Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
01/27/2015 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Dot&pf's Statewide Facilities & Energy Savings Efforts | |
| Overview: Department of Transportation & Public Facilities - Highway Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2015
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Shelley Hughes, Co-Chair
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Dan Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: STATEWIDE FACILITIES & ENERGY SAVINGS EFFORTS
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: DOT&PF HIGHWAY PROGRAM
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID KEMP, Engineer
Statewide Facilities
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
overview of the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) Statewide Facilities & Energy Savings Efforts.
CHRISTOPHER HODGIN, Program Manager
Energy Office
Statewide Public Facilities
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
overview of the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) and on DOT&PF's Statewide Facilities Energy Savings
Efforts.
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
overview of the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) on Surface Transportation & MAP-21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SHELLEY HUGHES called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Nageak,
Claman, Ortiz, Foster, and Hughes were present at the call to
order. Representatives Millett and Stutes arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
1:08:46 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES reported that she and Co-Chair Foster and
Senator Micciche, Chair, Senate Transportation Standing
Committee are in the process of requesting the department to
provide more in-depth answers, details and clarification on some
of the major transportation projects discussed last week.
^OVERVIEW: DOT&PF's STATEWIDE FACILITIES & ENERGY SAVINGS
EFFORTS
OVERVIEW: DOT&PF's STATEWIDE FACILITIES & ENERGY SAVINGS
EFFORTS
1:10:11 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES announced that the first order of business would
be an overview of DOT&PF's Statewide Public Facilities & Energy
Savings Efforts.
1:10:22 PM
DAVID KEMP, Engineer, Statewide Facilities, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), stated that statewide facilities authority falls under
AS 35.05.010 and AS 36.30 [slide 2]. He reported that statewide
public facilities is responsible for planning, design, and
construction of the majority of new public facilities as well as
renovation of existing facilities within the State of Alaska,
except for the University of Alaska, the Alaska Court System,
and a few other agencies. The DOT&PF provides full service
project management for facility construction and renovation and
while renovations constitute the vast majority of the projects
the DOT&PF performs, the department does perform some full-
fledged projects [slide 3]. The department manages
architectural and engineering professional service agreements
and oversight of the construction of the projects including
programming, planning, site selection, cost estimating, design
management services, construction management services, art
selection, commissioning, and warranty work once the project is
completed.
1:12:03 PM
MR. KEMP reported that the DOT&PF provides project management
for most of the executive branch as well as for local
communities and tribal organizations as needed [slide 4]. He
recalled that last year Co-Chair Foster asked the DOT&PF to work
more collaboratively with local communities and tribes. For
example, the DOT&PF has been working with the City of Sitka on a
justice center, and with the Sitka Tribe of Alaska on a bus barn
and office building, and is in the process of signing a
memorandum of understanding on the bus barn project. He
anticipated that the DOT&PF will soon start managing that
project. The DOT&PF's projects range from smaller projects such
as the Sitka Pioneer Home reroof to larger ones such as the
State Library Archives and Museum in Juneau (SLAM). Mr. Hodgins
will talk later about energy retrofits; however, he emphasized
that energy efficiency is a very important component of any new
construction facility, for example, as on the new William Jack
Hernandez Sport Fish Hatchery in Anchorage. The Institute for
Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI) selected the Hernandez hatchery
as the first ever recipient of its Envision TM Gold award for
sustainability, which was awarded by the American Public Works
Association, the Harvard Graduate School, and a large number of
agencies involved in energy use in the country.
1:13:39 PM
MR. KEMP stated that the DOT&PF currently manages 155 projects,
including facility projects in various stages of completion from
initial scoping to final close out totaling approximately $658
million [slide 5].
MR. KEMP relayed that his staff includes licensed architects,
civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers, and certified
energy managers, including Mr. Hodgins. Some department staff
hold credentials in Leadership in Energy & Environment Design
(LEEDS) and the Professional Project Management Certificate
(PPMC) and other staff are paraprofessional staff [slide 6].
1:14:30 PM
MR. KEMP pointed out several projects, including renovation of
the Alaska Veterans' and Pioneers' home, which consisted of
siding and painting for a total cost of $677,550. He identified
the client agency as the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS), noting this project vastly improved the weather
tightness of the building, reduced drafts, and reduced overall
heating costs [slide 7].
