Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/11/2014 01:00 PM Senate TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities: Faa/airport Funding Policy Impacts by John Binder Deputy Commissioner | |
| Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities: Map-21 Funding Policy Impacts by Jeff Ottesen, Program Development Director | |
| Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities: Stip Procedures by Jeff Ottesen, Program Development Director | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2014
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Doug Isaacson, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Dennis Egan, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Anna Fairclough
Senator Click Bishop
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Representative Craig Johnson
SENATE TRANSPORTATION
Senator Hollis French
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities FAA/Airport Funding Policy Impacts by John Binder,
Deputy Commissioner
- HEARD
Presentation by Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: MAP-21 Funding Policy Impacts & STIP Procedures by
Jeff Ottesen, Program Development Director
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT KEMP, Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities presentation.
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) and the Airport Project Evaluation Board (APEB) overview.
ROGER MAGGARD, Rural System Airport Development Manager
Statewide Aviation
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Anchorage, Alaska.
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the DOT&PF's
Airport Improvement Program and the Airport Project Evaluation
Board overview.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities discussion of Airport
Improvement Program and the Airport Project Evaluation Board.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:26 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Transportation Standing Committees to order at 1:03 p.m.
Representatives Gattis, P. Wilson and Senators Dyson,
Fairclough, Bishop and Egan were present at the call to order.
Representatives Feige, Kreiss-Tomkins, Isaacson, and Lynn
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
1:04:27 PM
^Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: FAA/Airport Funding Policy Impacts by John Binder
Deputy Commissioner
Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: FAA/Airport Funding Policy Impacts by John Binder
Deputy Commissioner
1:05:11 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be a Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: FAA/Airport Funding Policy Impacts by John Binder,
Deputy Commissioner; Map-21 Funding Policy Impacts & STIP
Procedures by Jeff Ottesen, Program Development Director
1:05:19 PM
PAT KEMP, Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), introduced himself and indicated Mr. Binder
would present the Airport Improvement Program and the Airport
Project Evaluation Board Overview.
1:06:11 PM
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), reviewed the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) [slide 2]. This program provides federal funding
to both international airports and the rural airport system. He
reported that typically, funding for the AIP receipts average
about $210 million per year; however, last year funding was
reduced to $187.3 million. The federal funding for cargo
entitlements at $14.9 million is based on the amount of cargo
being transported. The primary passenger entitlements are
earned by airports with more than 10,000 passenger enplanements,
including Fairbanks and Anchorage International airports and the
17 primary certificated airports in the rural system. The non-
primary passenger entitlements is funding for airports with less
than 10,000 passenger threshold. The state apportionment is a
formula based on land area and population and Alaska's
apportionment tends to be constant at $21 million per year. The
Alaska supplemental budget appropriation averages approximately
$21 million. Lastly, discretionary funding was $87.3 million
and consists of the reminder of the $3.2 billion, which is
divided between the states based on priority projects.
1:08:46 PM
MR. BINDER reviewed the comparison in AIP Funding from fiscal
year (FY) 11 to FY 13 [slide 3]. The current authorization bill
fully funded the AIP. He hoped that this will mean the state
will be back up to $200-210 million funding level.
1:09:21 PM
MR. BINDER provided a brief overview on the Airport Project
Evaluation Board (APEB) process [slide 4]. He stated that the
board membership is comprised of himself, as Deputy
Commissioner, three regional directors, the Maintenance &
Operations Chief, and Jeff Ottesen, Director, Program
Development, DOT&PF.
1:10:17 PM
MR. BINDER stated that the board meets as required and performs
a scoring process. Before projects come before the APEB they
are first placed on a needs list developed by the respective
regions. The directors identify the highest needs list and the
planning teams present the project nominations to the board for
project scoring. A variety of criteria are used for scoring
airport projects, which are broken into pavement, building, or
other projects. The APEB uses a separate criterion, although
some lesser projects are not scored. The projects undergo a
regular review and the planning team develops the spending plan
based on anticipated federal and state capital funding and
overall priorities. Spending plans are constantly under review
as the funding changes or priorities shift, for example, due to
natural disasters, the governor's priorities, or legislative
priorities. The department tries to keep it as stable as
possible.
1:11:40 PM
CHAIR EGAN referred to Alaska supplemental budget. He asked for
clarification on the significance of the 1980 figure.
ROGER MAGGARD, Rural System Airport Development Manager,
Statewide Aviation, stated that the 1980 amount was established
by federal statute by Senator Stevens. The figure is constant
and is defined in the U.S. Code (USC) as a given amount at
approximately $21 million. This federal funding comes directly
to the Federal Aviation Administration and is used for all
airports in Alaska, except for the AIAS.
1:13:27 PM
CHAIR EGAN related his understanding that the municipal airports
like Juneau and Kenai are not part of the scoring process.
MR. MAGGARD answered yes; that the Juneau and Kenai airports
negotiate directly with the FAA and are not part of the DOT&PF's
scoring system.
1:14:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the state would receive less
funding if the amount wasn't in federal statutes.
MR. MAGGARD answered yes; that it is very likely the Alaska
portion of the federal funding would be less without the federal
statute.
1:14:48 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked for more detail on project scoring.
MR. BINDER explained that the airport projects consist of 16
criteria, with some items weighted higher than others such as
airport safety. Additionally, other highly weighted items
include the maintenance and operations (M&O) and certifications
to meet FAA. The department includes criteria such as health
and quality to the community, economic benefits, community
support, funding, any alternative transportation modes, and the
surface condition to help determine project priorities.
1:16:14 PM
CHAIR EGAN pointed out slide uses 16 criteria for airports, but
only 8 for buildings.
MR. BINDER explained that some criteria don't necessarily apply.
The building criteria, includes items such as the current
structure's safety, whether the structure is an existing
structure, conditions, weather impacts, and difficulty to
acquire land, if necessary.
