Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
04/06/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Alaska Class Ferry Discussion by Jim Beedle, Deputy Commissioner of Marine Operations, Dot&pf | |
| Status of Federal Authorizations by Jeff Ottesen, Director, Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities | |
| 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
April 6, 2010
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
ALASKA CLASS FERRY DISCUSSION BY JIM BEEDLE~ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF MARINE OPERATIONS~ DOT&PF
STATUS OF FEDERAL AUTHORIZATIONS BY JEFF OTTESEN~ DIRECTOR~
DIVISION OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION &
PUBLIC FACILITIES
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM BEEDLE, Deputy Commissioner of Marine Operations
Marine Highway System (AMHS)
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint on the Alaska Class
Ferry.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of the status update on Federal Authorizations
Package.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:21 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives P.
Wilson, Munoz, Petersen, and T. Wilson were present at the call
to order. Representatives Gruenberg and Johansen arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^Alaska Class Ferry Discussion by Jim Beedle, Deputy
Commissioner of Marine Operations, DOT&PF
Alaska Class Ferry Discussion by Jim Beedle, Deputy Commissioner
of Marine Operations, DOT&PF
1:04:25 PM
JIM BEEDLE, Deputy Commissioner of Marine Operations, Marine
Highway System (AMHS), Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), stated the Alaska Class Ferry (ACF) project
started in 2006, and the AMHS has held many hearings statewide.
1:07:05 PM
MR. BEEDLE read the Project Mission Statement for the Alaska
Class Ferry [slide 1]. The AMHS's mission is to design and
construct the next generation of ferries to begin replacement of
the aging AMHS fleet. He noted that the new ferries will be
environmentally responsible, fuel efficient, and versatile. The
new ferries should enhance the AMHS operations on current and
future routes within inside waters and enable the AMHS to
continue its tradition of providing safe, reliable service. He
envisioned that most of the future transportation needs will be
provided by a day boat such as the Alaska Class Ferry (ACF).
The largest numbers of vehicles currently transported are
between the communities of Juneau to Haines and Skagway.
1:08:28 PM
MR. BEEDLE outlined the importance of replacing ferries [slide
3]. The replacement process needs to begin immediately since
all four ferries will need to be replaced. He noted that modern
safety features will be incorporated into the vessels. He
pointed out the vessels the M/V Taku, the M/V Kennicott, and the
M/V Malaspina are the ferries currently authorized for
international travel. Thus, these vessels can travel to Prince
Rupert. The remaining vessels in the fleet are not equipped to
meet the international requirements. He explained the ease in
incorporating new rules and technologies on vessels when
building a new ship rather than retrofitting an older vessel.
MR. BEEDLE discussed the DOT&PF's approach used for replacement
of the AMHS ferries [slide 4]. He explained that the process
included conducting a feasibility study, developing the concept,
and executing the preliminary design. He noted that this year's
Governor's budget request includes funding for the first vessel.
The DOT&PF is currently in the process of developing the request
for proposal (RFP), which must also be approved by the
Department of Law. Numerous shipyards have expressed interest
in the project and are following the Alaska Class Ferry (ACF)
process.
1:10:24 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether any Alaskan shipyard is capable of
building the Alaska Class Ferry (ACF).
MR. BEEDLE responded that Alaska Ship and Drydock, Inc. (ASD)
located in Ketchikan can do so and has expressed interest in the
project. He pointed out the bid process will be a competitive
bid process so the ASD must compete with other shipyards.
1:11:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what advantages an Alaskan firm would
have in the competitive bid process.
MR. BEEDLE answered that Alaska firms will not have any
advantage. The bid process is a federal process so any Alaska
preference will not apply.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether the funding for the
Alaska Class Ferry is all federal funding.
