Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/12/2009 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Department of Transportation Statewide Capital Projects | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 12, 2009
9:04 a.m.
9:04:56 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice-Chair
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Joe Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Jeff Ottesen, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Nancy
Slagle, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
SUMMARY
^Overview: Department of Transportation Statewide Capital
Projects
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATEWIDE CAPITAL PROJECTS
OVERVIEW
Co-Chair Stedman explained that a major issue for the
committee for the next two months will be the economic
stimulus program, with emphasis on the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF). He expected
the department to update the committee on the status of the
federal stimulus package, which had passed Congress the day
before, and the impact of the federal legislation on the
state of Alaska.
9:07:48 AM
JEFF OTTESEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
directed attention to a February 12, 2009 memo from Frank
Richards (copy on file). Mr. Richards met with U.S. DOT
Secretary LaHood to discuss the impact of the economic
stimulus package on infrastructure and state economies.
Secretary LaHood stressed that the first goal of the bill
was to rapidly create jobs. He also stressed that there can
be no shortcuts and no earmarks. Projects must follow the
law.
Mr. Ottesen reported that all states had been invited to
present one project to be recognized in the meeting;
Alaska's Dalton Highway project was one of three projects
presented. Mr. Richards was able to make individual
comments to the group about the Dalton Highway Project and
its importance to the gas pipeline.
Mr. Ottesen introduced a PowerPoint presentation, "Senate
Finance Committee 2009 Stimulus Program for Transportation:
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009" (copy on file).
Slide 2 outlines the topics the presentation would cover:
• Rules of the Funding
• How much funding is expected?
• Steps taken; steps needed
• How projects were identified and prioritized
• Anchorage and Fairbanks set-asides
• Impact to DOT&PF's work load
Mr. Ottesen reviewed Slide 3, "Why Important?":
• Putting Alaskans to work
• Reduces backlog of highway, aviation and transit
(including ferry) needs
• Repairs aging infrastructure
• Jump starts gasline infrastructure needs
Mr. Ottesen pointed out that Alaska had joined the list of
states with rising unemployment and challenges because of
the recession. While the unemployment rate nationally is
around 7 percent, the unemployment rate among construction
workers nationally is 19 percent.
Mr. Ottesen turned to Slide 4, "Rules of the Program":
• Highway funds follow FHWA [Federal Highway
Administration] rules
• Transit funds follow FTA [Federal Transit
Administration] rules
• Aviation funds follow FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration] rules
• Federal rules not relaxed
o Must be in an approved STIP [Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program] or TIP
[Transportation Improvement Plan] (not FAA)
o Must be eligible for fund category
o Must have begun as a federal project
square4 NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] (1-
2 years)
square4 ROW [Right of Way] certification
square4 Permits from all relevant authorities
o Give emphasis to economically distressed regions
Mr. Ottesen emphasized that existing rules must be closely
adhered to. The program must be in a STIP that has
undergone a public process of comment and approval by two
federal agencies, FHWA and FTA. The program must be
eligible for the funding category; schools, fire stations,
and power lines are not eligible for transportation
funding. The program must have begun as a federal program.
The federal process can take two to seven years before a
program is ready to bid. The first deadline for the
stimulus money is six months, so there is not enough time
to start new projects. Therefore, the projects that will be
appropriate in Alaska are those that are already well along
the way in terms of development and design.
9:13:55 AM
Mr. Ottesen pointed out that the House version of the
stimulus bill required emphasis on economically distressed
areas, defined on Slide 5, "Economically Distressed":
• H.R. 1 encourages projects in economically distressed
areas
• 42 USC 3161 defines
• Unemployment rate > rate + 1%
• All areas of Alaska meet this definition, except
Boroughs at:
o North Slope
o Fairbanks
o Anchorage
o Juneau
o Sitka
o Ketchikan
Mr. Ottesen discussed the data on Slide 6, "DOL
Unemployment Data," that is a graphic of a map of Alaska,
which depicts unemployment rates by region based on
Department of Labor statistics.