1:17:07 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked whether a snow removal equipment facility may
not be scored as high as the runway itself.
MR. BINDER suggested that the facility may not be a lesser
value, but different criteria would be used to score the
facility.
1:17:52 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH referred to airports not included in the
formula vying for federal dollars and asked whether a threshold
makes that happen and the reasons that the current program is
limited.
MR. BINDER answered that dollar values are not used to determine
whether the airport is included in the priority system. Due to
the elements involved in developing the projects, the DOT&PF has
only applied the prioritization process to state-owned airports.
He explained that typically the municipalities prefer to work
directly with the FAA rather than working through the DOT&PF's
system.
1:19:04 PM
^Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: MAP-21 Funding Policy Impacts by Jeff Ottesen,
Program Development Director
Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: MAP-21 Funding Policy Impacts & STIP Procedures by
Jeff Ottesen, Program Development Director
1:19:09 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be a presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: Map-21 Funding Policy Impacts by Jeff Ottesen,
Program Development Director.
1:19:27 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Program Development, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), stated his division
is responsible for the federal highway program and the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process that selects
projects. He offered to brief the committee on historical
funding, then the specific funding through Moving Ahead for the
21st Century (MAP 21) as well as the policy changes imbedded in
the law [slide 2].
1:20:09 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed the federal highway program in terms of
overall funding [slide 3]. He reported that the funding levels
have been relatively stable in the past 10 years, with the
exception of the extra $175 million the state received in
stimulus funding. Previously, the federal funding averaged $475
million. The chart illustrates the earmark funding from 2005,
representing about half of the funding stream through 2009,
which dwindled down to the point of none being received last
year. He offered his belief that earmarks came at the expense
of other formula dollars and this chart tends to illustrate that
point.
MR. OTTESEN turned to the state capital transportation program,
which consists primarily of general fund dollars, with some
general obligation (GO) bonds, roads to resources (R2R), named
projects, and "others" [slide 4]. The state's R2R funding has
varied significantly with FY 14 less than FY 13.
1:21:57 PM
MR. OTTESEN briefly reviewed the state deferred maintenance
program, covering most transportation modes, including money for
the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS), harbors, airports,
highways, and facilities. He reported that the funding has been
relatively stable since FY 11.
1:22:15 PM
MR. OTTESEN turned to the MAP-21 highway reauthorization 2013
[slides 6-7]. He stated that when the MAP-21 bill passed two
years ago was a two-year highway and transit bill for the
federal years 2013 and 2014. The bill relied on general fund
appropriations and other funding transfers to provide enough
funding to match the prior bar chart - roughly just under $500
million per year. In order for Congress to keep spending at its
current level, the Congress needed to find additional funding to
add to the U.S. Highway Trust Fund. He explained that six or
seven years ago the fund was self-sustaining. In fact, 20 years
ago the fund was lending money to other programs in the federal
budget, he said. However, currently the fund is underachieving
in terms of revenue. Additionally, MAP-21 contained significant
new policies including ones for streamlining difficult federal
processes. The current MAP-21 funding will expire in eight
months, which leaves all states with lots of uncertainty going
into FY 15.
1:23:48 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed a chart that shows a 99.5 percent drop in
2015 funding [slide 8]. He referred to it as the "stepping off
the cliff chart" and explained that the slide is based on
current information. He reported that in 2015 states could
expect funding to drop by nearly 100 percent. Although the
program produces revenue every year, the simple explanation for
the dramatic drop is that at the time the state obligates funds,
it receives a promise from the federal government to reimburse
the state as funds are expended. The state bills the federal
agency based on its expenditures. The funding has been dropping
by about 25 percent in real numbers but 75 percent of the funds
is used to pay off bills from prior years. Thus the funding
mechanism does not leave any capacity if the problem going
forward is not solved.
1:25:23 PM
MR. OTTESEN explained the MAP-21 funding changes [slide 9]. In
2012 the highway funding was $520 million, but was reduced in
2013 and 2014 by 10 percent to $484 million. He noted that
other states were equally affected. He reported that $12
million of the state's $43 million in transit funding is
directed to the state and the remaining $31 million goes to
AMATS, FMATS, and the Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC).
Additionally, a new ferry formula was established in MAP-21 and
the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) is the next largest
recipient, receiving $17 million. The federal government
significantly streamlined funding categories by creating fewer
categories with broader eligibility. The National Highway
System (NHS) and the Highway Safety Program (HSP) are programs
receiving the most funding with almost all the other categories
receiving fewer funds.
1:26:37 PM
MR. OTTESEN turned to slide 10, entitled, "MAP-21 Redefines
Federal Interest." He explained that the federal focus of MAP-
21 is on the interstate and NHS routes and adds mileage to each
state. All principal arterials known as the functional
classification became part of the NHS. Therefore, in Alaska
only about 4 percent was added to the overall NHS, but these
roads tend to be the most expensive ones. The NHS roads
typically consist of 4-6 lane highways, primarily located in
Anchorage. Additionally, the right-of-way, utilities, and
traffic control are very expensive on NHS. He reported that
about 90 miles of NHS roads were added to Alaska, with about 80
miles located in Anchorage, a few miles in Fairbanks, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and a small amount in Juneau. He
reported the percentage of federal funding in Alaska. The NHS
received approximately 57 percent of the overall federal program
funding, with 26 percent focused on the lower-tier roads, 7
percent on safety, 5 percent on sanctions, and the last 5
percent covering minor categories such as urban planning and
bridges.
1:28:23 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed pie charts that illustrate the federal
funding emphasis on the NHS [slide 11]. The blue pie on the
left chart represents the federal-aid funds designated to the
NHS and the right hand chart shows the percentage of funding
designated for NHS, local, and other roads He concluded that
the smallest number of road miles will receive the largest
amount of overall highway funding. He identified the highway
roads. The red portion of the pie represents the Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funding, which is funding that
meets local road needs, as well as the Alaska Highway System
(AHS). The AHS roads consist of routes that connect
communities, but are ones that "never rose to the level" to
become part of the NHS. For example, the AHS roads consist of
almost all the highways on the Prince of Wales Island, the
Denali Highway, the Steese, and Elliott Highways. Still, these
roads compete with the local road funding, he said.