MR. KEMP highlighted a large project in Juneau - the Statewide
Library Archive and Museum (SLAM), pointing out many may have
seen the big yellow crane visible outside the capitol building.
The DOT&PF has been involved in the planning and ongoing
construction of the SLAM for a total cost of approximately $138
million.
1:15:23 PM
CHRISTOPHER HODGIN, Program Manager, Energy Office, Statewide
Public Facilities, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), outlined the
statutory requirement for the energy program, which is to
perform energy efficiency improvements in at least 25 percent of
state facilities excluding legislative and court buildings by
January 1, 2010.
MR. HODGIN stated that his office performs assessment and
comprehensive energy audits, project development, life cycle
cost analysis, and facilitates different financing options. The
office manages all project execution and management, and once
completed monitor the project to ensure that the energy
efficiency goals are met.
1:16:14 PM
MR. HODGIN highlighted some of the energy efficiency results
that have achieved combined energy cost savings greater than
$2.4 million per year in electric, natural gas, heating oil and
carbon dioxide reductions [slide 11].
1:16:48 PM
MR. HODGIN pointed out energy savings performance projects have
been accomplished in over 50 state public facilities, including
projects in Nome, Coldfoot, Ketchikan, Kenai, Sitka, and Juneau.
For example, the project in Coldfoot upgraded a Department of
Public Safety (DPS) hangar building and in Sitka, the Mount
Edgecumbe High School underwent the energy savings performance
project.
1:17:19 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the energy projects are limited to
existing buildings.
MR. HODGIN agreed.
1:17:30 PM
MR. HODGIN briefly reviewed the projects in progress [slide 13].
Currently, 20 buildings are in the development phase, including
a Department of Public Safety building, a Department of
Corrections facility, and some Department of Health & Social
Services facilities in a variety of locations from St. Mary's to
Ketchikan. The total cost of the projects is $10 million
resulting in annual energy savings associated with the projects
at over $845,000. He defined energy savings performing
contracting as a method to accomplish energy efficiency
improvements that are funded by the energy savings produced by
those same improvements [slide 14]. For example, the energy
program uses new and efficient lighting technologies, high
efficiency heating systems, heat pump systems, or renewable
energy including photovoltaic systems, wind, and biomass heating
to accomplish energy efficiency. Each project is assessed to
see which technology may be applicable, he said.
1:19:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the energy program has
assessed the viability of wood pellet use.
MR. HODGIN answered yes, that viability of using biomass for
specific projects is considered; for example, the program has
considered Southeast biomass in one of its Department of
Corrections projects, assessing the cost of pellets and the
product, as well as the capabilities of the maintenance staff.
In response to a question, he answered that photovoltaic refers
to solar energy use.
1:20:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for the process agencies use to
obtain the energy program's services.
MR. HODGIN explained that the DOT&PF's Statewide Public
Facilities serves all of the executive branch agencies. Any
agency that desires an energy retrofit should contact the
DOT&PF's Statewide Public Facilities and will be referred to the
energy program. The DOT&PF energy program would then conduct a
review to determine how the building uses energy, the viability
of the infrastructure and whether any imminent failure exists,
and subsequently work with the agency to provide an investment
grade audit of the facility and develop the project.
1:21:08 PM
MR. KEMP added that the energy program originally used deferred
maintenance funds as well as $10 million in American Recovery
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) federal funding. Subsequently,
the program has used financing available through commercial
venues and other agencies.
1:21:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the program uses local
municipal deferred maintenance or state deferred maintenance
funds.
MR. KEMP answered that to date the program has been limited to
state agencies.
MR. HODGIN added that he has discussed the energy program with
municipalities to share knowledge, but not to implement projects
with various municipalities.
1:22:24 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether municipalities would be more
likely to work with the Alaska Energy Authority [AEA].
MR. HODGIN answered that public entities would be more likely to
work with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).
1:22:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled a previous presentation before
the House Special Committee on Energy on the Alaska Energy
Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (EERLF) used for energy
efficiency. He asked whether the EERLF would be one source of
funding and if so, whether the DOT&PF's energy program has
previously used the fund.
MR. HODGIN answered yes; it is one of the sources of funding.
Some state agencies have made application with the EERLF and the
DOT&PF's energy program also considers loan offers from the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC).
1:23:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the aforementioned completed
projects were done using cash flow rather than borrowing money
to make the upgrades.
MR. HODGIN explained that a little over $28 million in energy
savings performance projects have been completed to date using
deferred maintenance, the ARRA, and commercial loan funds.