MR. BEEDLE explained the ACF project is a combination of state
and federal funding. The legislature appropriated $60 million
to the AMHS Vessel Replacement Fund. The AMHS is currently
requesting authority to spend $60 million in general fund (GF)
dollars. Additionally, the state anticipates receiving $60
million in federal funds from the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON acknowledged the state is using some GF
funds for the ACF project. She asked whether the restriction on
the bidder preference is because some federal funds will also be
used for the project.
MR. BEEDLE agreed the restrictions apply due to the federal
funds.
1:12:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled the state previously purchased
a vessel with a foreign hull and ended up having problems with
the [Merchant Marine Act of 1920] Jones Act. He further
recalled the state is currently involved in a lawsuit since some
things were not considered in the vessel design which resulted
in issues. He asked whether the AMHS is considering anything
that could go wrong with the new vessel to avoid a similar
"glitch" in this process. He would like to prevent similar
problems from occurring, he stated.
MR. BEEDLE related that he would cover the design details during
his presentation. He offered some assurances, such that the
engine is a U.S. built engine and the bow thruster and other
equipment selected are "tried and true" products currently in
use by the AMHS. He reiterated that the AMHS has picked and
specified "tried and true" equipment for the ACF project.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained he would like this project
"vetted five ways from Sunday" to be as certain as possible that
the experts have reviewed the ACF project. He asked for
assurances from the AMHS that the project is being vetted.
MR. BEEDLE related that the ACF process is a design review
process, which is a process the AMHS has previously undergone.
He related that he "sat in" on the process to bring in experts.
"There's what's called a Black Ball Shipping Company that
actually was the basic design that our Alaska Marine Highway
System was built after. We brought one of their lead masters up
to look at our design and advise us." He offered the value to
have a for profit expert to examine and provide comments on the
design. He anticipated one or more design reviews will occur.
He characterized this process as a "very, very important step to
the AMHS." The AMHS is beginning to replace the vessels that
have worked very well. He said, "We've got to get it right.
You are correct." He offered the AMHS is using people in the
private sector, with a for profit perspective to review the
proposed vessel design.
1:16:13 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether any changes were made as a result
of participation by expert consultations from the private
sector.
MR. BEEDLE stated the feedback helped, but not all of the
suggestions applied to Alaska since Lower 48 vessels may have
20- 30 minute runs while Alaska ferries typically have much long
runs. Some Lower 48 companies save money by reducing amenities
such as providing comfortable seats. The AMHS must also
consider inclement weather conditions that can affect passenger
safety and comfort, which require additional amenities. For
example, the consultant recommended the new vessels have limited
outside deck space due to the high maintenance costs to main
decks that are subject to weather.
1:18:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled that Tier III Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards must apply.
MR. BEEDLE agreed, relating that Tier III standards are the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards. He
pointed out that currently the proposed ACF vessels meet the
standards. In response to Chair P. Wilson, he offered that it
is difficult to predict what requirements will be adopted by the
EPA after the Tier III standards. Additionally, as new
standards are developed, the AMHS has a lag time for compliance
since it must often wait until the engine manufacturer builds
the parts for compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether fast ferry service is planned
for Lynn Canal once the ACF vessel is operational.
MR. BEEDLE related when the ACF is on-line that it will be the
dedicated vessel in Lynn Canal. The fast ferry will serve Sitka
and Petersburg during the summer. He added it is not likely
that the mainline ferry will offload Bellingham passengers and
shift them to the ACF to continue on to Haines and Skagway.
Thus, the Bellingham boat will still "run up the channel" since
40 percent of passengers will want to continue on to Haines. He
reported that the ACF will allow the M/V LeConte to serve the
outposts and the FVF Fairweather will serve Sitka.
1:21:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the ACF will be able to
fill in when vessels are laid up since the ACF will not have the
capacity to overnight.