1:29:42 PM
MR. OTTESEN explained that the STP funds are further subdivided
into other slices as designated by the pie chart [slide 12]. He
explained that the small blue slice represents funding for
bridges on STP eligible roads. The problem with the $4 million
designated for bridges is that it currently costs the state $8
million to inspect these bridges. Thus, the state will not even
receive enough funds to perform the mandated bridge inspections.
Therefore, the department must find the rest of the bridge
inspection funds elsewhere, such as from funding normally
designated for pavement. He reviewed the designations which are
by population: those under 5,000; between 5,000 but under
200,000; and over 200,000 - which would be Anchorage. He
highlighted the green slice, which represents funding for urban
clusters in the language of the bill for the population segment
between 5,000 and 200,000 - including Fairbanks, Juneau,
Soldotna, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Sitka, Palmer, and Wasilla. The
federal bill focused primarily on the urban areas, he said.
1:31:26 PM
MR. OTTESEN provided a specific example of an urban cluster
depicting the "Lakes-Knik-Fairview-Wasilla Urban Cluster," which
includes Trunk Road [slide 13]. He highlighted some federal
funding changes, noting that a recent project to Trunk Road
would not have been eligible for funding under "the middle
category;" instead it would fall in the "under 5,000 category"
and would compete with all the villages and small communities
around the state. It means that the DOT&PF must be mindful of
the category for road projects, he said. He remarked that there
are seven other clusters throughout the state.
1:32:23 PM
MR. OTTESEN identified a prior funding category as
transportation enhancements, which was funding for
beautification, transportation history interpretation, but was
primarily used for pathways and bike trails. Under MAP-21,
three other categories were added: Safe Routes to Schools,
Recreation Trails, and Scenic Byways [slide 14]. However, the
overall funding was reduced and complex rules make it difficult
to use the funds. For example, neither the state nor the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Anchorage and
Fairbanks, are eligible to use the funding directly. This means
that the organizations with expertise on federal rules can't
participate in a project. He remarked that it is difficult to
understand the reasoning behind this MAP-21 change.
1:33:25 PM
MR. OTTESEN reviewed MAP-21 Eliminations [slide 15]. He
reported that MAP-21 eliminated specific "set aside funds for
the AMHS," although it added a separate category of federal
funding for the ferry system. Additionally, MAP-21 added a
separate category for surface transportation programs (STP) to
be split between Alaska and Hawaii. While the state received
about the same amount of funding, the funds are now designated
as "Ferry Boat Discretionary" funds.
1:34:02 PM
MR. OTTESEN emphasized the cuts to the Shakwak funding, which
cut $30 million in funds to Canada for maintaining roadways that
link Southeast Alaska with the main body of the state [slide
16]. Additionally, this funding was periodically used for the
rest of the highway system, including ferries. Under MAP-21,
the language was struck so the funding has been eliminated
unless language is reinserted in the federal law.
MR. OTTESEN reported the Forest Highway program was also
eliminated, which consisted of approximately $9 million annually
designated for highways that led to or fell within a national
forest. He characterized the Forest Highway program as being
very beneficial in the Tongass and Chugach National forests.
The funding was replaced by a new program, Federal Land Access
Program (FLAP), which consists of approximately $7 million;
however, all classes of federal land are eligible since the
funding is not limited to the national forests.
1:35:29 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed performance mandates [slide 17]. He
emphasized that performance mandates represent a big change in
federal funding. Under MAP-21 each state must participate in a
series of performance measures specifically targeted to the
national highway system (NHS) routes. He said these performance
measures don't apply to the entire network of roads but are
limited to NHS routes and target safety, pavement and bridge
condition. Additionally, the performance measures will target
freight mobility, congestion, and overall system performance.
If the NHS conditions fall behind, the state will need to divert
more funds to remedy the issues. In the event that the state
continually receives a "bad report card" the federal program
will penalize the state by requiring a higher match ratio. He
offered his belief that the state will still receive the same
amount of federal funds. Currently, the state participates with
10 percent in matching funds, but in the worst case scenario,
the state would probably need to add up to 35 percent in state
matching funds.
1:36:39 PM
MR. OTTESEN identified some performance measures for American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) recommendations [slide 18]. He highlighted that
safety, pavement condition, and bridges will be the most
prominent areas of focus. He reported that the state's safety
record is reasonably good and the state should be able to meet
AASHTO safety recommendations. However, with respect to
pavement condition the state is near the bottom of the 50
states, in part, due to Alaska's permafrost considerations.
Additionally, many of Alaska's highways are classed as
interstate highways. Further, Alaska's highways don't have long
ramps so gravel is dragged on the roadway and tends to impact
the highway condition.
1:37:33 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed streamlining [slide 19]. He stated that
the MAP-21 attempted to simplify the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Although the Congress has tried to
simplify NEPA, the bureaucracy seems to thwart these attempts.
In fact, the language seems pretty clear, that streamlining
should be the "law of the land;" however, the DOT&PF's review of
the regulations doesn't indicate streamlining. He said, "It's
kind of a sad story that seems to be never ending." The MAP-21
reduced funding categories, but retained subcategories based
upon population, so again, "it's sort of a promise that never is
quite delivered."
1:38:39 PM
MR. OTTESEN highlighted other MAP-21 categories, including
congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ), highway safety
projects, and urban planning funds [slide 20]. He explained
that the CMAQ funding designed to identify air quality issues
was increased. In Alaska, Fairbanks has experienced serious air
quality issues known as particulate matter 2.5 or PM 2.5.
