Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Transportation Committee to order at 1 31 p.m.
We are in Butchovich room 205
in the nation's most beautiful capital city of Juneau, Alaska. Today is Thursday, January 22nd,
2026. Members present are Senator Tobin, Senator Keel, senator Rauscher, and myself,
Senator Bjorkman. Senator Steadman will be joining us soon.
Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business.
Please turn off our silencer cell phones.
I would like to welcome our newest member to the Senate Transportation Committee,
Senator George Rauscher.
Thank you for joining us, sir.
We look forward to you being here.
Thank You.
I'd also like recognize in the audience, Senator Merrick, who has joined us today.
Also, we had our recording secretary, Heather Ramseth, and our LAO moderator, Doug Bridges.
Our only item on the agenda today is a presentation from the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities on The Update to the STIP Plan for 2026 to 2029.
We'll chat a little bit about the FY26 Match Vito Impacts and the H-SIP Spending Plan
Updates.
Special Assistant to the Commissioner and the Mills
Would one or both or all of you like to join us at the table we will begin
Okay, well, thank you chair Bjorkman and members of the Senate Transportation Committee definitely appreciate
The opportunity today to present my name's Ryan Anderson. I'm the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
And with me is director Dom I know it's discussed
We have a presentation today. We set it up to start with the highway safety improvement program
And then run through some of other items with with match the veto impacts and then end with this step if that's okay chair
Bjorkman, that'll be great. Thank you. Okay, so with that, we'll just start right in and
Yeah
to get through the materials.
OK, so for the first slide, this has been a lot of discussion
and good discussion about safety projects in Alaska.
It was back in December when DOT, we approved a Highway Safety
Improvement Program that's basically our funding program
for that specific funding source.
for the fiscal year, the federal fiscal
year of 2026.
One thing, just before we start in detail on that,
I wanted to put up here, when DOT looks at safety
at our projects, safety is a part of all of our project.
And we have various numbers of federal laws and regulations,
state statutes, administrative code.
DOT policies and procedures, manuals, technical guidance, safety plans that all work into how we
work safety into our projects. These are things that our engineers rely on, our traffic and safety
folks, all of those things. One thing that's recently come up in the Anchorage area is with
there's been a lot of discussion about reducing the number of lanes on our highway corridors,
pedestrian safety, and that's important.
We recognize, we absolutely recognize the importance
of pedestrian's safety in the Anchorage area.
And so there's been,
we recognized last summer that this, you know,
it's probably before last Summer,
that is kind of an emerging effort where,
you're know our highway corridors are really important,
there is only so much space available,
and there are a lot of challenges there.
We put out, and it's listed on here,
a chief engineers directive, we call it.
And what that is, is when we recognize there's
this challenge in front of us across Alaska,
we want to make sure that all of our staff,
all our engineers have the same level of guidance
as we go through and tackle something like this.
And this one specific was lane reductions
and road diet analysis.
These are technical guidance for our engineer,
so they're issued by our chief engineer.
And really, for this one, I just wanted to go through it a little bit because there's
been some discussion about it publicly, and just kind of let you all know what specifically
when we were looking at this challenge with these lane reductions, road diets, you know,
how technically we wanted look at that.
Part of what it does is it really gets down into these definitions of, what a lane reduction
Lane reduction is the elimination of a through or auxiliary lane open for the purposes of
a buffer space, conversion to a bicycle lane or other non-motorized space.
A road diet is when we actually take a road and it's a two-way road, and we put a left
turn lane in the middle.
So they have two different safety benefits they really have to be looked at in two
different ways.
The other thing we wanted to make sure when we started talking about these concepts of
reducing the number of lanes on our highways is that we had solid documentation about the
capacity of the highway and what reducing how it affects the capacity, the safety, and
then they look at the crash rates and how those are affected,
and then operational impacts.
We're always thinking hard about maintenance right now, our maintenance budgets are very
tight.
We're absolutely very cognizant of adding something in our right-of-way that would increase the maintenance costs.
And so, you know, as you go through this, it's really just this document that outlines a very methodical way
that our engineers can go though how they look at these lane reductions and how we road diet so that in the end,
as we propose one for a highway for our roadway,
There's an engineer, it's got a stamp on it, there's a report that says, hey,
as you go forward and you consider this, here's the technical information on
it.
So that was something back in July, we recognized we were missing and so we issued it and
so as we go through and talk through some of these highway safety improvement projects today,
a lot of this work is going on in the background to do this analysis.
Thank you. Thank You Mr. Chairman and welcome. We're here again. I so enjoy these committee
hearings and these opportunities to hear from you and to understand the perspective and
insight that you bring to the table.
So, one of the main lane reduction processes is happening in my district.
We've been talking about it since 2020, and in 2022 I know then Senator Tom Begich wrote
a letter to DOT requesting a lane diet on anger and gamble and it was committed that this would
lighting poles that are bifurcating the sidewalk making it difficult for residents to traverse from
about Fifth Avenue all the way to 15th and we know that this is one of the most dangerous
corridors in the state that has resulted in a significant number of fatalities and also
incidents with vehicles. So I was very excited as we continued to work on this particular project
through the Reconnecting Communities grant that was provided by the Federal Highway Administration
and of course through The Fairview Pell which had been advocated for for about five years.
And it was very surprising to me to see in July this memo come across our desks about
why we couldn't continue to pursue actions that had been committed and had
been discussed and have been talked about for the last four years.
So I'm curious why now we saw a lane reduction in downtown Anchorage on six
Avenue to put in a bike project for a period of time.
This directive was not in place then.
So just a little bit trying to understand the order of operations.
Particular chief engineer directive has been put in place right at the point of time where these particular safety projects were removed
From the highway safety improvement plan
Well, you think about that commissioner I would like to state for the record that we were joined by Senator Seidman at 1 35
And Dolly and I Johnson representative Dleyna Johnson has also joined us at one 38
Thank you. Yeah. Thank You chair be up for me through the chair. Yep, Senator Tobin. Yes, so
In July, well, okay, so the HSEP plan, Highway Safety Improvement Plan, that was a December
action.
The chief engineer directive came out in July and that's when we recognized that there
were a lot of these.
So in Anchorage right now, there's over 12 proposed lane reductions across the area.
when you start reducing lanes on these highways,
especially Ingrid Gamble, it's an interstate route.
It's got, you know, if you looked at it,
it is 20,000 plus vehicles in each direction.
By reducing a lane, when we started asking the questions
about what happens when when reduce a lanes.