MR. BEEDLE offered his belief that the biggest challenge facing
the AMHS is the M/V Columbia since it only operates during the
summer. The M/V Columbia is tied up for eight months of the
year due to high operating costs. The addition of the ACF will
allow for better use of the M/V Columbia. He noted the need for
additional ferry service since the M/V Matanuska is booked for
next two months. The first step is to build the ACF, retire one
of the "24/7" vessels and fully utilize the remaining vessels.
In further response to Representative Gruenberg, he stated the
AMHS is working on the "two ends of the system" that work well,
which are the Juneau to Haines day ferry run and the Ketchikan
to Prince Rupert ferry run. The Ketchikan to Prince Rupert run
lacks sufficient traffic demand for the larger vessel, but must
contend with "nasty weather" so the AMHS must use the larger,
more costly vessel on the run. He offered his belief that
several of the "24/7" vessels will be able to "work in the
middle" and "do the long haul" as the ACF comes on-line.
MR. BEEDLE, in response to Chair Wilson, explained that the M/V
Columbia will operate for a longer period. Instead of using the
M/V Malaspina on the Bellingham run and having the M/V Columbia
tied up at the dock, the M/V Columbia will be placed on the
Bellingham run. In further response to Chair Wilson, he stated
the AMHS plans to retire one of the ferries: the M/V Malaspina,
M/V Matanuska, or the M/V Taku. The AMHS will retain the vessel
that it determines is the least expensive and safest vessel to
run. Once the timeline for the Alaska Class Ferry (ACF) is
decided then the AMHS will assess the other vessels and make a
determination of which ferry to retire.
1:27:31 PM
MR. BEEDLE discussed the design status of the ACF [slide 5]. He
explained the rescue boats on the ACF will be placed closer to
the water for easier deployment. He stated the preliminary ACF
design documents are located on the AMHS website, including the
detailed preliminary arrangements, mid-ship sectional drawings,
and the propulsion validation study. He reviewed the vessel
profile [slide 6]. The ACF will retain the classic AMHS system
lines, including a modern wheelhouse and hull design, twin
"screws", a U.S. electromotive diesel engine with 5,000
horsepower engine. As previously mentioned, the vessel
components are also Tier III EPA compliant. The bow thruster
can shift the vessel in any direction up to six knots. Thus,
the bow thruster also can act like a "kicker."
1:29:12 PM
MR. BEEDLE outlined the current galley and food service
arrangement [slide 7]. The topside will be used for food and
drinks that do not require preparation while the inside area
will provide for hot food preparation. All of the chairs and
seating remain available for use after the food service is
closed. He described the forward observation lounge arrangement
[slide 8]. This vessel will also be compliant with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), he stated.
MR. BEEDLE explained the convenient location of elevators, which
will go right to the solarium. This ACF vessel will have four
quiet rooms, equipped with sofas to accommodate passengers with
special needs, such as those who are convalescing and must lie
down. Additionally, the quiet rooms could be used by parents
whose baby or toddler is crying, which will make travel more
comfortable for them and for other passengers. He hopes to
place sample seating at the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal for testing,
but relating the seating is comfortable. The AMHS is working
with the manufacturer on durability issues. Family washrooms
will allow families to help small children. He remarked that
people love the solariums on the current AMHS vessels so the ACF
will have a solarium equipped with restrooms [slide 9].
1:32:30 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that tents could be used in the
solarium.
MR. BEEDLE agreed. He commented that the AMHS is also working
to find a way to incorporate tent tie-downs for use on the
vessel for the Bellingham run. The ACF is built to transport 60
vehicles on the vehicle deck [slide 10]. The far right side of
the vessel deck will accommodate a row of cars with wheelchair
access.
1:34:42 PM
MR. BEEDLE explained the necessity for restrictions that apply
on the vehicle deck. People often bring birds or animals on the
ferry, many of whom are enroute to see a veterinarian. Thus,
the mezzanine deck is configured with a pet room that passengers
can access while the vessel is underway. Although pets must
stay in kennels, this access will allow people to visit their
animals. The Lead Master and Port Stewart provided significant
input in the design and public comments were also considered
when adding this feature.