Additionally, Anchorage has experienced three incidents
exceeding the air quality standards due to the very dry winter
leading to more dust. He cautioned that Anchorage will face
sanctions if it has one more incident during a three-year
period. Thus, the Municipality of Anchorage and the DOT&PF have
taken measures to try to reduce the air quality issue by
sweeping roads and spraying calcium chloride on the roadways.
1:39:50 PM
MR. OTTESEN presented MAP-21 conclusions [slide 21]. He stated
that the overall federal-aid funding program remains consistent
with Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) averages. There are
fewer categories, but the funding is more restrictive,
particularly with respect to the STP reductions and the
elimination of the dedicated bridge program. This means the
DOT&PF must use NHS and STP funding to replace bridges. Safety
funding has been increased, which is one of MAP-21's biggest
benefits. For example, the increased funding will allow the
DOT&PF to build 13 pairs of passing lanes on the Parks Highway
this summer. Previously the state received $17 million in
funding designated for safety, which was primarily focused on
small "hotspot type" of projects. Since safety funding was
tripled under MAP-21 to about $50 million, the DOT&PF had to
find more significant projects. In fact, the DOT&PF must
undergo the same process whether the projects are small or large
ones. It still must perform right-of-way, assess environmental
impacts, and undergo public participation. This additional
funding means the DOT&PF will be able to focus on "passing lane"
projects throughout the state.
MR. OTTESEN stated that the performance measures require
collecting and tracking data; therefore, the data costs will
rise significantly. For example, the bridge inspection program
will require a new method of inspecting bridges, which has
doubled the cost of bridge inspections, increasing DOT&PF bridge
inspection costs from $8 million to $16 million.
1:42:09 PM
SENATOR DYSON emphasized that Canada is very concerned about
Shakwak funding. He asked what DOT&PF anticipates will happen
with the Shakwak funding.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the DOT&PF met with its Yukon
transportation counterparts about a month ago. He pointed out
that the Shakwak funding represents a large percentage of the
Canadian Yukon's transportation program. Without the funding,
the Yukon will need to consider whether it can continue to
maintain parts of the Alaska Highway. He emphasized that the
Alaska Highway is used predominately by Alaskans, as evidenced
by reviewing passport data. The Yukon government has been
working with lobbyist firms and the governor's staff in
Washington D.C. office is very aware of the issue.
COMMISSIONER KEMP interjected that the Yukon government has been
working with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the DOT&PF has
also been supportive.
1:43:32 PM
SENATOR DYSON suggested that one argument for the Shakwak
funding is that the route provides an alternative supply route
for some Alaska materials. He said that a significant amount of
Alaska's materials flows east to support Canadian mining
efforts. He offered his belief that the whole highway is an
intrinsic part of the tourism industry, such that people come up
on the ferry or cruise ships and drive home. He mentioned that
he did not hear the commissioner or Mr. Ottesen mention that the
Canadian Yukon [formerly the Yukon Territory] is petitioning its
own government for funding to maintain the road.
MR. OTTESEN agreed that he didn't hear it mentioned either;
however, the DOT&PF has been working with the Yukon on an
economic benefits analysis to identify what the traffic means
for Alaska and for the Yukon.
1:44:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE, referring to slide 5, asked whether the
state has made any headway with respect to deferred maintenance.
COMMISSIONER KEMP reported that three years ago the deferred
maintenance backlog was $680 million, which has been reduced to
$450 million for all modes of transportation. He indicated that
the DOT&PF is not only using state funding, but also
preventative maintenance funds from the federal programs. He
concluded that the DOT&PF has made a significant reduction and
the DOT&PF's goal is to keep the momentum of that drop going.
He said that the state must keep its highways in good shape and
be proactive. The state has been aggressively working to keep
the highways in good shape, he said.
1:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to slide 8, to the graph. He
recalled that the proposed drop off in funding and Mr. Ottesen
predicting this will not happen.
MR. OTTESEN explained that the federal transportation funding
has frequently approached a "cliff" several times before.
Somehow, the federal government always seems to find a way to
address the shortfalls. He also has a slide [at this office]
that shows that the U.S. Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will go to
zero before the end of federal fiscal year. In other words,
this means that revenues are not equal to outlays. What he
anticipated will happen is that the FHWA will begin to delay
reimbursements to the state and that delayed amount will
increase over time. The legislature should be mindful that to
balance the books for FY 2014, the HTF will need $3 billion in
reimbursement [from fuel taxes]. Several weeks after the
election, the FHWA will need a second $3 billion to replenish
funds. Traditionally, it is difficult to deal with these
funding issues prior to an election. However, he identified
that it will take $19 billion to cover the deficit for FY 14
through to the end of the calendar year. Therefore, the
Congress faces significant challenges, but ultimately it will
need to address transportation funding issues.
1:49:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE remarked that it doesn't bode well for
2016. He asked why the department anticipates that the funding
will increase.
MR. OTTESEN clarified that the funding will increase but not to
the same level. He said what will happen is that some of the
older projects will be paid off.
1:49:58 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH, along the same lines, asked whether the
majority of the FHWA funding is derived from gas taxes.
MR. OTTESEN answered that is correct, that fuel taxes are the
primary source of revenue.
1:50:19 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked if the effort to push towards hybrid
cars and electric use will limit the fuel tax revenue.
MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He elaborated that the HTF is
primarily funded through taxes on petroleum fuels so vehicles
fueled with natural gas or electricity are not taxed. He
acknowledged that considerable discussions have ensued on how to
restructure how taxes are paid. For example, states are
considering whether the taxes should be based on miles driven or
on a flat tax on vehicles. Although some states are
experimenting with tax changes, he did not think anyone was
prepared to completely restructure gas taxes. At the same time,
he pointed out that auto manufacturers are making liquid-fueled
vehicles more efficient.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH acknowledged that very complex reasons exist
to explain why the system is not self-sustaining, such as the
push for alternative fuels and more efficient cars. She also
understood the legislature is considering Alaska's fuel tax
structure.