We don't, we didn't have anything that was written up, that
was documented, you know, with the engineer stamp that says,
you now, this is the level of service, when they talk in
traffic, it's a level
of services that you expect. What would happen with that?
And there were a lot of ideas that were out there that
were, there, were good ideas. But as we move forward, and you
know in the revised HSIP plan, which we'll get to,
Whether the lane reduction or not is part of that plan, we need to get this work done before we're going to commit to that.
But right now we are committed to getting those power lines, all the telecommunications,
all of the undergrounded and making sure that we care for that corridor the best we can.
So that is back in the plan and as we get to the slide we'll talk more about how that worked out.
Thank you and thank you, and I have looked at the revised plan and i'm happy that we're going to be talking about it today
But commissioner i am curious how long have these lane reductions for gamble and engra been on the books how
Long have they been within the plan
As it's not new and so i m curious the length of time they've been sitting there that
We've had opportunity to comment the public has provided feedback and that you've head time to consider the the full impacts
And I do just want to emphasize that when we reduce lanes we actually slow traffic which does save lives
Yeah, the chair representative Tobin
Yeah. So in the world
okay, so from what I saw and
The the scopes of the anger gamble project didn't have lane reductions in them
until
The HSIP plan added a lane reduction component to it
So I'm not have to go back and look to see if there was commitments made
I wasn't aware of commitment means made I was well aware
the underground in the utilities and those types of things.
But reducing lanes wasn't something, you know,
that I knew there was a discussion about it.
It didn't show up as a formal scope from what I'm aware
of until this revised HSI, well,
until the HSIP plan came out in December.
So that was from my understanding.
Now, there could be discussions that were had
or commitments, but an actual funding document that,
I was aware of that that wasn in december that
I saw that.
Not to say that there was discussion, you know, but that was that what I saw
Please continue, okay, thank you
Okay, one other thing we're recognizing as we go through some of these challenging
Lane reductions and these controversial projects is it's important that you
Know we are making the most of all of our safety resources in the state
This when we get into the traffic and safety world
You know, we have people spread out.
We have People in Juneau.
We got people in Anchorage.
We had people at Fairbanks.
And what we're trying to do now is really bring those folks
together to build more of a team.
So we are not doing something different in one region
to another.
And so in some of the subsequent presentations,
I know we were up for later.
We'll be talking more about some
of our budget changes, but some some
of their reorganization and realignment
work that we doing as well.
So I just wanted to bring that up because the safety piece of it
is on our mind to strengthen that.
Okay, so this is a bit highway safety improvement program brief at ease
Back on the record apologies for that technical audio issue
Commissioner. Thank you chair. Okay for the record Ryan Anderson
Okay, so the highway safety improvement program. It's a
Under federal law states are required to set monitor and report safety performance targets as part of the Highway Safety program
They're outcome based and this is where the high-way safety Improvement Program is a bit different than our other programs
It' a primary federal program
It is really the primary Federal program states utilize to address and improve safety for performance Targets
It's a tool for us.
It really, you know, focuses on things like intersection crashes, roadway departures, pedestrian fatalities.
One thing, so we try to utilize this program.
You know we have to look across the state at the performance metrics.
Sometimes we find areas where we'll have, we will mix funds together.
So we have a big project and a portion of that is eligible for this Highway Safety Improvement Program funding.
Sometimes there's a project where the whole thing can be eligible
for the Highway Safe Improvement program funding, and that's, so it's it a year by year analysis.
So every year we're looking across the system and making the most of what we can with this program.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, thanks for being here.
I guess I'm just not entirely clear on the timing of things,
the highway safety, no, the strategic highway
safety plan, I think is dated 2023.
Is that when it was adopted?
Do we need federal highways then to approve it
before we can use it?
What's what's the the order of operations there?
Yeah through the chair senator keel yeah, we have a strategic highway safety improvement program
I believe it was 2023 when we approved it and that's that' s a foundation for the for you know
A lot of our safety decisions and how we use our programs
This one in particular though is it's really that looks as at crash rates it looks at those specific safety factors in a very
more quantitative way across the state.
And so every year we go through and do a re-evaluation
and see where everything's at
and that's where you see annually.
There's a new highway safety improvement program
that comes out.
Follow-up.
Indeed.
So thank you, Commissioner.
That's helpful.
I just...
You know when we talk about things like the lain diets or the anchorage
Plans I when I look through that it specifically talked about anchovies you talked
About laine diets it talked, about speed reductions, and so I
If if
Two years plus after the thing was adopted we hadn't done what we needed to use it. I'm
What was the hold up that led to a 2025 memo about how you use these tools?
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Keel.
Yeah I think there was probably some misses there in terms of as we went through and
doing the traffic analysis and doing some of the work as these lane reduction projects came to the forefront.
It has been in the past two years that this has something that's becoming more and more prevalent.
that's been in the past two years that have been coming through.
So, yeah, I think the recognition and then the development
of the chief engineer's directive has all happened
over that time period.
And so now we have the directive.
I mean, the work that is in a directive is,
it's not something that say two or three year analysis.
I'm mean this is work
that can be done fairly quickly.
We've already, since this directive came out,
And it's not her going on Ingrid Gamble.
So there seems to be like there's some maybe like this was
something that we did to try to stall projects.
That's what this is about.
I've been involved in a lot of projects that if you don't do
the good solid work to have the engineer stamp in the backing,
you get to the end and then someone challenges it.
and you end up going backwards.
So this was really about having good, strong policy on this.
So that as we go forward, it's real clear to everybody.
You know, this is how we move forward on
this and this how it works.
I mean, yeah, seems like there's this,
like this a delay tactic by DOT or something like that.
That's not what this about.
And Mr. Chairman, just to clarify,
I'm not impugning what DOT is trying to do.
We've got a plan that we adopt that says these are some things we should do,
these some places we could do them, and two different strategies in the plan talk about these.
And then two and a half years post, then we're figuring out how to do it.
It doesn't usually sound like the speed of state government, it sounds a little more like
the Speed of Federal Government.
So that was my only concern about the implementation steps.
Senator Tobin.
And I do want to follow up after Senator Keel because I'm curious by a statement you just
made that these tools are not meant to delay these projects, but these
projects were removed by an amendment that was offered by your team from the HSIP.
Although that has been changed, from my understanding that we had during a central region update
and some conversations, it was indicated that
these particular land reductions using camel and ingra for example, including the removal
the lighting posts that are bifurcating the sidewalk
weren't ready for funds.