1:24:15 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the process,
whether the energy program keeps a running list of proposed
upgrades or if the DOT&PF has a sense of the facilities that
need attention and encourages them to apply for energy
efficiency upgrades.
MR. HODGIN answered that his office works with the agencies to
prioritize projects and determine which ones should be done
next. For example, the DOT&PF Statewide Facilities reviewed the
department's Central Region facilities to determine which ones
to incorporate in the next round of projects.
1:25:26 PM
MR. HODGIN showed an example of the Mt. Edgecumbe High School
campus-wide energy upgrades in Sitka [slides 16-17]. The first
slide shows the results of replacing the old lighting system in
the gym with high efficiency fluorescent lights, which resulted
in reduced energy costs. He characterized upgrading lighting as
a safety issue that is also used in shops to reduce energy
costs.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK commented on the lighting since he
attended the Mt. Edgecumbe High School.
1:26:28 PM
MR. HODGIN stated the campus-wide energy upgrades at Mt.
Edgecumbe High School spanned two years. The DOT&PF worked with
the Department of Education & Early Development and Mt.
Edgecumbe High School to assess their energy and infrastructure
needs to decide which improvements would be best for the
facility. The project has been successful and resulted in fuel
savings of over 66,000 gallons of fuel oil [and $304,000]
annually with an estimated 30-year life span.
1:27:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked for further clarification on
eligibility of partially state-funded structures, such as
schools.
MR. KEMP answered, in terms of project management, that the
program has not involved school districts. He assumed that it
would be possible to expand the energy program to include
upgrades to schools.
1:28:43 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked how many public facilities are under the
purview of the department.
MR. KEMP answered that the DOT&PF Statewide Public Facilities
manages construction and renovation projects, but does not
manage any facilities. The DOT&PF's three regions manage
facilities for the department; however, those regional offices
are not under his purview.
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES -
HIGHWAY PROGRAM
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES -
HIGHWAY PROGRAM
1:29:46 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES announced that the next order of business would
be an overview of the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) - Highway Program.
1:30:51 PM
KIM RICE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated that she has been with the
department for more than three decades. She provided a brief
personal history, noting she has been a resident of the state
since 1961. She characterized the DOT&PF as being a culture for
her and not just a job. She offered to begin a PowerPoint
overview on Surface Transportation and MAP 21 [Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act].
1:31:38 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the outline on slide 2. She
summarized it as, "Who are we? Where's the money? And what are
the rules?" She said AS 19.05.125 identifies the DOT&PF's
purpose to carry out planning, construction, and maintenance and
link communities together for commerce and access [slide 3].
She stated that the department revised its mission statement a
few years ago and its mission now tends to echo the statute, to
provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods,
provide access to state services, and to open opportunities for
exploration and development of Alaska's resources [slide 4].
She identified the core values as integrity, excellence, and
respect, which are promoted by leadership within the DOT&PF
[slide 5]. Commissioner Luiken believes in these core values
since he was with the department when the core values were
developed.
1:32:57 PM
MS. RICE read, "What do the right people want more than anything
else? They want to be part of a winning team. They want to
contribute to producing visible, tangible results. They want to
feel the excitement of being involved in something that flat out
works." That quote helps describe the department's staff,
noting that they recognize how their service affects people and
access, and further, that DOT&PF's facilities make a difference
in how Alaskans live [slide 6].
1:33:45 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the organizational structure that
is laid out in true linear form [slide 7]. She serves as the
deputy commissioner overseeing the Statewide Equipment Fleet,
Statewide Facilities, Statewide Information Systems and
Services, Statewide Maintenance and Operations (M&O), the
Division of Planning/Program Development, and the Division of
Statewide Design & Engineering Services.
MS. RICE characterized the interactions between management and
staff programs as being the fabric of DOT&PF since what happens
in one part of the department affects other parts of the
department, especially with respect to policies, programs, and
information systems [slide 8].
1:34:22 PM
MS. RICE relayed that the headquarters functions pertain to
policies, procedures, and coordination. She directed attention
to the regional functions or the "work horses" of the department
since the work occurs in the regions [slide 10]. She stated
that regions conduct maintenance, design and construction,
right-of-way purchases, and acquire environmental permits. She
noted that the department consists of three regions: the Central
Region, the Northern Region, and the SouthCoast Region, with its
main offices located in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.
