This meeting of the House Transportation Committee will now come to order
It is now 1.01 p.m. on Tuesday
January 27th in Capra room 124
members present are
Representative Stutes
represent Garrett Nelson
represent McCabe
represent Mina
represent St. Clair
Co-chair Representative Kerrick and myself co-chare represent Ayeshide
that the record reflect that we have a quorum
to conduct business.
Please take this time to silence your cell phones
for the duration of the meeting, and thank you for that.
Before we begin, I would like to thank
Jordan Nicholson from House Records,
as well as Chloe Miller from the Juneau LIO
for staffing the committee today.
Our committee aides are Meredith Trainor
and staff are Griffin Saquail.
Thank you, for your help.
Without you, this work is not possible.
And that is so true.
On today's agenda is a presentation on match funds
and impact of vetoes on projects by the Department
of Transportation Commissioner Ryan Anderson,
Deputy Commissioner Catherine Keith
and Department of transportation director, Don Pannon.
Welcome to the House Transportation Commission Committee,
Commissioner Anderson.
My apologies, Director, Deputy Commissioner Keith and Mr. Pinot.
Please approach the dice, put yourself on the record and begin your presentation.
And then as you are getting ready, I just want to know I tried to, for questions, you know,
unless the presenters ask for them to wait at the end,
I'll try to give after each slide my members a chance to ask questions.
And my, my pattern is to get you a question and then two follow-ups.
And I like to move on to somebody else.
So, just try and create some expectations so you're not surprised.
But we'll keep going unless it looks like time is running out.
Well, thank you, Coach Eisheid,
Coach Eric Eric,
thank for having us today at the transportation,
the House Transportation Committee.
So for the record, my name's Ryan Anderson.
I'm the commissioner of the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities.
Yeah, when we were working through this presentation,
one thing we heard was that when
we presented to labor and commerce this past summer,
our audio wasn't the best.
And so we've got some slides in there
that we wanted to go through again,
because they're important.
It's important information that we're happy to go through again with this committee
And then we'll get into some of the discussions about the match and the STIP updates
Which are a very much a focal point these days for us. So yeah, we are working through those.
So if that's okay, go chair. I'll begin the presentation. Please proceed
Okay, the first slide is just this is our
Project delivery program review and really you can see you know with 148 projects. This was in 2025.
This is talking about active construction,
you know, big focus on bridges, pavement, new roads.
You know we have some realignments.
One thing, you when we went through this last session,
you it was made real clear to us the legislature's intent
that DOT gets the projects out and that was a big
focus, that wasn't, so we worked hard with our teams
to make sure that that understood
and then that's what we wanted to do.
a letter, this went to Senate Transportation Committee that really laid out what our goals
were for the year. And so you can see in that chart before on the bottom right hand corner,
the fiscal year, we had 22, 23, 24, 25, and then we have the contract awards amounts, contractor payments.
Our FHWA obligations, because these all are a little bit different in our world, the FAA obligations.
And then we had our discretionary grant obligations as well.
And so at the time, we wanted to make real clear what they were from 22 to 24.
And what we were projecting for 2025, as we heard from a lot of different entities,
the legislature of that desire to get projects out.
And so that was that's just how we framed it. For tools for the department, you know,
we have the tentative advertised list that are online where people can go to see the
the construction schedules. We have a current bid calendar, contract award status as well,
just so those are all there for people to look at and that is where this information comes from.
Okay, so we had a phenomenal year in the federal fiscal year 2025.
If you look at the overall contract awards, we were at 897 million and if you go back
to that previous chart, I mean we're pretty close to what, you know, what we
were what were shooting for in our goals. There's always this request for the
regional breakdowns when we come to contract Awards and you
know these are these our construction contract rewards on the street. And you
know so for that breakdown Northern Region had 369 million, Central Region
And then you can just see the chart that kind of breaks down the number of awards along
with the total value of the awards from 2022 to 2025.
Question commissioner.
So I'm looking at 2025 and I see
the marine highway system.
in the legend there I don't see anything on the marine highway system or anything that looks like
that would be black I think in The Legend I Think that's black dark blue it's hard to tell on my
paper copy yeah yeah co-chair I said yeah there's the awards for the Marine Highway System primarily
are through other funding sources for 2025 so this you know reflects the highway funds the
Okay, thank you. Your contract awards.
Okay and then this slide, these are the funds that are obligated and so the
previous one was like contract rewards, signed contracts to contractors,
these were the fund that we secure in obligations and there
there can be a difference you know because if we were to obligate funds in
at the end of a federal fiscal year, the contract may not actually be signed to the following fiscal
year because of that overlap. And so you can see, you know, over the course of time, we wanted to
make sure people had a good time reference of our obligations. So from 2019 to 2025, again,
in 2025 and that's something the one thing there and it's on the right hand side
this is where we factor in our 183 I think it was 0.4 million August redistribution
which was a record August for distribution for the state of Alaska. Commissioner what
can you just define that word obligated at what point does a fund or dollars become obligated?
Yeah, thank you for that question.
So when we're going through the project delivery processes,
we have to get the plans completed
to a point that an engineer stamps them.
There's an estimate, the specifications.
The environmental document is completed and certified.
The land acquisition is complete and is certified,
the utilities, if there's any relocations, modifications.
Those are all,
the agreements are in place with utility companies.
Everything's ready to go so when for example the Federal Highways Administration gets our package it shows that the project is truly shovel ready
Every element of that project. Is ready-to-go. So then we're allowed to secure the funds
And then once the fund's are secured then, we go out to advertise and award contracts
Thank you representative Stutes. Thank You mr. Coach air
Through the co-chair, I just have a quick question
Were all of those requirements met for the cascade point that you awarded the contract on?
Yeah, through Co-Chair Ayesha, I had representative Stuits. Yeah. So when we go through different
processes for bidding, of course, the Cascade Point was state funds that were utilized.
So the requirements are a little bit different. We used a method of contracting called design
And then they'll construct the project, and that's where different requirements are met.
So some of these things, like the actual design, the plans and everything, they will be completed now as we go forward.
That wasn't a requirement to have completed in a design build project.
Follow-up.
Thank you.
So Commissioner, are you allowed to award a contract prior to the funds being appropriated?
Through co-chair.
By the legislature, I should add.
Through Co-Chair, Ayeshaide, Representative Stuits.
Well, we need to have the funds secured to award contracts.
One more follow-up.
Being the legislature is the appropriating body.
Don't you need those funds appropriated
by the Legislature?
Through co-chair Ayshaude, representative Stutes.
Yeah, so when we went forward,
with
Cascade point it was subsequent to the with with the contract it
Was subsequent
To the vetoes and so that for us the funding was secured. Yeah director pronoun you think that
Through the chair, representative Stuitz, yes, when we issue a contract, we do have an appropriation in place.
And the Constitution requires executive branch to have appropriation to expend the funds.
In Cascade Point specifically,
we had the appropriation.
In hand,
we already had obligations and encumbrances against that appropriation, and then did a
contract for the final amount for design, build contract.
one last comment if I might I promise I won't do this more than once I'm actually
gonna go to represent me and I am happy to come back so I I m gonna stay true to
my general thing so represent Mina thank you co-chair I shared through the
co chair thank You for coming before the committee today I know that 2024 we had
a very small August August redistribution
How did that impact the large award for August re-distribution for 2025?
For the record, Don Panone, Director of Program Management and Administration,
through the chair, Representative Mina, August Re-Distribution
allows us to access the funds that are by formula kind of put into a federal savings account every
Every year we get an apportionment through the formula and then limit we
get this, we got this authority to spend a portion of that.
August redistribution gives us extra authority.
And so in the prior year having less in August
redistribution we didn't lose those funds.
They did carry forward in that savings account and
did create more there that we could get access to to some degree in 2025.
Thank you. Representative McCabe.
Thanks. So if we can flesh out the funding politics a little bit more.
I've been sort of subject to this with KGB road a number of years ago when
the Valley delegation upset Governor Walker and he removed $200 million from the KGB
So how does that accomplish?
I mean, he didn't do it through a veto.
He just basically stopped construction.
So I think the representative Stutes is getting at some
of the politics surrounding Cascade Point
and I would submit that there are politics
surrounding every single road that in project
that you do to a certain extent.
And I'm wondering how something like that for KGB road,
which delay the project almost eight years
and five or six deaths, how could that happen?
I know it's kind of outside when you were here, but I'm maybe trying to get at a larger point here.
Yeah, through co-chair I said representative McCabe
Yeah as we work through projects, I mean, it it is important. I think from our perspective we want
undistrupted project delivery on projects because whenever
You know, we have we've set goals and we're moving projects forward and then a funding change happens or something has changed from the outside
Our engineers, our staff, move on to a different project and we see a delay and I think that's
some of what happened on KGB Road where we had to get it restarted again to keep it moving forward.
I know there's been in the geo bonds and other appropriations, there has been funds made for
these projects and depending on a combination of factors of where they fit in their project
delivery schedules and the right-of-way schedules, and those types of things, just keeping them moving.
is really important and our folks are always looking at that that funding date, you know,
when construction funding could be available and then they're working,
you Know, hard to make those dates. So yeah, anytime there's a disruption, it's it can be
delayed things. Thanks, so follow up. Yes.
