be experiencing some softening. She wants to
determine whether that industry is prepared for federal funding
decreases and how the legislature can help to address that.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he would like to spread that
message to the architecture and engineering community to help
them with future planning.
1:47:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN noted the commissioner's project goals are
listed by calendar year while legislative appropriations follow
a fiscal year. He asked if calendar year 2008 refers to the
second half of 2007 and the first half of 2008, and whether
legislative appropriations have already been made that do not
show up on the list because they are not in the calendar year
2009.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN deferred to Ms. Slagle.
NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, told members
that federal funds can be appropriated in one year but not used
until the next year so there is an ongoing overlap of the state
and federal fiscal years and the calendar year. She said
Representative Doogan is correct in that funds could have been
appropriated that are not included in the chart for one reason
or another. The most likely cause for their omission is the
timing of those projects.
1:49:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said the legislature hears a lot about
"lag" when discussing appropriations and that, on average, a
dollar appropriated this session would not be on the street for
three years. He asked when the projects in DOT&PF's current
capital budget request will actually get started if that request
is approved by the legislature.
MS. SLAGLE explained that with some appropriations the projects
are started right away. The department typically presents to
the legislature capital project requests that will receive
federal funding in the next federal fiscal year, which begins
October 1, based on the STIP and on the amount DOT&PF will get
for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). If the difference in
fiscal years creates a lag, or if DOT&PF encounters issues, such
as right-of-way or environmental issues that delay a project, a
project would have to be shifted. She suggested that Jeff
Ottesen address that scenario when he discusses the STIP with
the committee.
CHAIR JOHANSEN remarked the committee will have plenty of time
to go through those details.
1:51:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented:
If we could break these numbers down into budget years
that we deal with, I think we'll get a better apples-
to-apples comparison and, in terms of when you get the
money, I know it's anticipated it may or may not come
when you think it is but if you anticipate spending
it, I'd certainly like to do an apples-to-apples
comparison and use what we've appropriated versus
spent, etcetera, etcetera, and I don't think we can do
this with a calendar year breakout that is this
general but I think we could if it was the fiscal
year.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN agreed to provide that information. He
said the chart he provided should give members an idea of the
amount of money out on the street now. He continued his
presentation, as follows:
I'd like to talk about accomplishments. Safety is a
big thing at DOT. The strategic highway safety plan
is completed and approved.
We have two established traffic safety corridors and
are [indisc.] on results. We anticipate three more
traffic corridors being established in 2008. The
safety corridor is one of those corridors that has a
sign that has a little yellow marking above the top
that would double fines. It really does seem to work.
I drive one specifically out of Wasilla to Big Lake.
I have seen a real change in the driving attitudes in
that one stretch.
511 Program - I'll talk about that in a second here.
It's going. The road weather information system is
working. The intelligent transportation system for
commercial vehicles, if you drive out of Anchorage you
go past a little station, there's a little pole that
goes over the top of the road with a little device on
it. That measures the truck's weight, length, [and]
certification if they're in the program, so the truck
doesn't have to stop at the weigh stations. It's a
clear shot right up to Fairbanks or whatever so it's a
new program. I was involved in the ribbon cutting
ceremony of that just recently and it's active. If
any of you are interested and want to look at it
further, I'd be happy to give you a mini-tour. I
think it's a really interesting part of technology.
Size-weight enforcement - this is a new program. We
have roving patrols for a check for compliance. We
just deployed them throughout the state for the first
time ever. I believe they're working on compliance of
the trucking industry to make sure that they're not
overweight and they have all their certifications.
1:54:20 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued:
Safe routes to schools - as a program it's ongoing.
We're going to make sure the kids get to school safely
and it's federally funded.
Slick 2 ...
1:54:41 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked, regarding the size-weight enforcement
program, where the roving patrols are located, the effect of the
program and whether state-owned vehicles are subjected to the
same standard as private vehicles.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he would provide answers to those
questions.
1:55:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted he asked the Central Region director
for information on the highway safety traffic corridors,
particularly from Big Lake to Wasilla for statistics. He is
aware that no deaths have occurred since that program was
implemented and he would like to let people in the area know
what that means. He said that highway is the most dangerous in
the state; it has triple the number of fatalities and accidents
than the Seward highway. He said the Knik Road is probably the
third most dangerous highway in the state and asked what is
being done to implement a highway safety zone there.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN replied:
... We have three other safety corridors we're looking
at. One is the Knik-Goose Bay one. I believe we're
very close to putting that on line. I'll have to
check with Gordon but I think he said we might be
doing it this summer. I'm not positive about that.
Sterling Highway from Scout Lake to Kenai, we're
looking at one there and we're looking at one on the
Palmer-Wasilla Highway. What you don't want to do is
have a bunch of these all over the place because then
we're all driving the same and the idea is to identify
a serious area and Knik is one so we want to take care
of that.
1:57:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what changes occur when a highway
safety zone is designated and whether the number of highway
patrols is increased.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said more state trooper visibility and
double fine signs are used as deterrents.
1:58:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what DOT&PF is doing to ensure port
security.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN deferred to Mr. Richards.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner, of Highways and Public
Facilities, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities,
told the committee that security provisions for ports and cargo
are administered by the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) in the federal Department of Homeland Security. DOT&PF
works hand-in-hand with TSA on state-owned ports but DOT&PF does
not have an enforcement arm.
1:59:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked that DOT&PF report back to the
committee on what it is doing to work hand-in-hand with the TSA.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN agreed to do so and continued his
presentation:
Slick 4 - this is the state funded transportation
program. Back in September, the previous deputy
commissioner of highways and myself approached the
governor with a ... need - for a state-funded
transportation program. She took that under
advisement and the governor just recently ... put a
plan out there that you all have to approve - it's a
state-funded transportation program. We see a real
need for that. Basically, shrinking federal highway
funds - the federal highway trust fund is going
negative in 2009, we're going to be getting less
federal money.
We can do projects faster with state money. I'd like
to share a couple of points with you .... Using state
funds to do projects, we did the Abbott Loop-Elmore
Road extension, the design was in 2003 and
construction was completed in 2007 - four years for a
significant project using state funds. That's one of
the biggest pluses that I see in a state funded
program. The McCarthy Road major maintenance would
have taken us three years using federal funds but it
was done in a year. The Richardson Highway, 265 to
341, was done in two years, which it normally would
have taken five years. There are some real advantages
to using state funds to get projects done over the
federal funds and we just are in a unique situation
where our federal funds are going south on us.