1:36:58 PM
MR. BEEDLE discussed the procurement and design completion phase
[slide 11]. He explained the shipyard will assist the AMHS
during the design and construction phases to help the AMHS
reduce design risks and ultimately obtain a better vessel.
1:37:43 PM
MR. BEEDLE referred to the ACF website, which can provide more
information on the project [slide 12]. The website can be
accessed via the main AMHS website. It was developed to provide
shipyards and the public who have expressed interest in
accessing the details of the ACF project.
1:38:39 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the ACF ferries will cost less to
operate so over time the state will save GF funds.
MR. BEEDLE replied that the ACF ferry operating costs will be
$100,000 per week less than the current costs to run the M/V
Malaspina. Thus, for the 100 days that the M/V Malaspina
operates each week in Lynn Canal the state will save $100,000.
This ACF vessel will provide more service but the overall
financial picture improves since the ACF vessels will allow the
other ferries to be better used. The general fund (GF)
requirement will not immediately diminish, but the ACF will
provide significantly more service for the same cost. In
further response to Chair P. Wilson, he explained while it is
possible that the overall operating costs will be reduced
predicting the future is difficult. The current AMHS vessel
assets are 45-years old and many factors, such as the outcome
for the Juneau Access Road Project have not yet been determined.
1:43:19 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the plan included shorter runs and
connections to roads.
MR. BEEDLE agreed the plan she referenced is definitely one
option. He explained much will depend on the roads that are
built, noting that it takes three or four years to build a
vessel. Thus, it is difficult to predict the future since many
factors can affect the overall AMHS system, he stated.
1:44:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled a University of Alaska Fairbanks
(UAF) study that considers the future use of the AMHS and asked
whether shorter routes were listed in the document.
MR. BEEDLE explained the UAF study is an independent study that
reviewed the AMHS system but the study was not designed to tell
the AMHS how to operate. One issue that arose is the study
assumed the Juneau Access Road would happen. It has not yet
been built. He recalled that the UAF study removed it from its
assumptions. In further response to Representative Munoz, he
reiterated that the study assumed the road would happen and it
did not, which meant the proposed road did not fit the UAF
timeline.
1:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the draft study will address
the timeline.
MR. BEEDLE said he thought the UAF study will need to address
why it did not consider the Juneau Access Road since the project
was included in the study's initial scope.
1:47:12 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the AMHS terminal would switch to
the "end of the road" if the Juneau Access road does get built.
MR. BEEDLE explained that currently passengers have difficulty
with transportation to and from the ferry terminal. Thus, he
thought that buses would have to serve Berner's Bay before the
site could accommodate any "walk-ons." He recalled a similar
issue in Metlakatla that arose when the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers built a road. While the AMHS is building a terminal
at the site, the community of Metlakatla actually prefers the
current route, he stated. He explained that issues such as
these can arise and must be addressed.
1:49:56 PM
MR. BEEDLE, in response to Chair P. Wilson, related that the
Metlakatla ferry runs five days a week. The route change will
reduce operating costs by a third. In further response to Chair
P. Wilson, he explained that the ACF vessel would run for 300
days in Lynn Canal. The LeConte is often sold out and similar
traffic congestion also occurs in Prince William Sound. He
related that it is important to ensure more vehicle space is
available and to do so will help the economic viability of
communities.
1:52:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked about Bellingham lease and AHMS's
intention for the southern terminus of the AMHS system.
MR. BEEDLE answered recalled that an increase in funding for the
lease passed the legislature. He explained that the facility
lease in Bellingham is a 15-year lease, but contains a provision
for a 90-day "opt out" clause without any penalty. The opt-out
clause is necessary due to a timing issue. Since the AMHS
relies on the state's budget, which is approved by the
legislature, the AMHS cannot rely on guaranteed funding.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether Prince Rupert is being considered
as the southern terminus of the AMHS.