That they were included in the HSIP,
but then suddenly they removed.
And I'm very curious about, again,
that the order of operations, as we sat with you
December 4th, and I said to you, I'll be off the record,
this is a very critical project for me,
and am very excited to see it moving forward,
and you agreed with me.
So it's difficult for me to take genuinely that there is not some nefarious action because at that point in time you would probably submitted the amendment.
And at the point you could have said, well let Senator Tobin, let me give you an update.
And that did not happen.
Government is about transparency and clear communication.
And you can understand my frustration about the particular dynamic that is occurring here.
Ingrid Gamble where we could talk through the details on that for those slides and hopefully
that will help clarify things for you.
I look forward to it.
Okay.
One more slide on more big picture on the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
This program has a lot of different fun types to and they all have different eligibility
You can see on the HSIP categories, you can
see how the funds are broken out with the totals by category.
And then, of course, there's been a lot of discussions
about the regional breakouts of it as well.
And so we wanted to get that on here.
So it's real clear on, the central region,
the northern region the south coast region
and the statewide programs and what's
being allocated for the federal fiscal year of 2026.
And then we have the list of projects that goes along with it currently right now overall for total HSIP program
It's 96.6 million
But as we'll talk about that includes some advanced construction
Use so we could make sure that we got these projects. That everyone agrees are important in the program this year
Okay, so will talk through a little bit on Ingra Street and Gamble Street so the project itself is actually composed of
three different projects, one is an HSIP funding project
that's overhead signal improvement.
So this is the intersections, the signals
and those types of things.
Those intersections need to be modernized.
There's absolutely no doubt about that.
There is also one that is a utility pole removal
and the increased lighting in the corridor.
That's another one.
And those, those both, when we look at them, they would be advertised together, but they're
listed as two separate projects.
And then the big one for Ingrid Gamble is the utilities.
There's just an enormous amount of utility work there.
And so we're working closely with the electric utility, the telecoms.
There is natural gas, there's water, sewer, I mean, all of these things.
And, so those are really where the initial focus and the
initial funds are going to be spent.
As we worked through this, when the initial HSIP plan came to my level, what we were
told was that those projects won't be ready to deliver this year.
And so there was no intent to cancel the projects, but they were getting delayed into 2027.
Now, subsequently, and so then the plan was adjusted because there were other safety
Subsequently to that, you know, we recognize that and I recognize this is a this
is the priority project. You know we got with the mayor of Anchorage we had a
conversation with The Governor and recognizing that hey this
is something that we're gonna put some energy into we came up with a plan and
it's a joint municipality DOT plan to really start you
know take Ingrid Gamble and get across the finish line.
so unlike what we had to do with Kenai Spur highway to go from the two lanes to the four
lanes where it really took you know the team with where we have the mayor and the legislators
and everyone to really push something because when with this one you
know that the utilities have priorities everyone has different priorities but if we come together
and you we're going to sit down the Mayor and I with the utility company in Anchorage and we
But what our approach right now is that, you know, we believe the utility company can be underground in utilities in March,
which that's two months away.
We believe that is possible.
And then that sets us up to,
you get the other project pieces of the project obligated in August.
We do have a contractor on board now. This was a project that was being done in house.
And we're just, we are going to push on this thing to see, you know, what's possible here.
So that's the approach right now for Ingrid Street and Gamble Street.
Senator Tomah.
Thank you.
And I appreciate the work that you've done.
And, I do not negate or discount that.
I understand that there are all sorts of factors
that happen to occur behind the scenes,
and I recognize that
there're multiple moving pieces to this.
However, I'm still hung up on something
that one of your teammates said,
which is to say that these projects,
which had been removed,
were, and, quote,
to save these project are sitting waiting
for funding is inaccurate,
that they were not ready.
So what has changed to make them ready?
What is the magic sauce that was missing that has suddenly been added?
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Tobin.
Yeah what you're going to see is an increase in resources added to this project.
So we'll take resources from other projects and we will apply them here to get this one across the finish line.
Senator Tovin?
Thank you and I'm curious because I know that these are actually through advanced construction
So they're no longer on the actual HSIP they are being funded through advance construction. So can you walk me through that statement?
Yeah, Senator Tobin. Yeah. Thanks for that question
We can advance construct
Different fun types so we can advanced construct the HS IP funds
So what we're doing is we are saying we could move this thing to construction early
Then we'll convert those funds in 2027. So the funds will you know, we use the 20 27 program to convert them
Thank you continue, please. Okay, thank you
The other projects in the Anchorage area that you are very important the Tudor Road
We have Baxter Road to Patterson Street channelization
Tudora Road at Wright Street and Dale Street with vulnerable road user improvements. Sorry. I had a acronym on there
We also have A Street safety improvements.
This is to begin the design and its intersection
and corridor level safety countermeasures
with a flexible scope.
And this is one where, you know,
the lane reduction is being very well considered.
And we're getting through that process.
Fifth Avenue, concrete street to Carluk Street,
pedestrian improvements for 3.9 million.
And then there's a lot of community-wide focus projects.
of Vision Zero Speed Limit Compliance,
which was actually funded last year.
And so that one's fully funded.
We have an Anchorage flashing yellow error,
an error arrow, and signal head display improvements,
which is where you have the flashing-yellow signals.
Those have been very well received in a lot of areas.
That will end up being an $18 million project in 2028
for construction.
Central Region and Reddit light indicator lights
and retroreflective backplates.
You know, red light running is a real problem.
And so these are projects to make sure
that our lights really stand out.
Same with the next one.
And then these safety audits continue on.
And, so, we have, you know
efforts out there to do safety
audits on all our highways.
The other one that's something we're working
with The municipality of Anchorage on
in the mayor's office is this downtown
street relinquishment.
And this was something that has been brought forward to us.
It's fifth and sixth, I and L streets.
And the idea is the municipality would like to manage those streets differently than, you know, a DOT does.
And so right now we're working with the Federal Highway Administration, and everyone, we are working through this.
What is this process? How does this work for DOT to relinquish those highways?
And, so, this is something that it takes a little while.
You have to go through a lot of work.
Next steps that we're going through municipality is a traffic model to understand where the
traffic goes if you change that 5th and 6th INL so the traffic, you know, maybe you have
more traffic on anger gamble, if maybe I have more travel on northern lights and so this
kind of ties back into that whole lane reduction concept and why we really want to do this
work to understanding what happens because there's a lot of asks right now in Anchorage
to reduce lanes and those types of things.