1:52:08 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH referred to slide 20, to other MAP 21
categories. She recalled the funding increased from $17 million
to $50 million. She said she has been reviewing volcanic
eruptions worldwide, noting that Hawaii has experienced volcanic
activity since the 1980s. She wondered how Hawaii could be
compliant with particulate matter standards and whether it has
received an exemption due to naturally occurring volcanic ash.
She emphasized that Alaska has a naturally-occurring inversion
so weather patterns in Anchorage and Fairbanks hold the
particulate matter in an area. She asked whether Hawaii and
Alaska could work together to address air quality standards
since it isn't possible to control what "Mother Nature" is
doing.
MR. OTTESEN responded that raises an interesting question about
natural causes to particulate matter, such as dust generated
from agricultural fields, volcanic eruptions, or glacial winds
sweeping dust into the air. He acknowledged that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does allow certain natural
events to be excused. He offered his belief that Hawaii's
eruptions are in rural areas in which the EPA is not
specifically measuring air quality. He agreed that Alaska
should join forces with other states but not just Hawaii.
1:54:55 PM
SENATOR BISHOP expressed concerned about the impending closure
of Flint Hills refinery in Fairbanks, since it impacts the
state's ability to make asphalt. He acknowledged that it is
already expensive to build lane miles without importing asphalt.
He referred to slide 12 and asked where the Fairbanks
Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (FMATS) fits in MAP-
21 and whether it would fall under the [places greater than
4,000 and less than 200,000 population areas] shown in green on
the pie chart.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the FMATS obtains a population pro-
rata share of the green slice shown on slide 12, with FMATS
funding estimated at $8 million.
SENATOR BISHOP remarked he would like to visit the safe routes
to schools later.
1:56:40 PM
CHAIR EGAN referred to slide 3 to the Shakwak funding and asked
for the specific amount.
MR. OTTESEN pointed to the bar graph to 2012 and noted that the
Shakwak funding shown in turquoise represents $30 million. He
acknowledged the funding is unique, noting the bar graph does
not show the Shakwak funding specifically directed to Canadian
government and transferred to the Yukon. He remarked that
Alaska tracks the Shakwak funding since it is important to
Alaska. He clarified that the specific $30 million in FY 12 is
funding to Alaska that is used for projects within Alaska.
1:58:08 PM
CHAIR EGAN remarked that significant Shakwak funding has been
used on the Klondike Highway. He stated that loads will
increase due to hauling ore from the Yukon to Skagway. He asked
how the DOT&PF will obtain funding for the Klondike Highway
since Shakwak funding no longer exists.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the Klondike Highway is a NHS route,
so it is competing for funds in that category.
CHAIR EGAN asked about funding for the Klondike on the Yukon
side [of the border] since the bulk of the Klondike Highway lies
in the Yukon.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the only highways eligible for the $30
million that Canada receives is the Haines Highway from Haines
Junction north to the Alaska-Canada border. In further response
to a question, he acknowledged that none of the Shakwak funding
is designated for the Klondike Highway.
1:59:16 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked whether MAP-21 removed bridge replacement
funds.
MR. OTTESEN answered that about $4 million is for bridge
replacement.
CHAIR EGAN asked whether the $4 million was also used for other
purposes.
MR. OTTESEN agreed. He emphasized that the $4 million isn't
adequate to even cover bridge inspections.
1:59:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked him to predict the future of
Alaska's state and federal transportation funding since federal
transportation funding is expected to continue to decline.
MR. OTTESEN acknowledged that the MAP-21 funding couldn't come
at a worse time given the deficit. Many members of the Congress
advocate de-federalizing the program and not collecting the
federal fuel tax. Instead, these members would like states to
individually collect all future fuel taxes. Since Alaska is a
"5 to 1 state," meaning that for every federal dollar collected
in Alaska for the federal fuel tax, Alaska receives five dollars
in return, that approach wouldn't benefit Alaska. Nationwide,
the trend is to use more tolls roads and even Alaska has a toll
proposal with the KNIK Arm Bridge proposal. He said, "It's
tough; there's no doubt about it."
2:01:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he appreciated Senator
Fairclough's comments on diminishing HTF revenues. He related
his understanding that besides the impacts of alternative energy
vehicles that as America becomes a more urban society it means
that fewer miles are driven. Further, he pointed out that
federal fuel taxes have not been adjusted for inflation since
1993 so the purchasing power is diminishing every year. He
asked when state fuel taxes were last adjusted for inflation
even though he understands that fuel taxes are not dedicated to
transportation.
MR. OTTESEN answered that Alaska's fuel taxes went "back and
forth in the 60s" and settled at about $.08 per gallon. He
reported that other than the one year under Governor Palin when
the gas tax was suspended that the taxes have remained constant.
When the gas tax was set in the 60s, Alaska had the highest fuel
tax in the country. Currently, Alaska's fuel tax is the lowest
in the country, he said.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that Alaska's fuel tax has not
increased in 53 years.
2:02:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked for DOT&PF's recommendations for
policy makers with respect to the motor fuel taxes.
MR. OTTESEN answered that he is not at liberty to make
statements with respect to taxes. He characterized the current
situation as being a tough one. Some people don't realize how
dire the situation is; however, the Congress could address
transportation funding and Alaska could proceed for another
decade, he said. He pointed out some states have cut
maintenance costs by moving from paved roads to gravel roads.
2:05:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that North Carolina has so many roads
that she recalled someone saying it had a paved road within 10
miles of every community college. She said when she lived in
North Carolina there were 53 community colleges located in the
state.
2:05:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON commented that the technology has come a
long way in terms of chip seal technology. He asked whether
that should be a policy consideration.
2:06:15 PM
MR. KEMP acknowledged that the DOT&PF is considering "chip seal"
technology and will aggressively pursue its use on the Kenai
Peninsula. He reported that the department performed two
projects last year and hopes to continue the program. He added
that the department will continue to address the funding issues.