I'll show you a slide in here regarding that exact
issue.
CHAIR JOHANSEN noted that both of the [governor's] bills are in
the House Transportation Standing Committee and will be
reviewed.
2:01:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked:
... Commissioner, in an effort to prioritize state
spending money, have you developed criteria then for
recommending a state project and usage of state funds
versus federal funds so that on the larger projects
where we know that there's going to be time
constraints and multiple funding? Do you understand
my question?
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN asked if she was referring to the new
state-funded program.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she was not but acknowledged that
she supports a state-funded program. She continued:
I think that we need to invest in infrastructure and
when we look to the bridge that collapsed in the Lower
48 and then looking at assessments across our state I
think that there's a definite need and sagging
infrastructure that needs an infusion of dollars. But
we still have federal appropriations coming in and we
have state [general fund] and we understand that
there's going to be a temporary increase in revenues
to the State of Alaska right now. What criteria are
you using to base decisions on investing state money
versus federal money? And I want to know if they're
solidified so that we can count on that criteria when
we see a state project in a request for state funds in
that package.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN deferred to Deputy Commissioner
Richards to answer.
MR. RICHARDS said DOT&PF has not yet developed selection
criteria. He noted, as the commissioner mentioned, one of the
greatest transportation state fund efficiencies is due to the
fact that a project can be completed in a judicious timeframe.
He continued:
So that if we see a very complicated project that has a lot
of right-of-way, a lot of environmental issues, likely that
would be the best use of federal dollars. When we see
projects that are straightforward, easy to go out with and
wouldn't require a tremendous amount of federal burden,
state dollars would be best used. So we hope to develop
that criteria over the timeframe from the time of
appropriation until we actually get the funds appropriated
to us.
2:03:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH recalled the governor's proposal
contains $100 million in bonds. She said she understands the
challenges caused by the time lag, but asserted it would be
helpful to legislators as they consider projects to know that it
is investing state dollars wisely on projects that need to be
completed quickly for safety or other reasons. In addition, the
legislation does not want to reduce the traction it has had at a
federal level to move larger projects in a paced way. She said
it would be helpful to have criteria to use to determine which
source of funding should be used for each project. She noted
she will continue to ask for criteria as the committee reviews
the governor's proposals.
CHAIR JOHANSEN agreed that some criteria should be developed.
2:05:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN referred to a chart on page 4 and asked if
the chart is based on the assumption that DOT&PF will receive
$500 million per year for two years, which is in the governor's
proposal.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said it is.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked if [the transportation fund] would
be receiving a 7 percent return in the year 2010.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said it is set up to earn 5 percent, or
$50 million per year.
2:06:16 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued his presentation:
Some more of our efficiencies - there's a slide there
of chip sealing and crack sealing. We're using new
techniques to extend life of pavement. The slide on
the right I have personal knowledge of. The [Indisc.]
Nome State Office Building - I was up in Nome and
visiting that facility. I have made a goal in my
career here at DOT as to elevate the importance of
public facilities. This building and that water you
see there is not fresh water, that's salt water. Nome
got two floods over the rip-rap wall there and that
building is not in a good location. We have issues
regarding code, heating, roof. We've been hit twice
with salt water. So we're going to work on getting
some of these public facilities that the state has and
we have 700 of them - 700 buildings that are DOT's
buildings and a lot of them are 30, 40 years old so
I'm going to be working on that.
The ports and harbors - we had $5 million last year
allocated to us. This year we're putting in for $10
million - we're working on still turning over the
harbor transfer program to the cities and the boroughs
so that program is going well.
2:07:46 PM
Slide 6 - Ted Stevens International - some of the
accomplishments at Ted Stevens - A and B concourse
remodel. If you've been in the terminal lately it's
going very well and it's $200 million worth of work.
I think it's one of the best kept secrets in
Anchorage. That terminal building is really going to
look sharp when it's all said and done. A and B
concourse will look like C concourse. C is the one
you go through all of the time right now with the
elevators and the beautiful interior. Fairbanks,
they're getting a whole new facelift there, not even a
facelift. ... They're getting a whole new terminal in
Fairbanks. It's going to look spiffy. I'm guessing
about 75 percent complete so if you get a chance to
visit Fairbanks, it's a very unique piece of
architecture and quite a facility.
2:08:48 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued:
Alaska Marine Highways - we hauled more passengers and
cars this year than last year, carried more vehicles
and passengers this year. Marine Highways I'm sure
we'll talk some more about.
The gas line preparation - I have hired a gentleman by
the name of John Reeves, specifically hired to take
care of gas line preparedness for the infrastructure.
He is working out of Fairbanks and he is working with
me; he reports to me directly. We have just completed
a study for the entire state for the gas line
infrastructure and what needs to be done to get it
ready. I've also asked John to tell the consultant
and be more specific on his study and work on the
Dalton Highway. I think that's going to be a major
lifeline of the gas pipeline no matter what direction
it goes. That study will be done within the next
couple of months, so I'm real excited about that.
CHAIR JOHANSEN said the committee has heard testimony about the
impact the gas pipeline construction will have on the road
system. He asked whether the study will contain projections for
expenditures that will be incurred and whether that will affect
the state's overall transportation system.
2:10:17 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN related that a draft of the first study
is finished and addresses what effects the gas pipeline will
have on the state's infrastructure. The second study will be
more specific to the Dalton Highway. He expects the Phase 2
study to be complete within a few months; he will share it with
the committee.
CHAIR JOHANSEN acknowledged know how important the gas line is
to the entire state, however he noted concern that it might
delay or stop projects elsewhere in the state. He said he looks
forward to getting that information.
2:11:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked to see a copy of the study and
asked:
I was wondering if there is also a timeline associated
with those improvements to be on the ground for a gas
line if we're looking at a licensee right now that has
a faster paced moving project for licensing
requirements whether we can actually - if the study
will do us any good to point us in a direction.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he cannot pick a date for the
pipeline, but he believes the Dalton Highway project is one that
could be completed. He expressed concern that nothing happens
for ten years because DOT&PF didn't know exactly when [the gas
line] would begin. He noted a double advantage to completing
work on the Dalton Highway: it would be beneficial to the
traveling public and the gas pipeline. He remarked:
If I can get the Dalton Highway ready for the gas
pipeline, I will at least get half of it ready, and
then we'll probably be under somewhat of a quick pace
to do the rest once something is selected. So I am
thinking just like you are. I'm just wondering how
much do I have to get ready from [indisc.].
2:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH responded:
Mr. Chairman, my timeline wasn't when the construction
of the pipeline would be, but the timeline on the
projects that are indicated for improvement in the
study that's complete, and then that in comparison
with the Dalton's priority inside of - I assume then
the Dalton is inside the study for an improvement on
the - and that's why you're asking for a second study.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN explained he asked for a second study
because the first study was completed two years ago and he
wanted more current numbers. He noted that he also wants Mr.
Reeves to meld that information with DOT&PF's plan to bring it
up to date, specifically regarding the Dalton Highway project.
Commissioner Von Scheben mentioned urban congestion reduction
and the "Connect Anchorage Initiative."
2:14:42 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN, in response to Representative Salmon,
clarified that Phase 1 is a study of the entire state. Phase 2
is more specific to the Dalton Highway.
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked for a copy of the draft studies.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he will share a copy of the Phase
2 report when it is completed.
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked that all responses to requests for
information from committee members be delivered to him and he
will have them distributed to members.
2:15:24 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN returned to his presentation:
Okay. Knik to Anchorage, I would like to mention a
little bit about that. ... Through the Knik Anchorage
Initiative, the State of Alaska and Municipality of
Anchorage have agreed to work cooperatively to seek
funding to reduce congestion by developing and
constructing missing roadway links and the existing
roadway system. Knik to Anchorage is kind of an east,
west, north, south and it's going to help with
congestion.
Working on rural airport leasing, making land
available for economic development - examples - Seward
airport relocating a power line to make four lots
developable. Three of the new lots are generating
revenue. We're doing those kinds of things at the
airport areas.
Transparency ...
2:16:55 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued:
The transparency aspect - accomplishments recently and
this wasn't my idea, by the way. At the Northern
Region Transportation Forum Representative Jay Ramras
came to me last fall and said - Frank introduced me
to...Representative Ramras - and he said wouldn't it
be nice if the DOT could come up to the north and give
us a spiel on what DOT does. I thought that was an
excellent idea. We had that forum. It was a one-day
get together. We invited mayors, representatives, and
Native leaders and we talked about what DOT does. I'm
going to have one in Southcentral here this fall and
then Southeast we're going to have one in '09. I
strive very hard to communicate with the public. In
fact, well I mentioned, I do a lot of public speaking
and I don't want to go into a great deal there. I
must average four speeches a month just getting out
there talking to the communities.
Our STIP program is an open public process and it's
ongoing. We're about to wrap up another STIP here.
AIP, Airport Improvement Program, is an open public
process. It's going well. I threw in this Elmore
Road because I thought that was a unique project.
It's a north-south connection that cuts two miles off
a one-way trip from Hillside to East Anchorage.
That's a very special project.
If you get a chance to drive that, it's a very unique
project and, like I mentioned before, it's done in
four years when it would have taken us many more than
that through federal funding.
2:18:41 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued:
This slide here I think is - I want to kind of impress
upon you on Slick 8 - this is our highway trust fund.
It's our national slide here. This just shows that
the federal highway trust fund is going south on us.
We're going to be out of funds in 2009. ... We're
going to be stressed for getting federal funds and
this is another reason why the DOT is very supportive
of a state-funded transportation program that the
governor has submitted to the legislature. So, we get
about 70 percent of our money from federal funding and
not to say we're going to lose all of that money but
we're going to be down some. In fact, Frank, you said
somewhere around 20 or 30 percent?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS responded affirmatively.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued:
We're estimating 20 or 30 percent down in federal
funds in 2009, 2010, so ... we could take a
significant hit and I don't know ... what the Congress
is going to do. I can't believe they'll let that go
negative, but it is a real challenge to us.
2:19:48 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked how the governor's stated reluctance to
accepting federal earmarks will impact the revenue flow to the
state. He also asked how many federal earmarks DOT&PF requested
this year.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN responded:
... Part of the reluctance in earmarks is a policy to
use earmarks. Let me just give you an example. A
certain area will go and get a million dollar earmark
for a road job and that road is a $10 million - I'm
just giving you an example - so we are $9 million shy.
What's basically happened a lot of times with earmarks
is they are getting identified but they are not
sufficient funds to finish the project so the earmark
kind of sits there without proper planning or
coordination with say the DOT. We can't get a project
... on its feet. For example, the Chignik one was a -
I think they got an earmark for $5 million and the
project is $35 million. We don't know where the $30
million is going to come from. We don't have the
money at this time. So, part of the problem with
earmarks is not having enough funds to finish the
project.
Now the second half of your question - Frank?
MR. RICHARDS told members that the federal earmarks for highway
funds through SAFETEA-LU were deducted from the state's
allocation of $400 million. Therefore, DOT&PF did not have as
much money as it anticipated spending on its normal formula
projects. In previous legislation, like TEA 21, the earmarks
were added to the state's base allocation and were therefore
beneficial to the state. In trying to reduce the amount of
earmarks being put forward to Congress, DOT&PF put forward four
earmarks for FY 09.
2:22:46 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked if in every instance all of the earmarks
contained in SAFETEA-LU were deducted [from the state's
allocation].
MS. SLAGLE clarified that Section 1702 contained the earmarks
that were deducted. Other sections of the bill contained
earmarks that were additive so the bill contained a combination.
2:23:27 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked Ms. Slagle to provide the committee with a
list of the additive earmarks.
MS. SLAGLE agreed to provide a list of the earmarks, sections
and whether they were additive or deductive.
2:24:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he was told by Central Region
Director Gordon Keith that the federal funds available to the
state are matching at about 10 to 1. He asked:
... So what roads do you look at ... when you say
okay, you're looking at a road project, what type of
matching funds can you get? Can you get four to one?
Can you get ten to one on them and how does that come
together? I'd like to understand that process and
maybe what roads are incorporated in that a little bit
further.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said that question can best be answered
by Jeff Ottesen when he testifies before the committee.
2:25:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked if the state can refuse earmarks
and whether the governor has directed DOT&PF to refuse earmarks.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he recently sent a letter to
Alaska's congressional delegation about 12 earmarked projects
that have insufficient funds. He is trying to get the
delegation's opinions on that process. He said some projects
may not go forward because of technical problems or insufficient
funds.
2:26:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said her question was whether the
governor is in the position of telling the federal government
that the state is refusing funds. She said she can understand
refusing funds for projects that are not within the STIP and are
deductive. However, if the project funds are additive and can
be advanced in their totality or only require a small state
match, she believes legislators in those areas would like to
know that those funds are available. She furthered:
I guess I would think Alaskans would hate to see us
turning away federal money. I understand being
personally accountable. I understand process and how
the whole package needs to come together for
prioritization but I want to be very clear if the
governor has given the direction to DOT to
specifically not accept money.