So bringing this back to Cascade Point, um, Cascade point has been started and stopped.
A number of times if I remember right would whether it be in the initial discussion and then the design and
Then we stopped and and we kind of started again, and this is the third time
I think that we started it again or really maybe it's only the second and I'm a little fuzzy on that but
Yeah, the through co-chair. I shied representative McCabe
Yeah for a cascade point, you know in 2023 the governor signed an MOA with or an MOU with gold belt
And that really was recognizing that there was a joint benefit because we have the highway
that ends at 43 mile glacier highway that currently doesn't have any facilities there.
Goldbelt is currently working on that bigger perspective with the mines in the area and
they actually have their own operations that are moving people and whatnot out to those
areas.
Working together, you know, between Gold Belt and DOT was really the thought that, hey,
there's there is a good opportunity for the Alaska Highway System in terms of a ferry route that would shorten
ferry distances, reduce operating costs, but then also,
you now, having this as an area that starts to be developed may provide more opportunities for others out there as well.
Miss Ogden, for my final final, final follow-up.
So, I guess the comment would be what we've always heard and what
we know is that you build roads where you can and you use ferries where
you cant. And I think that some of the two Alaska class feries were sort of
designed based on maybe having that cascade point there.
which is why we didn't
originally put crew quarters on them and then we had to spend millions and
millions of dollars to put
crewquarters on then because
politics
shut down the cascade point
project is that kind of a fair assessment
uh... yet to kosher ice-eyed representative mike
yeah i think the
even the last minute how is operations board recognizes the benefit of
shorter route of shorter
runs for the fairies. I think everyone recognizes the need to reduce operational costs when we can
because it's an expensive system to run. And that these types of
yeah, endeavors where we have longer roads, shorter ferry routes, overall, when you look at the
system approach can have an impact at reducing costs. So yeah for sure, this is something that
And just to clarify, I just wanted to have three questions
before I moved on to somebody else.
It's not final, final.
So, co-chair Kerrick.
Thank you through the co chair.
And thank you, Commissioner Anderson,
so much for being here with us.
We're neighbors back in Fairbanks,
and I always like to remember that we come from the same place.
And I do have some kind of critical questions, though.
And, well,
I'm just a little confused,
I guess.
That last line of inquiry raises a couple of questions.
One, there was an assertion that the Cascade Point Project
had been sort of started and stopped over time.
And I think interest in the project
has waxed and waned at different points in time,
but had the funds been obligated for Cascade point
prior to the governor's veto of the re-appropriated funds?
So, since 2023, the department, we've spent about four and a half million dollars on
the design work, feasibility studies, you know, all that technical information that we
need in environmental studies to really get it to that point for the Design Build Contract.
And then once, once we got to the point where the engineers and the team say, hey,
we start moving forward with the design build solicitation.
I don't have the dates on the designed build
solicitation, but did you have those?
Do you remember?
For the record dump known, the the
design bill, so we did have obligations
against the appropriation.
The balance of the
appropriation was encumbered and
obligated when we finalized the contract,
before the veto's in, before
the effective date of the bill in July 28th,
was when we finalized that design bill.
And follow-up.
Follow-ups.
And talk to me about how the design build
is equivalent to an obligation on the project itself.
Those seem like two different steps.
So if you have funds obligated for the Design Build,
does that...
Does that mean as much as actually obligating funds towards the construction of the project?
Feasibility studies are not the same thing as the actual project itself.
So for the record and then I'll defer to our commissioner,
we had a contract in place at that point and once the contract is signed the funds are encumbered and obligated.
So had had the fund's not been vetoed the the re-apprope language would have
referred to funds available and there would have been no funds
available because of the encumbrance and the contract
obligation of this state and I think the project
encompasses all phases which is several phases design right of
way and and construction as well and defer to the commissioner.
I i think that's accurate and sometimes we get wound up on the
obligated terms in in the federal world it's a little bit
different than with the state funds I thank for the
I mean it's really that that encumbrance that goes to the contract that secures the funds.
And I have one final follow-up. Follow- up. I'm making sure I hold to
the same rules. Um I am going to let that go just a little bit but I I
am also curious about the statement that was made in the last line of inquiry that
AMHOB recognizes the importance of shorter routes but don't we have a letter of opposition from
Yeah, co-chair Kerrick, yeah, when I say that they recognize the importance of shorting
routes, if you read the recent long-range plan that was approved, that statement is in there.
It's not specific to Cascade Point.
It is a long range plan, and yeah they have definitely spoken against Cascade point.
I mean, there have been those statements out there for sure.
I have Representative Stuitz and Representative Saint-Claire and then Representative McCabe.
Thank you, co-chair. Hi, side.
Representative Carrick hit my point and my
point was I know that I
find this whole thing so interesting because I
know in previous AMHOD board meetings and
then I'm going to get off the marine highway system, but
it was made pretty clear that there would be a collaborative effort and
a consideration of the Amha board's position, of which did not happen.
They were also told that this project would not move forward without having certain documents
provided to them, which didn't happen, so it's pretty disgusting to see the manner in
which this...
Cascade point is moving forward not necessarily that it's moving
forward, but the manner in which it is
moving. Forward is is really disappointing to see that coming
out of this administration.
Thank you.
Representative St. Clair.
Through the co-chair, thank you, Commissioner.
I have a question on funding.
And you kind of explained it,
but I want to take a little bit deeper of a dive
Money is allocated and you're talking about encumbered,
unencumbered.
When you start a project and send it out to bid,
do you have those funds in hand?
Or are you still waiting for an appropriation
or waiting the state, the feds, whoever,
to send you the money?
Yeah, through Co-Chair Aishay, Representative St. Clair,
it can depend on the type of funding program.
So with the Federal Highway Administration,
what we will do is we'll have all the documents certified,
ready to go.
Then they approve them we don't we aren't you know
We don t go out to bid until after everything's approved and the funding is secured and in place
Okay for the for The Federal Aviation Administration, which is a grant-based program
We'll actually have all the documents together
We will be working with the Federal aviation administration and getting their concurrence to go to bed
But we actually don' t get the grants until we have the bid numbers and we
Actually have a real hard number to tell them this is the grant that we need
So, you know, some of the different agencies do things differently.
Okay, thank you.
Representative McCabe.
Thank you, and through the Chair Commissioner, so I just want to flesh out one minor point.
The first year I was down here, we heard and passed a bill for a design bill, if I'm
not mistaken.
Prior to that, it couldn't do design bills now.
It's actually in statute that you do a Design Bill, is that is my memory correct?
Bill that got passed was for a construction manager general contractor, the CMGC.
That was the one that we got in the statute.
Design Bill's been around for awhile.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Okay, looks like we've got through all those questions.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
Okay the next slide shows our obligations and grants for airports.
And so this is, you know, it's important to look at the different modes of travel.
Again, this was a record year for our airport program,
321 million, and we had a good year last year in 2024 as well.
But you can kind of see how those numbers roll out as
well, I mean, overall, all of our programs are increasing, which is good news.
You know along with that comes inflation and everything else, but, yeah, we have
I had a question. You referenced the bipartisan infrastructure law funds says they continue to increase
When do those funds run out or stop?
Yeah, coach your eyeshide that this year
We're going to be going through what's called surface transportation
Reauthorization and so this is the year where all gets renegotiated. So we're in the last year of our our funding bill
Thank you
Okay, and then this slide, we've been, last session,
it was told to DOT to get all the projects out we could,
that was made real clear.
And one tool we used to do that is called advanced construction.
And this is where we can begin projects under this authority
and that we convert to federal funds later.
So we watch these balances.
This is all of our advanced
construction balances since 2019.
And you can see they go up and down a bit
You know in 2024 we converted a fair amount and we we paid them off
And that that was you know
Some of what was some of the concerned by the contractors at the time because of of
The work and and whatnot so just just that demonstration of you
Know we do carry this balance it does have its advantages
that you know if we have projects ready to go and they're shovel ready you
know we can AC a project and not slow it down and so you'll see us use it in
various ways over time. Commissioner what what are the disadvantages of using
advanced construction? Yeah, close your eyeshadow. We have a balance you
know that's hanging out there it's and we'll have to pay it
And so we're always looking for those opportunities,
whether it's, maybe there's opportune times
where we can pay down the balance.
One thing we were talking about was
if the Alaska Natural Gas Line comes to fruition,
that maybe that's a good time
because it is going to be hard to find workers,
hard-to-find contractors.
Maybe that balance is something that is beneficial to have
because we could be paying that down
when there is times when we just,
it would be tough to get the work done.
As a follow-up, it was shared last Thursday at this committee meeting that's like a credit card and you said you have to pay down to balances.
So, is there a cost like credit cards?
That was an LGU, so I'm going to just put it out there.
If I carry a balance on my creditcard, there's a cause to me.
The credit-card company doesn't give me that short-term loan for free.
