I'd like to call this meeting of the House Transportation Committee to order.
It is now 132 on Tuesday, February 10th in room 124.
Members present include Representative Stutes, Representative Garrett Nelson,
Representative McCabe, representative Mina,
representative St. Clair.
Co-chair Ayeshide will be here fairly soon, and myself, co- chair Kerrick.
And we've also been joined today by Representative Hymshoot.
for who represents Southeast Alaska and so welcome to our conversation today.
Let the record reflect. We have a quorum to conduct business and please take this time to
silence your cell phones. Before we begin, I'd like to thank Jordan Nicholson from House Records
and Doug Bridges from the Juneau LAO for staffing our committee today as well as our
So on today's agenda, we do have a continuation from the committee's February 5th presentation on the function of the Alaska Marine Highway System
operations board
Primarily today. We'll be focused on The Cascade Point Project overview and
updates from Craig Torngut as well as our
South Coast Region Director Christopher Goins with the Alaskan Marine highway system
and for advisement of members who of the public that may be watching this
presentation we are starting today at slide number 10 which is titled AMHS 20
45 long-range plan and would be happy to skip back or forward for committee
members interest today and we want to get through this presentation today so we
schedule here. Please welcome Commissioner Anderson. Thank you for being here today.
And Director Tornga and we do have Christopher Goens online. So thank you all if you'd like to
come and oh I'm so sorry.
Thank You for Being here welcome and feel free to put your names on the record and
Okay, thank you, co-chair Carrick and the transportation committee for the record
My name is Ryan Anderson. I'm the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Yeah, so continuing on with our our presentation here
This slide really is about the amhs 2045 long-range plan and in relation to the road connections piece of it
And this was something that, you know, as folks,
you now, Director Tonga was directly involved
with the work on that plan, really trying to make sure
that you knows, they went through to have,
I think it actually was a really significant effort
and accomplishment.
to have a 20-45 long-range plan for AMHS.
And one of the things about it was efficiency
and cost savings for the future.
And that's where these road connections come in.
And what the plan said is really work with DOT
to evaluate the feasibility of following road
connections, Cake to Petersburg,
a cross-baronoff island, and then Tenaki to Huna.
And those were three that were specifically called out.
In addition, this work on Cascade Point
also fits into this concept, this planning level concept of longer road connections, shorter ferry runs.
And so that project also is mentioned in this plan.
And it's not listed as one of these, but it is a project that's acknowledged as it in progress.
Pause here and I'm going to ask Rebecca sorry representative him shoot. Sorry representative Rebecca's good. That's what they call me back home
Thank you chair kerrick and thank you for the opportunity to join the committee today. I really appreciate this is a really central issue in my district. So
through the chair I
was a little bit shocked at this slide commissioner and I just am hoping that you can provide a
little more context on these public comments and supportive roads. When you say they were
generally supportive, that isn't what I heard in the meetings I attended and so was that
addressed in a specific meeting talking about roads? Because there were so many meetings
that I guess I'm a bit lost because I didn't hear it but maybe I wasn't in that same meeting.
Yeah, through the chair, Representative Hymshoot.
This statement is just word for word from the plan,
but I'll let Director Tornga speak to that.
He was involved in many of the discussions.
Yeah for the record, Craig Toronga,
Marine Director for AMHS,
and get through to the Chair for Representative Hymshoo.
We held several very focused group meetings.
We actually also held some meetings in cake
the comments we when we propose these um depending on what village or community we were in.
So I would say that uh you know you're there was definitely on either side of the issue when
we're talking in Pune and Tenaki um Sitka uh there's there is a push for a road to the east side from
and there's actually been monthly meetings with Merad that's been leading the meetings
with the SIGTA tribe, and I've attended probably six of those meetings that they're working on
that, trying to find funding for that. So I can't say that the whole community is, but the
meetings I have been in that MerAD has facilitated, they've been doing a monthly, there is a push for
on trying to make the fairies more efficiently.
If you look at Chatham Straits, that's like a highway.
That's a marine highway, and anything we can bring to that,
just we could hit a lot of communities
just by going up and down that
instead of all the running we have to do.
So it really does, for the future,
make their fairys a little more efficient.
Follow up.
Thank you, Chair Carrick, through the chair.
I just want to point out I was in touch with the tribe yesterday and there's new leadership.
The council has new leadership and the Tribe itself has a new executive director.
And I would invite you to, I know the plan is done, but
I wouldn't invite to you have a full meeting in Sitka, not just with The Tribe and include The tribe because The Tribal Voice is incredibly, it's essential, we need to have that voice.
But I don't think you're going to find the same findings right now in The Tribe.
Did you have a meeting with the entire community of Sitka to arrive at that conclusion?
A 16-mile road with tunnels and gravel over ice in the winter? Who's maintaining that?
What's at the other end? Like, how does this work? I see if you're just wanting to...
I'm sorry, but I'll get a little wound up here.
If you just want to reduce travel time on the ferry, and if we have more efficient ferries,
you know, that may not be as burdensome as you think,
but if just looking to the reduced traveltime that logically may look like,
But I don't believe my community is speaking in full support
at all about making this road.
This is a 20-some-year-old plan.
We didn't even have cell phones back when this plan was written
that suggested these roads.
So I'm not convinced at
all as somebody from that community that what you're saying
matches the will and the desire of the community.
So do you have resolutions from the assembly?
I need a little more substantiation before I can buy into it.
We are people of the tides.
We deal with surges and arrows all the time.
What we don't do is take an elder who's trying to get to search
hospital and drop them off in an uninhabited place
and say, good luck getting over to Sitka.
So I'm very concerned about this conclusion.
All right.
I just mentioned that we had very focus groups and we held them quarterly and
we did have a lot on there and
we didn't recommend a road, a certain road.
We just recommended a row to cross.
So we're not taking a position on a
road we just mention a Road across would help.
And then like I said, I've been attending the Merad meetings regarding this as well.
And I don't think we've had one since there's been recent leadership change, so I can't speak to that.
I just was dead about half a dozen meetings with them on it.
And it's more than just the routing is trying to make this system more efficient and affordable for the future.
And we, right now, we do not get the service we'd like to give to Sitka.
And it's just, you know, the one week, and it is not a true round trip,
and its very difficult.
So we're just looking at ways to try to improve that service and make this more efficient.
One small follow-up.
One more follow up.
Thank you.
Through the chair, I'm just going to say what makes it more affordable for
the state does not make it affordable, nor does it make its safer for the people.
think about those other values here, not just the time and not
just a fuel expense. So thank you.
Representative Stutes.
Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I appreciate it. First, let me
make sure I'm not jumping the gun here. But is this road in
conjunction with the Cascade Point Road?
Yeah, through the through
the chair representative suits. No, it is not. This would be a
separate road. It's I think it's
I mentioned last time you can kind of compare this to what was done in Metla Kotla when they
built the 15 mile road and it just made it that they had better service getting there and they
weren't having to go around the point into the weather and so it gave them a better
service but both that type of setup. So it would be from where to SIGCA? It would
to the east side of Aranoff Island, whichever location, I don't know.
They've looked at, from what the tribe said in the meetings,
they've got like three different routes that they proposed at times.
Yes, and so it would be just one of those roads that would get them to
the East side and put them in Chatham Straits where we're going up and down all the time.