9:15:20 AM
Mr. Ottesen emphasized that another important part of the
stimulus bill is that Congress wants the money used
quickly. The department has been operating under the
assumption that the act would pass by the middle of
February, which would necessitate obligating funds by the
middle of May. He emphasized the shortness of the timeline,
particularly when a STIP amendment alone can take 90 days.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the definition of STIP for the
public. Mr. Ottesen defined STIP as a document representing
a spending plan required for federal highway and
transportation funding. The document has to be amended
periodically. The acronym stands for "Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program Co-Chair Stedman added
that the STIP document was used by the finance committee
when working with DOT/PF to allocate projects across the
state with input from the communities and the department's
ranking system.
9:17:36 AM
Mr. Ottesen continued with Slide 7 "Use or Lose Provision":
• Congress demands fast use of funds
• Use 50% of funds in 90 days (HR 1)
o AMATS [Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Study] and FMATS [Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study] to use in 75 days
• Funds not used will go to states who can use
• This means:
o Must use > 50% by ~May 15
o Be ready to obligate further to capture funds
other states lose
Mr. Ottesen reported that the two Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) in the state (Anchorage and Fairbanks),
also receive sub-allocations of the funding. They were
under a 75-day deadline in the House bill. The deadline has
been changed for every entity to 180 days. However, under
that comparatively relaxed schedule, by approximately the
middle of August, the funds not used by any state will be
redistributed to other states. This is not an unusual
procedure. While most states are ready to go with stimulus
packages, some states are not.
Mr. Ottesen directed attention to Slide 8, "Maintenance of
Effort":
• 30 days from enactment: Governor to certify the state
will maintain state funding scheduled for highways
• Cannot supplant stimulus funds for state funds to
transportation
• Certification must extend to Sep 2010 (SFY 09 SFY11)
• Non-certification will trigger loss of funds entirely
Mr. Ottesen opined that the certification would be
difficult for a governor to have to make.
9:20:14 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked what the certification consisted of.
Mr. Ottesen answered that certification is not clear and
expected firmer guidelines. Co-Chair Stedman asked what
would be certified. Mr. Ottesen responded that it was
essentially a certification that the state will not stop
transportation funding from other sources because of the
stimulus funds. Alaska does not have a dedicated
transportation fund. He thought it was hard to imagine that
the governor could certify a proposed budget that has not
yet gone through the legislative process. Co-Chair Stedman
asked if language had been changed from an earlier version
of the bill that would allow legislators to make
certification if the governor did not within a certain
timeframe. Mr. Ottesen responded that the language was
designed for states where governors were unwilling to
accept stimulus money.
9:22:27 AM
Senator Huggins asked about local governments' ability to
certify. He asked if one interpretation could be that the
STIP would lose flexibility. Mr. Ottesen thought that
intent of the certification was preventing the state from
using stimulus dollars to replace state funding.
Senator Thomas agreed with the interpretation. He asked if
the department is stepping back five or six years for
projects that were going to be bid anyway. Mr. Ottesen
answered that they had asked regional directors what could
be delivered in the earlier, 90-day, and later timelines.
The House version gave 18 months for the second half of the
money to be used, but the Senate and final version adopted
in Conference Committee provides only 12 months for the
second half of the money. The states gained some time on
the fast deadline and lost some time on the slower
deadline. The list of potential projects has been carefully
vetted.
9:25:46 AM
Senator Huggins referred to the special session when DOT/PF
was asking for allocations for projects the legislature had
declined. In retrospect, he noted the wisdom of not funding
the projects that are now eligible for stimulus funds. Mr.
Ottesen agreed.
9:26:34 AM
Mr. Ottesen informed the committee that around $46 billion
in the final version of the federal stimulus bill is for
transportation. He thought Alaska would receive less than
$300 million.
Mr. Ottesen pointed to a handout titled, "How Much
Highway/Transit Funding?",(copy on file) that compares the
break-down of possible transportation funds to the state,
based on Senate S.A. 570 to H.R. 1, updated to conference
committee action on February 11, 2009.
• Hwy & bridges $132.4 million
o AMATS Hwy Share $20.95 M
o FMATS Hwy Share $4.87 M
o CMAQ Share $6.62 M
[Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality]
o State/non-MPO Hwy Share $99.98 M
• Transit $35.0 Million
o AMATS Share $27.0 M
o Buses and related $8.0 M
o Ferries and trains --
• Use it or Lose it Rule 6 months; 12 months
Mr. Ottesen summarized that after the AMATS, FMATS, and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) shares, there
will be approximately $100 million for the state. He added
that the transit funding is about half of what the
department expected. Most significantly, the ferry category
was not included in the Senate version of the stimulus
package.