1:35:01 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for the historical perspective and when
the department was organized by regions. She understood that
the regional organization is somewhat unique. Although the
regional organization works well in some ways, she has also
heard from current or prior department staff that the regional
approach sometimes results in some duplication of services.
MS. RICE replied that sometime between 1977 and 1979 the state
Department of Highways and the Department of Public Works were
merged and the legislature established regions [AS 44.42].
Although the statute does not specifically identify the number
of regions, she recalled that the statute emphasized strong
regions. At the same time, public facilities, aviation, and
harbor functions also merged with the state Department of
Highways to better share resources.
1:36:44 PM
MS. RICE envisioned the concept that an airport planner and
designer could work in a community, but could simultaneously
work on a road. Certainly some duplication of services still
exists and over time the regions have tended to drift apart;
however, in the past two years the department has been working
to break down silos and improve communication.
1:37:08 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to some of the challenges the
department faces to balance its budget against needs, changing
conditions, and public expectations [slide 11]. Alaska is one
of the few states that doesn't have a state capital program for
transportation, in particular, for highways, she said. Thus,
the state is very dependent upon federal funds. Currently, the
department has $3-4 [billion] in proposed projects so the
department has not solicited proposed projects from communities
due to the backlog of projects on the "needs list." Although
major projects receive significant press, the department also
budgets about $600,000 for smaller projects, she said.
1:38:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER, recalled former Representative Peggy Wilson
[who previously was chair of the House Transportation Standing
Committee], continually pushed for a transportation fund. The
state also receives ongoing pressure from the federal government
to increase state funds to provide for its needs. He asked for
the department's general view on a transportation fund.
MS. RICE answered that she was unsure what position the current
administration has with respect to a dedicated transportation
fund; however, in reviewing other states' transportation
funding, she said most states have found it necessary to have a
working capital fund for transportation. Later in her
PowerPoint overview, members will notice that the federal
program does not cover all funding. The advantage of using the
state's general capital program is that it provides flexibility
and ease of planning, she said. In some years the department
has received its transportation funding through general
obligation bonds, in other years from the general fund, and at
times through specific funding, such as the substantial funding
the state received from the ARRA [American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009]. These fluctuations make planning
difficult, and now the new federal funding reauthorization [MAP
21] will target the National Highway System (NHS) so funding for
rural areas is more complex.
1:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN recalled Deputy Commissioner Rice
indicated that most states have a dedicated transportation fund,
but Alaska does not. He asked for further clarification on how
other states fund transportation and the source of the funds.
For example, he understood that gas taxes [motor fuel taxes] are
often the source for highway funds.
MS. RICE answered that many states use gas taxes, but the source
of funding varies. For example, Oregon has been considering an
assessment on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and Washington state
also uses sales taxes. While some states have dedicated funds,
others use general fund monies, but designate a specific amount
for transportation funding.
1:41:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK commented that projects for rural
essential needs are "few and far between" in the villages.
Although he still wants a road to his house, and he will
continue to request one, he does so because it is so important
to connect the rest of the state to the road system. Rural
Alaska need roads, he said, emphasizing the importance of
building [Roads to Resources] to allow the state to extract
minerals, enhance revenues, grow as a state, to diversify
revenues and rely less on oil and gas revenue. In addition, the
state needs to connect regions of the state instead of
concentrating on areas with existing infrastructure. He
expressed concern about the high cost of air travel between
villages or for travel to Juneau; for example, the cost to bring
legislators to Juneau or for constituents to travel to the
capital during the legislative session.
1:44:26 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER, with respect to transportation revenue, related
that the state's [motor fuel tax also known as the] gas tax is
$.08 per gallon, and with revenue from licenses and vehicle
registration is all deposited to the general fund. He asked for
any potential transportation sources of revenues other states
use that are not available to Alaska.
MS. RICE answered tolls and gas [motor fuel] taxes are sources
of revenue, which are dedicated in some states. She confirmed
that Alaska's motor fuel taxes are currently set at $.08 per
gallon.
1:45:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES emphasized that the Alaska Marine Highway
System (AMHS) functions as rural Alaska's freeway system, but it
always seems to take a back seat to the road system.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES mentioned the focus of today's meeting is an
overview of the surface transportation.