And if we do it too much, we just got to make sure we're doing the right things here.
Senator Trowban has a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This particular project is very intriguing to me as I know there is quite a few outstanding projects that are in that corridor.
Lighting upgrades, as we've often talked about, some of the street lights have been well neglected.
To just understand a little bit about as you have this street was relinquishment conversation.
What is the cost that's going to be borne by the city?
Are you going be upgrading the facilities and giving them in perfect condition?
Or is there going out standing long term consequences that the City will have to absorb?
What does the maintenance of these?
Can you give us a bit more detail so that we here on the dais understand the full scope of what is being discussed?
Through the chair, Senator Tobin.
Yeah, those are great questions.
So on the maintenance front,
we have a lot of different arrangements with
the city on what gets maintained downtown.
So I think from that perspective,
how those things get worked out is a bit of a wash.
The when you do a relinquishment,
we've been doing some researches in
other states and where these have been done,
what it ends with is
a project and so basically,
To relinquish a highway corridor, you have a project that does whatever it is that the municipality,
the folks that want to do to make the corridor what they needed to be, and that's really the final step.
So they're left with a product that takes care of that corridor.
But then after that, then it's theirs to maintain and perform.
Thank you, that's helpful to understand that there may be some costs associated with this particular relinquishment.
I am also curious, as I know much of the conversation in Anchorage has been around adding in more pedestrian facilities in these areas, closing roads, creating.
a different footprint for downtown and it's under my understanding that because
fifth and six are part of the federal highway system that some of those
hopes may not be able to be actualized. Can you talk a little bit about
that fifth-and-sixth street and whether some
of things that the municipality has been
interested in are actually possible or are they not possible?
Yeah, a lot of this has to get worked out through this for
the language process. But the idea is, you know,
you relinquish the national highway system designation
on that area. And so really these become arterial roads
or potentially collectors. I mean, depending on how those
things work out, they still have federal funds in them.
And, so you still got to follow the federal fund rules.
But in terms of, you know, DOT would want an NHS route or an interstate route,
how we look at things, they can have some differences there.
And I believe that the municipality believes that there's some benefit.
Senator Schopenh.
Thank you, and I apologize.
And, I will get off this, although many of these things are about the community in which I represent.
So, what I'm hearing you say is that if the relinquishment goes through and fifth and six are no longer part of the federal highway system,
there is real possibility that ANC or Ingrid and Gamble.
would be re-designated as part of that structure, and that the traffic would have to be redirected into those areas.
Or is that a misinterpretation of your statement?
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Tobin, these are all things, if we're talking about traffic volumes.
Yeah. These are the things that we have look at.
So, what has to do be modeled is if you reduce the amount of traffic going through downtown,
They have ways that they'll look at what traffic on other ways would go through.
We do have to model Ingrid Gamble, A Street, all those subsequent streets to see where the traffic everybody understands where it would
go.
Yeah, that's really the next big step for that.
Thank you.
Thank You, please continue.
Okay, and then we also have a slide for the Highway Safety Improvement Program for
the rest of the state.
And so this is you know the city of Fairbanks has systematic signal upgrades and these I just put the or we just
Put the the construction projects on here
Parks highway sheep Creek parks highway guardrail and terminal upgrades
Guardrail terminals are a big deal right now for us. We get a lot of damage on guard rail
And still we're looking for any fun source we can to help out replace those things
Airport way connected corridor. That's about signal timing
On Kenai Peninsula, we have the Sterling Highway shoulder widening.
That was one that we're combining that with the project, the anchor point project to make
sure we can do it all at once.
Matt Sioux, Bogart Road in Inksdrum, Green Forest Drive intersection improvements, and
then with Silla Fishek Road and Spruce Avenue, that roundabout is also in there for the Matt
Sioux.
And then Southeast Alaska, Juneau Loop Road, you know Vanderbilt, continuous green,
and then Prince of Wales, rumble strip improvements.
Senator Rauscher has a question.
Yeah, thank you.
You have an ETA on those two projects?
Through the chair, Senator Rouscher,
I do not, but we'll get you one.
Thank you
Okay, and so with that.
Commissioner, before we leave this,
I might flag an issue about this concept overall.
With the increase in pedestrian deaths and accidents,
there's obviously a negative outcome.
And I'm thinking about holding a special hearing
just on that topic alone together with the troopers
and if the Anchorage PD would like to participate as well.
So we could talk about really the root cause
of some of these pedestrian death and accident
and what is happening and occurring
and, if we can figure out a way to
to continue to mitigate that from maybe other factors,
other than changing the road facility.
It's something I'm thinking about and wondering.
So as a person who kind of watches conversations
happen about Anchorage, I can't help but wonder
through noticing when people in certain groups
talk about making
things more pedestrian friendly and talk about where they would like to do that.
I wonder who they're speaking to and then what type of activity they were.
They would want to encourage through those improvements or changes.
So to certain groups of people that might mean one thing and to others, it could mean something else.
So maybe we'll explore this concept of pedestrian safety as we move forward with.
the Anchorage PD as well as the troopers,
and we'll talk about this issue more in depth.
Yeah, thank you, Chair Bjorkman.
And this was a very specific presentation
around the Highway Safety Improvement Program.
Yes, sir.
And just so folks, no, I mean, there's
other things DOT's doing on this front.
We've really built our homeless encampment policies.
So to recognize when if there are encampments happening
along the highway system that are a danger
that we take care of those.
We've also been engaging with folks like Covenant House and trying
to find places for people, you know, so if they get off the street,
you we're giving them that shot so they can have some transportation jobs.
You know really, and you recently I think we had some press on extraction tools.
We're finding money for EMS on that side to make sure we do a good job there.
And when we have the enforcement piece, 100% agree there's a bigger picture here.
It's not just infrastructure that fixes it, yeah.
Thank you, please continue.
Okay, so with that, we'll shift over to the match discussion,
and I'm gonna pass it over
to Mr. Don Panone.
All right, thank you Commissioner for the record.
Don Pannon, Director of Program Management and Administration.
The next three slides,
we will talk about the Match for our Federal Surface Transportation Program,
which is essentially our step.
And I'll walk through the matching the history and the status
and where we're going looking forward on the next 3 slides.
So last year is the budget moved through the legislature.
When we received our match appropriations, we had a mix of re-appropriations
that were some active projects and some older match pots.
So some of those, most of the.
The projects that were re-appropriated to us for our match were active projects and already in flight and moving forward.