9:29:24 AM
Senator Elton wondered what restrictions were on the state.
He asked if money for ferries could be part of a highway
budget. Mr. Ottesen answered that highway dollars are
eligible for ferries as well.
Mr. Ottesen expanded on the "Use it or Lose it Rule." The
first half of the rule is now six months rather than three
months, but the second half of the rule is twelve months
rather than eighteen. This means that if the state relaxes
the pace, none of the work would be undertaken in 2009. He
emphasized the need to move very quickly in order to put
Alaskans to work this summer. He commented that the
deadlines do not work for Alaska and urged operating by the
90-day rule.
Senator Thomas asked about the FMAT share. Mr. Ottesen
replied that the two MPOs are technically distinct. He
thought the FMAT would have to compete with the larger pool
of funding. Senator Thomas clarified that the category
specifically funded were larger municipalities. Mr. Ottesen
responded in the affirmative.
9:33:03 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for further description of the
AMAT's geographical boundary. Mr. Ottesen explained that
the AMAT geographical boundary does not include Girdwood,
all of Eagle River or up the Chugach range even though the
areas are part of the Anchorage municipality. The AMAT is a
subset of Anchorage with dense subdivisions and road
networks.
Mr. Ottesen continued with page two of the handout:
How Much Aviation Funding?
• Aviation (7.7% typical share) Up to $84.7 M
o FAA determines how much $ and
priorities to state
• Rural Aviation Program
o Number of Possible Projects: 27
o Dollar value of Possible Projects: $271.3 M
• International Aviation Program
o Number of Possible Projects: 12
o Dollar value of Possible Projects: $104.7 M
• Use or Lose Rule: 6 months; 12 months
Mr. Ottesen pointed out that that it is more difficult to
determine how much aviation money the state would receive
because the decision rests with the FAA. Historically,
Alaska has garnered about 7.7 percent of the federal
aviation money, which would be roughly $85 million;
however, FAA has made it clear that they would decide the
projects funded and the extent of the funding. The
department has submitted the list of aviation projects that
are ready to FAA, but he could not say with certainty the
amount the state would receive.
9:35:00 AM
Mr. Ottesen explained what the DOT/PF has done to be ready
for the stimulus money, referring to Slide 12, "Steps Taken
Already":
• DOT&PF has been proactive
o Identified universe of eligible projects that can
meet criteria
o Prioritized the list
o STIP amendment (#18) released
o Authorized work needed to get projects bid ready
(bi-weekly meetings)
o Prepared supplemental budget request
Mr. Ottesen assured the committee that the department has
been working steadily to be ready. Contracts were adjusted
to include the language necessary. Some of the projects in
the STIP that already have legislative authority will go
out to bid the day the bill is signed.
Mr. Ottesen turned to Slide 13, and listed "Further Steps
Needed":
• Complete designs, permits and other clearances on fast
list projects by April (all modes)
• Highway and Transit Funding
o Take public comments on fast list STIP amendment
#18; the final
o Seek FTA and FHWA approval of STIP
o Issue Federal Aid Agreements on fast list
projects
o Issue bid advertisements on fast list
• Aviation Funding: advised FAA of our list
9:39:24 AM
Senator Huggins asked about further steps needed. He
inquired if DOT/PF is task organizing to be certain to meet
the deadlines.
Mr. Ottesen replied, "absolutely. The department created a
logo as a communication device so that each project will be
marked as a stimulus project in order to receive immediate
attention and priority over the department's many other
projects.
Mr. Ottesen discussed Slide 14, "How were Projects
Selected?":
• Know the rules
• Eligibility
• Rapid Timing expected
• Economic distress criteria
• Mandatory set asides in law
• STIP, NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of
1969), permits not waived
• A small list of eligible projects met the criteria
• No NEPA, no ROW (right of way) purchase, and no long-
lead projects could be considered
• Success requires laser-like focus on above
• Aviation: FAA decides projects to fund
Mr. Ottesen emphasized that the department chose to focus
on the list of projects that strictly met the above
criteria in order to be ready to obtain the stimulus funds.