Follow-up? Thank you, Madam Coachear.
So this would believe in Yacht Bay, very dark.
Yeah, through the chair, Representative Stuche.
Yes, it'd be from Akh Bay.
Just like the runs we make to Huna,
then downch out of the straits to Angoon and Cakes.
So we're going up and down that highway already.
Oh, wait, thank you.
Representative McCabe.
Thanks, Chair Kerrick.
So I'd like to flesh out some
Things that representative him should said so what's the medical facilities on a on?
A ferry in other words, you have a doctor on the ferry for an elderly person that has an issue or I know you guys are probably trained but
What's what the facilities? On a ferry?
Yeah through the chair represent McCain. Yeah, we do have
EMT type training that's actually required for our pursers on board and we do have a hospital room on
board for medical situations. So we're more of the E.M.T. type
training. Follow up. Thank you. I was surprised to say that if an elder is
representative Jim Schutz worried about was on a ferry and had an issue you
would have to probably get a helicopter out of Sitka to medivac them if they had
some sort of a big issue similar to what they might have in a remote 16-mile road
that probably could get an ambulance to it quicker than the Coast Guard could
launch. Through the chair, Representative McCabe, that would be the scenario and
run them ashore in a fast rescue craft and when we need to get them to a medical center.
Thanks. One more follow-up, Sheriff, you don't mind?
One More Follow-Up.
Thank you. So this road to the other side of Sitka would utilize, hopefully...
the $75 million road we've already started out to Catley and Bay before it goes around that
I think 50% of Sitka was in favor and 50 percent was not in favour and yet we still put 75 million
dollars into it. Yeah, through through the chair, Representative McCabe, like I said we didn't take
a position on which road. We just if there was a road that got to the east side, we would be able
Thanks. So I put myself in the queue and I kind of want to go back to slide 10 really quick just
so we are keeping ourselves sort of on track here but for all of the projects that are in
the long range plan where we've got existing logging roads and we're building new roads.
What's the I guess can you compare the total cost to build those roads versus
How many years of just regular maintenance would that provide us
for the current marine vessels we have?
And I'm just trying to compare costs.
Yeah. Representative Carrick, we don't have that analysis.
And in the long range plan,
we took the position that we're just recommending the roads.
We're not the road experts.
So we recommend to the DOT to look at these.
director going to something you might be able to answer a little bit of that but
there's definitely you know an ongoing cost of a ferry once you have to build
one you're gonna be operating for a number of years so that that has to be
compared as well and as a follow-up it's my understanding a lot of the roads
being proposed including even the one to the cascade point project are at
What people would think of as a road that you would travel to get to a ferry terminal?
Some of these are just a couple of ruts going through the woods over an island with mountains and trees and I so
I'm correct in stating that we're not talking about equivalent types of readiness for roads
we've got a lot of work to do on some of those areas and in others we have other kinds of worked to
such as cascade point where we had to
do a lotta
new bridge and tunnels, et cetera.
So I guess that's more of a comment.
I'm just trying to remind, I
guess, all of us looking at this.
And I just I'd like the commissioner's perspective
about the costs for these road projects
and the maintenance and operations of the road
projects versus just increasing the amount of ferry service
we have.
Yeah, coach Eric Carrick. Thank you for that question for the record Ryan Anderson and you know just to address the cascade point road
I mean you're from Fairbanks and when we get out on our party fours like you
Know I live on a party for road. I've driven out to cascade Point
That road is in better shape than the road I go home on every night and and the volumes are much greater on the
Road that I got home one every nine
So to get to that point and cascade points where you get the end of the Road on Middle East or highway
Which is I think it's like mile 41 or 42
That is that is good road.
Then from there you get on the goal belt property.
That's where you need the bridge and you
need to get down to the site.
And it's less than a mile.
I mean, it is a short segment.
I've walked down it.
I have seen it so just to clarify on that point.
When it comes to roads, I
mean you see in the 2004 Southeast Alaska
plan that was Mike Barton as commissioner.
I think Frank Murkowski is governor.
I'm back then.
This seems to come up with the ferry system, you know, every time we kind of go around,
I think, on the tough fiscal challenges when we get into those climates.
I had a letter on my desk from commissioner, oh, it was a former commissioner.
Hey, you're going to get into tough times in the fairies.
You know, look at the longer roads, the shorter ferry connections.
This is just something it keeps coming around and it
keeps come around.
So we really welcome the debate on this because I do think this is something,
you know there's been a lot of work done in
the past.
You see it in The Southeast Plan where they actually the 2004 plan is our
current approved.
That was the last time that I think it was officially approved,
you can see all the work they did in looking at routes and everything.
The cost of roads it really depends where you are at.
You know, depending on the material availability, I think in Southeast Alaska, we did that
recent road out on cake where we went heading towards Petersburg.
We only got partway.
We got across the island to the coast there.
And so we have some good examples there.
We're doing things to keep the costs down,
how we build bridges is a little different and how
we do these things, to get that basic access in.
And then knowing that if that, just like any road project,
if the volume picks up and the demand picks
up, we expand the road,
we built out the roads.
So it is the function,
we use the same road principles,
whether we're building roads between rural communities
or to ferry connections.
The one thing about roads, and I'll use an example from up north,
you know, the one that I was involved with back in 2006, 2008,
it was called the Road to Tanana.
It was from Manly Hot Springs.
We built, we took some old mining roads and then we built New Road
to get to the Yukon River.
If you went and talked to those folks in Tanina right now,
they would tell you, man,
we cannot survive without that road.
Because in the winter time, they build an ice road on the
Yukono River,
they're moving all their goods.
It just brings down cost dramatically.
So, the roads, you know, from that perspective are very positive economically.
When we're looking at that balance between the cost of a ferry, it's also, I view it
as the time of the person.
You know if you can reduce the times you have to be on the ferry by hours, and I see
that as a value as well.
So and then of course we are looking a fuel consumption, we look at greenhouse gas emissions,
that ferry run. So the other thing I would just say, when we're looking at the cost of
building things, you know, the capital programs, we can't use capital money to run operations.
So when you invest in roads, and we are making that selection from across the state of our
capital program and where we see the benefit, it's tough to try to say well if we build a road for
how does that tie to a reduction in operating costs because that's just a
different the parameters on that as well and I I guess one more follow-up for
myself commissioner is I'm really struggling when we talk about the
cascade point project and a few of these other proposed items to understand how
from that statewide perspective we're investing the amount of money we are
priority four roads you identified even in northern region. So why, why this? I'd like this money if
it were queen for a day to stay in southeast and be reinvested back into the marine highway system
in some way. But when you talk about there being controversy and welcoming the dialogue,
it doesn't seem to jive with the fact that dollars are already dedicated towards this project.
Moot and after the fact and I'm just curious on a statewide perspective
Why this project over some of the projects that exist throughout the rest of southeast or that exists in other parts of
The state when you mentioned the road to tan and i think that's a really valuable example of
the kind of thing we could have spent
The funding on which benefited directly a community
versus
I am unclear who this
Project is directly benefiting
Yeah, coach Eric Eric. Yeah from from our perspective from the DOT the agency perspective. I mean one of our missions is to
You know bring down
Operational efficiency, I think you heard director Tornga speak to it
And so we're constantly looking for ways for operational efficiency
One way is invest in new vessels like the testament replacement vessel is going to be a great
a great thing for us to bring down costs.