For example, the department has been examining projects in terms
of re-scoping some of them. He offered his belief that the
DOT&PF must return to its core mission. For example, when the
department undergoes projects, communities often want bike
paths, lighting, and other amenities; however, the department
will take a hard look at projects and will dial back projects.
He said the DOT&PF will take care of its transportation system,
that the NJHS program current has 135 major road projects. He
stressed the DOT&PF must first maintain its current roads.
2:09:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON appreciated the DOT&PF's approach to
hone in on the department's "core mission." However, the
legislature needs to make the policy decisions. Prior to adding
taxes it's important to look at programmatic ways to address
revenue reductions, he said. He acknowledged the high cost to
upgrade roads. He asked the department to provide the
legislature with direction on ways it can assist the DOT&PF by
removing onerous requirements and to help cut project costs so
projects are more affordable.
CHAIR P. WILSON also would like to know if the requirements are
state or federal rules or regulations.
2:12:58 PM
MR. KEMP stated that the DOT&PF is currently undergoing a huge
efficiency effort and management will discuss efficiencies. He
ventured that with the majority of projects the scope grows.
Certainly, communities shouldn't be faulted since the amenities
are nice, but given the downturn this creates difficulties for
the DOT&PF. Thus the department's direction and focus is to go
back to its core. He acknowledged federal and some state
bureaucracy exists. He said he is focused on "the bigger
picture" and is committed to keep the department operating
within its means and to find better ways to do business. He
acknowledged that the STIP exercise is important, not only the
NHS, but the STP portion of STIP, since that will affect
communities. He understands expectations for projects exist,
but the DOT&PF just cannot meet them.
2:14:59 PM
CHAIR EGAN commented that the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ)
has had very good results with bituminous surface treatment -
chip seal treatment. He suggested that chip seal works well for
low-volume roads and is easy to maintain.
COMMISSIONER KEMP reported that about 15 years ago the DOT&PF
created a "gravel-to-black" program. He recalled that the
DOT&PF paved over "everything" even over bad bases. When those
roads deteriorate they are much more costly to repair. He
acknowledged that for low volume roads it is much more cost
effective to grind the pavement and "put a chip over it." He
related his understanding that some people were opposed to this
type of road repair. However, he remarked that the Canadians
are experts [with chip seal], that Southeast and Northern
regions have aggressive programs, and chip seal programs
represent one of the cost savings measures the department is
using.
2:16:51 PM
CHAIR EGAN asked whether the state will lose funding for Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS) under MAP-21 or if it will be
ranked differently.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the ferries and terminals are eligible
for the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) funding,
which is targeted on the National Highway System (NHS) or for
the Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding. He explained
the distinction being that if the terminal is attached to an NHS
highway, as it is in Juneau, Kodiak, Whittier, and Valdez, then
the vessels and the terminal are eligible for NHPP funding. The
ferries and terminals in smaller communities are eligible for
STP funding. He said, "Some part of those slices of the pie
that I showed you will have to be allocated to the ferry system
on an annual basis just to keep up with the wear and tear." He
estimated that the DOT&PF's spending plan covers three to five
ferry terminals per year.
CHAIR EGAN asked for further clarification on whether the AMHS
funding has changed.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the NHPP funding went up and most
ferries are eligible. Additionally, almost all vessels "touch"
an NHHS terminal at some point so these vessels are also
eligible for NHPP funding.
2:19:03 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH followed up on Representative Isaacson's
question, which is how to deliver better projects and prioritize
them. She hoped that as part of the community participation in
projects - including project scoping - that the state will allow
the communities to tax themselves and work as partners if the
local communities want the additional amenities. She also hoped
that the process of adding additional amenities will not allow
people the means to stall projects.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH then referred to slide 18, and stated that
some roads are classified as interstate roads, which qualify for
federal funding. She wondered if any cost benefit analysis has
been performed, for example, when the state has classified roads
and incurs responsibility for repair and maintenance. She
further queried as to whether the state could accomplish more by
not classifying roads as interstate roads and use another method
to access the federal funds.
2:21:36 PM
MR. OTTESEN answered that the category funding that the state
became eligible for interstate maintenance funds. All other
states that had interstate highways were receiving some fraction
of a category known as interstate maintenance. He reported that
it brought "several tens of millions of dollars per year."
However, the roads in question are already classified as NHS
roads and represent some of the most important routes in the
state, including the Parks Highway and Seward Highway. He
cautioned against going backward, which would make those
highways compete for the STP category which is even more
constrained.
^Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: STIP Procedures by Jeff Ottesen, Program Development
Director
Presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: STIP Procedures by Jeff Ottesen, Program Development
Director
2:22:23 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be a presentation by the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities: STIP Procedures by Jeff Ottesen, Program Development
Director.
2:22:31 PM
MR. OTTESEN said his overview will cover the Surface
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) basics and the history
of the DOT&PF's scoring system. In 1991, the Congress added
language under 23 USC Section 118 (d) for transportation
authorization. He explained that a class of roads had become
eligible for STIP funds, but the traditional method of
identifying projects didn't work to prioritize the projects.
Previously, projects were included in a state-adopted
transportation plan or were identified in management systems,
such as safety, bridge condition, and pavement condition. The
federal highway aid program (FHWA) is an extremely complex 60-
year old program, he said.
2:24:15 PM
MR. OTTESEN related, for example, that the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (Safetea-Lu) passed in 2005 with 1,700 pages of law [slide
2]. In 1991, the STIP rules required that all surface
transportation projects, including highways, trails, buses,
ferries, and ferry terminals must be included the STIP. He
identified the STIP as a listing of projects by year of
spending, including a description and location. Additionally,
the projects needed to be financially constrained, which meant
the state needed to adjust the amount of project work and cost
to match the anticipated funding on projects. Further, projects
needed to have a four-year horizon, contain subordinate
transportation improvement programs (TIPS), including one for
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS),
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS),
the Tribal Transportation, and the now defunct Forest Highway
program. He characterized the STIP as being the "mother
document."