9:42:53 AM
Senator Elton asked for more discussion on how the projects
were selected. Specifically, the economic distress criteria
and how regional concerns were considered. Mr. Ottesen
answered that the state received an adequate share of
stimulus funds to address many projects that ended up on
their list. He reiterated that strict adherence to the
rules and criteria guided the selection process. Mr.
Ottesen emphasized that the projects that did not make the
stimulus list will be in the STIP in 2010 or 2011.
9:45:08 AM
Senator Elton wondered how the department balanced the
economic distress criteria and achieving an equitable
geographic spread of the projects throughout the state. Mr.
Ottesen replied that the economic distress criteria were
not rigid. There was not a prescription or formula in the
legislation. Under the department's discretion, two thirds
of the projects on the list were located in economically
distressed areas. He felt the team did a good job of
spreading the projects around the state.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what input the legislature has in
crafting the STIP. Mr. Ottesen responded that in a normal
process, the department begins months ahead of a capital
budget to work with legislators. In the stimulus situation,
the process is significantly accelerated dictated by the
rules of the legislation. The legislature must recognize
that the dollars will leave the state if the focus strays
to projects that are not ready.
9:48:39 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if legislative authority was
required for implementation of the stimulus projects.
Mr. Ottesen answered that the projects going forward after
the legislation is signed have already received legislative
approval. He exemplified the Gustavus Dock Project that has
leveraged other sources of funding, including some from the
National Park Service. This money has to be used before
March. The stimulus bill gave the state the last bit of
money needed to complete the project or the Park Service
money would be lost. The project has been on the STIP and
has legislative approval.
9:51:15 AM
Senator Elton appreciated the timelines the department is
working under. He expressed frustration regarding the
project list DOT/PF put forward. He wanted to know what
projects were also shovel ready but not placed on the list.
Senator Thomas noted that the economically distressed
qualifiers are not seasonally adjusted. He thought most
areas not listed as economically distressed fall within one
percent of qualifying. He asked if the department would
take a second look and questioned if it was a fair
analysis.
9:54:16 AM
Mr. Ottesen felt that there was not enough time to re-
evaluate the economically distressed criteria considering
the pressing time constraints of the legislation. Senator
Thomas suggested DOT examine the reality of the current
unemployment situation by reviewing seasonally adjusted
unemployment figures. The data should be relatively easy to
acquire. Mr. Ottesen agreed to look at that.
Co-Chair Stedman inquired about the funding of a
replacement ferry for access to the Ketchikan airport.
There is a January 2010 deadline for Coast Guard
certification of the vessel. Mr. Ottesen stated he was
aware of the deadline and urgency of the ferry replacement
and assured the committee there would be due consideration
of the project. He thought the ferry would have to be
funded out of the highway portion of the stimulus bill.
Senator Elton expressed concern about a project that has
never gotten bond money or general fund dollars, but is
considered shovel ready and placed on the list.
Mr. Ottesen replied that most of DOT/PF project's design
and environmental work are funded through the federal
program. They are placed on the STIP as a design start that
authorizes the design funding. He stated that is the normal
process from year to year.
9:58:47 AM
Mr. Ottesen spoke to the list of projects that the
legislature has not seen. It is a very short list, five or
six at most.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the Gravina access ferry was on
the list.
Mr. Ottesen explained that the Gravina access is undergoing
a fresh environmental review, which is not expected to be
complete until next summer. He stated that this is an
example where the process timeline is longer than the
deadlines in the stimulus bill.
Mr. Ottesen described Slide 15, "Stimulus Funds
Prerequisite" with a graph showing that the federal
timeline for a project typically takes seven years from the
design and environmental stages through the construction
stage.
10:00:39 AM
Mr. Ottesen turned the attention to Slide 16, "Criteria to
Prioritize (Highways)":
• Mandatory set-asides
• Governor's Gasline readiness announced projects
• Safety
• Economic Distress criterion
• Leverage other dollars
• Jobs created in 2009 season
• (FAA decides for Aviation Funds)
Mr. Ottesen said that these were the internal guidelines
the department used to create the project list. Projects
that met most criteria were likely to be on the list. The
department did not use a scoring method. He reminded the
committee that the FAA solely decides the uses for aviation
funds.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES, pointed out that on the aviation side the state
was able to provide a project list to FAA and have been in
discussions with them during the process.