For the record don't be known
chair eyeshine
There's no charge assessed on the state from the federal highway administration
If we carry expenses on that they
Simply when we request to convert then
Reimburse us for any expenses. We just carry the expenses
There is no interest charge like a credit card assessed
So following my own rules my final follow up
So, I don't know how to phrase this.
I'm trying to be creative.
So one of the things I could do if I had a credit card, a zero interest credit
card. And if i was leaving, i could run up the balance thinking somebody in the
Is that a risk?
And essentially what I'm saying, could the current administration, you know, this sounds
like a neat tool in your toolbox, but could current ministration run up the AC credit
card?
That means it has to be paid off at some point and kind of encumber future administration.
Is, am I thinking crazy thoughts or is that, a thought that is somewhat rational?
What you're seeing from the department, I mean, total transparency on our AC balances,
I'm in what you see in front of you. It's also included in our statewide transportation
improvement program. We identify any AC authorizations that we're proposing. So it's not something that
we can just go and decide, hey, this looks like a good project and we are going to go AC it.
I think there is a process, you know, if that highway is involved in approvals and the whole
Coach Eric Eric. Thank you through the co-chair. I also just last year became aware of AC and a
little bit how this works. So I'm also still learning about this. But one thing that really
strikes me is you had said that AC is really a great tool for project delivery on shovel ready
projects. And so I just have a couple of questions. One is in 2025 are all of these
that we've either had from previous years or that
we used AC4 this last year shovel ready projects
or do we have projects in our AC balance that are
maybe not quite up to that same point that
we're using AC for yeah coach Eric Eric we
have to go through the same processes to AC a
project so it has to have all those certifications
So there's no difference there.
So it couldn't be a project that was half done
or not quite there yet.
These are all projects that are actively,
they're expending construction dollars.
So that's when you see the $576 million number there,
I mean, those, yeah,
those are projects on the street.
and just another follow-up thank you through the co-chair it also strikes me
that if you're a contractor and engineering firm you might prefer to
have real dollars as opposed to AC in an ideal world because AC is potentially
you may not potentially get paid back in a timely fashion if it were AC and
has DOT in the past year had to ask any of our construction or design firms that we regularly work
with to do projects kind of at risk of that potential to not receive the funds back for AC projects.
For the record dump known, um, us the department using AC as the funding mechanism for a contract
does not put the contractor at any additional risk.
And since the state is subject to the same requirements as using the current year's apportionment dollars,
there's virtually no risk to this state.
So we haven't, from the contractor's perspective, our obligation to pay and
pay timely is the the Same regardless of what mechanism the department uses.
I have another question, but I'm gonna save it.
Representative McCabe.
Thanks, so is there a cap on AC funding?
And what's the oldest project that's left?
You know what, I mean, what is the bottom?
How old is it?
How aged is that?
Through the chair, representative McCabe,
there's no cap in regulation or federal statute,
other departments.
other state DOTs. Some have multiple years worth of apportionment. AC'd some
will go up to a year. And as far as the oldest projects we cycle projects through
because once a project
Has gone to has completed construction. We do have a timeline to convert it
And so as we cycle projects through that keeps the expenditures down on on those authorizations
But we can provide the AC list to the committee if they'd like
If I could yes, yes we would like that
List please. Yeah, I think one of the things with the tools and project delivery projects
So one thing to understand about the federal programs
We get contract authority
over the year, and so when we start out a year in October,
we're not allowed to spend all of our apportionment
for the Year, our limitation for The Year.
And so over The year you'll see these announcements come out
where you get $100 million of contract authority
or $200 million, so they give it to you in chunks.
When we have an AC tool, even within that year
we can AC the project,
so if we get into February and it's a good time
We can AC it, we can bid it and then we
can convert that in August.
So there's a lot of different ways
that we're kind of rolling with that.
But those are some of the benefits to the AC tool.
I'm going to put myself in the queue
before I call my co-chair.
And we've obviously used more AC authority, if you would,
over time.
if it's a tool, I'm just interested in that trend line.
Can you explain that?
Yeah, Coach, your eyeshadow.
I think last year was a good example.
I mean, there was lot of pressure on the department.
From the legislature, from the contracting community
to get more work on this street,
we recognize that since the pandemic,
there has been a pretty dramatic increase in inflation
and the cost of projects.
And so in order for us to kind of keep up with that demand,
You know, that was asked of us, you know one of our tools was to AC projects.
And so I think that's what you're seeing over the past few years is just that inflation
pressure, the federal programs aren't increasing as fast as inflation and for the transportation
needs that are out there.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's a rational explanation.
I know we haven't quite gotten there yet but I
know that there's been some discussion about the match funds that the state
would need to provide in order to receive our federal match.
Don't technically have to come through till July 1st
of this year which is the middle of the year's construction season.
So can AC be used as a tool to shore the gap for the early construction
season and if so how when you don't know for sure
Back, and so I guess that's the question I'm getting at is how can we use AC if we aren't really really sure
That that federal money is going to come into our bank account
For the record don't but known
Through the co-chair to the Co-Chair Carrick when we
Advanced construct and get authorization we have to have the match at the time of advanced construction
so we
That is part of our annual match request calculation, is how many projects are we going to advance construct and what's the match requirement for those.
So in regards to that July 1 timeline, we're looking at the
match that we have today and the projects we intend to deliver either with a portion fund or with advance construction.
So that's, that is the mechanics of the funding.
Thank you, co-chair. I said so I
Obviously I heard I missed the first part of this, but let me just ask
Based on what you just said then
Do you have the match funds to?
For projects any project that will take place after July 1st
Yeah for the record Ryan Anderson through co chair. Yes, I'd represent her students
you know our project delivery timelines for this year what we found was we had enough
match to get us through July one after July when we don't have enough match
to finish the year with the projects that are currently you
know programmed follow up follow-up thank you do you see that as a potential
problem being july through september seems to be
Yeah, through co-chair, I said representative Stutes.
Yeah so, a great question, absolutely a
great questions, the way, you know,
in the project delivery world, so the projects
that we're bidding now, we obligated two months ago.
And so there's that delay.
So when we get to July one, and we start looking
at the products that are putting in
for obligations in July 1, they're typically
really late projects.
August, September, sometimes they get kicked out into the following year.
So we're looking at all those things, but the reality is based on what our engineers
are telling us they can deliver, we haven't found any projects we are still looking that
you could move forward that they would have all the requirements for certification before
July 1 that would require more match.
So so when we look at our total program of projects right now, which which requires more match the amount that we can deliver by July 1
You know, we believe we have enough match to deliver all those projects that were saying we could deliver before July one
Follow-up. Thank you coach. I said
So the anticipation could possibly be then a short season
I mean, am I understanding this correctly, that without the match funds after July 1st,
the department could end up having a short season due to lack of funding.
Yeah, through co-chair Ayeshide Representative Stutes, there could be less projects on the
street.
I wouldn't say a shorter season because all these other projects that have been obligated
that match is secured with the entire project.
So when we obligate a project,
we obligate the amount of match with that project."
Okay. So then, yeah, so it's,
but there would be less after July 1.
Thank you.
Thank You.
What's your answer?
Representative Kerry.
Co-chair.
Thank-you through the co-chare.
So I, I'm getting what would happen prior to July first
and what happened for projects that begin after
going back to the question of would we be asking contractors or design firms to
potentially work at risk of not receiving funds? I don't know how this works if
you've bid for a contract that lasts from May 20th, say, through September and
most of our very large projects are going to require the entire summer
construction season and if we use AC for that project up till July 1st but we
We are asking those contractors and design firms to work at risk because we don't know
for certain what happens between July 1st and September. So, respectfully, I don t understand
the original answer to we wouldn t be asking them to
work in risk when it sounds like if you have a full summer s construction project and a
contractor working through that whole season, if they re relying on any part of the match funds,
for the record dump and own through the co-chair to co chair Carrick the
When you look at the sequence of awarding contracts
That's what we're looking at is the contract values in sequence that we would award before July 1 when we award and enter into the
Contract we do that
with the full amount of funds in our account or the Full AC authorization, and we encumber
those funds so that the contractor and the contract is backed by the ability to pay.
So those contractors are not at risk of us not being able to
pay, that's the point at which we then look at the next sequence of projects going beyond
July 1.
and where's the match for those as we need the full match
for every contract we issue. And so we're looking at it as a sequence.
Once once we enter into the contract that contract has the money to continue
for the length of the contact. Quick follow-up follow up. Thank you
through the co-chair. Appreciate that.
And then I guess my next question is if you have for
those very large projects that require the entire summer construction season
for the duration of that project.
How does that then impact the smaller projects
that might begin in the later construction season
part of the summer?
And it just sounds to me like not all is well here.
We've got some work to do to ensure
that you have the tools you need
to have a full summer construction
season and if you
have these projects that are fully expended.
the larger ones, wouldn't the smaller projects then suffer, especially after July 1st?
Yeah, for the record, Ryan Anderson, Coach Eric. So, what'll happen is, yeah, after
July one, we will just, won't be able to award more contracts.
So that is the problem. And so, you know,
we can continue to reward contracts through July
that would stop without additional match.