But there's only so much of those types of funds
for replacing vessels.
When we look across the system and the operating efficiency
by building roads, we feel there is a significant benefit.
I think, you know, and so we're constantly
balancing that across this state.
We're also balancing a mix of fun types.
So we can't use.
The funds we used for Tanana Road would be different than the funds
we would use for building a ferry terminal.
So there's that balance as well that we're constantly going through.
But you know, we are investing across the system right now.
It's not just Cascade Point.
I think we had, I'm going to say between 10 and 12
ferry-terminal projects that are active that
are funded that across-the-state were working on.
And what we were doing is we tried to build the
for the efficiencies, the ability for all of our vessels to hit all
of the docks to really strengthen that system and from that
system perspective is where Cascade Point was fitting in.
Let's take a couple more questions and then just for time
management purposes, I'd like for commissioner for you to skip
ahead to slide 17 after that.
because that's what gets right into the cascade point.
And I think it's not duplicative of what we just heard
in subcommittee as well.
I have Representative McCabe and then him shoot
and institutes, I believe.
Thanks, Commissioner.
So I remember reading a study a number of years ago
that compared the, you know, in the airline industry,
we do seed miles.
You know that is how you figure out the number
of seeds on an airplane versus the amount
divide in the fuel costs and the cost of the crew and everything else. And the ferry system was about
five plus almost six dollars per car mile. So if you plan just the number of cars hauled,
not people necessarily, it was five or six bucks per
contrast driving the Glen Highway was two cents per car mile.
So that's the kind of study we need to do.
And I think that what you're trying to tell us is we are
going to be saving, the DOT is not only saving money,
but we're also going be
saving wear and tear on the ferry.
We already put an incredible amount on
the Tustamina especially.
We're already putting an incredibly incredible
amount of
hours, if you will, on a vessel that wasn't designed.
I think it's life design is 30 years, and we've had to beg the coast guard every year
since then to extend its life.
So this would also save, I'm not mistaken, having an extra 30 miles or whatever it is
to drive, would save that wear and tear, it would
For a longer period of time, it would allow better scheduling.
I mean, I get that it's going to be an inconvenience to people that have to drive or take the bus.
I understand Goldbelt has offered to provide a bus from Juneau.
I, understand all that, but it will also be a significant cost savings.
And I think we have a, we a report from King, Ed King that sort of indicates that.
can roll your life, you can role your lives at any of them that do economic reports, right?
But I think that's what Representative Carrick was talking about is she doesn't understand
why we need a ferry terminal at Cascade Point.
And I, maybe we're talking past each other because I hear you saying nobody benefits
except the state who saves a pile of money on the ferry, is that, am I correct with that?
Carrick, Representative McCabe, you hesitate to go into the economics of it, because we're
state governments, so we do things more than just that seedfare.
And so that's a piece of that.
I think when we the economic analysis, we can argue all day about the assumptions made
from, you know, when we look at roads and you start building roads, naturally, I mean,
you'll see more people traveling and more development. I'm mean there's this natural
piece that happens with shorter ferry routes, saving people time.
I don't want to, yeah, there is a huge value in people's time, and by, a road you can
50, 60 miles an hour on a ferry. We're running, what, 50 knots if we're really fast.
Yeah. And so just that ability to move, you know, faster.
And I think if you looked across the nation at the ferry systems,
that's what you're going to see. You're gonna see roads with short ferry connections
Just from that, yeah, it's people's time.
It's the cost savings of the system,
the efficiency of this system.
And there's all sorts of ancillary benefits
with fuel savings and environmental benefits.
Follow it?
Follow?
Thanks.
So I've been doing a little research on this
since the last time and I looked at,
I think you had a slide that kind of looks like this
that shows all the investments that you put into.
So, I'm looking at Janiga,
$20 million on a terminal for a population of 54 people,
to titling 10 to $15 million
on the terminal, for the population, of 23 people.
Cold Bay, 153 people full-time residents,
I get that there's a bunch of stormies
that go in there occasionally, but 50 to 55 million dollars.
Here we're gonna spend some money on
a road that's pretty much already
built for the most part I mean we've got a mile to go and we got
a bridge I don't think there's a tunnel but maybe in fact I
understand that the bridge can because it's it granted on both
sides or it is rock on the both sides can probably be a big
culvert so anyways we're going to spend that amount of money
on that and
This terminal would service all of Juneau.
Everybody going through Juneaux,
and I don't even really know what the population of
Juneo is, but so it would serve us a lot of people
that could drive out there, and like you say,
save their time.
The people in Chinega and Tittlick and even
Cole Bay don´t have a choice necessarily.
They have to use a ferry.
We can...
Make this easier and better for the people in Juneau that might have to use the ferry to go somewhere else
By shortening the time that they're riding on the fairie
Is I mean am I off base am i being weird I think this is I?
Mean I love the fairy don't get me wrong, but it's a pain in the butt you got to load your car
You got a sit in a parking lot you gotta chain it down you gonna walk upstairs
Sorry
Through coach Eric Eric representative McCabe. Yeah, first of all, there's no tunnel at cascade point
I'm and I like tunnels if there was an opportunity. I I work three years underground at Greens Creek
So I don't mind tunnels, but the
I think what you're getting at, Representative McCabe, is important in that if you look
across the system, not just ferries, but rural airports, I mean across
the state, right, we're at 235 rural
airports. Many of those are serving very remote communities. I
mean those our lifelines for people. There's no doubt about that and so we do
these things for that. The one thing with Cascade Point that I do believe is a
benefit to rural communities is if
And Okbe is serving those Northern Panhandle communities, you're going to see better service because we're not spending so much time with one vessel on the water.
So there's just those types of ideas we want to keep open and we wanna keep pursuing because I think there is opportunities there to serve all the communities with this proposal and not just one.
Thanks.
We have quite a few questions in the queue now, so I might limit people's follow-ups to just 1 or 2 followups, start with Representative Stutes, then him shoot.
Oh, thank you, Madam Coach here.
So what I'm not hearing it, what
I am hearing is we think, we
think DOT thinks the Alaska Marine Highway System
was created for Alaskans, not for DOT,
but for people and their usage.
And I don't like to see a loose side of that.
We pay to get on our highway system when we're using it.
other than people getting on their roads.
And you're talking about how important this is
and what you think.
Public comment, 622 comments came in,
which by the way, closed on January 9th
and weren't posted until February 2nd
when we called and said, where are all the public comments?
We don't want Cascade Point, and of the people that spoke to Cascade point,
the majority of them spoke
to it because they want closer transportation to the mine
that is owned by Canadians. This is a problem for me.
You know what is our objective in this? You're talking about saving money.
back and forth, and that's what we're doing.
We're facilitating the mind,
and we are forgetting about all of the people that have said,
we don't want to,
and what about the property?
I haven't seen anything.
We don' t own the properties,
but we will go and build a very doc out there
on property that we do not own.
Are we buying it?
Is Gold Belt willing to sell it,
if not, what is the rent that Gold belt wants?
We have a lot of unanswered questions for putting up 28 and a half million bucks already when a
lot our infrastructure could have used that.
I'm not sure if there was a question in there or not.
I think let's go to representative Hymshoo because I know you have to leave.