MR. RICHARDS said he hoped he did not misrepresent the
governor's intentions. He clarified that the future funds
DOT&PF seeks for earmarks will be limited in number and the
dollar amounts.
2:27:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH commented that Chair Johansen said he
heard the governor was refusing earmarks. She said she just
wants a yes or no answer about the direction given by the
Administration to DOT&PF.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN repeated that he wrote to the
congressional delegation and identified up to 15 projects that
cannot go forward, primarily because of insufficient funds. He
prepared that letter in conjunction with the governor's Office
but does not know whether the governor was involved.
2:28:21 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked who signed the letter.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he signed it.
CHAIR JOHANSEN said the committee would like to see a copy of
the letter.
2:28:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she pressed the question because
she does not believe the governor quantitatively said no to
earmarks. She believes the Administration is trying to evaluate
what is important for Alaska inside of a larger package. She
stated:
So I don't want it on the record as being disparaging
one way or another. I just want to understand ...
what process we're using to ask the federal delegation
to reprioritize our requests. I hope the money stays
on the table, is my point, for Alaska.
2:29:03 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he believes that is fair but he thought the
governor's tone in her State of the State Address and in
comments to the press is that Alaska needs to start paying its
own way. He would prefer to see the actual documentation to
determine what is happening. He said he would also like to know
what sort of flexibility the state has to transfer earmarked
funds to another project.
MS. SLAGLE explained that similar to state appropriations,
federal appropriations are limited based on their title.
Therefore, if a community does not have funds to do something
with the earmark, DOT&PF works with the community to find an
alternative project, but DOT&PF has to take the new project to
the congressional delegation. The delegation is trying to fix
some of the project titles with technical corrections so that
the communities can use the earmarked funds for other purposes.
2:31:31 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said when a press release from the governor's
Office said the money for the Ketchikan bridge would be used for
projects in other parts of the state, and hundreds of community
officials had worked on getting that money for 30 years and a
great deal of those funds were additive, many of his
constituents were insulted.
2:33:10 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued his presentation:
Slick 9 - cost of doing business. It's been going up
at 15 to 20 percent per year. The cost of steel has
gone up. The cost of concrete has gone up. These are
some of the challenges we face at DOT. Asphalt has
increased 80 percent over the last 6 years.
Excavation has increased 55 percent over the last 6
years. I know these statistics might run one right
after another but basically what I'm telling you is
the cost of doing business is going up and the cost of
doing projects is going up so we're getting less bang
for the buck, which also gives us a good indication
that we should try and get as many projects as we can
get done in the next few years or the cost is just
going to be prohibitive - I can't say prohibitive.
It's just going to keep going up and going to be more
expensive to do business.
2:34:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she wondered whether the
legislature needs to change its requirement regarding DOT&PF's
procurement of the asphalt mix. She said she understands the
legislature requires DOT&PF to use Alaska crude in the asphalt
mix but the viscosity of the crude may be of lower quality than
what is on the market elsewhere. She questioned whether the
cost factor is starting to outweigh the benefits of using a
local product.
MR. RICHARDS said DOT&PF's challenge is that the aggregates it
uses are produced in Alaska and are relatively soft. DOT&PF has
few sources of hard aggregates but tries to use those when
projects are located near those sources. In many cases that
requires trucking, train transport or barge transport many
miles. DOT&PF is finding that hard aggregate imported and mixed
in the asphalt provides a longer lasting surface. He explained:
We used that, I believe, on the Tudor Road project
that we just completed in the fall of 2005. That was
a test section where the eastbound lane, I believe,
was hard aggregate. The westbound lane was the
regular Mat-Su Valley gravel. We're waiting to see
the results of that to see if that road system in that
high traffic - the most highest traffic road in the
state, holds up.
In regards to the asphalts themselves, we are using
polymer additives to try and give us the flexibility
and the strength that maybe the local viscosity of the
Alaska Crude may not be providing us. So our
materials engineers are very concerned and we're
trying to come up with the best technologies that we
have, utilizing those modifiers, those additives, that
we can put into the mix to try and get us the best
quality product rather than ultimately - or if we need
to, go out and import oils into the state.
2:38:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she would be interested to know
whether a procurement procedure within DOT&PF is costing the
department money. She also noted that soft cements are now
being produced that have some flexibility in cold weather
climates. She asked whether DOT&PF has looked at or tested any
of those for use in cold weather climates.
MR. RICHARDS replied he is not aware of a more malleable
concrete. Private contractors and the Army Corps of Engineers
have used a certain concrete in freezing conditions that does
not need heat to set but it is still a rigid product. He said
the procurement procedure depends on the mix design that comes
out of DOT&PF's materials group and what is put in the bid. He
offered to follow up with Representative Fairclough regarding
the cost to Alaska producers and importers.
2:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said a follow-up is not necessary. She
asked that DOT&PF notify the legislature if a procurement
problem exists.
2:39:34 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN noted the meeting will be transcribed and the
questions sent to DOT&PF. He noted the committee wants to know
what options DOT&PF is looking at to mitigate costs.
2:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted the wide disparity between the cost
of asphalt produced in Alaska and the accelerated price increase
nationally and asked if that is caused by reasons other than the
procurement procedure.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN related his understanding that the
rapid increase is due to the rising costs of labor, oil and
materials.
2:40:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if those costs for asphalt and
concrete are increasing more in Alaska than elsewhere.
MR. RICHARDS said he would prefer to provide the committee with
the facts behind the rising costs of those products in Alaska as
compared to the national average at a later date.
2:41:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the cost increase in the price
of concrete is similar to that of asphalt or whether the problem
is related to the procurement requirement for asphalt.
MR. RICHARDS said information from the Associated General
Contractors shows that the cost of concrete is higher in Alaska,
probably because the base materials have to be imported.
2:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would then expect the line [on
the chart] for concrete to be more elevated than asphalt. He
commented:
If we get an analysis and it shows that concrete isn't
higher than the asphalt, then I see a problem that we
need to get to the bottom to. If not, then it may
just be the cost of doing business in Alaska. I think
we're probably going to find that even though we
import it, we bring it up, it's still not going to
elevate to the level that the asphalt does so I see
the same problem looming or somewhere out there
there's a flashing light, whether it's red or yellow I
don't know but there's a flashing light on the costs
here and I'd like to find out the reason why. I think
a good analysis would be something that we import 100
percent of in concrete, if it hasn't gone up more than
asphalt, then I'd see that as being a red light as
opposed to a yellow light.