And the match funds that had been reappropriating for us, we had already accounted for in our balances.
So our budget request to the legislature was for additional match so
that we could deliver our plan at the time and we received the re appropriation of match we already had in lieu of that.
ultimately reduced the match through the vetoes.
The reduction was $58 million.
And we subsequently had to work with the Federal Highway
Administration to have that reflected in our state
transportation improvement plan.
Go to the next slide.
This slide outlines what the budget request was.
And what essentially a lack of match does for us,
That jeopardizes new construction projects, and reduces our throughput of projects.
And puts at risk the department maximizing the August redistribution opportunity that happens every year.
Every year we're allowed to gain access to more of our funds that belong to the state.
And it restricts the use of the federal funds to.
perhaps paying down our AC balance instead of putting it to new projects.
With the match reduction, however, we can essentially capture the minimum amount of federal dollars.
We can rely on our A.C. balance to make sure no federal funds lapse, but essentially it's a reduction in throughput of projects for the department.
And the next slide, the last slide on-
Senator Simmons has a quick.
So on this subject, which will probably be a subject that gets some attention.
The next committee of, as we go through the budget process, and we'll have the department
come in and will walk through to the timeline of the match. And I think we will have some discussion
on the interpretation of availability of funds. All right, I probably have a difference of opinion.
But nonetheless, we've got an issue here I think you're going to get into as a timing
and we'll of the federal match and when it may become unacceptable to the state.
We have that timeframe and then we have the timeframe of construction projects hitting
Different time frames, but
Clearly interrelated so we'll go through that in detail in the next several days up north. I mean up North upstairs
I guess I think my staff's already got a hold of you guys to work out the presentation and all that stuff in details
so anyway, I just want to
mention that because
there clearly is the
difference of opinion on availability and and
Who's the appropriators?
Please continue. I think you mr. Chairman and aren't the last slide here does speak to that
In the current budget proposed by the governor. We are requesting a supplemental appropriation of
the sixty nine million dollars of match
You know speaking to timing a
Supplemental appropriation would allow us to would position the department to
Capture and maximize that August redistribution opportunity
The match we're talking about is for the federal fiscal year, which ends every year we request match for
the Federal year which starts a little later than the fiscal
year starts October 1.
So right now we are a third of the way through the
federal Fiscal year.
So as far as timing, we were looking for that appropriation before July.
There's a couple of things in play with that.
Last year
we had a historic August redistribution, a success by the
had $183 million that we captured extra last year in addition to our normal amount of funding.
So we're looking at that plan right now, where the federal highway administration just gave us notice last week.
That there's an initial amount 64 million allocated to the state.
But they would like us to, as they do every year, put together a plan that would maximize.
how much we as a state can get, and that does rely on additional match.
Otherwise, we're going to be looking at our advanced construction balance and
using August redistribution or our normal federal funds to pay those down.
So we are looking to have resolution by July 1 as the department.
Thank you for that answer. I think we have a few questions. Senator Stebman.
Just kind of, because I
think it's good you guys did, he's really good in the redistribution and
congratulate the hard work at DOT.
I'll go down about it. And the match for the
redistribution that you came up with, kind
of curious where you got it, and then
why it wasn't used in the decision process for the match that was vetoed in an decision
process.
It was available.
Why didn't you use it earlier right after the veto to secure that, those other funds
versus waiting until August, September, whenever you got the matched for redistribution, there's
some.
some timings of the cash flow questions to make it clear in everybody's mind that it was the department and then the
legislature so we
can focus our our discussion on solving the problem and not get sidetracked on on
Misinformation and it is what it. Is good or bad, right? We just need to have it laid on the table
It's through the chair
What we heard largely last year from the legislature and the public was to advance as many projects that we possibly could to maximize the capture of federal funds and put as
many contracts on the street.
The appropriations that were vetoed were for the current federal fiscal year.
And the match that we had for the extra funds available last federal fiscal year were a culmination every year when we request more match.
We're requesting enough match to ensure that were able to take advantage of any August redistribution possibilities.
And that sometimes includes also advanced construction where we're trying to keep our advanced
construction levels where they are in the past.
to pay down advanced construction significantly, and that can reduce the amount of projects that are out there on the street and the construction industry sees as well.
So it was a culmination of those things, I think we do look forward to discussing it further as we proceed.
Other questions?
Senator Keel?
On a similar line, thank you Mr. Chairman.
So if I understood right, this.
Excellent performance on this past August redistribution was with state fiscal year 25 money, even though we were into an August State Fiscal Year 26.
Is that, is that what I heard?
Through the Chair, Senator Keel.
Yes, the state, fiscal, year appropriations get directed to the federal fiscal
year, they align that way, man.
follow-up then we certainly were did have those conversations. I remember them about the
rate at which bid packages were getting out to the contractor community last year.
So now with this shortfall in match, here I guess the the concern arises again
about whether this is going to impact DOT's ability to get the next tranche of contracts,
out in front of contractors timely for them to get materials ordered and people
hired and equipment mobilized and all the things that they do
that I have only the vagus to understanding of
but to take a bunch of time before they can start turning dirt.
Yeah for the record Ryan Anderson, Commissioner DOT,
yeah through the chair, Senator Keel, yeah what we've done because you know we
is, you know, the projects as they, there has not been any hold-ups on project delivery
at this time.
Right?
We're prioritizing the project that are ready to go to bed, all those things that you described
to get the Project ready at the time, and all the Projects that Are Ready, they're going
out to bid.
We know we're using our existing match that we have remaining to make sure that that happens.
to continue down that path with the tools that we have.
So we're actively working those strategies
to make sure there isn't a hold up on any projects.
But you know, and working through some of these things
like the next August redistribution is a big deal
because if there's opportunities there,
we want to capture them.
So, we had more work to do in some those areas,
but even for the contractors,
because this was something that had come up,
you now a lot of discussions.
Our program on our tentative advertised schedule where we list all the projects and and what's coming up and
what date they're going to be awarded a bid we actually have two segments now we have you know
what what we are currently planning based on the funds that we
have and then we
have a shovel ready project section which we put on there to say these projects can be ready to go
and so that's it's real clear that there's the list of projects we
project delivery, things move around a lot.
And so we can pull projects from the shovel ready list
to move them up if other projects move out.
And recognizing that our project
delivery season here is from now through September
for this federal fiscal year, that's
how we're trying to look at this thing and make sure
we are keeping those projects rolling.