Really fast follow-up, thank you through the co-chair.
The projects that you would obligate starting July 1st
though would have to already be bid
and agreed on before July first
in order for the work to get done.
So the problem actually begins before july 1.
Yeah, co chair Kerik, so when we,
so in the federal highway world,
we're, you know, this is the majority of the funds.
We obligate first and then once we've secured the funds then we bid them
So that so we just wouldn't we wouldn t be able to obligates the fund so he wouldn' t build a bit of
That's how that would sequence
Rep McCabe
Rep students
So I'm going to ask a question respectfully because I don't know
Why wouldn't you just say that you need that match money as soon as you can get it so you
Can then secure the contracts that? You need to?
Award after July 1st rather than saying gee we don t need any money till July first because
Money is not going do you a lot of good this year
for July, if you get it on July 1st, from what I think I'm hearing.
So what really would help you out as well as contractors is ideally to get that money
as soon as you can. It's what i think i'm having.
Yeah, through co-chair Ayesha, I'd represent those students. I mean, the certainty is a good thing.
for the federal programs.
I mean, we are working right now
with the Federal Highway Administration.
The one thing we hadn't brought up yet
was August redistribution.
And that, you know,
we have to factor that in,
which is an unknown.
We don't know until August
how much we would receive
for that limitation
and that's more match requirements.
So every year in the beginning,
you we put our projections together
for a total amount of match that we need.
And then,
we work through the year.
So.
Yeah, the certainty is a good thing. You know, we were asked, you know
How much would we need and when and and so you when we went through the numbers?
We had enough match to get us through July 1 based on our current project load
Co-chair, thank you
so
The sooner you got the 70 million the sooner. you would have the certain D of being able to move forward
Is that a fair statement? Yeah through co- chair. I should I'd represent of students
Yeah, this the certainty is yeah is a good thing. Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate it. Representative McCabe
Yeah, maybe you can help me. I'm hearing it a little bit different than representative Stuitz actually
I am saying that I hearing that you're good through for the first of July
So we don't need to pass a special
I mean this is what we're all sort of dancing around is are we gonna have to have the pass of special appropriations
supplemental appropriations bill now or can we wait till we normally do towards the end of the
session in May maybe and still
allow you to award contracts as you need too and
allow all of our contractors will their issue of course is they got a different
planning window than you do you know they have to they
have the import things and people and that sort of thing so my my point is I
guess I think representor stood said it or maybe you said
it when so what we're looking at what
in a supplemental appropriations bill now, or can we wait till May?
And if we waited till may, how bad will it affect our contractors?
Yeah, through Coach Irish, I had Representative McCabe.
Yeah. I mean, the governor submitted the supplemental for
the match that would be for July 1.
And that works with our current project load provided we get the
match on July one.
There wouldn't be any disruptions.
to the project workflow at this time.
Well, so the second part of that is how about our contractors?
You know, they're all sort of clamoring that they they want to be able to plan.
They want a plan in March for what they are going to do in August, say.
So is it going
to affect them if we wait until May to
do the supplemental?
Yeah, through coach or I should represent a McCabe. Yeah understood. Um, yeah, there's a lot of concern there
Um they're looking for certainty for their planning. I completely understand that
Um so I I think from their planting perspective. Yes, it affects them
And the follow-up question to that I have is
I heard it helps them
But isn't there some real practical issues
that contractors have to face that's more than help,
it's economic, and what I'm, you know, I am not a contractor,
but they have
to hire a workforce, they've to develop bids,
they'll have look at materials.
I guess I'll just phrase the question this way.
Because I don't want to talk about the fears people have.
I just, from your experience, would an earlier supplemental help our contractors do the job
that we're asking them to do, which is bid on projects, make sure they have the personnel
to complete the project and then have materials on hand to essentially to execute the projects.
Is it just like a it's nice to have it early but not need it or does it actually create some
efficiencies for the contractors? Yeah, co-chair. I should. Yeah. From the mechanics of things and
when funds would be available in cash flow perspectives, I mean what we're projecting right
You know, that's when additional projects are available that we would bid that would utilize that that additional match
You, know I hate to speak for the contractors
I mean that they're they do a great work for us
I, mean they and things that, they've done on the west coast storm and some of these things are just phenomenal and so
I completely understand their concerns about planning and having certainty in the program
That's that always just an important piece of that and, so from that perspective I can understand
that desire to have, you know, this as quick as possible from the cash flow
perspective and what we're seeing in the in our program and
what were you able to deliver this year. Yeah, that's where the July 1 date came
from. Okay, I think it would be, uh, useful to hear from
the contractors early in
our session to to get their perspective
and just to kind of flesh out these questions because I
But thank you for that, absolutely.
OK, please proceed.
OK.
And this is just one slide for the record, Ryan Anderson,
that talks a little bit about the inflation
that we've experienced over the past years.
And one thing just to note that when
it comes to the highway world, that world has seen
inflation above and beyond some of these other industries and so you know from
what we've seen over the past three or four years we feel like this is an
accurate statement on the chart that's on a lower left and that face to be a
national highway construction cost index there's still you
know folks trying to do analysis of why that occurred but that definitely you
know something we're trying factor in is we were putting future statewide
transportation improvement programs together and and understanding now what
Capability and capacity is for the future as well.
Okay, please proceed.
And then this is one slide that was requested on forecasted contract awards.
And so this was where we get into 2026.
You can see, you know, at the time, this slide was developed.
There were 91 projects planned for advertisement.
You know, we do a range of costs because that's how our engineers work.
But, you know we're $670 million to $1.1 billion in value.
60 Highway 19 Airport, eight other infrastructure projects.
And then the one thing that we have done, so that
we've added a shovel ready projects piece because when we ran across this match challenge,
that, you know, was out for public notice that had the full match in it.
When we went to the final, first of amendment two, we had to fiscally constrain 2026, and
so we have to show the match.
And so, what we did was we said, okay, well, here are the projects that are in the step,
and then there's, these are ones that used to be that we've had push out because of the
match, they become shovel, will call them shovel ready projects.
We direct our teams, keep going, don't stop, just go like we're going to deliver them this
And that's what you see there. So we're really projecting a 900 million
You know 1.4 billion dollar a year this year with a full fully matched program
Go ahead
Yeah, let director Pronone speak to this one
For the record don't been known
So we've been talking about all the lenses in which we view our program delivery metrics, which is contracts awarded
federal obligations federal dollars we have captured and a third lens is the
Actual expenditures which could come from multiple years of appropriations. We look at how much was actually spent?
through the books of DOT in a year and this shows the amount that
was was reimbursed to the contracting community and spent against contracts that flowed through DOT the major programs
We organized by major program. So
AMHS is the Alaska Marine Highway
DRER is our emergency type projects
FAPTs our federal airport projects FHWIs our Federal Highway
GRNTs, grants, that's a lot of FTA, federal transit administration grants.
Harbors is mostly the harbor matching grant fund projects.
PFACs public facilities, I'm kind of drawing a blank on a couple of these.
SAPT is the state airports, SHWA's state funded highway projects,
FTA, G is FTA grants, another category, and then we have some exempt programs, which is
everything else.
So the expenditures overall went from 1.1 billion to roughly almost 1,1 just under 1
billion between federal fiscal year 24 and 25.
And those are a reflection of how many contracts we've awarded mostly in that year or the year
prior.
And why did the, you know, I see the trend here from federal fiscal year 23 to 24, it
goes up, but then it goes down in federal, fiscal, year 25.
So what explains that, that decrease?
Coach, your eyeshadow.
Great question.
The program expenditures are a lagging indicator.
in the years where we reduced advanced construction that would have been using our federal funds
to pay down advanced constructions. We might have had less contracts. And so the dip there is an
Moving to slide 10, this is our fiscal outlook looking forward, our investment overall across the state by our major programs.
We are in-step amendment two, we have a total revenue of 1.7 billion with FHWA programs at 966 million.
Our federal transit administration and then we also have discretionary grants where the department competes for those.
Those are at varying match rates and then our advanced construction.
This reflects the current STIP amendment,
which was lowered after the match was reduced.
Currently, we're going to have slides on the STP in a couple slides forward
talking about the next full-step four-year that we are about to release
and how the MATCH implications are going inform what's in that STIIP.
I had the next couple slides, maybe a little repetitive, it's going over the match.
But I'll hit on some key points that as this table here shows where we started with the governor proposed for
the fiscal year 26 and what was eventually enacted after the vetoes and
what made it through the legislature.
that reduction of 58 million in our surface transportation and 9 million
in the airport program, that production of match.
We adjusted the step to reflect that.
And the program implications, we've talked about project delivery,
but to the federal funds going back to advanced construction without this match,
one of the benefits of advanced
construction is we can.
simply use our federal funds to pay down advanced construction.
So that, of course, reduces the throughput of new projects and new contracts on the street.
So again, the timing, we've shared our project delivery plan and our cash flow does get us to July 1,
but there are other factors.
Thank you through the co-chair.
You know, I asked this question,
I think last session at some point,
but looking at this feels a little stressful
to me as a legislator,
because I want to make sure we get you the tools
you need to accomplish the match rate or the matched.