I appreciate the opportunity and I just I want to clarify a few things for the record as far as a vote on the Sitka Road
It was a geo bond in 2012 or 13. So it was estate wide vote
And so it might have been 5050 and said I don't really know
But it wasn't statewide vote was on a geobahn and there's been no vote since then and that road has been well over
$70 million. That's why I question if seven miles of road is 70 million
How much is 16 miles of road going to cost?
When you drop an elder in the middle of winter,
at the end of a road where there is nothing,
there's nothing you are going
to have to send a helicopter to get that person
if they get left behind somehow.
If somehow we miss one person,
there there nothing there at
the other end the road.
So that's something we need to consider
when we talk about safety.
When you compare the Alaska ferry system to other fairies in this country, I am not aware of another ferry
system that does what ours does, and I'm immensely proud of the people in our ferry
system and the leadership of our fair system for keeping a system going that
does as much as it does. I don't know that we compare to anything else, so I want us to be
careful with those comparisons. And then I just wanted to point out, you know, the shifting of
By taking people all the way around to Sitka or all
the Way to Pelican, these maps from 2004, if you live in
Pelikan or Teniki, you're going to have to buy a car.
There's only a boardwalk.
In either community, there's no car in Tenikki.
There is one.
They have a truck that they use for moving fuel.
There are no cars in Pelikin.
So why are we building a road to pelican or teniki?
And I know that we're not, and I
know you're looking at how can we make the system more efficient,
but let's not lose sight of exactly what Rips Deuth said.
The service is there for the people.
And in the winter, when we need it most,
is when were going to have the most problems with a plan like this.
So I don't know if I had a question.
I thought I did, but I think I lost it.
So thanks for that opportunity.
Thank you.
I also didn't really hear a questions there.
We're going to just take a very brief at ease to turn the gavel back over to my co-chair
who is back from a bill hearing.
At ease.
We are back on the record
And then just for the Record
This is representative Ted eyeshide. I think I came in here at 201 p.m. So
And thank you to my co-chair
Carrick for taking care of me in my absence so represent Mina.
I thank, you are next in the queue
Thank you through the co chair eyeshyde, so we've had a pretty good discussion just talking about
What are these hypothetical savings that we can see?
from reducing the vessel hours and building these roads and so if we look at that October
15th at King report there is a line that says that operationally cascade point would reduce
vessel ours projecting to save $743,000 per year so I get the conceptual argument but then if I
just look down into the next page it then says the long-term savings will offset capital and
Construction costs are unlikely to be recovered in a meaningful timeline without additional changes.
And I haven't read every single word of the report.
My understanding is that it also doesn't include the maintenance costs for the new facility.
And so my question is, I don't see a lot of help for
argumentation that this is going to save money.
And, so are you saying that the project is to Save Money?
Is it for streamlining and helping with the predictability of
Or is there a counter-argument for this cost savings position?
Yeah, for the record Ryan Anderson through Coach Eric Kerrick.
Or sorry, Coach Ericside, excuse me, apologies, representative Mina.
Yeah I think in some of the subsequent slides we start going through some
of costs and the savings and those things.
So if we could.
work through those in those presentations.
I think that would help us kind of flow through it.
But I what you're hearing from the department
or what your hearing
from department is there's savings in time,
there are savings and costs.
Granted, the capital costs are,
we're treating separately, you know,
from that operational cost that we are looking at.
There's environmental benefits like the carbon reductions.
And then there is also this.
Potential to improve service to the North Lin canal communities by that dedicated to that North Panhandle communities through the dedicated North
Lin Canal service
Representative Nelson
Thank you, mr. Chair
Question that I had is and I have some others, but I'll just keep them as
I'll wait till they're in context.
But on this particular slide, 17, as you're talking about system optimization, shortening
the routes by not, you know, so many nautical miles, could you explain the how much time
that's actually going to save and what impact that would have on the size of crew that you
Specifically with like the 12 to 14 hour requirement that is existing right now
For the record, my name's Christopher Goens
and Regional Director of South Coast Region
through the share eyeside to Representative Nelson.
That's a wonderful question.
From those that are traveling,
the timeframe is about an hour and a half each way
going out a cascade point.
You ask the question, a separate question
which has to do with, well, what about the operating hours,
basically the 12 hours that the Coast Guard puts on
are folks.
and before you have to get in another crew because of the vessels going about
14 nautical miles and the current route that comes into play which is in for
Cascade Point would be Cascade point to Haynes to Skagway and then back to
Cascadepoint we just barely miss it we'd have
to be traveling 17 miles per hour the thing that is changing and it's talked
about in the 2045 long range plan is that there is going to
service between Hanes and Scagway. That shuttle service allows for the Juneau
or Cascade Point to Hains to get below that 12 hour requirement and therefore
we can get to that single crew. And when you do that per the report we we originally
had savings of approximately $590,000 we took out because we were only looking at
of basically a labor savings on that route of about a million dollars because you had
that crew off.
But that really is important with the shuttle service that is planned to come online in
the future.
Okay.
Representative Cade.
Thanks.
So this is maybe an off the wall question.
I know a number of years ago there was a push from the citizens of Cordova to have
different ferry schedule and I think a couple of representatives, my favorite among them
went to Cordova and had a meeting with 250 people that said that they wanted more ferry
service to Kodiak or to a Cordoba, sorry, I gave it away. How many, how much ferry service
does Cordoga use now? I mean, what's our fare box recovery from the people of Cordovo?
Christopher gone for the record through co-chair eyeshide to McCabe, but we're hearing about 30% from my friend behind me
Mr. Tornga. Thanks
So you're simple told you hey representative Stutes
Thank you. Um through the chair who's going to provide the shuttle service
Through eyeshide to the representative students, Goldbelt has committed to that shuttle service.
And I will just add that when we were going through the analysis, Ed King came back to me,
he gave me an initial draft, and it said, hey, you've got a problem with walk-on passengers.
As we dug into that, I stopped it. I said...
That's unacceptable.
We can't have an issue with walk-on passengers.
We had heard a lot from the community
that they're, you know, how this is going to be so much worse
than it is at Okbei today.
Well, the fact of the matter is,
we have people in the winter walking down Okpei
on the shoulder, or there's snow on road,
no sidewalks, poor lighting,
all the way back to public transit miles.
to get back to that point.
And quite frankly, that's not great either.
And we paused and we went and had some conversations
with CBJ representatives.
We had conversations with Goldbelt and said,
you've talked about this, I want you to commit to it
because that matters to us.
If we go through that process,
then we can start really talking about
what else can we do?
There's always FTA funding out there that can support and supply funding mechanisms
to make that system better and to do better than we are today.
And I will say I'm quite proud of the fact that those conversations have started
because it started a whole conversation about walk-on passengers, Doc Bay.
That is great news because we've needed to have that and now with that commitment,
we're talking about Okbei to Cascade Point to the Mendenhall Valley Transit Center and then you
can go to The Airport and anywhere else you need and so we turn this into an equity
type of a discussion. How do we make it more equitable? How did we
make more appropriate for the folks that are here?
And I think everyone in this room has had those kinds of questions and that's what we are trying
And I appreciate that and I think it would be wonderful for the folks around here if they can afford it.
Is the anticipation that with the ferries out in Cascade Point that the walk-on price would increase?
You know, I wish I could answer that for you.