2:43:29 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN offered to provide the committee with
more information and continued his presentation:
Slide 10 - that really tells the tale regarding what
the department has to go through regarding challenges.
If you look back to the '60s backwards, we only had
about nine regulations we used to deal with in 1960
and now when you look up in the 2000s, these are the
regulations that DOT has to be confronted with. It's
another 50 or 60 more regulations totaling probably
almost 70 regulations compared to the old days when it
was only 10 so it's pretty awe inspiring regarding
what we have to go through.
Climate change - Slick 11.
2:44:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER interrupted to say he would like to know
if Alaska's oil product used in the manufacturing of asphalt is
inferior to the imported oil product. He also asked:
Also, you talked about the softer aggregate. Now
that's the gravel, right, that goes in? Okay, does
that have to do with proportions? Does it have to do
with the silt that's in our gravel? What's going on
here? I'd like a little bit of education on that when
you answer the question.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he would provide that information.
2:45:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked:
... You know how I like to promote economic
development within the state of Alaska and to support
our Fairbanks friends. You know there's quite a bit of
product up there that can be used in the creation of
some [indisc.]. I'd like to know what you are doing
to help support those folks and are we looking in
state to use that?
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN questioned whether Representative
Neuman is asking whether Alaska can manufacture its own Portland
cement.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he is.
CHAIR JOHANSEN told the commissioner he can respond to that
question when he responds to the others.
2:45:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said he would like to know whether DOT&PF
still maintains any gravel roadways and the difference in the
per lane mile cost versus pavement.
2:46:11 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued his presentation:
Climate change, I think you're all pretty much aware
that things are changing out there. You can see by
these slides the freezing and thawing. Frank Richards
- he represents the department on the subcommittee. I
wanted to share one event with you - a couple of
events on intense rainfall, especially in southern
Alaska it seems to be occurring more often, resulting
in flooding and washed out roads. As an example, we
had two 100-year floods in the Kenai in 2002, costing
us over $10 million in repairs. Also, in the fall of
2006 the Richardson Highway was closed for a week due
to severe flooding. A 100-year flood is supposed to
happen once in 100 years. We [had] two of them happen
within a month of each other so we are getting some
unusual climate changes.
2:47:10 PM
Dust control - federal funding can be impacted if
areas are designated as non-attainment areas. A non-
attainment area, that's on Slide 12, a non-attainment
area is dust that exceeds national air quality.
States can be required to come up with plans to reduce
that kind of particulate in the air so we're getting
more and more dust issues regarding our
villages...even in the Valley where I live there's
dust areas.
That slide on the right is an airport. I don't know
where the airport is. I know Frank could tell you
where it is. That's a unique dust prohibitive type
material. It's - if you look at the runway you can
actually even see tire marks in the slide. This is
[indisc.] about three or four years for dust control
and it's some type of motion and chemical reaction
with the soil that's already there and it keeps the
dust down so ...
2:48:12 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN noted the chair of the Bush Caucus has mentioned
serious dust problems in rural Alaska, especially regarding
honey buckets. He asked the commissioner to work on solutions
with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the
Bush Caucus. He thought the conditions at the aforementioned
airport might be applicable to the villages.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN agreed and said he thought DOT&PF
requested $600,000 for water trucks and other equipment in the
capital budget.
2:49:17 PM
MR. RICHARDS clarified that DOT&PF made a capital budget request
to specifically address the needs in the Northwest Arctic
communities. DEC and EPA have done air quality monitoring in
eight villages. The results showed [the dust particulate level]
is above the national air quality standards. He explained:
We are hoping to work with DEC by utilizing simple
techniques, which is just applying through a water
tank and distributor truck and apply it to the roads
and the airports in those communities, which appear to
be some of the biggest contributors to the dust.
CHAIR JOHANSEN encouraged the commissioner to direct attention
to that problem because it is a health problem for the
communities.
2:50:13 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN continued his presentation, as follows:
Okay, I'm on my last slide on page 13. If you talk
about challenges, the biggest challenge - one of the
biggest challenges I have and I hope you can
appreciate what I'm up against here, but we have 3,200
employees and between the next zero to five years a
third of them can depart from the department and
retire because of reaching retirement age. Our
turnover in the DOT is around 30 percent. When I was
in the private sector just a year or so ago, it was 15
to 17 percent. The average age of our employees is
older; it's 46 years old and in private practice it's
around 40. So I'm up against running out of staff and
people are going to be retiring and [DOT&PF has] an
aging staff so it's going to be a real issue. I have
the potential of losing some real core competencies in
the department if I can't find people to replace them.
I call it the war for talent. It's hard to find
people and when I was in private practice I actually
had to go out of state for surveyors, engineers and
architects. It's hard to find these people.
Anyway, with that I'm open to questions.
2:51:26 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN commented that DOT&PF has already lost some very
valuable people and has had to hire new directors lately. He
asked what proactive measures DOT&PF is taking to improve
recruitment, other than offering higher salaries.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN told members through Administrative
Order 237, he is working with Annette Kreitzer and other
commissioners to address hiring and retention problems. He said
he has no quick answers. Some people are choosing to return to
state employment and older employees could be rehired.
Retaining employees of retirement age is another possibility.
Right now, DOT&PF uses the Internet, head hunters, or word of
mouth to find employees. He is working with the University and
private sector on the same issues. This problem applies to the
entire gamut of business. More people need to be trained in
engineering, business, marketing, and in other fields.
2:53:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON asked for a rural airport improvement
project schedule for District 6 that shows the airports
currently being worked on.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN agreed to provide a list.
2:54:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked why the turnover rate in DOT&PF is
twice what it is in the private sector.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN opined that it is primarily due to the
fact that DOT&PF's aging workforce is retiring.
MS. SLAGLE agreed it is due to Baby Boomers retiring. She noted
the commissioner requested that an employee survey be done to
determine what drew employees to DOT&PF, what would keep them at
DOT&PF and why they would leave. She said DOT&PF is doing quite
a bit to attract people to transportation professions and is
finding it has to attract people at an earlier age. This spring
DOT&PF is having its first Construction Days fair in the [Mat-
Su] Valley to reach out to high school students. Furthermore,
DOT&PF provides internships, an engineering training program,
and holds job fairs.
2:56:56 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked if the employee survey addresses morale.
MS. SLAGLE said it does. It also asks questions, such as how do
you feel about your supervisor, to get an idea about the general
feeling of employees.