And, so, at that time, we don't see that problem where
we round out a match, we can't deliver all the projects that we currently have planned.
Senator Stemmon.
Just a point of clarification because when you say at this time, this
time is today or this is meaning that through June, because the next fiscal year starts
middle of June. So let's say hypothetically, that's when he signs the current FY 27 budget.
That's, is that the date you're looking at? There would be no, there appears at this time to be
no construction contract delay because of the 70 million as long from here to June as
this budget cycle. You could be on track.
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Steadman. Yeah. That's our current analysis of it.
Things can change. I mean, there's always that risk where, you know, projects start coming in real high.
And so we have to adjust for that. But when we look at our
current, engineers estimates and what all our teams are saying when the projects will be delivered.
Yeah, right now we believe that, you know, we can get through July, it'll be an uninterrupted project delivery flow and then we go from there.
Senator Coben.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman, I apologize.
Some of this is a little bit past my level of expertise, so I'm trying to grapple my head around this.
So from my understanding, and please correct me here.
we are using advanced construction to get projects to the delivery stage and get them out to bid.
And yet here you were saying that we need to
get state match so that
we can get project prepared and ready to
get out-to-bid and then earlier you said with the Anchorage projects that you
were hiring a contractor to
get to project delivery so they could be awarded.
So I'm just having some trouble here and I know that it probably is just
language and level expertise that I do not have.
But can you walk us through this again? There are projects
construction, I don't understand how those are being out to bid, and yet we need additional state matches, but that must come quickly.
There's a lot of convolution that I just need some clarity on.
For the record, Don Penone, through the chair, Senator Tobin.
These projects, some of them are on advanced construction where we've got the approval and
we're going to proceed with contracting, where've we got last year's money.
system. The other thing is we didn't tell our engineers and project managers to stop, so
every project has a multi-year design phase where we obligate those monies. They have
enough money to do the entire runway to deliver the project. And when we look at the sequencing,
we're saying that we told everyone to keep going so that they can continue to live
A short period of the construction season and then when we get an additional set of match we can then obligate that match with real federal dollars
So it's it really not about AC, but sequencing our projects and our delivery
Yes, thank you, Senator Beaurekman, and so
using the example that we have here as your
sequencing those projects and you have so much runway before you need additional
tranche of funds and the governor vetoes that what then happens to the contractors as I
anticipate that we are going to be in a similar situation here in the future where we
are looking for resources that. We can find as the state is in
a fiscal situation that's very volatile and there may need to
Walk us through how are we going to stop what happened before that from my understanding was not communicated nor clearly described to the legislature
Yeah through the chair senator Tobin
so
For the project delivery piece
Yeah, if we get in if We got into July and and yeah, we're running out of match
Yeah
There will be impacts to contractors. I mean that the right we can't award the projects if
We don't have the match that's just but
In terms of the federal program, because we've ACed, I think our AC balance now is about $570 million.
So that's, you know, we borrowed.
When you AC a project,
you pay the match.
So, but when you convert,
you don't have to.
We already already paid.
So we can convert as much of that $370 million as we want.
to make sure we make the program this year.
So to utilize all the federal funds,
we have a strategy for that.
This is really about the projects getting on the street.
And so that's, yeah, if that helps, verify.
Okay, thank you.
Senator Stebman.
Just for those watching at home,
I think there's about 70 million here,
so we're talking about 700 million in projects.
All right, round it off.
And if I'm hearing it correctly,
As long as you have 70 million in the budget, regardless of what fiscal year it is, 26 or 27,
when the governor signs it, its cash on the barrel head, unless it's 27 it'd be July 1.
If it was 26 money, it could be the last two weeks of June. But either way, by July 4th,
you would have the cash in hand to implement the projects, the 700 million projects.
Theoretically, is that correct?
For the record, Don Penone, through the Chair, Senator Steadman, I think it would push the uncertainty out.
And we would have to be able to resolve that in our step.
And, we have put in the step only funds that we can reasonably believe to available.
So, that reduction in this step would continue.
where we reduced, I think we reduce our,
it was over a hundred million dollars,
maybe several in our steps,
so we wouldn't be able to restore that in
our step till that funding's restored.
I can...
That's confusing, because I was just looking
at the timing of the cash, you know,
FY26 ends in June.
And this is 26 money here.
We're looking at the 70 million.
But if it's wrapped up in the budget package at
the end, its effective date would be when the governor
signs it, which is a couple weeks before the new
fiscal year.
But, if its in next fiscal
year, the effective day would need July 1.
We are talking 14 days.
So how do you help me rectify that, trying to figure
vote to get to this money, because there's a deficit in this current fiscal year versus 27,
which may or may not need a three-quarter vote.
Through the chair, Senator Stemmon, I do follow the logic and how that would make our cash flow
be able to make us cashflow the way we need to, but it would then create a
deficit for federal fiscal years 27. It would
If we were going to take a chunk of the federal fiscal year 27 match and use it in federal
fiscal years 26, we would then be shifting the reduction in project throughput to federal
fiscal Year 27.
So Mr. Chairman, if we can take that deal with it and finance because I think we could split
that money out so it's clearly delineated what it is for.
I was just looking at the timing.
We could just give you 70 million in cash and tell you to go have a party with it for that matter
We don't have to put strings on it
Not that you wouldn't you shouldn't do that. Yeah, I shouldn do this
Unless you're gonna build seven hundred million and southeast and maybe we'll talk about that
Thank you senator stegman
Yeah just to more clearly drive home this point of I think
Confusion that unfortunately this conversation. I don't think it's clarified real well is on slide eight
You talk about because we had vetoed match you had to amend the strip
Which then you just you you've just reiterated that we have a contracting community out there that is very fearful that
There will not be projects on the street. There won't be work out therefore them this construction season because
match was vetoed. However, during the same discourse that we just had, and as well as conversations that
we received from our leg legal capital budget coordinator at leg finance, they say, yeah,
they'll probably be okay for this construction season. So I guess what I'm seeing here that's
There is enough money available that DOT has for match right now to put projects out
this construction season, we heard that here today.
The capital budget coordinator seems to agree with that, however we have information and
you also have said that you've amended the step in taking more than $100 million out
Can you please help me understand how both of those things are true and
What the actual impacts are for potential projects moving forward?