But do you have any comments on whether Alaska
by having this uncertainty for this period of time
that we've had?
is potentially putting ourselves at risk of jeopardizing our current 9 to 1
match rate which we're one of the only states that has that and it's a pretty
sweetheart deal for us as Alaskans but I wonder if the uncertainty in our
process means we are putting our selves at
risk.
I haven't heard anything from U.S. DOT or the federal administration on that
regards. Yeah, we are using more of varying match rates in our program. A lot
of the like the rural ferry program and some of those are 20% and so you will
see more a mix from us. But yeah, I hadn't
heard any thing like that. And you know this we're not a state that's unique in
You know, if you do some research, other states have been here as well, so.
For the record down Pannon, moving to slide 12, again, maybe slightly repetitive, but this outlines the department received or
the legislature passed a bill that had substituted.
in already reduced match with appropriations from prior year federal highway match funds.
Match funds that we had already accounted for in our plan.
Roughly 11 million of prior match fund for highways, roughly 9 million for airports.
And then over 30 million in other projects that were in flight.
All of those of which were ultimately vetoed those reappropriations.
You know subsequently we've we have reduced our step and are working on a new step
and have requested the re-appropriation of the restoration of those funds and unrestricted general funds.
Representative Stuitz. Thank you coach here. I said when is the new stip do?
For the record Ryan Anderson
through co-chair Ayeshaide, representative Stuitz.
Yeah, it's coming out soon.
Right now we're targeting February 13th
for the public review draft.
We're actually, we have documents
that we've submitted to the Federal Highway Administration
for some preliminary looks.
We still had recommendations from Stupid Moment 2
that wanted to make sure that
we had those all squared away.
And so we are going through that process right now.
We do intend to issue kind of a technical review
in advance of that.
So the MPOs and folks get that chance to make sure that all the numbers are lining up as they expect.
So you will see some more things in advance of that, but right now it's February 13th for the public review draft.
Follow up.
Thank you. When does it do federally?
Oh, yeah, through Co-Chair Ayesha. I had representative students. It's not.
So, and we'll have this presentation here shortly,
but we're doing the rolling step.
So we're not in that situation like we were two years ago where the step has an ending date our step right now
Is good through 20 20 the end of 2027?
So, we are doing this in advance
Perfect. Thank you. Appreciate that commissioner
For the record don't be known and with the chair's permission the next two slides are are repetitive
And I think we can move to slide 15 and start our presentation on the stick
Go ahead, okay, with that, we'll call it Deputy Commissioner Catherine Keith, though.
For the record, Deputy commissioner Catherine Keath, Department of Transportation and Public.
facilities. Yes, that was excellent segue. Thank you to begin talking a little bit about what to
expect for the federal fiscal year 26 to 29 statewide transportation improvement program.
What you see on this slide 15 is just a breakout of primary events that pertain to the
approved by Federal Highways and Federal Transit Administration. From there, and
the majority of members on this committee have participated in presentations on
these topics, but there has been since two amendments from that original step.
And throughout that process, we've been working with our federal agencies and
MPOs on a lot of process improvements, working on our 3C, our coordination
with the MPOs and other transportation partners,
and trying to collectively identify the format of the STIP,
the processes for project selection,
our fiscal constraint tables,
several things which we can break out in future slides,
but identifying what we want this.
Next upcoming step
Spanning four years of 26 to 29 to look like so our team spend actively working on that over the past several months
I would say some pertinent dates to pay attention to go back to February 14th
Which is when we issued the second amendment out for a public review
That was during session. This would have been for 30-day public comment period and after
Again, a very successful public engagement period, we took those comments back and worked
to incorporate those into what would have been submitted to our federal agencies.
However, during that time, that is certainly when we had been, the match changes in the
which then required the department to go back and re-evaluate the projects within the step.
In conversations with our federal agencies, they determined that we could not move forward with the existing state match amount listed.
Given that it was not appropriated, because at that point, it's not considered to be available revenue.
So we did need to back.
after the public comment period had happened and ultimately defer approximately 25 projects
which you had seen in the approved version of STIP Amendment 2.
So there were certainly a lot of changes that had been made in that second amendment compared
to what the Public had scene and at that point in order to meet our August redistribution goals
to issue that.
step amendment to federal highways and federal transit administration.
That being said, our solution to that was to honor our commitment of getting to the next
four-year step as soon as possible.
We had been talking about the rolling-step concept, which means every two years at a minimum,
we can come out with another four year window.
And in doing so at this time, it will allow the public and all interested parties to be
the projects that were deferred and then begin
to take a fresh look at that prioritization of projects.
Because clearly there are far too many priorities
for what we have funding for.
And we didn't want that to be done in a vacuum.
We did the best with our data and our project teams
to inform the decisions about the project
for this construction season.
But this next four year window of the STIP,
which will go out for 45 days for public comment,
opportunity to look again at the next four years and and make those decisions moving forward.
Okay. Cool chair. Carried. Thank you through the co-chair.
Thank You Deputy Commissioner for also being here. I I do actually kind of I really like the
rolling step. i like what it will do for the department and it sounds like it creates a lot
But the timeline here is a little interesting to me
because last year we had a lot of challenges
getting that step approval completed
and the process was difficult for us.
I see, I know we haven't gotten to it,
but I seen a couple of slides later,
we have, the federal highway recommendation was
to use plain English clear structure.
Limit to true project changes clearly show what change after public review
Just a lot of like technical things that federal highways is asking state DOT to do better
And I I know we move to this rolling-step process
just right subsequent to having a lot of those challenges with the STIP last year.
So can you talk to me about implementation of the rolling STP and
with this slightly more complicated but ultimately efficient procedure,
how are we going to minimize the inefficiencies we saw last
Beautiful parts about this rolling step is that it actually doesn't change our processes
It only makes it occur more frequently and offer more opportunities for public engagement and formal
transportation partner
Dialog with every step along the way. It's just that happens more
frequently, and so to respond to the comment about our findings. Yeah, we absolutely have been incorporating those and
That is what the public will see going into this
public comment version of this step, but each time we do a new iteration of it, whether it's an amendment or a
new step it gives us that opportunity to continually improve improve upon that format and
If there's any new changes or new things of significance or findings, you know, we'll be sure to include those as well
some of the topics
For example, like the formatting of this step, we're still unsure,
even as partners with Federal Highways, Federal Transit,
ourselves, what that should look like.
A lot of people have different ways of digesting information.
And so to agree on a format that everyone is happy with,
you know,
we are still working there to be honest.
In this next step we do have a substantially changed narrative.
language. We've taken that and revamped our entire narrative document which
hopefully gets us there to a document that's more has to all the substantial
information that is needed but is a bit more straightforward to follow less
less about duty processes but makes it clear to the public what we're doing.
Just remind me, I don't fully remember,
but when we were talking about the step last year,
federal highways hadn't significantly changed
their processes for how steps are reviewed and approved.
So what changed within our structure
that made it such a challenge last-year?
And can you,
I guess, elaborate a little more,
how does the rolling step change
the way we approach
creation of that STIP document each year.
Yeah, so co-chair Carrick, one thing I will say is that
in federal fiscal year 25, we actually had fantastic
improvements in our dialogue with federal highways
and federal transit.
We had very fast approval of STP Amendment 2,
and the way that we needed to get there
was through very frequent.
ongoing preliminary meetings with those agencies on all sorts of different topics
from fiscal constraint to our public engagement to formats and so in order
to get to what was a very fast approval it was
a matter of a couple weeks before we had it.
there was so much preliminary work that had been done that it it got us there very quickly
but there certainly had a lot of changes within even our own Alaska office that you know everyone's
Commissioner Anderson had mentioned that we're going to be issuing a pre-release version of the step
And this is something we are very excited about because the idea is that
We're gonna have a publicly available version
Of our full step. We'll put it out for a 10-day agency review
We've had a lot of feedback that you know, we
have a step that people don't feel they've had the opportunity to engage prior to going
to public comment, especially our MPO partners.
So this allows them to look at our step and the same document that everybody has seen,
including the public, and be able to looking at the fiscal constraint, the projects, make
sure the project that they have are included in those tables, Federal Highways and Federal
all of these that rely on our STIP to be technically accurate,
we'll be able to look at the document, give us feedback,
and then we can include that,
incorporate it prior to the public comment period.
So ideally, this is gonna minimize, you know,
any technical corrections, things that could otherwise
confuse people when doing a deep dive on
our StIP and get that done ahead of time,
so then it's a much more integrated, accurate document
for the Public, so.
this we hope will alleviate some of the problems we've had going through public comment and having
a significant number of changes following that. So.
Representative McCabe. Thanks. Yeah, so Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, I
like to just say that I appreciate your willingness to take the burden of or the entire responsibility
if you will in 2024 onto your department and try to fix as much as you can, but for the record
I'd like to say that it was not all your fault. A lot of that came from misunderstandings from
various MPOs. a lot that was politically driven by the macho mine and the trucking thing which
politics, and I appreciate that the Federal Highway Administration is now a full-blown
partner and that you have taken the time and the effort to take all of this
mantle on your department and fix whatever you can and establish a dialogue
with the MPOs, so it's noticeable and and i for one appreciate it.