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked when the survey will be complete.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said the survey would be distributed
electronically in a month and he expects a quick response. He
informed members the survey is very similar to one done at DEC.
He added the McDowell Group is handling the survey.
2:57:53 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said the committee would be interested in seeing
the results of the survey.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN agreed to provide the results. He then
told Representative Doogan that the private sector is also
looking for people. Salary and quality of life are also issues.
Younger people want time off.
2:59:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said a 30 percent turnover rate is huge
and asked if DOT&PF could have difficulty doing its job because
it is losing important employees every year.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he has seen that happen
repeatedly. It is a "threat," but it can be addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said he appreciates the fact that DOT&PF
is doing a survey to provide actual data.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said a survey is a tool he would use in
private practice to manage his business. He said he believes
staff feedback is key to managing DOT&PF.
CHAIR JOHANSEN questioned the turnover rate at the legislature.
3:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether DOT&PF requires new hires
to be current employees of DOT&PF. He expressed concern that
some departments are requiring employment for specific time
periods at the department as a prerequisite for employment. He
believes that is a big pitfall to recruitment.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he is working with Commissioner
Kreitzer and Ms. Slagle regarding job qualifications. He agrees
with Representative Johnson that some of the job requirements
immediately eliminate qualified people and that managers should
at least be able to review those resumes to determine whether
those people are possible candidates. He acknowledged that some
of the questions asked on Workplace Alaska eliminate a lot of
people that might otherwise be qualified. Those questions have
been removed but other problems remain.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON encouraged the commissioner to continue
to work on that problem. He then informed the commissioner that
he does not plan to support any bond proposals. He questioned
why the state would sell $100 million worth of bonds when it
will have a $1 billion surplus. He said until he sees $100
million being saved or getting a high return so that bonding
makes sense, it will be difficult for him to argue the need to
mortgage the state's future when it has the cash right now.
3:04:25 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN reminded members that the governor's bills will
be heard in committee.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said the cost of bonding right now is
low so investing the money elsewhere at a greater rate of return
could be advantageous. He said a second aspect of the bonding
request is that the governor is trying to hold capital
expenditures to under $375 million, so bonding would allow some
infrastructure projects to move forward now.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he hates budgeting by mirrors. He
said the capital budget will not be under $375 million if the
state gets $100 million elsewhere; in his mind, the $100 million
is part of the capital budget.
3:06:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented, regarding managing people, the
commissioner started one of the most successful engineering
companies in the state and that requires good employee
management. He said Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority (KABATA)
is extremely important to his district and asked for an update
on DOT&PF's involvement in that project.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he has a conflict of interest
because his former company, USKH, has submitted a proposal on
the project. He asked Mr. Richards to respond.
MR. RICHARDS recognized that Andrew Niemiec, Executive Director,
KABATA was present. He told members that DOT&PF is one of two
representatives of the state's executive branch on KABATA's
board. Two legislators are also on the board. The
organization's establishing legislation created KABATA as a
separate entity that falls under DOT&PF's umbrella. He noted
that DOT&PF is intimately involved with KABATA on the project
and in identifying technical and coordination challenges,
meaning the state's responsibilities to connecting road systems.
DOT&PF has that linkage with KABATA and oversight duties as a
board member.
3:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented:
... This is a unique situation for Alaska where we
have a private public partnership on a toll project.
And again, with reduction of federal funds that are
coming in, I think that maybe we need to look at
projects like this a little bit more so I'm assuming
that you support the use of public and private ... or
checking into public-private?
MR. VON SCHEBEN said public private partnerships seem to be an
industry trend. The State of Texas is actually selling assets
to private industry. The viability of partnerships has to do
with numbers regarding traffic flow and toll generations. The
private sector must be reimbursed for its investment. Alaska
does not have the volume to generate that kind of income. He
acknowledged that DOT&PF has not looked at other private public
partnerships for projects at this time.
3:10:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked the commissioner if he believes the
Knik Arm Bridge can be built without private investment.
MR. RICHARDS pointed out the current financial plan calls for
public money to be used as match funds to complete the bridge.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN said he assumes private funds will be
necessary.
MR. RICHARDS said that is correct.
3:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked what DOT&PF's major concerns are
with the bridge.
MR. RICHARDS said he is just now getting up to speed on KABATA
as he has only been on the board for two weeks. He noted that
Gordon Keith, Director, Central Region, has been sitting on the
board and Mr. Keith's project manager has day-to-day linkage to
KABATA.
3:12:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to competing investor proposals,
and said a time issue is involved. He said the state can reject
any proposals that are not in its best interests. He asked the
deputy commissioner if he can speak to the competing proposals
and the schedule date for releasing the request for proposals.
MR. RICHARDS said KABATA developed a tight schedule at the
outset of the project. The final environmental impact statement
has been provided by the federal highway agency. KABATA is
awaiting the record decision. That can take 30 to 90 days.
DOT&PF and Department of Law staffs are reviewing the technical
and financial packages drawn up by KABATA for the RFP to
determine potential obligations or liabilities to the state.
When that review is complete, those staff members will converse
with KABATA and the Administration to address those issues.
3:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked about the timeline for the review.
MR. RICHARDS replied the legal team just received another
amendment so it has to review fresh documents. DOT&PF hopes to
have its review of the technical specifications complete in
early February.
3:14:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated:
It's just so critical because, you know, there's been an
indication from KABATA that receiving those proposals from
the interested developers [is] key in determining the value
of the project and so, again, it's something that's very
important to me, so if you could maybe address that again
in writing or get us a little bit more information. But
that competition is important. I think competition makes
all of these stronger and, again, this is something unique
to Alaska where we've got a public and private partnership.
We've got some competing proposals. I hope to see some
movement from DOT or some assistance on that, if we can
move forward on that or at least some answers to when this
can be moved up.
MR. RICHARDS agreed that competition will be beneficial to the
state and that two companies want to be part of the process.
3:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether the KABATA record
decision was handed down today.
MR. RICHARDS replied the record decision has not been decided to
his knowledge. He understood the federal process would take a
minimum of 30 days.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said her staff was told the record
decision was coming today and the comment period would then
open.
ANDREW NIEMIEC, Executive Director, Knik Arm Bridge and Toll
Authority (KABATA), told members the final environmental impact
statement submitted by KABATA was released by the Federal
Highway Administration and will be in the federal register
tomorrow. The record of decision will follow in a minimum of 30
days; however the decision is more likely to be made in 60 to 90
days.