1:46:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether former Representative Peggy
Wilson's model was an investment model funded from reserves
similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund with returns funding
transportation.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the
aforementioned proposal was to amend Alaska's Constitution to
allow [dedicated] funds for transportation using some of the
revenues just mentioned.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER recalled that the aforementioned proposal
essentially would have deposited $2 billion into a
transportation infrastructure fund. He recalled that originally
a dedicated fund was in Alaska's Constitution, but he was
uncertain if it had ever been funded.
1:47:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that during territorial days Alaska
had a dedicated transportation fund but it wasn't adopted at
statehood. Since 1960, efforts have been made about every ten
years to reestablish the dedicated transportation fund.
MS. RICE agreed that a dedicated transportation fund has not
been in place since statehood, but she was unsure if one was in
effect prior to statehood.
1:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN understood that the DOT&PF's budget is
higher than revenues generated. For example, the gas tax
generates revenue that goes to the general fund and not directly
to the DOT&PF. However, since transportation costs are
significantly higher than the aforementioned revenue, the state
would still need to supplement the funds even if it had a
dedicated transportation fund.
MS. RICE said she was unsure of the figures; however, it is
likely so since Alaska has the lowest gas tax in the nation.
She offered to provide information to the committee.
1:49:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER said that given the current deficit, the
legislature will need to consider all options, including
considering what other states such as California or Montana are
doing. He asked whether the DOT&PF has compiled the information
or if the legislature will need to research it.
MS. RICE offered to either provide the information or advise the
committee if the department does not have it.
1:50:04 PM
MS. RICE, in response to Representative Nageak's earlier
comments encouraging the state investing more in infrastructure,
commented that the state must comply with increasingly complex
environmental and land issues that make it difficult for the
state to complete projects, which is illustrated by the federal
environmental requirements affecting transportation [slide 12].
1:50:47 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the National Highway System
(NHS), stating that the state has 2,345 center line miles, which
is six times the per capita average [slide 13]. The DOT&PF also
maintains 5,589 miles of roads and highways that comprise the
core highway system in Alaska, she said.
MS. RICE highlighted the state has 79 manned maintenance
stations statewide along its road corridors and at some rural
airports [slide 14]. She explained that in order for operators
to operate efficiently and be able to keep roads cleared these
maintenance stations must be a certain distance apart.
1:51:43 PM
MS. RICE highlighted some changes and efficiencies are occurring
within the DOT&PF, including that the department is currently in
the process of restructuring its computer system [slide 15].
Each region operated its own system and network, which couldn't
function as one system. The DOT&PF brought its information
systems staff together to develop one comprehensive system. In
doing so, the DOT&PF anticipates that it will save millions on
projects, be more efficient, thereby freeing up staff time. The
new system has been driven, in part, by the reauthorization of
the federal funding, which requires states to provide
significantly more data on performance, including detailed
tracking on GIS [Geographic Information Systems].
1:52:43 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether any of the 79 maintenance stations
are paired up with [Alaska State] Troopers or other state
services.
MS. RICE answered that the Chandalar station on the Dalton
Highway is one. While there may be a few more, there hasn't
been an intentional effort to pair up offices, she said.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES hoped the administration will consider
consolidating offices whenever possible.
1:53:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, returning to the challenges of federal
regulations, asked whether regulatory requirements are agreed to
with federal dollars; for example, if federal regulations will
still apply on state-funded projects funded solely with state
money.
MS. RICE answered that most federal regulations apply regardless
of the source of funding; however, the department uses a linear
process with the federally-funded process. For example,
environmental work must be done before design work can be
accomplished; however, state-funded projects still must perform
environmental assessments and a NEPA [National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969] document if the state has a wetlands permit.
She pointed out considerable wetlands exist in Alaska.
1:54:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN related his understanding that it is hard
to develop any project without having to fill or dredge some
wetlands.
MS. RICE agreed; however, lots of caveats exist. She commented
that federal regulations also apply if eagles or any endangered
species exist. A fully state-funded project is still more
efficient than using [Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)]
funds, she said.
1:55:25 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for an estimate of how much time could be
shaved off with 100 percent state-funding on projects.
MS. RICE answered that one state-funded project she is familiar
with in Anchorage is the Elmore Road between Tudor and Abbott
Road project. That project was fully state-funded and completed
in four years, although the department still had to prepare a
NEPA document since permitting and fill was necessary.
According to conversations she subsequently held with the FHWA,
the project would have taken much longer using federal funds
since the federal process would require an EIS and would have
considered all the connecting projects as a whole, including
Dowling Road, she said.