I'm sorry, through the chair to represent those students.
would need to be. What other mechanisms? What are the things can we tie into with
the FDA funding, transit funding that can make that a better service for folks?
There's been the idea that's being thrown out of, could we find a mechanism to work
with Goldbelt and the ferry terminal of AMHS to make it one rate for walk-on passengers?
Those are all things that we're going to have to figure out, and we got time to
figure that out. But.
That's why the public comment periods that we're going through,
the ones we'll go through and I'll detail much more further
and the steps that were taking is these are design considerations.
These are operational considerations to make it better for the people.
And I think a lot, what you see in those public comments is a
lot of fear of something new.
And, I take that as a challenge to
make better to serve them better.
And that's the way we are looking at it.
That is why my design team looks at.
So, thank you.
Will we be seeing what the capital costs are anticipated to be,
including the lease cost for gold belt, et cetera?
Yeah, I saw it through the chair to the Chair.
I tried to representative Stuitz.
I'm more than happy to tell you what that is.
And we told I am hob back.
I told them what that capital cost was.
Construction cost contract we anticipate right now
is going to be another $90 to $100 million
for construction capital costs.
We don't make any bones about it.
And either did Mr. King about the fact
that this is the capital.
Cost is not going be recovered.
This is about operational down the road.
So to answer your question, Representative Mina.
There was a secondary part of that.
Sorry.
Help me out. Thank you through the chair.
Oh, the property costs for the
property.
Yes. So wonderful question.
I can answer that, but I am
limited by law and what I
can tell you. And that is
because we are in negotiations.
The department is in
negotiations with gold belt to
own the right away down from
the existing highway right
away to the water and the pad
on which the rest of the
turmoil in parking will be on.
That is with Gold Belt
now I can't tell you what the details of that negotiation are what that number is
because that would be in violation of the uniform act set by Congress and to
ever have federal funding I'm not going to violate that here so thank you for
respecting that and my last one so the state would own the dock itself so what
through co-share eyeshine to represent those students.
We will own the land where the road coming down,
the state well, we will on the pad.
The water side of things is a lease through DNR.
So that is at least essentially from the State
to the department.
And what the co use agreements are basically set up to do
is to make sure that
The transportation side is taken care of and it doesn't interfere with what the private interest, because I cannot change the fact that Cascade Point is located essentially on private land.
That doesn t change, that s a fact.
That s not preferential treatment.
So I think we need to recognize that.
So in fact, the state will own the dock directly or indirectly via a lease with the State for the water portion.
Through represent or through kosher eyeshine to representative students
The intent right now if with next federal steps and if we do federal funding would be generally to
to own the lease in the water and to
own The Dock itself. I say that with just a word of caution because because we
have a partnership with Goldbelt, there are options out there that could
change that to have it do something different and that it doesn't mean
that's where we're headed right now, it does not or not.
There's a project for this in the step coming up and it's been in this step and and that's for building it and also owning it
But those negotiations because always be something slightly different so and
And I got mr. McCabe in a queue after co-chair Kerrick. I had a yes commissioner Ryan
Yeah, for the record Ryan Anderson just to respond so to provide some clarity for over those dudes
through the co-chair, I shied.
So there's a lot of pressure on the department
across the system for these shared dock type arrangements.
Valdez, for example, recently approached us
because of the tourism industry and the ferry boats
or the tourist ships, you know, when we were working
for some time with Skagway, because that...
that dock was very, in a central location,
and we're talking about joint right-of-way type agreements
so that the community could also use that
for revenue generation, along with the ferry system.
So this isn't something new in terms of trying to figure out
how this could work, you know, and I mean, the dock,
you build a dock with federal funding,
it's absolutely a public facility,
it is DOT owned and managed.
It's just that we are trying
next door how does that work you know if you if
you start having multiple uses in one facility
this is going to continue I think the pressures
continue on us to to find ways to do that
because it's valuable real estate and so
once you started I thing one of this
is kind of a premise for when you can
build something you now in this new
location that opportunity for economic
you development I granted and it so this
one is is mining there's also been folks
a small boat harbor that could serve commercial fishermen,
private fishermen at the end of the road
would have some real value to that site.
So that was another one.
And so then you'd have, it's, you know,
mining, fishing, that whole piece
to try to see what we could do to support the economics
in the state of Alaska for two very important industries.
So I'd like to jump in here and again,
apologies for being a little late
and maybe some of these questions have been.
Ask, but it's mr. Goins, right? Did I say that right goins? But thank goings go ins. Okay. Thank you
Yeah, pronunciation is an issue sometimes
Mr. Goynes, I I heard you say something that I want to ask a question about
You know, when I was a planner for the Matt Subaru,
our job on plans was to collect public comments on them.
And then our jobs for policy makers was
to summarize those, you know essentially how many were opposed,
how may are four, what kind of questions there were.
So it sounds like you've looked at some of these comments
based on something you said.
You had said I see a lot of fear in the comments.
In those same comments you see opposition to this proposal
Yeah, there's no doubt about that.
The numbers that are stated by representative students are accurate.
We weren't hiding those. What we're actually doing.
The reason those came out is we got a request from a reporter and we really
shared them. Our process is that we usually not share those until we
are getting closer to the environmental document process and posting those
I will say and I have in my prepared remarks which I'm going to get off of here
good point and some of the things that are going on, we are,
we believe that this community and the interest and
the fear and
some the misinformation, so we wanted to respond to each and
every one of those 622 comments individually and my staff is
going through that and they are working through it and we've sat
down with 10, 12 folks in the room and said what is the thing,
what are these things, that we need to be addressing?
And again, we take them as challenges to our design and our operations and the things that we need to do, and we
take that very seriously. I will also say that while we were delivering a record year for South Coast region.
um you know twice what we've done dealing with the bridge washed out on the back
loop going to the west coast storm in the middle of the night flying away myself personally and
and many others um that was the same time we were also coordinating a design build process that
was fairly new to us so coordinating that design built team with our environmental team running
two different parallel tracks and our hope was to have a public uh meetings ahead of
Between all the busyness that got missed this we missed that point. So we're gonna go and we gonna fix that
We recognize that we need to do better in that regard and I take responsibility for that
No doubt in my mind just like you, you know
I want to get those comments
I wanna hear them and and the first step was we recognize
That we were gonna have the comment period end and right around the Thanksgiving holiday
So we took an immediate step back and said, you know what, we need to do better.
We're going to extend this.
That'll give time for people to get information, better information because there was a lot
of misinformation going around like Okbe going away.
Okbbe is not going in fact we're spending projects and have dollars to repair it and
that gives us redundancy and all sorts of other things.
But we wanted to give them time to have those comments come in.
We want to get past the holidays for that exact reason.
I'm also committing to having two more meetings.
Each of these meetings will be in Juneau,
Scagway, and Hanes in April, starting in
April and we're going to have a initial meeting that is
a presentation by the department and then an open house and I know there's
been issues with open houses or concerns with
openhouses but I need both sides to be able to tell me and feel comfortable
telling me what their concerns are and to ask questions.
And if they can't do that in a safe setting,
because there's chanting and other things going on,
I can hear all parties, and I
can design for the community for all
to have that equity piece true and center.
So that's the first step.
The second step is we're going to give that opportunity
to listen.
So we are going have another set of meetings
in all three of those communities where
we'll do public hearings.
And my staff is going sit there,
and we will listen to what people have to say.