MR. BEEDLE explained that it is attempting to buy the property
at Prince Rupert, but it is difficult to finalize since it is
owned by "the Crown." He provided a brief history. In 1963,
the Prince Rupert dock was built, which has deteriorated over
the years. Although emergency repairs were performed a year
ago, a new dock will need to be built. Clearly, the AMHS cannot
"pull out" of Bellingham until the Prince Rupert dock is
rebuilt. He did not envision any other facility that is
available could be used for just one day of use per week needed
by the AMHS. He pointed out that the City of Bellingham gave
the AMHS an excellent rate on its 20-year lease, but the fees
will now increase. He remarked that the Bellingham facility is
only used 52 days a year so the costs are absorbed by the City
of Bellingham.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for the cost for dock replacement at
Prince Rupert.
MR. BEEDLE said he was unsure of the total cost for dock
replacement. He recalled Metlakatla's small facility will cost
$8 million to serve a 20-car vessel and provide a shelter.
Prince Rupert will require a dock, resurfacing of the lot,
customs infrastructure, and roughly $6 to $8 million in funding
to provide shore side facilities. In further response to Chair
P. Wilson, he offered his belief that $20 million would be a
conservative figure.
1:56:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled the some tribal organizations are
receiving federal funds for ferry service and asked whether the
AMHS worked with tribal officials.
MR. BEEDLE recalled a presentation by tribal officials on
proposed ferry service. He explained that the AMHS uses its
passenger fare receipts to provide one-third of its operating
expenses. He predicted that if a tribal organization runs a
system it will be a competing system and would reduce the AMHS's
overall revenue. He offered his belief that if any proposed
system does not connect to a main community such as Juneau or
Sitka, the ferry's costs will exceed its revenues. However, if
a new ferry system does connect to any of the major Southeast
communities, the AMHS system will be adversely affected. He
remarked that Allen Marine, Inc. currently provides good service
to some communities during the summer. He expressed concern
over future funding of a new ferry system since the federal
funding for tribal organizations will eventually disappear. He
further predicted that a tribal organization would likely need
to request future state funding since operating the ferry will
be a "losing proposition."
1:59:32 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the International-Island ferry
initially "penciled out" when fuel costs were low.
MR. BEEDLE recalled that initially the M/V Chilkat was able to
fund its operation, but it did not receive sufficient passenger
revenue to pay for vessel or dock maintenance and the Territory
of Alaska had to take eventually take it over.
1:59:58 PM
^Status of Federal Authorizations by Jeff Ottesen, Director,
Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities
Status of Federal Authorizations by Jeff Ottesen, Director,
Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be the Status of Federal Authorizations by Jeff Ottesen,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.
2:01:44 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
explained that the DOT&PF has successfully obligated all of the
2009 Stimulus Funds in the three DOT&PF categories: Highway and
Bridge, Aviation, and Transit. Alaska obligated the funds on
time, despite the tight timeframe, and was the sixth state for
the Highway and Bridge category to meet the deadline. He
remarked that all fifty states made the deadline. A DOT&PF
webpage shows the projects in the three categories. The $260
million federal funding that spanned 50 projects was
accomplished in addition to the regular DOT&PF projects. He
characterized meeting the federal stimulus requirements as an
incredible amount of work.
2:03:24 PM
MR. OTTESEN moved to update members on the 2010 Stimulus
Transportation Funding. In December 2009, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed a new "Jobs for Main Street" bill, which
was a "redo" of the 2009 bill. The bill passed with one change
which required states to award the projects within 90 days.
Thus, the timeframe was shortened while the number of things
that must be accomplished increased, he stated. The DOT&PF
identified projects that were nearly ready. The DOT&PF
published a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
amendment and began work on the list of projects. The U.S.