10:02:55 AM
Senator Elton inquired about state and community owned
airports that have shovel ready projects and their access
to stimulus funds. Ms. Slagle replied that DOT has been
working closely with the FAA in continual discussions and
submitted a list for their consideration. Safety is the
FAA's top priority and that guides their viewpoint of where
the discretionary funds should be directed. Senator Elton
asked if this meant that he should be in touch with his
constituents regarding the Juneau airport. Ms. Slagle
answered that the Juneau airport is not a state airport,
and she was not knowledgeable of their funding process.
10:05:40 AM
Mr. Ottesen stated that the FAA deals with independent
airport owners separately.
Senator Olsen asked if Alaska's independent airports must
advocate alone with the FAA on their behalf without state
assistance. Mr. Ottesen replied that the state only
participates if it is part of a matching fund project. He
opined that the airport managers like their independence.
Senator Olson was attempting to understand about community
and non state owned airports gaining access to stimulus
funds without state assistance. Mr. Ottesen relayed that in
his experience independent airports have a well developed
relationship with the FAA and a history of strong advocacy
for their needs.
Co-Chair Stedman asked to back up to slide 16 "Criteria to
Prioritize (Highways)" and inquired why safety and economic
distress weren't ranked first and second on the list. Mr.
Ottesen answered that mandatory set-asides are a given. The
Governor had created a priority for gas line readiness.
Projects identified to support construction of the gas line
can not wait until a year or two before start up. Safety is
still considered an important priority such as replacement
of a defective bridge or new intersection design to
minimize accidents.
10:09:18 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that there is no assurance that
a gas line will be constructed. There is not a project in
development at this time. He wanted to be sure all of the
states needs are considered. Mr. Ottesen stated that two
of the projects identified as gas line readiness are parts
of the Dalton Highway. The two Dalton Highway projects are
important for current oil production as well as future oil
or gas line production.
Senator Huggins asked about railroads. He understood that
this was also an important system to be integrated into the
gas pipeline project and so far it has not been discussed.
He wondered who was coordinating the systems integration.
Mr. Ottesen stated that the Alaska Railroad is eligible for
transit funds. He relayed that the department had been
meeting with the railroad board and staff to identify a
list of projects that could be done jointly. The list
includes gas line projects and other resource development
opportunities as well. There has not been enough time to
finish the effort. Senator Huggins opined that he would
like to see a robust use of the railroad for gas line
development.
Mr. Ottesen continued with Slide 17, "Fairbanks and
Anchorage":
• The two MPOs(Metropolitan Planning Organization),
AMATS and FMATS will select projects in their
boundaries
• Same rules apply
• Each MPO amending their TIP to show stimulus projects
• Focus, must be to projects that are soon bid-ready
• $72.0 M sub-allocated to two MPOs (transit and
highways in HR 1)
Mr. Ottesen reviewed Slide 18, "Why did DOT look to
Existing Projects?":
• Congressional rules quickly focused the universe of
relevant projects to a very small list
• Already federally started
• Meet eligibility rules
• Many steps previously completed
• Fast track: can be obligated in 90 days
• Few projects meet this goal
• Existing projects have strong support
• Prior community and/or legislative actions
Mr. Ottesen stressed that existing projects were chosen
because they are ready to meet the strict rules and
timelines the federal legislation imposed.
Mr. Ottesen moved to Slide 19, "Summary of Work Funded HR
• 272 center line miles of roads resurfaced (+18 miles
trails)
• 16 bridges replaced or repaired
– 5 local class bridges
• 2 new ferries (partial)
• Ferry rehabilitation & two terminals
• Safety: passing lanes, lighting, roundabout
• Buses/vans in 8 communities
• Airports: 2 Internationals + up to 18 other
(possible)
Mr. Ottesen noted that this slide represents work done on
the House version, which is now obsolete. The Senate
version significantly decreased funding amounts.
10:17:01 AM
Co-Chair Stedman inquired about the FY 2010 capital budget
that is in draft form and how integrated the FY 2010
capital budget is with the stimulus projects. He wondered
if the FY 2010 capital budget would be modified to
accomplish these goals. Ms. Slagle reported that amendments
would be submitted to remove projects from the capital
budget included in the stimulus project.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if projects would then be added to
the capital budget to facilitate DOT's overall objectives
reflected in the House version. Ms. Slagle answered that
there would be projects moving up into the FY 2010 program
that would be added to the capital budget.