Yeah, a chair Bjorkman, so
When we look at our
Projects to hit the street. I mean we're looking at a time frame like now it would be January through September and
so I think what you're hearing from us is between now and and
this we have enough match for what we're seeing in the project delivery on that
tentative advertising schedule that you know we can continue to deliver when we
get past June things start getting questionable and so that's where you're
hearing us say you now we we've we built in some time here so we
can make this work to get us through June does that make sense I hear what
directly then, what were the amendments made to,
what are the changes made
to step amendment number two
because of the vetoed re-appropriations?
So, yeah, Chair Steadman, or sorry,
Chair Bjorkman.
When we had to do, when we did the amendment to
and this was, you know, we went through the public notice
with a certain amount of match
in our fiscal constraint tables on amendment Number Two.
And it was after the public notice that then, you know, the match was reduced.
And so we had to revise our fiscal constraint tables to show the new amount of match, which I think was around 75 million, somewhere in that ballpark.
And, so, all the projects that were shown in this step, we have to reevaluate to make sure that our physical constraint table for the Federal Highway Administration were accurate to the Match.
that is allowable for those projects,
so that the requirements for the projects.
So that's why that different.
Now, because we recognize on the project delivery side,
there's this demand to keep delivering these projects
we had a fair amount of projects
that were in the AC column on this step
for The Public Notice version.
Well, we can't ACM if we don't have the match.
And so many of those projects got pushed to further years
because we just didn't have the match,
the math wasn't working.
And that's why you saw that on the step.
Now, the nice thing about the Stip
is if you push them to a subsequent year,
it takes a modification to bring them back in.
So match becomes available, you know, it's July 1,
when it is, we can pull those project back.
you know, with the Federal Highway Administration
about the match, we've been very much in discussions
with them about it, that you're just having a supplemental,
having it there shown, is that a reasonable enough thing
that we can, for our new step, which was the next slide?
Is it reasonable that that,
we could put it back in?
And we don't have that answer yet.
But we're working on that to see, you you
know where they're at, on the one as well.
Very good.
I think we'll move on from this conversation and leave it in the capable hands of the three Senate Finance Committee members in
the room for next week.
We will have an in-depth conversation about the re-appropriation of cascade point money and I
think at a future hearing.
I'd like to invite you all and CBJ, Gold Belt, Native groups, everybody.
We'll come here, we will talk through.
What happened and why? My office has received
Sizable amount of communications about that project and so we'll talk about why only state dollars were used and what the future is for that
project so
Coming soon to a bunch of its room near you. Okay, if we could continue with slide 12
Okay, and we can we go quickly through these so for the record Ryan Anderson
Okay
So we're back to the step and then for those to take us back
to 2024 when our original step was approved if for
Those of you that remember at that time we were at the end of our four-year step
And it was a real problem because we didn't get the approval right away and
We actually had to get a special extension on our on
2020 or step that ended in 2024 to get us through that
hiatus period
And so this is kind of that timeline that takes you through
That amendment one we got through amendment two, but what we agreed, you know
And what? We had talked about is we're going to start this concept of a rolling step
Which all that really means is that every two years so we have a four-year time horizon with our step?
but we're gonna renew it every two years.
So we won't ever get into that situation again
where you run to the end of your step
and there's a hang up and getting to
the next new step.
So you see, we've got time built into this now.
So this really just shows that.
We are planning on for the new stuff.
We're planning on doing a technical review draft, which we'll get out to the agencies,
the MPOs, to kind of give it that preview.
It's not to comment on projects, but it's more of the technical side of things, or the
funding shown right.
Right now, we do have a draft narrative that we've shared with Federal Highways Administration,
and I'll go into that here real briefly, so February, you know, everyone's going to start
Senator Tobin thank you, and I will make this quick as we had talked on December 4th that
Public comment for the step would open probably over the holidays and yet that did not occur
So can you help me understand when the public comment period will be so that we can help get the word out to our constituents?
Yeah through the chair of senator Toban. Yeah, it February
I would say is what we're looking at right now
Yeah
And as will go through we've been working through some things that I waste to make sure we got this one solid so
Okay, it's just a little bit of background on the step.
I won't spend any time, but it really just talks a
little about how, you know, we work through step development,
rolling-step approach, and then a bit on,
you now, a lot of what we do with the four-year time horizon
of the steps is we look at project delivery,
and estimates are updated, project schedules are
updated and things are moving around based on those factors.
So we did submit a new step narrative.
from concept to the Federal Highway Administration.
This really, when we got to, through amendment number two,
we had a list of recommendations
from the federal highway administration and the FTA,
federal transit administration.
So we went through those and we were trying to revamp
our step based on those recommendations
and so you can kind of see how we're laying it out.
So for the most part, we are trying
to make it a lot more plain language.
So, people can read through the narrative and understand what the step is and how these
things work in our world.
And then in the appendices is where the technical details will live and there will be a few
things there that we'll be working through in terms of some of these MP03, the 3C procedures
and we have step procedures that need to get squared away.
So we're working to do that and then you can see we will have multiple volumes like
Here's just a quick snapshot of the recommendations from the Federal Highway Administration and
the federal transit administration.
Simplify the step, use plain English and clearer structure.
Streamline our amendment process.
That can always be challenging, but one thing they're looking at is, do we just show project
changes in the amendment, and there'll be different discussions about that as we go
through clarifying draft to final changes.
The overall organization on how we show projects where we're having to sequence out more projects just because of the high costs.
Advanced construction, toll credits, making sure we are clear on that.
Our STIP procedures, the 3C planning processes, and then on our performance based planning they wanted to make sure that we have some more discussion in there on
that as well.
As, you know, we go through the new step and kind of how we're running through things.
Of course, Alaska, LNG, pipeline readiness, freight improvements are on the list of focus
areas, the Alaska Marine Highways, there's a fair amount,
you we are tackling in the step of the Alaskan Marine highways.
There is a lot of bridge,
you now there is few tunnel ideas out there.
Frontier Roads is something that you
transfer of the recreational trails program to the DOT.
That's something where we're trying to make the most of that program really expand on that piece of it,
recognizing that Alaskans from all over the state.
It's not all normal highways with pavement.
Preventive maintenance program.
Absolutely want to continue our good path right now where
you know, meeting and exceeding those federal performance metrics.
The safety projects are focused and then that overall system reliability
and mobility, those types of projects too. So just kind of a purview of when
we're looking through the stuff, these are the kind
of things that are kind come to your attention
where investments are. And then one thing I wanted to put on here
was just, you we have a lot more projects now
And this is something, you know, we're going to have to tackle.
It's something that we are going continue to work through,
and we aren't saying these projects are in the step,
but these are projects that are out there,
that had work done.