Because we want them to be able to put that on the record.
That is fair and that is just.
And I think this project of all the projects needs that process.
We've also been confronted with you're not reaching out.
You're doing your thing.
You are not teaching out to the tribes.
In fact, one of the tribal members was sitting here on Tuesday of last week.
I just got to say that we're not even at that process.
I think a lot of people got afraid because we hired a contractor to do a design build process
that doesn't mean that the design and the engineering and
the permitting and consultation that comes with that
process is ignored. It is not. In fact, we just sent out the permit for the
Corps of Engineers for that first phase. Through that,
to really focus in on who are those agencies,
who were those tribes, who those corporate,
native corporations that we need to coordinate with
on the concerns with biological, cultural,
and things like that.
So that permit has gone out.
We're literally reviewing those letters
to begin that process now.
And no matter the mechanism,
whether that was a design bid builder,
a designed builder or CMGC,
we would be at that point today in the design.
Regardless, and so while people have said and accused us of missing that point we have not it's just a different
Mechanism to deliver and that design build part the build parts scares people
Okay, rightfully so. Yeah, thank you. That was a long answer. I appreciate your passion
you're very thorough. You don't have to be quite as thorough, but thank you. I want to keep going
to Q because there's many questions. So my co-chair, Kerry, please. Thank you through the co chair.
I just first, I wanna thank Director Goens for being here and also this discussion today is not
the South Coast region look terrible.
There's so much work that's been really good in South
Coast Region that we could highlight.
And I think you mentioned a couple of those, you know,
significant efforts to help stabilize the region.
And, I want to recognize that first and foremost.
But I'm still just trying to wrap my head
around the logistics here for this particular project.
We've mentioned gold belt in the shuttle a couple of times
So I wanted to ask has gold Belt committed in perpetuity to running a shuttle operation or what does that part of this look like?
Through the chair to
Representative Carrick Gold Belt has made a commitment to run the Shuttle with cascade point operating
I believe that was the terminology they exactly used
Do they, how long is that commitment for, is it just, just a commitment with no set time frame at this time?
Um, do the chair to represent a character? I only have that based on the language that was in the letter.
Gold belt would have to answer that question in more detail.
I know they run other operations out there with bus service
and they are committed.
I've heard their CEO speak on the record
that they want to see this go through not just
because of their private interests
but because their shareholders and the same folks
that we've hear here being talked about,
the elderly person who is at the end of the road,
that he has stated why he is interested in this project is making that better for those
that are part of his corporation and shareholders and make life easier for them. So I think they
are committed long-term. And I guess I have just a follow-up comment, co-chair, I shared.
So again, Director Goens,
I want to thank South Coast Region and the work you do for everything that serves our
But on this project in particular, it feels very strongly to me like what's really happening is
Goldbelt is the primary beneficiary of a project the state is going to utilize federal dollars to support and
There's an indeterminate impact for maintenance and operations for the State of this Project
and there's a indetermanent impact on the communities that are going be served by the project and
We talked about equity today and equity in my mind when you're the State Department of Transportation
is not how do we balance corporate interests with public interests. This is the Alaska Marine
Highway System and the Department Of Transportation. Equity is about equality for the communities
who have spoken in opposition to this project because they're worried about
equity for their own communities. And so I guess that's the rub here and I am not convinced that this
Where the state should be stepping into what it feels to me like subsidizing
corporate interest and
You know, I understand department has a different perspective, but I sort of stand by it from what I'm hearing
Representative McCain I think it's your eyeshide boy
Seems to be we had this conversation
two years ago when we were talking about and Commissioner Anderson you're on the
Alaska Railroad Board so let's talk about Seward and the big corporation that
is benefiting from the Sewer Dock and The amount of money that the Alaska
Railroad has committed in the state has commited to a big
corporation to subsidize their use of a state essentially a State Dock that we
also put in to have the ferry operate out of if we needed to so kind of
You kind of glossed over that, but I mean, isn't it sort of the same thing as far as corporate
interests are concerned and also I'd like, I heard another comment and I think I'm wearing
out my welcome with the chair, so I want to jam all this in there really quick.
Are we ever going to recover the capital cost of
of the build-out in Chiniga, to Titlick, and Cold Bay.
To me, that would be, we talked about capital costs
and recovering those.
I don't think the ferry system,
we've said that before.
The ferry's system is not in the business
of recovering capital cost and making a profit.
The Ferry business is in, the businesses,
the Ferry system in is the in business
of serving our public the best, easiest, fastest.
and cheapest way we can knowing that it's going to cost us money. So that's kind of a comment you
can correct me if I'm wrong. And so can you maybe comment on the on The Seward thing with the
Royal Caribbean and the in the big corporate interest in maybe gold belt's a native corporation
right? Shouldn't we be supporting those? Yeah, through court chair Ayeshide, Representative McCabe.
Yeah, I mean, from the DOT perspective, so from
the railroad perspective on the Seward dock,
I think everyone recognizes the value to the
Sewerd, the Value to The System,
the Increase, The Economic Development,
with something like that.
I Mean, that's important as a state,
even as the state government official that we
understand what the private sector does for our economy.
And Alaska,
And so we run into this a lot.
I mean, another example I would just throw out there
because Representative Carrick is very familiar
with this one would be the Mancho Hall.
And again, you know, we as a DOT,
we have to make sure that we're accommodating the demand
in that particular instance.
I think everybody is following the laws and regulations
and there's a new vehicle on the road.
So we had to invest to making sure
that were taking care of that.
You know, I personally on that one went out to talk this past year and
Everybody's working for the mine. I mean, it's like, that's those are the jobs.
So this is like this economic development piece, I think, is big. As a DOT, we definitely have
parameters that we work within, but we are engaged with industry because whether it
is the fishing industry, the mining industry the cruise ship industry.
You know, That's kind of what drives Alaska's economy. So, you know we understand and like
director Goans understands where those boundaries are. We have attorneys that,
The boundaries are getting crossed.
We consult, make sure everything's square.
So that's, you know, we're very cognizant of that.
We've been through a lot of trials and tribulations.
So I have a lotta staff that are veterans,
you have scrutiny of taking a
lot scrutiny on these things and then we continue on.
Yeah, I think it kind of goes back to we have that state statutory purpose that we put up and a lot of the front of our presentations and you know the welfare of Alaska the extraction of resources, those are all what the statutes say, you
know, DOT should be doing so.
Representative Mina.
I'm good.
Representative Nelson.
Thank you, Mr. co chair.
cascade point. Just that run in general between June Oh,
Haynes and Skagway, what what's the unconstrained demand for
vehicles daily or annually in this loop? And then the second
question is like, What percentage of of vehicles that are
transported by the entire ferry system are served in
this Loop? Does that make sense?
Through co-chair, I shied to Representative Nelson, Christopher Goens for the record.
I'll probably get the numbers wrong as far as the passengers, but I can tell you this,
three-fifths of all passengers on the AMHS system, three fifths. So that includes all the way out
in the chain, all way down to catch again. Three-fists are traveling this northern
of the operations are here and ridership is here on this route
that we're talking about that cascade point directly affects.
One quick follow-up.