2:25:57 PM
MR. OTTESEN stated that the commissioner has to certify when the
STIP is amended or updated indicating that a whole "laundry list
of rules" is being followed. The federal partners the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) must approve [slide 3].
MR. OTTESEN provided other requirements including that the STIP
must be consistent with the Statewide Transportation Plan (STP).
The STIP has been litigated twice in Alaska and in one case the
state prevailed, and in another the project was not in the plan
and it took over a year to make the project eligible [slide 4].
2:27:12 PM
MR. OTTESEN explained the STIP requires an extensive public
process, including rules such as coordination and consultation.
The STIP contains all transit highway projects. The DOT&PF must
meet air quality standards since non-attainment days result in
stair-stepped penalties. In the worst case the EPA takes over
the STIP, which has happened in other states such as California,
even if the non-attainment is not due to transportation issues.
MR. OTTESEN reported the STIP contains four categories,
including NHS, the Community Transportation Program, Alaska
Highway System, and Trails and Recreational Access for Alaska
Trails (TRAAK). The DOT&PF must also sub allocate, for the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) an Area Transportation
Solutions.
2:29:57 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed eligibility for all public roads, ferries,
and buses [slide 6]. He said the federal law applies to two
jurisdictions, Alaska and Puerto Rico. He pointed out four STIP
categories are set in Alaska law and receive percentages of
funding: the NHS at 48 percent, the Alaska Highway System at 8
percent, community transportation at 39 percent and TRAAK
funding at 2 percent. Additionally, the DOT has allotted 3
percent for flexibility, he said.
2:31:01 PM
MR. OTTESEN related that the DOT&PF established scoring in 1994
and scoring is one of three ways to add a project to the STIP
[slide 7]. First, projects are identified in plans, such as the
Southeast plan, condition data, and scoring
2:32:40 PM
MR. OTTESEN turned to slide 8, and emphasized that scoring
occurs per 23 USC Section 118 (d), which read, as follows:
Funds made available to the State of Alaska and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under this title may be
expended for construction of access and development
roads that will serve resource development,
recreational, residential, commercial, industrial, or
other like purposes.
MR. OTTESEN said this means that any public road in Alaska is
captured. He related that the eligible grew from 30 percent to
100 percent. Thus, the state almost tripled the amount of roads
that were eligible, but now these projects must now compete for
the same "bucket" of funds.
2:33:15 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed the Pre-1991 Eligible Roads [[slide 9]. He
identified four tiers, including arterial, urban/major
collector, minor collector, and local roads. He explained that
these are functional classifications. The primary purpose of an
arterial road is to move traffic at higher speeds, for example,
roads such as Egan Drive, the Parks Highway, and Tudor Road.
The collectors are less busy roads and serve two purposes, to
move through traffic and provide local access. These are roads
that connect to the tiers. He pointed out that the bottom two
tiers on the slide represent 70 percent of the road miles.
Those two categories are not eligible for federal funds in 49
states, but are eligible in Alaska and Puerto Rico. He
identified the DOT&PF owned roads are green. He reported that
nearly 99 percent of the arterials are owned by DOT&PF whereas
the vast majority of local roads are owned by local government.
In 1991, every road became eligible and subject to provisions in
23 USC Section 118 (d). He pointed to the left of slide 9, to
the vehicle miles of travel and the number of accidents, which
are skewed toward arterials. Clearly, the state added road
miles, but "the economy happens on the upper two tiers." For
example, this is how freight moves and how people get to work.
2:35:46 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed the net effect of 23 USC Section 118 (d)
[slide 10]. He said that eligible roads grew from 30 percent to
100 percent, yet no additional funds were provided. Most of the
roads that were added were not already included in planning
documents since local government does its own planning. Since
the DOT&PF did not have information on the local roads, the
state needed a new mechanism for projects or the projects would
likely never achieve funding, which is how scoring was
developed.
MR. OTTESEN said that under the scoring system anyone can
nominate a project, including local government, tribes,
businesses, legislators, and state agencies. At the same time
the DOT&PF recognized it could not build every road.
2:36:41 PM
MR. OTTESEN discussed nomination and scoring [slide 11.] He
stated that beginning in the 1990s the priorities were
sanitation road needs. As the state began to build landfills,
sewage lagoons, airports, and docking facilities, these projects
were given priority. He reported that the DOT&PF has met most
of the needs and have served villages.
MR. OTTESEN identified two major categories that were not
scored, including the NHS and AHS. He explained that paving
local roads in small communities with few cars has not been a
priority. The NHS and AHS were never considered for scoring
since the DOT&PF already had information on these systems,
including traffic growth, accidents, and bridge failure. The
FMATS and AMATS were also excluded since the MPOs receive
federal funding, have responsibility for planning and project
selection [slide 12].
2:38:43 PM
MR. OTTESEN explained scoring criteria [slide 13]. The DOT&PF
has several different scoring criteria, necessary due to the
diversity in Alaska, including scoring for urban and rural,
transit, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and
enhancements.
2:39:38 PM
MR. OTTESEN stated that to make the scoring fair the DOT&PF
normalized the maximum score each category can achieve. The
DOT&PF's nomination cycle occurs every two years, but due to
MAP-21 and the backlog of projects, the department has skipped
scoring for two years and is now reaching the fourth year
without scoring. Projects are scored at the region level and
then at headquarters. Scoring is performed by senior staff,
with both regional and statewide views [slide 14]. He
characterized scoring as tedious and time-consuming.
2:41:26 PM
MR. OTTESEN identified the major category of formula funds as
STP, NHPP, CMAQ, and the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP). The formula funds have an eligibility purpose,
longevity, longevity, and some have sub allocations that the
department must consider [slide 16]. Thus, the process of
picking projects is complicated and takes years to learn. He
lamented that one of his senior staff recently announced his
resignation so the DOT&PF lost a valuable expert.