Yes, Commissioner Anderson. Yeah, through culture I try if I could just speak to
I mean, there was a lot of noise about this step.
And there's no doubt, and there
was lot that went on where we worked really hard.
We went to Washington, DC.
We thought, hey, things aren't happening like they used to.
We're not getting good answers.
And we had some things there.
But ultimately, you look at the results.
And if you looked at those timelines from the graphs
that we showed before, every year we're
obligating the entire program.
Every year, we are getting more.
than what our apportionment is, we got scrutinized last year because it was only 20 million more.
That was the year before last, sorry. Last year,
we did the record 185, 4 million. I mean, so I'm really proud of our teams.
I just got to say that. They've been through thick and thin on this thing,
and they've come through and everyone's taken this as a way to,
we want to do the best for the state of Alaska and move forward that way.
So we stay focused on the results, lots of noise. We stay
for sure. So thank you. And then I was curious about the genesis of the
rolling-step idea. Where did that idea come from? Yeah, culture. I shied when we
began
After the STIP was initially approved to 24 to 27 statewide transportation improvement program,
our teams had reviewed best practices at length of other states.
There's been research documents that exist about best practice.
We've talked to other States when we engage at transportation conferences.
So from that, we had heard several States put out a rolling STIIP and
likely help us both future proof our step so that we don't get into a bind with our
step running out of time and potentially delaying projects and just seem to have numerous benefits
so through best practices of other states. I just you know for the record I really appreciate the
concept seem sound and I appreciate you borrowing ideas from other places and reaching out so
You know, Commissioner Anderson.
Yeah, Coach, I said, yeah, and I just
also like to mention, we should have
mentioned this earlier, the State of Alaska
won a national award for the development
of how we've changed and the way we do our step now.
It was from the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.
Those are the folks that, you know, on the federal highway world, that's the big,
you now, organization where all the states come together and look at new ideas and how things work.
So that was a big honor for us and it's something, yeah, I think just another thing we're constantly trying to do better.
Congratulations. Thank you for sharing that.
Yeah.
So for the record, Catherine Keith not slide 16 talks a little bit more about the developmental process of a statewide transportation improvement program and specifically the rolling step
And I think we've talked a lot about these concepts, but just for awareness right now that what the department what we have been doing over the past few months is looking at all of our cost estimates.
Every time before we issue a new step, we require that we
have cost estimate, any changes to scope, schedules, and those budgets come in and we include that into the next step.
Which certainly is largely what requires a substantial number of changes just because the project delivery is very
very dynamic program.
We also look at project eligibility to see how we can take advantage of new funding opportunities
to make the funds go further, to do more with it, and it's our opportunity to reevaluate
priorities.
Slide 17 talks through what those recommendations have been from Federal
highways and Federal Transit Administration and these are great
guidelines and they've been principles as we've
been developing documents for a transportation program. We do have a 10
year plan internally that looks at all of our project needs across all modes
look at where we're at over the next 10 years, where
we may be over-programmed and to be sure that we are incorporating
our asset management into our 10-year plan.
That's something we do look forward to making available to the public.
At this time, it's been an organizing and guiding document
as we move forward with projects in the the
next four- year time horizon.
But we certainly wanted to simplify it, which you will see in the narrative.
The project pages that we've seen in prior versions, those are staying the same.
We didn't want to create too many changes from what has been used in
the past, so those same pages will be used so it doesn't have to be an entirely new
experience for people that have been working within the step.
We have been talking to them about how to streamline future amendments where one of
the comments I co-chair Carrick had mentioned was that they wanted to see a reduced number
of changes in an amendment versus the all of our projects.
And we're struggling with how do that in a way that doesn't create confusion for anybody
that looks at our document.
It's very nice to have one comprehensive document that has all the current latest information
on projects but so we're still having conversations on this and by the time we
have our next amendment out we'll have an agreed-upon format for how we describe
project changes as we move forward with other amendments. So a question I had
about that first one my co-chair had mentioned this you know recommendation
used plain English and clear structure so one of the things I'm always
education and planning and now my service here as a representative is jargon and you know writing
that is not super clear. So will the department use artificial intelligence to meet this goal
of using plain English? I'm sure it can do it as long as you ground truth. Is that a thing?
Yeah, excellent question.
Thanks, Coach, your eyeshide.
Yeah. We will absolutely be using artificial intelligence
in different ways.
One way would be running a filter across all of the documents
and make sure that we're writing at an appropriate level.
And then all the acronyms are spelled out, for example,
that have consistent use.
A lot of times that's what can create confusion
in a document is just multiple definitions
and some inaccuracies.
with that. It also has been helping identify errors. If we have any programming errors where maybe we're missing a project phase or there's numbers that don't add up or, you know, there are things that
don t make sense and that's been another way that we've been using it. But yeah, I would say it's
been no secret that were advocates of using artificial intelligence to help us with error prevention and other things everywhere it makes sense.
In itself though. Yes, I appreciate that. I think AI has some great potential
I'm a technology person, but I've never used it myself other than just kind of playing with it
I have never use it in my professional work
But yeah, thank you for that
So, from here, I think we can touch on a couple topics about advanced construction and toll
credits, just because a large majority of the conversation right now has been about the
match.
So I want to clarify how we're treating the match amounts in the next four-year step.
Because as of this time, there is not an additional appropriation for the remainder of the match needed for
the program. So for this step, we have to move forward with the original amount, with our expected
state match. We're in order to get our full program...
obligated. We'll be leveraging our ability to use toll credits, which means we can use federal
funds instead of state match on certain projects. So all of our marine highway projects with vessels
or ferry terminals, we're leveraging that so we could keep those projects on track.
And then we will be using our conversion,
advanced construction conversions to pay down those
so-called credit cards when we do advanced construct projects.
Because when pay that back, it does not require match.
So we can meet our entire program obligation without as is.
to keep our construction program intact as we all want it.
When we go, we'll need to have an amendment to this step once we have resolution on that.
So that'll be the process as were going to put out our step for public comment.
As we had resolution, on the remaining match amount we would put together an
amendment and then be able to act on additional match as it's available.
Yes.
Cool.
Chair Kerry.
Through the co-chair, that very last statement concerns me greatly because I think one of
the things you had just said was the federal highways asked us to do fewer things in the
amendment process in future and with the uncertainty around the match for the legislature
right now, are we concerned about federal highway having issues with making a ton of
around the July 1st time frame in response to receiving federal match dollars.
After co-chair, I shied, coach Eric Eric. We have talked with them about this and how they
would like to proceed and and that's been agreed upon.
format is let's get a step out so that we can review all of the projects, look at
eligibility's, work through priorities, but then when we do have updated match
availability then to go through this amendment process we feel we
can do this without creating a lot of confusion in part by having a inclusion
coming up with the format that we think will work without creating undue confusion, but
we would like to have a list of projects and programs that with that available match could
would then be included in the next amendment.
So if match is available, then this would be the change that would see in this step itself.
So in essence, you know, we could pre-review also what that amendment may look like, to
help give access to more information.
Thank you for that through the co-chair.
I'm really concerned by that though because certainty is valuable and here we
have been all sitting at this committee table in this building thinking the
federal match is really important for this year's this summer's construction
season but what I am hearing is even though the department will undertake some
creative solutions in the event that it doesn't happen.
We will still need that certainty,
not just for this year's construction season,
but for the rolling step,
which now affects multiple years going forward.
So would it be a fair statement to say
that the certainty of the legislature
appropriating those funds early
is better than late certainty regarding the step as well?
Yeah, co-chair Kerrick, that's a good question
been brainstorming that ourselves as well.
When should we release the step for public comment?
Is it better to wait until we have resolution?
And our concern is, is that?
We'll end up delaying projects because we don't have a new approved step in place, which is needed for changes to costs.
So certainly having an awareness of what the match amounts will be would prevent some rework that would occur in a second amendment without a doubt.
But we will absolutely just be able to, we can still get there if we
don t have that certainty.
is that's all we we have a couple plans so that we can ensure that
we don't have delays in delivery but it's hard to to wait until we
have that resolution when we could at least put projects out for
the public and then there's perhaps more information for
everybody to have to a discussion and decision making on.
Were you in the queue before I wasn't sure if I'd seen you
Represent students and then represent
Thank you coach. I said so just to be clear
This amendment would be dependent on the 70 million dollars that is in question for match funds. Is that correct?
We can move forward. Oh
Through the co-chair of representative Stutes. Yeah, we will be able to put out our first step out for public comment for that four years
If nothing else changes that would be the approved step
If there is a change to the match amount that's available for this construction season, We would go out
for an amendment
Yes, follow follow so just to be clear
if you were to receive an
match money, that is what would prompt the amendment.
Yes, thank you.
Through co-chair, I'm sorry, representative Stuitz,
yes, correct, yeah.
Okay, Representative McCabe.
Thanks, so interested in the rolling steps.