So is there, I'm sure that there is a feasibility study
that was done on his project and well I am assuming and as I just trying
was there a feasibility study that had like a cost benefit analysis for cascade point
and have you done that with the other projects that have been mentioned that we can like I can
do a comparison with you know does that make sense yeah um again through co-share i shied
to representative nelson it was an economic analysis that was run by ed king um yeah that's
But if the other question, and I'll go to that one first,
because I think that's the easier one,
is was there feasibility studies, say,
run on Cinega to Cordova, Cold Bay, Scagway?
I don't know of one ever.
And one of the things that, as I was talking to Ed King
and working through that value of information
on pros and cons on both sides was public work projects.
are unique and they're not just straightforward financial return analysis assessments these
projects require balancing public expenditures with service outcomes each of the progress
projects interested parties holds differing value metrics and potential outcomes often
compounded by that uncertainty and when we're conducting that value information
which is what essentially the analysis was, it provided that baseline understanding of what
information was potentially needed to continue forward or not. That economic analysis he likened
to a public bridge and we do not evaluate those bridges based on the tools and repaying those costs.
I name one bridge in the state where we've done that. It's not there. We evaluate it on whether
it improves reliability, reduces system friction, enhances safety and health and creates that
That's what we saw on Cascade Point and that's
what the newly elected leaders have asked us
to continue to move forward with, so.
Okay, thank you.
Okay.
Represent, Stutes.
Oh, Thank you, Coach and her eyeshide.
First, let me say the difference between Cascade point
and Seward was the whole community of Sewer,
the city, every surrounding community
was in support of the project, totally.
which is not the case here.
And Mr. Goings, I really appreciate you.
I appreciate all you've done.
You've come to Kodiak, you have been.
I've worked with you very successfully.
And I know you're a hard worker and I'm going to try and say everything nice I can about you before I say,
Fox is already in the hen house.
You're talking about having all this public outreach.
30 million bucks invested. The box is in the hen house, Mr. Goings, and that doesn't speak very well for DOT in my opinion.
Okay, no comment. I can comment if you would like
I got five slides a time frame that start in 1994 with the development of this project and political leaders
Starting back at that point in this community including some folks
Yeah, that we could go into I'd like to keep going to the queue represent McCabe
Thanks, Chair, are we going to move on in the slides?
Because there's a slide coming up
that I'd like to highlight for the public, frankly,
that, I think, is important.
So I can hold my question if you guys
want to go through the slide.
You are the last person in a queue,
I believe, at the moment.
So but.
Representative Carrick is now in the queue as well. So I don't know if you want to save it
She's way more important than me so she could go ahead and I'll save
it. Okay. Thank you. Representative Caring. I just really quick through the co-chair
you just mentioned Director Goens that duly elected leaders have supported this project and
I know on a long-term scale that there has been support that maybe we're going to talk about today
What what recent elected leaders have supported this project and through that
local consultation? Well through our kosher eyeshadow representative
Carrick I think the one who gets to make a lot of these decisions on our end is
the governor and he was duly elected to
make those decisions and guide and appoint the people that are sitting in
front of you and so when I say duly elect it as part of this administration
Thank you for clarifying. Okay, and then can we move on? Yeah, yeah, just a time check we have
We have 19 minutes left, so I
Might I might try to move us along a little faster. So thank you. Go ahead
So this slide is talking about the revenue and I'm just gonna very much
summarize and kind of get off my prepared statements but essentially this
was presented for MedKing's report and it talked about total efficiency gains
and he supplied a range because it
In all these scenarios, we don't have fixed things that we're dealing with.
We're playing with scenarios.
And so that mean, and that's kind of where I'm going to stay,
is if total efficiency gains from fuel reduction
and other things to $933,000,
we have additional facility costs and commitments and responsibilities
that come along with this.
With having that terminal, that is about $480,00.
And then the revenue change.
that when you shorten time, you get a addition
of operating passengers that come on.
And so that was about 5% equal to about $136,000.
So you add all those together,
you'll get that $590,00 benefit from the financials.
Okay, now we're at my favorite slide here. This is the environmental benefits of the
cascade point ferry terminal. So I see this net reduction of 1,190 metric tons of CO2
for cascade-point ferry-terminal. That should be significant to anybody that is concerned
133,883 gallons of gasoline should also be significant to somebody who is interested in
reducing our use of fossil fuels. And I also see a future ready for electrification. I assume
that means an electric ferry because now we can run the ferry shorter distances so we could maybe
I don't think I really have a question here other than maybe are we talking about a year?
A hundred and thirty three thousand eight hundred eighty three gallons of gasoline a
year or is this is over the lifetime?
I think this a significant to highlight for folks that are concerned about our environment.
through Kosher Ayesha to represent McCabe,
Chris Gons for the record.
That is per year.
We'd be taking 133,083 gallons off
or essentially 250 vehicles off the road per
year by running out of Cascade Point.
Wow, thank you.
And did you want to say anything else about this slide
because I think we're up with CABes?
Basically, summarized it for you, but.
Yeah, representative, okay, did represent it
for me for the most part.
I do want to talk about the briefly, the $1.3
million contract that was signed with Juno
hydropower, they presented an ability to
potentially tie into electrical power for
electrification of the site.
And they were running a cable across
Burners Bay anyways.
So that contract to take advantage of
that they were planning purchased essentially a Y or a plug-in in that line.
off to the side, that's all it did.
It doesn't buy the line going across the cascade point,
but it bought the plug-in.
And it also bought engineering to understand
what those costs and what would need
to be installed if electrification was ever to.
So this is really a due diligence move
to make sure that we didn't have additional expenses later
on trying to tie into that power line at a different time
when permits that are already acquired by Juno-Hydra Power
would no longer be in place.
And then I have a question.
I guess there's some numbers, last couple of slides
being thrown about, I've heard the word economic analysis,
Mr. King's report, do any of these
considered a formal cost-benefit analysis?
And the reason I ask that is, there
are some goods here on this side.
There's a public good.
And economists are really good at putting values on that.
And, you know, like for instance, we've talked in the past about what is the
a statistical life, human life worth.
And so, and we know that number.
Economists have defined that.
So, is there a technical cost benefit analysis that's been done on this project?
Or are these just economic analysis?
So it's a nuanced question.
I would say, yes, it's from an economic standpoint, he's an economist.
He's running an Economic Analysis, the best of his ability with the data that's there,
and even Ed referred to it as a value of information, and he took the pros and the cons of both sides
out there and was trying to weigh that. And I will say the weaknesses that Ed had,
we cover in other areas. Ed is not an archaeologist. He is now a cultural specialist.
He has not a biologist. All those types of things that we look at are going to be looked at
much more details we had through the core permitting process as we coordinate with those
experts and those people that it matters to most such as the tribes. And we're going
to be stepping through that to value those other things in the community to see where
this goes. I hope that answers your question.
Yeah, it does. You know, with all due respect, I'm not an economist, but I have had economics
in my work with Matsuburo when it came to fisheries.
From my understanding, this is an economic analysis.
It's different.
So for my untrained eyes, I would beg to differ,
but I just wanted to get that on the record.
So, yes.
Yeah, sure.
Yeah. I think what you're getting, maybe what
you are getting at is, you know, from a policy perspective,
We don't have a policy of doing cost-benefit analysis for whenever we do an investment in a ferry terminal.
If that's something that this committee would like us to consider, I think we could.
But that would be something we'd look for that guidance from a letter or something, but
at this time, when we're investing in whatever very terminal is across the state, we don't
have a policy.