10:19:35 AM
Senator Elton asked for information on Indian Reservation
Road Funds. He asked the department to discuss how those
specifically designated dollars can be used and integrated
as part of the stimulus package. He believed that it was a
very complex topic and suggested the department can reply
in writing. Mr. Ottesen agreed that the topic was complex.
He did note that $40 million per year in Indian Reservation
Road money is appropriated to Alaska's indigenous people.
The stimulus portion is estimated to also total $40
million.
Mr. Ottesen continued with Slide 20, "Slow List":
• Q. Could projects be added and make the due date for
the slow list?
• A. No.
• Federal aid projects take 2-7 years
• Even slow list projects must be in capital budget this
year
• Jul 2010 (SFY '11) is too late to obligate slow
funding under senate goal of Feb. 2010
• Only practical slow projects are those still well
along in a current design effort.
10:22:30 AM
Mr. Ottesen spoke to Slide 21, "New Projects Are Helped
Too":
• Q. How can new projects benefit from Stimulus?
• A. Every Stimulus project accomplishes work that would
have been priority for 2010 STIP or AIP funds
• HR 1: More than a typical year's worth of Highway and
Aviation construction is being funded, opening up room
for the next generation of projects
Mr. Ottesen stated that all projects benefit from the
stimulus legislation. Projects not chosen for stimulus will
advance on the STIP list much faster.
Mr. Ottesen addressed Slide 22, "Adding Other Projects":
• It's understood communities want other projects
considered
• But the rules are tight and fixed in law
• Success means we focus limited resources on what can
proceed
• Time and resources diverted will harm outcome
Mr. Ottesen reminded the committee that if projects have
not gone through the federal and NEPA processes it is too
late to backup and go through those steps and be eligible
for stimulus funds.
10:24:01 AM
Mr. Ottesen spoke to Slide 23, "Sub-Allocation":
• Q. Can DOT&PF sub-allocate to communities and let them
proceed?
• A. No. DOT&PF remains responsible and the federal
rules (Highways and Aviation) are too complex for this
to successfully occur.
• FHWA
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/qandas.htm
• AMATS and FMATS projects mostly undertaken by DOT&PF
• MPOs select projects; DOT&PF executes
Mr. Ottesen elaborated that if a community undertakes a
highway project with state or local funds and does not
adhere to the strict federal rules they become ineligible
for any federal reimbursement. Local projects done by local
governments are successful when done jointly with DOT/PF.
Mr. Ottesen discussed Slide 24, "Why Two STIPs underway?":
• 2009 STIP year must be amended for Stimulus projects
o Draft amendment to 2009 out now
• 2010 2013 STIP document requires a new effort:
o Project nominations and scoring occurring now
o Draft then Final STIP covering 4 years (May to
August)
• Both efforts are legally required and both must be
started at this time
Mr. Ottesen explained that the department is reviewing all
projects on the 2010-2013 STIP; some have been on the list
for 13 years. They are re-evaluating communities'
priorities for projects and re-scoring older projects. Mr.
Ottesen emphasized that once a federal project is started,
it must be finished or the funds must be paid back. The
department cannot reevaluate projects that have already
begun.
10:27:10 AM
Co-Chair Stedman interjected that the Gravina Access
project fits that description. Mr. Ottesen agreed that
could cost the state $50 million to pay back if not
completed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for clarification of the scoring
process. He wondered who did the scoring.
Mr. Ottesen replied that via regulation six people sit on
the Project Evaluation Board. The six members are: Frank
Richards, Deputy Commissioner, Highways & Public
Facilities, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, Roger Healy, Director/Chief Engineer, Division
of Design & Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Mr. Ottesen and three
regional directors. Scoring can take several arduous days
and is open to the public. The region representatives are
strong advocates of their projects with strong
presentations. The Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities' scoring criteria have gone through several
years of revision. The department recently was given high
marks for their well developed criteria and open process in
a country wide evaluation of scoring practices. The board
strives to evaluate large and small communities fairly.