3:16:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked if the state has the authority
to reject the proposal.
MR. RICHARDS asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH replied:
I'm asking DOT whether we really do have authority versus
KABATA, to reject a proposal. If KABATA itself, as an
entity, receives a bid or a financial arrangement, does the
state, since the state is the parent company per se, have
the authority to reject or is it KABATA and KABATA's board
of directors that the power is vested in?
MR. RICHARDS explained the proposals will be submitted to
KABATA. KABATA will determine the qualifications of the
proposals and through internal and board consultations make a
determination. So the state voices would be heard through the
board consultation.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she is trying to determine
whether the legislature will have any say in the matter or
whether it has vested all of its power in KABATA and its board
of directors, even though the state is providing funds. She
said a written response would be acceptable.
3:19:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN clarified that his question was whether
the state can reject an investor proposal if it is not in the
best interest of the state.
MR. RICHARDS said he would best serve the committee by providing
a written response after an in-depth analysis.
3:19:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked about the state's risk
associated with the continued payment of KABATA in its budget
cycle. She also asked how long the state will carry that cost
forward. She then asked if that cost will be repaid to the
state when the investment goes forward into the private sector
partnership.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH further explained:
The state is floating a loan basically, saying a bridge is
a viable source. And let's get on the record I support the
Knik crossing. I believe that it opens an economic
opportunity for housing and commercial development where
Anchorage is somewhat landlocked now. So I support a
bridge crossing but I believe that the state is on the hook
and I just want to make sure that we are protected
appropriately in the agreement forward and so we are part
of a budgeting picture right now for KABATA in sustaining
it so when we present the financial package to the market,
does that package include reimbursing Alaskans for that
project or is it sort of as we go forward from here that
the project takes over its costs?
MR. RICHARDS replied the executive branch is doing a risk
analysis right now through its legal and technical review of the
project. He deferred to Mr. Niemiec to discuss the financial
package. He offered to provide Representative Fairclough with
answers now or in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she would prefer the committee
receive the answers in writing.
3:21:52 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he would like to shift to the statewide long
range transportation plan. He referred to the 2030 plan and
asked:
Frankly I, and a lot of people around the state,
hadn't really heard a whole lot about that plan going
forward. So I'm wondering, first of all, briefly,
what is it and what effect does it have on going
through to get the STIP rewritten? Is it something
that has to be done? Is that why it's - basically by
the end of the week there's a deadline to cut off any
comment on it. ... First of all, in the document it
mentions - the collaborative process at the state
level provides a framework for making publicly
transparent decisions - also a robust open planning
process through which regional and community plans are
developed. This public process began just after
Thanksgiving, I believe, and lasted through the
Christmas and New Year's holidays and the deadline
was, I believe, prior to the legislature even
convening this year and we have had a 10 day
extension, which I believe is up at the end of this
week.
First of all, it is my understanding this is a plan
out to 2030, which is quite a big plan for the future
of transportation needs in Alaska. I'm wondering,
timing wise, I'd sure like to have been able to spend
quite a bit of time before the public comment period
is closed with not only this committee but all 50
legislators having a chance to understand and go over
it, you know, when I'm not wrapping presents for my
kids. It seems like the timing was unfortunate and
I'm wondering why that process didn't start earlier to
give - in the document itself I don't see three
meetings over the holiday season as a robust open
planning process and I'm just wondering is there any
chance, whatsoever, of a further extension so that the
legislature would have the time to discuss this? We
haven't even gone through the plan. I would love to
have it here before the comment period is closed and
have all of us be able to read it and look at it and
comment on it and talk about it. And what is its
relationship to reopening the STIP, which allows the
department to reprioritize and shift money before it's
bounced back out of Federal Highways before the STIP
is finalized. How is the whole process working there?
3:25:28 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said DOT&PF held 15 public hearings
beginning in July of 2007; one in Wasilla, five in Fairbanks,
five in Anchorage, one in Skagway, two in Juneau, and one in
Craig. He deferred to Mr. Ottesen to explain how it is tied to
the STIP. He said he thought it would be awkward to extend the
comment period further.
MR. RICHARDS informed members that DOT&PF is required by the
federal government to put the 2030 report into play before it
can do its STIP amendment. The federal requirements regarding
the STIP changed under SAFETEA-LU. Those requirements make
modifying the STIP more onerous. He explained:
If a project has any type of cost overrun, previously
we were able to address it by working within the STIP
in that particular category and utilizing funding for
projects that may be slipping. This requires a full
blown STIP amendment, which could be four to five
months to make that amendment change. So for us to be
able to get projects out on the street, it has tied
our hands considerably in terms of using those federal
dollars because of that requirement. So the linkage
here is that the statewide transportation plan has got
to be completed before we can then go with that major
STIP amendment so that we can then have projects going
out this summer and utilizing the federal fiscal
dollars.
3:27:54 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked when SAFETEA-LU was adopted.
MR. RICHARDS replied in 2003.
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked:
Why did we not start this a long time ago, if the rules
were set in 2003. Now we're up against the wall on
rewriting the STIP, why didn't we start a heck of a long
time ago on this whole process? Were the meetings that you
mentioned, the 15 different meetings, I mean how does that
reflect back on the timelines that you're talking about?
Did we start the clock late? Is that why we're bucked up
against the tide and we're doing this over Christmas?
MR. RICHARDS explained that SAFETEA-LU was passed by Congress in
2003, but then the Federal Highway Administration was required
to make regulation changes. The regulation changes take a
couple of years and DOT&PF has to respond to those changes. He
offered to identify the outreach meetings and transportation
stakeholders' group meetings that were held around the state and
the timelines.
3:29:36 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN expressed concern about the process of public
input into the plan. He stated:
You know it was passed in 2003. You say it takes
three years for the amendments to trickle back and
that puts you at 2006. Commissioner, when you took
over DOT, were the ground rules set? Were the
regulations in place? Were you guys ready to go on
day one to start this process for the statewide
transportation plan?
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he would have to get back to the
committee with the answers.
3:30:19 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN expressed the following concern:
That's really my problem. We could have started
Tuesday, the first day of session, and the deadline, I
believe, is today or tomorrow. It just seems like
everything is being rushed right through to get that
STIP pried open so you can reprioritize and shift
money around, which is fine. But you know, when the
document itself says a robust open planning process,
you know, if your meeting takes place in Craig,
Alaska, no offense to Craig but there [are] 2,000
people there. Once again, it sure would be nice for
you guys to hit communities like Ketchikan. I know
you said you went to Juneau. Did you see them up in
your neck of the woods Representative Salmon?