2:42:30 PM
MR. OTTESEN referred to the final slide and explained that the
department is always working with two STIPs: the current STIP,
that guides projects being funded, which is often amended; and
the replacement STIP that is activated every two years. For
example, the DOT&PF identifies projects that have been
accomplished, ones with updated financial. The DOT&PF is
currently working under 2011-2014, which is currently under
Amendment 9. At the same time, the DOT&PF is working on the
2014-2017 STIP, identifying projects, project scope, and how the
department can accomplish as many projects as possible to serve
basic transportation needs under budget.
2:44:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the department needs to change the
criteria and if the legislature needs to change any statutes to
assist the department in its efforts.
MR. OTTESEN responded that accurate project cost estimates are
not always available when projects are placed on the list. In
the past, the DOT&PF almost always "federalized" projects in
order to deliver them; however, it will be more difficult to
"federalize" projects now, which means hard choices will need to
be made. He was unsure of solutions and whether the DOT&PF will
need to request additional funds in order to complete projects.
MR. OTTESEN said that at the same time the department needs to
have some measure of flexibility to make decisions. He
described two bond projects in which one was "federalized" but
doing so enabled both projects to be built. These projects went
out to bid last summer, he said.
2:48:18 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested the state may need to turn projects
over to local communities.
MR. OTTESEN referred to the three modes of transportation -
highways, aviation, and harbors. He pointed out the state
expects 50 percent cost sharing by local government. The state
owns most of the airports so the state provides the matching
funds, but if local government owns it then the DOT&PF still
provides half of the matching funds. Further, the DOT&PF
provides nearly all of the matching funds for highways. He
suggested that requiring communities to contribute towards
projects tends to help control costs.
2:51:04 PM
CHAIR EGAN referred to STIP basics (4) and asked what roads are
included in the Alaska Highway System [slide 6].
MR. OTTESEN indicated that the list is identified in regulation.
The department hopes to add several more. He related that these
roads typically connect one community to another community.
2:52:17 PM
CHAIR EGAN indicated that when the department adds projects into
the STIP that sometimes the "projects will disappear" when the
STIP changes, but communities are not informed. He suggested
that the DOT&PF keep communities informed on changes.
2:53:02 PM
MR. OTTESEN stated that the DOT&PF publishes an appendix that
identifies changes to the STIP.
CHAIR EGAN urged DOT&PF to keep communities informed and not
rely on an appendix to do so. He expressed concern on another
matter, that when the state gave the City and Borough of Juneau
and other Southeast communities its harbors that the harbors
weren't improved and the local government had to pick up the
costs.
MR. OTTESEN said he would take that under advisement.
2:54:14 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH asked when the 2014-2017 STIP was developed
whether a financial analysis was also done to determine the
state's overall commitment. Further does this mean the state
will not advance other projects since the state must complete
the ones identified in the STIP projects. Otherwise, the state
would be required to repay funds. She further asked him to
identify a solution when the state discovers it doesn't have
enough money to finish projects.
MR. KEMP stated the department is currently involved in that
process and it is making some progress. In fact, just this
morning staff was reviewing spreadsheets. He hoped to report
back to the committee sometime this legislative session. The
DOT&PF has separated the NHS from the STIP and will address it
separately, which will then be followed by the STP, he said.
2:55:42 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH commented that from a financial perspective,
that the House Finance Committee is interested in commitments
and cash flow. Secondly, she asked about mobilization of
projects in rural Alaska. She wondered if it was possible to
align mobilization of projects to reduce overall contract costs.
She further asked whether that effort could be coordinated
between departments.
MR. KEMP answered that is difficult since the departments use
different systems so the DOT&PF does not currently coordinate
with some other departments. He indicated that the department
is aware that the mobilization is "killing us." He acknowledged
that her idea is an excellent idea and welcomed legislator's
input.
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH suggested that the joint committees could
issue a letter to the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development and the Department of Education & Early
Development to ask for consideration of consolidating projects.
She understands that "silos" are often created. While she did
not want to adversely affect the procurement process once the
projects are awarded, perhaps there might be a way to negotiate
costs down. Subsequently, a second phase could perhaps address
mobilization and de-mobilization costs.
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that her suggestion is an excellent
idea. She commented that the Rasmuson Foundation and Foraker
Group might suggest community involvement to ensure that the
communities can handle the upkeep and maintenance. She offered
her belief that the state may need to do that on projects, as
well.
3:00:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON pointed out that the University of
Alaska Fairbanks is requesting $500,000 over three years to add
to is Geographical Information Network of Alaska (GINA), which
is a mechanism within the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
for sharing data and technical capacity among Alaskan, Arctic,
and world communities of Alaska. He explained that this mapping
project can identify all projects in a location. Of course, the
accuracy of the data is contingent upon departments and agencies
maintaining their project databases. He related that this tool
is being developed and while the project doesn't deal with
sustainability, it could help bring down costs.
3:03:09 PM
SENATOR FAIRCLOUGH suggested that the finance committees may
wish to consider the project. She said she specifically was
interested in the House and Senate Transportation Committees
sending a joint letter to address the procurement side and
create flexibility. She offered her belief that legislature has
created some "silos" in departments which limits their ability
to communicate and coordinate activities. If the legislature
has created barriers that limit negotiation, that in the second
round it may be possible to reduce project costs, which might be
a way to move forward. She noted it might be necessary to bring
some of the departments who issue grants before the legislature,
including the DOT&PF, the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, and Department of Education & Early
Development. She acknowledged that an analysis is already
performed on project worthiness, readiness, and sustainability.
She remarked that sometimes giving people what they want leads
to bankruptcy because the entity or community can't pay the
operating costs. She concluded that Representative Isaacson's
point was "spot on."
3:05:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House and Senate Transportation Standing
Committees was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|