Senator Elton cited Slide 22, "Adding Other Projects". He
felt the department seemed to be saying local communities
cannot do projects but larger communities can. He defended
small communities and their professionals' ability to
develop shovel-ready projects. He maintained they can be
ready and part of the stimulus package. He did not like the
idea of sticking with DOT's list that excludes local
projects that are shovel ready.
10:33:18 AM
Mr. Ottesen explained that the distinction is the people
working with the FMAT and AMAT process know they are
working with federal money. Those professionals are
accustomed to it; they know the regulations and what makes
them eligible for federal money. Consequently, MPO projects
are immediately eligible for stimulus money. He reasoned
that no matter how well a non-MPO community executes
projects, they are typically using state and local money to
avoid the federal process. Those projects cannot be made
ready in time under the federal guidelines. He summarized
that stimulus money comes with federal strings and local
projects are being done without federal strings.
Senator Elton inquired if this was a similar situation with
local airports that are not state owned. Mr. Ottesen
replied that airports typically work with the FAA whether
state or locally owned. They are all accustomed to working
with the federal agency and federal process. He furthered
that on a local level more and more road work is being
completed with non-federal money. The pace of federal
highway projects move so slowly that communities choose to
find other funds. Those are the communities that are at a
disadvantage when it comes to stimulus funds.
Senator Elton referred to community transit projects using
federal dollars. He concluded that local communities are
accustomed to using some federal funds and transit is an
example. Mr. Ottesen agreed.
10:36:43 AM
Co-Chair Stedman inquired about the status of the bond
package the legislature approved last year and asked how
DOT/PF planned on dealing with those projects. Ms. Slagle
answered that the department is going forward with the bond
projects. The Department of Revenue anticipates selling
enough bonds to cover the first years cash flow
projections. He observed that DOT identified what the cash
flow needs are for the next three years.
Co-Chair Stedman asked the department to provide detail on
how the bond projects integrate with the capital budget and
stimulus projects. The committee needs to examine the
entire picture.
10:38:56 AM
Mr. Ottesen spoke to the last slide 25, "Impact on DOT's
Workload (All Modes)":
• By May: Must obligate > $240 M in stimulus projects
• June Aug '09: Must obligate > $450 M in regular
federal-aid
• Oct Aug '10: Must obligate $650 M in regular
federal-aid + stimulus
• Bottom line: >50% increase in workload for next 18
months!
• Work is now occurring on a sprint-like pace
Mr. Ottesen emphasized that the department's staff has
worked many hours overtime to complete the STIP.
10:40:16 AM
Senator Huggins asked if the administration has made
accommodations to DOT in regards to the hiring freeze. Ms.
Slagle voiced that the department has been submitting
waivers for positions related to the federal programs, such
as engineering positions. Senator Huggins asked how many
waivers have been approved. Ms. Slagle explained that the
department received a blanket exemption to bring back
seasonal construction positions in layoff or leave without
pay and was also granted waivers for three other positions.
Co-Chair Stedman asked which percentage of the projects
would need legislative approval. Mr. Ottesen estimated that
all but three or four would need partial or full approval
through a supplemental.
10:43:54 AM
Ms. Slagle informed the committee that the DOT web page has
information on the economic stimulus projects and links to
other federal transportation programs.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the road to Nome proposal will
appear in a future STIP. Mr. Ottesen replied that it is
premature to predict. The project is undergoing a pre-NEPA
level study.
Senator Olson inquired about the Gamble evacuation road
that has been on the STIP for many years. He asked if it is
eligible for stimulus funds. Mr. Ottesen said the
department will determine if it is eligible for the slow
list under the new deadline.
10:46:06 AM
Senator Elton stated his appreciation for the work of the
DOT/PF staff. He was glad the process was open and
transparent. He requested that Juneau be notified when the
scoring process was taking place so they can send
representatives. Mr. Ottesen said the scoring would take
place in Juneau before the session is over.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOT Needs List Notice Feb 2 2009.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| DOT Response Mar 3 2009.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Senate FinanceTransportation Stimulus.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| STIP_Amdt_18_Extract.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| FR Wash DC Trip.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Stimulus Funding Update to Conf Comm.ppt |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Stedman 2.20.09.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |
|
| Stimulus project lists 2.22.09.pdf |
SFIN 2/12/2009 9:00:00 AM |