So you're putting out, sorry through chair,
Deputy Commissioner, you putting
out a step, a four-year step every two years.
So, your sort of overlapping.
So an amendment at some point.
Amendments won't really be necessary.
They can kind of be bumped to the next step, right?
I assume the step that's put out in 2026 is going to go
through 2030.
And then if there are amendments needed,
then, and they're not real critical,
they could be in the 2028 step.
That'll go through 2032 instead of a big amendment.
It seems to me, I remember, that was kind
of what federal highways, hey, if you're doing a rolling
Huge amounts of amendments
Yeah, through co-chair. I said representative McCabe that that would be fantastic
We would love to not have to do all of the amendments
That being said there are some states that put them out every other week. There's a new a New amendment
Yeah
That's
A lot of work for sure. Unfortunately there's a lot
of factors that require us to go out for an amendment.
It could be an increased dollar amount if there is a price
cost escalation above a certain threshold say 20 percent of what we have.
The only way to move forward with the project is through an
amendment but our goal would be to have
Minimal changes in these amendments as we move forward because we're updating things more frequently
So I remember from a couple years ago federal highways was sort of holding us to their
Regulations I guess or their procedures in the lower 48 which has an extended construction season where say a contractor runs into a
a big frozen pile of permafrost or clay or something and it's gonna take a pile
of money to you know to dig it out because you obviously have to
dig out and replace it then at the time the federal highway administration was
saying
Well that's a huge amendment you can't we're not just going to give you the money you need
to go out for an amendment which meant a 30-day comment period and all that so has that
sort of changed have they sorta relaxed that requirement and got back to maybe understanding
that Alaska construction is a bit different than the rest of the country.
Yeah, through Co-Chair Representative McCabe, great memory.
That procedure is still in place and are currently approved STIP narrative.
And just for context, it specifically relates to a project that goes out to bid, and when
a bid comes back high, higher than what we had obligated and expected, then we cannot
problem for us and it has delayed one project example would be in Haynes where that created
a delay by an entire construction year.
We are proposing in this narrative with our procedures to go back to our original version
of that which gave us the flexibility to do an increase and move forward to award that
follow-up. So yeah just the comment if I remember right the the problem was the timing so if you
suddenly have this big
Issue that you didn't know about because it was underground obviously
You got to do a step amendment
Just takes time 30 days then you got a do-a-30-day common period which takes 30
Days and and so by the time all that is done
Your construction season could be over.
I think that's, Haynes is what,
exactly what I was thinking of as well.
I I that that the issue that we're running into
and it would be really great if we could find a way
to bring federal highways around to our way of thinking
with that comment more than anything.
Thanks.
Good comment.
Representative Mina.
Thank you, co-chair. I shied through the co chair my apologies for missing the middle part of the presentation
I had a bill hearing so I'm just catching up
So it's not related to this slide, but I did want to ask
How does the use of?
the advanced construction impact
The requirement for a step for the step to be fiscally constrained
Yeah, through care cochair eyeshide representative Mina with advanced
construction
The fiscal constraint requirements certainly change.
When we have to be fiscally constrained, we know the revenue that we
have coming in on an annual basis, and that's all we programed to.
We can't over program, but advanced construction is outside of that.
So if we need to have projects move forward that, you know, it's $100 million
over what we've revenue for, for example,
we can program that as long as we
for those federal funds.
That being said, the fiscal constraint
that federal highways likes to see that they require
is when we're gonna pay it back.
So on our STIP pages, you'll see what year
and the amount that we will be paying back,
so that's how they determine fiscal constraints
is to look at future years and they want to guarantee
that that can pay back that
Over our heads with our commitments on construct advanced construction. Thank you. Yeah
Thank You
Okay
For the record Ryan Anderson and apologies. We're working. There's a snowstorm in Anchorage. So I've been a little bit distracted here
So this this slide is the Alaska state-wide transportation improvement plan. It's really about
the projects that we see now and how the costs are increasing.
We have more $100 million projects than we've had in the past.
You can see it's not any one type of project.
It's in not anyone area.
It is across the state.
It really just reflects the needs of our state,
I mean, these are good solid majority of these,
repair the road, reconstruct the
road. We're not doing, there's not a
lot here on new roads. West is sitting
access is a new road but you know
there is good safety corridor
improvement projects just across the
board but one of the challenges ahead of
us are yeah I think these these highway
corridor projects we're starting to see
you you can be going 10 to 20 miles and
the projects starting the push 100
million dollars and these are projects
that have been around for some time.
And then, of course, we also have a list of projects that
greater than $250 million.
So we're kind of getting this new category as well.
So one thing you're going to see as we work through this
new step is just, how do we address these as the state?
We are trying to leverage all the tools that we have.
You'll see a lot of things where we are breaking up
projects into smaller chunks so we can afford them.
And just across where we're looking at you know any type of grant opportunities
Whatever there is out there to help with you, know the the funding of these projects
So just to give everyone a sense of of that
Represent Amina
Thank You co-chair I shite through the co chair
I was looking At some of These projects that I know a lot of my constituents
They're Really Concerned about Safer Seward Highway, so I wanted to clarify that that Sewered Highway Malpost
That's safety corridor. Is that part of the safer sewer highway project?
Yeah through co-chair. I said representative Mina
Yeah, the Seward highway mile plus 98.5 to 1 12 is the safety court or project
Thats the that's the one that goes along turning an arm to girdwood. Yeah. That is that project follow and just a follow-up through the co chair
I know that there's been a lot of local advocacy to our MPO,
to AMATs about safer Seward Highway,
and that the projects that are in the step need to also be in our MTP.
Are these projects also in everyone,
every MPOs respective MDP including safer sewer highway?
Yeah, through co-share, I should.
Representative Mina, the requirement is,
is within a metropolitan planning area that then it has to be in the MTP as well as the the MPO.
I'm going to use way too many acronyms now as you had mentioned the
the Metropolitan Planning Area and then the metropolitan Planning Organization
transportation improvement program.
So, those are the requirements, and that's something that we went through.
That was actually something we didn't used to do back when we had the new step.
That is something, that was a change in interpretation from the Federal Highway Administration.
So now we are doing that.
The safer Seward Highway in particular, the termini from 98.5 to 112 doesn't enter into
the MPA, so you'll see that in the state of Alaska's statewide transportation improvement
Thank you.
Co-chair.
Carrick?
Uh, thank you through the co-chare.
I know we're looking at a slide that says statewide transportation improvement plan,
but at this point, we are also kind of talking about big picture projects in Alaska, and
I'd be remiss if I didn't go all the way back to the beginning of this presentation
just for a second and just return to a cascade point project regarding the match.
Short on our match. Are we pursuing in just its design build early phase on cascade point?
That project why is it taking precedence?
Seemingly, this is the public perception at least why? Is it? Taking precedence over say Anchorage safety projects that were part of that metropolitan planning process
And are highly needed and demonstrated
You know, talk me through how I know we're not comparing apples to apples per se, but talk
me though how that works because currently Cascade Point seems to just be a bridge into
a forest and we are in this design build phase but it feels like it's taking precedence over
critical safety projects, pedestrian safety project in Anchorage.
So talk to me about how i'm misinterpreting that.
Yeah, when we look at kind of that realm of projects for a year,
and so you'll see, you know, so last year we secured, I think it's around $1.3 billion.
I mean, all those projects are priorities. I
mean everyone here has priorities, projects in their districts that are
priorities we're looking at it from project delivery perspective.
You know we've got the permits, we got
the right of way, okay, that project's ready to go.
That moves it up in the priority list.
That's really when you look at the statewide transportation improvement program,
the majority of the changes are either due to cost increases or there was a right of way
that was going to take some time longer so it got pushed out to another year, mechanics like that.
So once we have these projects, internally, we're managing resources and we are shifting things
Well, that's our favorite project, so, you know,
that, and then there's the list of funding types,
you now, in which funds fit where the Anchorage safety
projects, for example, there was a set of those projects
for the Highway Safety Improvement Program,
which, we recognized when we initially made some changes
there that okay,
that that is an area that.
the mayor of Anchorage, folks came to us and said this is really important to
us. And so we went back and we're relallocating resources so that we can
get those projects across the finish line. You know, we'll pull in from other
areas and work those things. But there's always that balance. So, but what we
are looking for is project delivery. Last year, there was a lot of pressure
put on the department that get the projects out the door to contractors.
Um, and that's what you see in our numbers from last year.
Just a follow up.
Um thank you commissioner.
I, I'm not a transportation safety planner and I am not in your shoes,
but I will just,
I guess reiterate what's been said in some other committees that to the public
right now,
it doesn't necessarily feel like the balance of their public input and what
projects we go forward with as a state is necessarily aligning.
The public is always right about what the best, most feasible shovel-ready project is,
but it sounded to me from a Fairbanks perspective outside of Southeast and Anchorage,
like we had Anchorage projects that were a lot closer to the ready-to-go spot
than Cascade Point, and we have some other projects on this list that are maybe a similar
A few times that the public is not necessarily and I'm not
necessarily from where I am sitting outside of it seeing
where the pros and cons of these projects are adding up for
where we are putting the dollars.