Senate did not take up the bill. The Senate version of the bill
was a smaller bill and did not contain stimulus projects. He
said he heard rumors of a second jobs bill being considered but
the prospect is "dimming" as time passes.
2:05:45 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether Alaska contractors were able to
keep up with the projects or if the state needed to use Lower 48
contractors.
MR. OTTESEN replied that only a handful of contractors from the
Lower 48 were able to successfully compete, largely on projects
for maritime work such as the building the Gustavus Dock. The
Lower 48 firms that perform this work are specialists who have
previously performed in Alaska. Almost all of the other work
was performed by in state contractors. He mentioned that the
process included a pattern of underbids, or bids which came in
below the estimate. This required the DOT&PF to request
additional legislative authority from the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee during the legislative interim. He related that
the DOT&PF is still not finished with the process. In instances
of underbids, the DOT&PF must release the money and has 60 days
to find an eligible project that meets the federal requirements,
has legislative authority, is contained in the STIP, and then
obligate the funds. He explained the DOT&PF will probably end
up with "blended projects" consisting of stimulus funds and
other federal funds.
2:08:02 PM
MR. OTTESEN explained that 2009 was a remarkably unusual year
due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
and since it was the last federal fiscal year of the Safety-Lu
legislation. In 2005, the Congress wrote in a rescission, which
is complicated process but essentially represented a way to
"balance the books." Basically the Congress said that it would
provide funding, but in five years would "take some of the money
back." Thus, the federal government planned to rescind some of
the funding. There were two legal interpretations of how that
would work. Alaska did not know whether it would receive $50
million or $80 million, depending on which legal interpretation
prevailed. In September 2009, the court settled. Additionally,
the FHWA did not issue the rules until September 2009 so the
state did not have "the tools to proceed." In September 2009,
the matter was settled. As it happened, the state had about 10
days to return $80 million to the federal government. He
provided background on federal funding process, explaining the
obligation and apportionment limit. By removing $80 million in
apportionment, it would not leave the state with enough to use
its obligation limit. The net result meant the state would lose
$60 million in its overall spending. However, the DOT&PF's
staff reviewed the rules and discovered an obscure rule that
applied. This reduced the loss to $15 million. Thus, the state
ultimately saved $45 million in federal funding. The Congress
ultimately passed four separate resolutions to extend the FHWA
highway funding. In March, the Congress passed the Senate Jobs
Bill, which fully funded the regular 2010 FHWA program. The
state will receive approximately $100 million more than the
DOT&PF estimated in the STIP. He speculated that overall the
state would receive $400 million in FHWA funds. However, he
cautioned that the DOT&PF must award the funding within five
months.
2:12:04 PM
MR. OTTESEN related that the DOT&PF is taking the projects
identified in December, the "Stimulus Round II projects," and
will shift them to regular STIP projects since they are "ready
to go." The CIB amendment will reflect the projects, he said.
He explained that "getting ready for stimulus" funding
ultimately helped the state receive additional funding. He
reported that this information is a tentative interpretation of
the funding since the federal government's table of notices will
be issued in another ten days. He offered his belief that his
estimate is fairly accurate and will be within a percent or two
of the actual federal funding. The end result is that Alaska
will have a "pretty healthy 2010" which is almost equal to the
2009 federal funds, including the 2009 stimulus funds. He
pointed out the possibility of additional stimulus funds, but he
thought that is unlikely.
2:13:36 PM
MR. OTTESEN, in response to Chair P. Wilson, offered a list of
2010 projects. He related that the list is contained in an
amendment to the proposed state Capital Budget. He named some
projects that are included in the bill, including Victor Road in
Anchorage, the Fairbanks FMATS, resurfacing outside Palmer
towards Glennallen, signage on the Glenn Highway, a small boat
float at Gustavus, North Douglas re-pavement, and King Cove road
work. He related that the projects were selected since they are
"ready to go" and must be obligated or the state will lose the
funds.
2:17:29 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:17
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|