REPRESENTATIVE SALMON said he did not.
3:31:21 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said the plan is a huge document that opens up
the STIP, which is another huge document. He said he is
extremely disappointed to hear the committee will get answers
from Mr. Ottesen next week when the deadline is this week. He
asked who authorized the 10-day extension.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he did.
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked the commissioner if he is authorized to
offer another extension.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he would need to check with Mr.
Ottesen.
3:32:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN said he would appreciate learning the real
relationship between the 2030 plan and the STIP. He stated:
That is to say, are we in the process of deciding for
the next 22 years of Alaska's history every single
transportation project that can get built or are we
simply jumping through a federal hoop in the most
flexible and expeditious way that we can arrange? Or,
is it somewhere between those two things on the
continuum because I'm with the Chairman. Basically,
if by the end of this week we're going to close the
door for everything that's not in this big document
when then we go to the more specific arrangements as I
understand it, that will be in the STIP and we do that
in a way that I'm willing to bet that - what would you
guess? Zero members of the legislature have looked at
- five members of the legislature have looked at? I
don't know. But a relatively small number have looked
at it. I think that's going to be a problem. So if
you would just sort of let me know what it is this
2030 plan turns out to be in practice, I'd certainly
appreciate it.
3:34:06 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said the question of whether this process is just
a hoop to jump through that allows DOT&PF to open the STIP up or
whether the plan is binding is a very important one.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN repeated he would provide an answer.
CHAIR JOHANSEN also expressed concern that the Alaska Marine
Highway System is not mentioned as part of the national highway
system in the 2030 plan, although the document talks about
modernizing the national highway system. He said that could
mean the communities served by the Alaska Marine Highway system
are out of luck for 30 years. He repeated the level of
understanding of the 2030 plan and how it affects the STIP is
very low and he does not feel that is appropriate.
3:35:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN echoed Chair Johansen's concerns and
requested the commissioner do whatever he can to extend the
public comment period again. He said constituents want to be
involved in the plan and stated:
We each represent approximately 16,000 people and I
think we'd like to make sure that the people we
represent and the people who are watching us all right
now as the legislature is just convening want to be
involved in part of this. You know, when you look at
some of these, and I'm going to go from an article,
some other information that I've been trying to get,
some information, you know. We talked about revenue
flowing into Alaska and the piece of that from the
federal government. You know, how is that going to
affect the long range plan? We're talking about
borrowing money so we can pay for projects because we
can borrow money less than we can earn interest on it
if we reinvest in other areas. The impact that is
going to have on the construction of the natural gas
pipeline - you know, I mean it's [indisc.] the
appropriate state of developing our resources in
areas.
You know, we've got - there's mines, there's other
things that, you know, where does this long range plan
fit into that, particularly again in rural Alaska
where they need economic development opportunities to
do this and the development of that infrastructure
that's been lagging for years? The evaluation of the
state's transportation system - how are we going to
meet the demands into the future? I think as a
[House] Transportation Committee member, that's
extremely important to me to realize that. You know
the interplay of air and water and land transportation
- how do they all mix together? These are or should
be all part of your 30-year plan and what is the mix
on how those come together so that we do have, as you
state earlier, the maximum value of trying to get
Alaska's resources developed and do it in an
economical way.
3:37:54 PM
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN asked Chair Johansen what he considers
to be a reasonable extension.
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he would like DOT&PF to take the drop dead
date required by the federal agency and back it out from there.
He said the public needs every minute available to review the
document.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN said he will figure out that date.
3:38:37 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said he understands the plan is based on 2006
revenue projections and asked how the latest revenue projections
will affect it.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN deferred to Mr. Ottesen for the answer.
3:39:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she agrees with Chair Johansen
and committee members but can draw from personal experience in a
similar process. She cautioned the committee that when
advocating for an extended comment period, programs can get very
dysfunctional if professionals are not allowed to balance all
needs and the process is politicized by advancing specific
transportation needs in different ways. She said legislators
need to be careful. She continued:
I am advocating because I know District 17 very well,
projects inside of District 17, and depending how loud
my voice carries and meets the rest of your voices, I
may get more for my community than another community
with not as much stroke inside of the system. I have
less stroke than others because I'm a freshman and I
understand that. So I just caution us as we look at
the plan to make sure that people who have invested
quite a bit of work and understanding a balance in
different regions throughout our state, different
venues for transportation, air, ferry, road system,
that that has been taken into consideration with the
Administration's proposal.
That said, I step back and acknowledge that I believe
that we need that time for the public and going back
to something we said earlier, and in what the governor
has said too, which I doubt has been captured in a
plan that has 10 days extension on it, is again that
criteria on what we're making inside this
recommendation for federal funding versus how we're
going to allocate state dollars and the criteria we
used to put these particular projects forward, because
my experience is if you have a 20 year plan...our
federal delegation will look and say oh, well,
Unalakleet is asking for X, Y, or Z. Is it part of
the state plan? They look and they say oh yea, it's
here but it is 20 years out. So you know, I
definitely hear that we need to make sure in the
smaller communities that all the projects that need to
qualify at some point for funding in the future are
there but that's sort of my experience of what the
document does.
Again, I don't know that we fold it in together with
that, seeing that the governor has stated in her State
of the State Address different criteria for Alaskans
taking responsibility and wanting to move projects
forward sooner. I support you in your request for
additional information and just caution everyone.
Hawaii actually had Anchorage come over to try to help
them depoliticize their process and I have heard talk
through DOT and the Administration to somehow try and
find that balance and I've heard a board being thrown
around from different regions and, you know, taking
some of the politics out of it.
So I just throw that out for however you'd like to
digest it today. When you get policy makers in
charge, we are using every ounce of energy we have to
make sure our district gets its best share of the pie
and I do that with a cautionary note saying that other
people smarter than I am with engineering credentials
[and] a better statewide perspective may see other
projects that may need to go forward before I think
they need to go forward.
3:43:14 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN remarked that he somewhat agrees with
Representative Fairclough but noted if the department is going
to release reports and use words like "robust open planning,"
then those things need to happen and he does not believe they
have.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she completely supports Chair
Johansen's analysis.
COMMISSIONER VON SCHEBEN thanked the committee for the
opportunity to meet and said he hopes to get the minutes soon.
He pledged to follow up on the committee's concerns and said he
looks forward to working together in the future.
3:45:01 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN said his staff would compile the questions in the
next few days and distribute them to members for accuracy.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:45
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|