1:56:37 PM
MS. RICE continued with slide 15, noting the DOT&PF has
developed a leadership academy for the DOT&PF's maintenance
staff to assist staff in developing skills necessary when
serving the public. In fact, this program has been recognized
nationwide, she said. In addition, training for airport
operators in rural Alaska has been improved to help operators do
a better job. Other efficiencies include the use of tow plows,
and an innovative modification staff made to snow blowers at the
Chandalar Station that reduced belt changing time from 7 hours
to 1.5 hours. She commended staff's ability to incorporate
innovative strategies into the workplace.
1:58:26 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the FY 16 operating budget of
$628 million, with little federal funding [slide 16]. The
maintenance and operations (M&O) general fund authorization is
$153 million, which is a 3.9 reduction from last year.
1:59:00 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the historical funding for M&O
from FY 83 to FY 15, noting the red dots represent the general
fund budget and the blue dots the funding adjusted against the
consumer price index (CPI). She remarked how flat the line is
despite the DOT&PF's increased workload by adding runways,
aprons, or lane miles. She anticipated revenue reductions will
occur, noting 97 percent of the general fund budget is spent on
M&O so reductions in services will occur. She said the
department will do the best they can with what they have.
Although the department and legislators will receive complaints,
she pledged that DOT&PF will do its best and she will keep the
committee informed. Certainly, it is difficult to predict
service impacts due to weather. For example, this year could be
a low snow year and require less plowing, but if Alaska has
significant inclement weather, it will mean the department must
also seek supplemental funding.
2:01:51 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the
definition of lane miles. She related a scenario with a 10
mile, four-lane road and asked whether it would translate into
40 miles of center line miles.
MS. RICE answered that is exactly correct.
2:02:10 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the FY 16 Capital Budget of $1.2
[billion]. Referring to the pie chart, she reported the federal
funding for the FY 16 capital program of $1.096 [billion] as
shown in green, the state equipment fleet budget of $53
[million] including the reimbursable bond fund and M&O overhaul
funds shown in blue. The right side of slide 19 details the
federal funding by agency for a total of $1.096 [billion].
MS. RICE briefly discussed the federal capital program trends
[slide 20]. The chart identifies the SHAKWAK [Canada], ARRA
[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009], small
programs, earmarks & set asides, and core program. The DOT&PF
projects the funding for 2015 since the most current federal
funding under [MAP 21] runs through May and the Congress will
need to reauthorize the federal funding.
2:03:30 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the state capital program that
includes everything except the matching funds [slide 21]. As
previously discussed in terms of a [dedicated] fund, the purple
depicts bonds, which lends an expectation that the DOT&PF will
deliver those projects right away. Thus, it would be helpful to
have resource leveling.
2:03:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER offered his belief that the FY 13 funding was
Ports and Harbors GO Bonds.
MS. RICE replied she believed it was a combination of Ports and
Harbors GO Bonds but also GO Bonds for roads.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER asked for further clarification on the funding
in 2009.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER answered that it was ARRA funding.
2:04:28 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the DOT&PF capital construction
projects, pointing out the department does not receive the
authority the same year projects are constructed [slide 22].
Funding has been fairly even because the DOT&PF is limited by
the amount of work it can develop and generate at one time. She
said the projected FY 15 capital construction funding revised
projection is $548.5 million noting this is different than the
amount shown on the slide.
2:05:04 PM
MS. RICE explained the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) provides the
source of funding for the federal program, including highway and
transit [slide 23]. Historically, the source of most of the
funding is from the federal gas tax [, federal motor fuel excise
tax,] of $.18 per gallon, she said. The federal [motor fuel
excise] tax has not increased since 1997 or been indexed to the
cost of living. This means the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is also
short of funds, she said. In response to Co-Chair Hughes, she
agreed the $.18 is a federal [motor] fuel [excise] tax. Not
only is the tax not indexed for inflation, but people's driving
habits have changed since many younger people choose not to own
cars or drive as much, she said. Further, fuel efficiency also
impacts the federal [motor fuel excise] tax to the extent that
general funds have been appropriated to the Highway Trust Fund
(HTF) to keep it solvent. She reported that the latest bill,
MAP-21 [Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act]
funding runs through May 2015.
2:06:36 PM
MS. RICE elaborated on MAP-21 funding [slides 24-26].