So to do it, as we did the Ed King report, because they requested, Amha requested that
economic analysis.
So we went ahead and we do that thinking that that was something to satisfy that request,
but it's not our policy."
So, but if people are interested in that policy,
I'm interested on those things, so happy to hear
from the committee on that.
I appreciate that context.
Representative Stutz.
Thank you, Mr. Coacher.
I think that it probably would have carried a little bit more
weight if the report had been done by someone independent
of this body or of the building.
And that's not the case with Ed King.
And so, of course, there's a slight taint on the vision
when you look at that report.
And, so it could have had a little more validity to it,
had it been an independent opinion.
Go ahead.
Through the chair, Claude Cherrye,
I had representative Stutes.
Yeah, I mean, Ed king had,
he has a master's degree in applied economics
from the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
And, you know, what we haven't seen really from the criticism is those specifics that
in the report that people would like to see further analysis done, we'd be open to that.
If there's specifics in that report where people say, hey, those aren't the right numbers
or those are things that don't look right, were happy to review those, and we can do
that independently, that would be fine.
be the response yeah okay just just my follow-up I'm sorry did I cut you off sir oh I just wanted
to add one thing representative I should just do it's you know deck
that analysis by Ed, and I had him in my office,
and then I told Ed I said I want a government report
as fair as possible,
and he agreed to that.
Now that said, I've had both people,
both pro and against cascade come into my offices,
some of us sitting in this building behind me,
and who have said this report.
is not good enough for my pro or my con idea, which tells me we've kind of landed in a middle
because we're getting criticism on both sides not being enough to theirs. So I just want to
mention that. Appreciate that and then just you know the protocol just say rep
Students or representative students either one. Yeah, and then I just my question kind of related to represent a students question is was the contract for to Mr. King?
Was that a no bid contract or was that let out for bid and he was a winning bidder.
Representative I should we followed our procurement policies to stay under the $20,000 limit to get a sense.
We wanted to understand where did we need to explore further to see if we needed to spend more money and he gave us an ability to
see that with that value of information analysis that was under $20,000 of thresholds. So it was able to be single sourced.
Yeah, okay. Thank you. And Representative Kerrick, and is there anyone else in the queue? Okay.
two questions I think through the chair. What was the cost for the Ed King analysis?
through a coacher eyeshide to representative carrick the total cost
came to about fifteen thousand dollars the first draft was cheaper than that
and then we had a lot of questions back and forth and looking at and we did
take that pause to look at the walk-on passenger portions of it
and to re-examine that so we have a little extra work that we asked them to do
after we found where that was so
kind of peanuts in state government terms, but I just want to note that the analysis has quite a
number of inaccuracies and links that go to nowhere. For example, there's five inline citations on
pages 17, 19, and 25 of the report that don't link to any data sources. There's a couple of other
When you click a link in the citation, it says query not found once you've clicked that.
So for $15,000, we didn't seem to get much other than just such a general letter of support.
I know that the department has stated previously that we're using AI technology to help write
things.
I'm not necessarily saying that's wholesale terrible, but the report feels to me like
an AI generated letter of support for this project.
And I really do want to echo Representative Stuitz's comments that it doesn't feel like
an independent study to be, and the deeper you dig in that, the more that feels true because
not accessible, it feels more that that's the case.
Representative Garak, through co-chair Ayeshade,
we'll find a way to correct those links.
I'm not concerned about that.
I believe he was trying to represent this well
and I can tell you each one of those points
that we're on that were heavily debated and challenged
in our discussions through this process.
So I don't, knowing Ed and...
and his intellect, I think he would object to that comment.
And I just would note as a very quick follow-up comment,
this committee has invited Mr. King to join us
and he's not indicated that he is able to come before the committee.
So I wanted to note that.
And for the record, we are at 254, and at 258 I'm going to start the transition to our 3 o'clock end dates.
So this slide, this project works because it aligns state transportation responsibilities with private land ownership.
Cascade Point sits on land owned by Goldbelt and Urban Alaskan Native Corporation.
Rather than treating that as constraint, the state structured a formal partnership
to ensure clear roles, accountability and long term certainty.
The partnership is documented through a March 2023 memorandum of understanding
the sign with the governor.
Going forward, DOTMPF is responsible for public marine transportation and
infrastructure.
Gold Belt retains control of its land for any planned non-state development.
Goldbelt is not dictating public transportation decisions but merely ensuring those decisions are compatible with the core plans outside of the proposed right away.
Each party stays within its core mission and Goldbelts is responsible to permit their land activities themselves.
State investment is limited to ferry terminal and related public infrastructure.
Goldbelt may pursue commercial and industrial development independently if and when their market conditions justify it.
That development is NOT a prerequisite.
for the ferry terminal and does not rely on state funding.
Goldbelts ownership and cooperative support
avoids fragmented development and ensures
that infrastructure investment respects Alaska
native land ownership, and preserves their desires
to have a multifunctional and dual use port.
We recognize that Cascade Point is outside
Juneau's existing transit network.
and this possibly makes life challenging for walk-on passengers and to address this gold belt
proactively committed to providing a dedicated shuttle connecting the minimal value to Okbe and
Cascade Point. That commitment solves a broken link for Cascade point that currently exists at
Okbye. This also presents the opportunity for potential federal funding which we've talked about
So this is a structured partnership and that enables the project retains the ability of gold belt to develop commercial and industrial
opportunities, respects native land ownership, and closes access gaps that would otherwise limit the terminal's usefulness
for those most vulnerable to the fact that the Terminal is further from town at Cascade Point.
Representative Stutes.
Thank you, co-chair Ayeshaide.
So it says a dual port or dual use port.
I presume that when the ferry's not there,
that Goldbelt will have use of that facility,
the Ferry Docs, is that correct?
Through cochair ayeshide, to representative Stuts.
The way the port is being designed
is our ferry terminal is going to be only used by our boats.
There are other opportunities on the backside of the wave barrier where they can put a small boat harbor
And there are opportunities
On the front side of that wave-barrier where?
They could have other port operations that would not conflict with our
vessel docking or leaving the site
Thank you, so would that be connected to the ferry dock?
So the other portion.
Yeah, so there's a land portion that that representing through co-chair.
I actually had to represent the students.
There is a connecting road that comes from the terminal pad and parking pad in building.
And that connecting part breaks off and goes to the left.
If you're driving down it to our ferry terminal.
Any operations that gold built that?
gold belt would have would
have to be expanded to the right at
their own expense only that kind of
narrow passageway would be the dual
use portion for the the driving
portions of this facility and that
would
be on the land yeah land and some of
the things that would expand to
be
on that thank you okay well thank
you it is now past 258
I would just like to say it's obvious that this is an issue of great interest and I really
want to thank Commissioner Ryan and Mr. Goins for being here and taking your time and some
Just for the record, we do have some more slides, so that's going to inform this next
part.
So we're going going go to recess this meeting today to Thursday, February 12th at 1230 PM,
so it's a little bit different.
And please note, on Thursday it is an earlier than the usual start time of 1, 12-30 pm,
and that is to allow Thursdays invited testifiers to join us before they are due in the sense
Transportation Committee. So with no further discussion, this meeting is
recessed at 2.59 until PM right now until Thursday, February 12th at 12.30 PM.