Thanks. Yeah, I don't disagree with that commissioner. I would love to have a Steve's highway in Big Lake.
So if you could arrange that I, would appreciate it. The Big Lakers, they look at the wonderful
six-lane interstate highway that they have in Fairbanks that basically goes to Fairbank's
and they would like to see that in big lake. No, just kidding. But I do have
a question about Cascade Point and you said earlier about the
The gold belt agreement. So
Is a certain amount of that the fact that gold gold Belt is still involved in it in this public-private partnership
And it has some sort of return on investment. I mean, that's
Granted, it's not a safety project
And of course we all know that those should take precedence as much as they possibly can but at this in
Particular case seems to me we we've established a public private partnership
With some funding coming from goldbelt
to a road that has a return on investment eventually
for our children for a various number of reasons.
So maybe we can explore that a little bit if you wouldn't mind.
Yeah, through Coach Irish, I represented McCabe.
Yeah.
I mean, our relationship with Goldbelt,
it's just, it a partnership.
You know, they are the majority landholders in the area and they have development plans,
you know for us as the state, I mean the very terminal is a separate piece of infrastructure
that would be run by the State, run my AMHS and move forward like that.
There's this recognition that, there's opportunities there for economic development, some of those
focus areas as we invest in the area.
And so that's where you see the state of Alaska
investing in an area for a good purpose.
Thanks.
Representative Stutes.
Thank you, co-chair.
First, Commissioner, thank you both.
Ms. Keith and Commissioner for coming, I know it's not always, it is always little daunting and a little nerve-acking to come before this committee and so we always appreciate when you do come because you're always very kind and very gentle.
But I guess the question that begs to be asked that has not been asked and commissioner,
I heard you used the term priority.
the surrounding villages, they have sent resolutions to this body saying they don't want a ferry
system out there. It's too far out. They can't get to the shopping.
They don t want to depend on this, that or the other thing.
It has split Juneau. The majority of people in Juneaux are not interested in it. But yet,
uh, very facilities in communities that already exist that are falling apart, um,
it would seem to me that that money would be much better spent on existing
infrastructure. We're having a new testimony and a built. And, and I,
and so I guess the question I would like to ask it, whose priority is this?
Yeah, through coach,
For a few of those
Things I would just like to say the test amino we advertised last week for construction, and that's that huge for the state of Alaska
So we've got that one
For we have I think it's 12 or 13
Fairy Docs that we currently I mean we haven't the funding in the real ferry program. It's security
They're going through that design can you know process so we can certify them and get them built
I'm mean so so were we're making good strides in that
When it comes to the cascade point, you know, from the department perspective,
we recognize, I mean, the Alaskan mean highway system and operating costs
is something that that's an important piece of the puzzle and how we can,
if there's any opportunities to reduce operating cost, we should be looking at that.
We're taking steps to do that, that was something
that is in the long range plan as identified as a priority.
That specific project wasn't identified, as priority in that plan, but that
that the concept of, you know, if we can extend the roads,
you have the shorter ferry runs, and be able to reduce those operating costs.
For as a long-term, sustainability for the Alaska Marine Highway System,
I mean, that's how we're looking at it. That's what makes it important for us.
And I appreciate that response. But the Alaskan Marine highway,
is here to service Alaskans.
It's not, for any other reason,
it's to not make money, it won't ever make
money.
You know that commissioner, you know,
it just like our roads.
And you're talking about the operational costs.
That's another big issue.
Our federal dollars are going to run out.
They've been using money that wasn't intended.
for operations, for operation.
So to take these funds and start a whole new project
when you can't afford, or we can hardly afford
what already exists is hard for me to understand.
Yeah through chair co-chair. I just just giving wait times
Yeah, and I you know and we are working with FTA, you now and on that you have federal fund issue
That's that's you. No, we're currently looking at so this these things are all in the works
I mean the department has been very active
I'm going to Washington DC where we were beating down the streets, ya know on all these
Things it's really trying to make the most of it for whatever we can find and i think
I mean, if you just go look back in a couple years,
I think there has been good progress made
in the last Korean highway system.
You know, I Think Director Tornga has done
just a phenomenal job.
Our uptime is 98 and a half percent for 2024 and 2025.
You Know,
I I we're on a good track here.
So this, you know the cascade point pieces is part of that plan.
I have one more coming follow up.
Thank you. My last comment is going to be, I appreciate that. And I agree. I think that the
Marine Highway System Commissioner has come a long way in the last few years. But if you look back
12 years, this administration's number one objective was to get rid of the Alaska Marine
their operations that they currently have and how you've pushed forward and with Mr.
Tornga who's done a fabulous job. So don't think that I don t see how far you have come,
but it's just disconcerting to see the way some of the dollars are expended. Thank you.
Represent my cape. Thanks. So yeah, we're not I know this is kind of highways and stiff and everything else
But I do as long as we are on the ferry system, which I love the ferries
But, so we have a number of fairies that are really, really old, right?
The Dusty being one.
I mean, it was the Rusty Dustey when I first wrote it in 1980 and it's just gotten rusty
or I think, I'd think Representative Stutz told me that the captain inspects every well
than the ship before he sails it every time.
So we needed to replace it.
We've got a couple more in the pipeline that they're going to need to be replaced.
asking Alaskans to drive all the way out to Cascade Point heaven forbid that we
would have to Drive a little extra to save us some money so we would
have the money available to the ferry to buy new fairies eventually seems to
me that that kind of makes financial sense is I mean are we thinking that
long-range? Yeah through Co-chair Ayesha. I think that's what the
The the long-range plan that they'll ask me how operations board, you know contributed to and was approved
That's what it says
And there's a plan in there for replacing the vessels
I mean there are some challenges there because of the high cost
I'm in we're estimating the testimony at about 300 million, and I'll take to get that one replaced
So yeah, but there is there a plant there
For how we would replace the vessel's and and keep the last coming highway system moving. Yeah, thanks
And then I think you just have a final thank you slide if if that's great. Yeah
Thank you. So thank You. Um, is there any final comments? Yes, represent Mina
Thank You co chair. I said my apologies. Can we go back to slide 10? I
Wanted to clarify something on slide ten just related to the eighth F H W Y
funding
So I saw that the under the surface transportation for federal
fiscal year 2026, FHWA formula programs, that's $966 million, correct?
And then going back to slide four, if we may,
on slide 4, those FHA funds in 2025.
Without the August redistribution, it's a little under $800 million, and so for those
federal fiscal year 2026 funds, seems like a big difference of about $200 million.
So on slide 10, is that including August re-appropriation or how are you covering for that difference?
Yeah, through co-chair Ayeshide, Representative Mina, on slide 10, this dollar amount is all
available revenue that we have in that year. Some of it is new appropriations that came in
during the fiscal year, some is what goes from and carries over from federal fiscal
Slide here has this cumulative revenue that's available everything available to us in this fiscal year
Going back to the earlier slide four, you know, that shows a bit more of a
Obligation by year dollar amount less than available different than a available revenue
for that year. So it would be great for us to have a year that we had 966 million available
revenue and then we could expend that amount. But because matching fund types with projects
doesn't always line up that cleanly, there will always be some carryover given our reduced
Yeah.
I had help.
It wasn't just me.
And the other final questions or comments before I say something nice towards our guest.
Seeing none, I just really appreciate the three of you.
You know, you know I think you get asked a lot of tough questions and it's because folks
Folks care about our infrastructure we want
We want to maximize the utility of limited resources, so I just want you to know that I
Appreciate you all you have a hard job and
I just hope you stick with it and keep coming to our meetings and I appreciate you.
And then I have just a little closing statement but I would like to dismiss our guests but
I always like give my co-chair the last word before I bring us home.
Co-Chair Kerry.
Thank you, very simply I want to thank our guest for being here.
I'd like to keep the dialogue going as much as we can this session despite having some
you know moments where we're asking hard questions and critical conversations. We're doing it on
behalf of all the people we all collectively serve. So I really appreciate the conversation
today. It's extremely helpful and please let us know how we could better partner
the match discussion is super important today and I think the legislature stands ready to
partner with the department on getting this across the finish line but just ask for that help
continue to ask us for the help because we're here we are ready and thank you so much for being
And then just for the public's awareness, we're about ready to wrap up, but this is a topic that we continue to engage on.
Our Transportation Committee and the other body had a similar hearing last week.
Thursday, if folks want to look at that.
Of course, this subject was a part of a Senate Finance Committee
meeting this morning, so I'm just referencing that for folks.
And we did add some additional documents to basis
that came out last minute from ledge legal on this issue.
But it was the robust conversation, and we thank you.
The next House Transportation Committee meeting
will be this Thursday January 29th.
at one o'clock p.m. in this room room 124 on Thursday where I have a presentation on winter
road maintenance which is appropriate given know what's happening in Anchorage right now and
south central from led legislative liaison Andy Mills and DOT and PF staff we'll hear our first
bill of the legislative session house bill 216 transfer of railroad land to Whittier and here
So with that we adjourned this meeting at 2.59 p.m.