Historically, the federal funding authorization bills spanned
six years, but MAP-21, which has been reauthorized once, only
covers two years. Essentially, federal funding is not keeping
up, she said. In addition, infrastructure on major highways is
aging out since most structures, including bridges are designed
for 50 years.
MS. RICE projected federal funding at $485 million. Most of the
nation believes that transportation infrastructure is built out
so MAP-21 focuses most of the funding on the main corridors.
Thus, the National Highway System (NHS) will receive
approximately 57 percent of the funding, she said. She pointed
out the definition for the NHS to the National Highway
Performance Program (NHPP), with measures, such as limiting the
number of structurally deficient bridges on the corridor or else
be subject to sanctions. Essentially, this means the federal
program would decrease the funding for other federal funding
categories as sanctions and the state would need to put more
funds in the NHS until the state met the performance standards.
2:08:15 PM
CO-CHAIR HUGHES, referring to the comment about the sense that
infrastructure in the US was built out so the federal shift is
focused on corridors. She asked whether the DOT&PF emphasized
that Alaska's infrastructure is not built out to the federal
program. She further asked whether Alaska has suffered because
of the change in philosophy and emphasis on transportation
corridors at the national level.
MS. RICE answered yes. She explained that whenever rule making
or laws change, the DOT&PF comments; however, western states
have a "small" voice. She commented that Alaska is unique since
it is the least built out of any state.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether any effort to address this is
being made by western states and to re-examine the overall
infrastructure in states west of the Mississippi River.
MS. RICE answered yes, that the DOT&PF communicates about these
issues with Alaska's Congressional Delegation. In terms of MAP-
21, Alaska is considered a "donee" state instead of a "donor"
state, which means for every $1 the state puts in it receives $5
back, which is an issue to many states. Thus some issues work
in Alaska's favor so the state must walk a "tightrope."
2:10:24 PM
MS. RICE directed attention again to the MAP-21 emphasis on the
National Highway System (NHS) [slide 27]. This means that 18
percent of road miles garner 57 percent of federal aid funding.
She pointed out other types of funding [shown on the pie
charts]. She offered to cover the categories in more detail at
a later date or to send a fact sheet.
CO-CHAIR HUGHES asked whether anyone had an interest in a more
detailed presentation and offered to inform the department if
members prefer more detail.
2:11:02 PM
MS. RICE referred to the MAP-21 allocation to the STP [Surface
Transportation Program], which can be spent [on any modes of
transportation] [slide 28]. With MAP-21 many individual
programs were removed and states needed to use the STP [Surface
Transportation Program] funding. Thus, not only was the STP
reduced, but additional requirements were added to the program,
such as adding performance measures. She offered that the STP
is DOT&PF's most flexible funding, but it is limited. She
pointed out that $15 million in funding for urban clusters,
based on census data, is designated to a special category of
communities with a population over 5,000 and under 200,000,
which includes Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan, Kodiak,
Sitka, Palmer, [and Wasilla]. She highlighted that Anchorage is
over 200,000 in population, but has [Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions] funding [slides 29-30].
2:12:54 PM
MS. RICE informed members that the Shakwak funding for the
Alaska Highway has been eliminated [slide 31]. She reported
that the Yukon [Canada] has been providing maintenance on the
Haines and Alaska Highways by agreement between Alaska and
Canada and up until now the US has allocated $30 million
annually for that purpose. In addition, the Forest Highway
Program (FHP) was eliminated. The $9 million in FHP annual
funding to build highways in national forests has been replaced
by a $7 million program on all federal lands [the Federal Lands
Access Program (FLAP)]. The FLAP program is available to any
federal agency and they all apply, she said.
2:13:35 PM
MS. RICE directed attention to the performance mandate [slide
32]. The Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) will set NHS
performance measures for pavements and bridges, safety, freight
mobility, and congestion. She recalled the FHWA had a deadline
of a year ago; however, the FHWA extended the deadline, and the
DOT&PF is currently commenting on the proposed rules.
2:14:33 PM
MS. RICE, in response whether a slide had been covered, said she
skimmed over the last slides; however, the final two slides
provide contact information and website links [slides 33-34].
2:16:17 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
[2:16] p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 27 House Transpo Overview 2015 - Final.pdf |
HTRA 1/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Jan 27 Public Facilities House Transportation FINAL.pdf |
HTRA 1/27/2015 1:00:00 PM |