And so,
we were just trying to tack them.
Dalton Highway is a big focus.
The Glen Highway, that stretch from Anchorage to Whassilla,
that's going be an expensive job.
The Klondike and the, you know, we've spent a lot of money on the Hanes Highway recently,
some great improvements out there.
The parks, the sewers, it's all over the place.
Sterling Highway has a lotta big projects planned.
The west to sit in access is another one.
On the next one we put some that are greater than 250.
There is a mistake on here, Bogart Road Safety and Capacity Improvements isn't over 250,
that was supposed to be in over 100.
But you have that suite of Alaska Highway World War II bridges.
That's over $250 million to complete those.
The Juno Douglas North Crossing, there's the Seward Highway
corridor, of course, Cooper Landing bypass.
Connect Arm Crossing if that's something
that the state wants to move forward with.
That is definitely over that.
So just trying to highlight these expensive projects
are becoming more and more prevalent.
Senator Chauvin.
Thank you.
Thank You, Mr. Chairman.
I'm curious as we've had this conversation before
create projects for smaller contractors and for some of our communities that may not be able to bid on such a large-scale project.
So I'm looking particularly at the Glenn Highway Rehabilitation.
I know if we don't do something soon, we're going to see sinkholes and some other things that are coming our ways.
And I enjoy the 49,000 cars that come to Anchorage from Wasilla to work in our fair downtown and Anchorage area.
And, I want to make sure that they're safe.
So, i'm curious about particularly that project, but also all of them.
What is some of the conversation around breaking up some
of these large projects?
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Tobin.
Yeah.
The Glendhighway is a great example.
So what we've done there is you start looking at the
components of work.
I mean, one of big things that actually has to happen
there, is lot of drainage work, it's been a while since
those culverts and those structures have been replaced.
So you'll start with a first phase where you're going to
go in and you've got to get those things fixed.
And so a lot these phases will be 30 to 40 million.
and we'll try to break it up like that.
The other piece on the Glen is there's that,
oh, it's where we're really trying to look at
what happens in an emergency and a crisis
and in a bridge strike and making sure we are installing
all those mechanisms that you can get off the Glenn
and get somewhere else, so that's part of it too.
So yeah, if we can, you'll see a lot of projects
that are in that 30 to 40 million dollar range,
that seems to be prevalent, but there are some segments
of work you just can't.
you just got to do it all. So it kind of depends project by project, but agreed that we definitely
want to make sure that those those 20 to 30, even the tend to, that, we have a good, you know,
list of projects that are variable in terms of different contractors have that opportunity to bid.
Senator Seben. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Catch Can viaduct. I don't see this on the list.
It's a little project for the state, but off a big project
for rural southeast.
Can you help me with that?
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Stidman.
Yeah.
That one should be on the list.
They've done a really good job breaking it up
into smaller chunks.
But yeah, I agree.
We'll get that on a list, sir.
Senator Rousher.
Thank you.
Through the Chair, so while we're on
the topic of smaller projects, 88 through 92
in the Glen Highway, just wondering
What is that schedule for this summer or what's going on there?
Yeah, through the chair, Senator Rouscher.
Yeah. That one, I haven't gotten the latest.
I mean, it's supposed to bid any day.
So we'll get you an update on that as well for the pavement rehabilitation.
Yeah I think you were cutting through
the side of the mountain and then putting a chain link.
Yeah kind of a drape going across there and some sort of
a ditch and sort
of barrier from rocks hitting cars.
Yep through the chair. Yes, senator roster. Yeah, that's correct
And then we're also a muddy Creek was another big one to get a bridge in over there as well. That's a project through
The chair senator rougher
Muddy Creek is probably a long way off
It seems like a major project. Is that right?
Do you have any idea about how far off because it is I think this year once the rains come
You're gonna see mud going across the highway
Yeah through The Chair
Some are on that one so we recognize the maintenance issue there
We'll get back to you on the schedule on
Thank you. Thank You senator rousher. I can attest and
Identify with your concern on That stretch of highway as mile 89 sticks out in my mind
It is quite interesting terrain features on The road there as I drove it on in December, so
It was exciting
senator rosher
In 1964, Alaska Magazine had a picture of the Boulder guardrail along the side of
the highway. It's still there. That sounds like durable infrastructure.
Just say. Look at it. Any other comments or questions?
Senator Tobin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize, as I did not ask this question previously on slide 15 where you have some of the FHWA recommendations.
I am noticing an omission of one particular one that I personally am interested in which is the recommendation on transparency regarding project choice and clear scoring.
Is that still something that your team is working on?
I enjoy the dashboard, but I also like the ability to get that clear information and
I'm hoping and putting this out into the.
the sphere of your control, if you can make it where we can search based on fund type.
It would be very helpful if I would, be able to say all of the projects under HSIP and
some other things that would really help with transparency.
Through the chair, Senator Tobin, okay, yeah, we'll write that one down.
Yeah, that's still definitely on the list.
We have one volume that will be devoted to projects and scoring.
So that is, Yeah.
That's part of a deal.
Very good. I just have one follow-up thing just if you could reply back in writing to the committee
with an answer about the statement on
slide 9 about
the
Adjustment to step amendment number two and project delivery plan as a result of
the veto re-appropriation match
Could you please reply to the committee with the changes and adjustments that were made?
And then the effect of those adjustments on those projects, please.
Then we can understand that.
I'm encouraged by our conversations here.
However, I still have questions about how we execute delivering
a maximum benefit for Alaskans for our highway program plan.
with this match conversation.
I think the public still has a lot of
concerning questions as well.
So I'm excited to see that go forward,
but if you could just please provide an answer about
the adjustments made to step amendment number two
in the project delivery plan,
and then any resulting delays in projects
as a result of that would be helpful aswell.
Yeah, Chair Bjorkman, absolutely.
There was a letter on July 17th, we sense.
To both the House and the Senate transportation committees will just build on that because that that describes some of the changes
And we'll make sure that's updated to reflect the current work. Thank you. I appreciate that
As there's no further business before the senate transportation committee
Our next meeting will be on Tuesday of next week where we will hear an update about winter road maintenance
all kinds of exciting things having to do with snow plows and all
kinds stuff so that's what we can look forward to next week so if you've got
questions concerns comments about winter road maintenance snowplows brine
anything let us know we'll be right here next
week Tuesday at 1 30 as there's no further business come for the committee
at this time we are adjourned at 2 48 p.m.