Good afternoon
Let's call this meeting the Senate transportation committee to order at 1 37 p.m. We're in budget room 205
Here in the nation's most beautiful capital city of June, Alaska today is Thursday February 12, 2026
Members present today are senator keel senator Tobin senator Rauscher and myself senator borkman
Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business
Welcome, everyone, to Senate Transportation.
I'd like to remind everyone to please turn off
or silence your cell phones and join me
in welcoming our recording secretary, Heather Ramseth,
and our LAO moderator, Susan Quigley.
Today, we are discussing the Department
of Transportation Project at Cascade Point
in June of Alaska.
We will hear from Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
regarding their perspective on the project,
and then we'll hear
from the department of transportation
and public facilities.
First up today,
we have from this Southeast
Tyler Breen and Lois Epstein
Mr. Bream is Epstein if you could please join us at the table. I believe we have a miss Epstein on the phone
Please state your names and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation
Good afternoon for The Record my name is Tyler brain
I am the policy analyst with the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council.
Thank you for having me here today to speak.
I want to walk through a timeline for the Cascade Point Project because
the order of decisions matters in determining whether the state has committed funds for
a project in advance of the public process and permit application analyses
meant to inform project direction.
the timeline I'm about to present and tends to show the related actions pushing
cascade point towards production before the procedural steps necessary to
inform its necessity its impacts or its alternatives. On March 9th, 2023, the
governor and department of transportation and public facilities signed a memorandum
of understanding with Goldbelt to pursue development at cascade
point. That agreement opens up and establishes a public private framework
It did not arise from a documented community-driven
transportation needs assessment.
On September 10, 2024, Graham Portage Resources
announced that it had signed a letter of intent with Goldbelt
to explore development of an ore terminal at Cascade Point,
stating that the quote, design for the ore
terminal will be integrated with planning
for a future Alaska Marine Highway System
ferry terminal, at the site.
In early 2024, Cascade Point appeared in the Alaskan Marine Highway System 2045 long-range plan as a project under a feasibility evaluation, not as akin to instruction decision.
At its March 5, 2024 meeting, the Alaska Marine and Highway Operations Board requested a more rigorous economic feasibility analysis before the project advanced.
The board reviewed and endorsed the draft plan in April of 2025.
Between April and July of 2025, language in the long-range plan was altered without AMHOB consultation,
shifting from feasibility evaluation to statements implying that the decision had been made to move forward
using existing appropriations.
On October 29th of 2025, AMHAB issued a corrective action request,
That corrective action request also emphasized that the report provided by Ed King did not satisfy the board's request for an economic analysis.
Amidst those unresolved concerns, on July 28th of 2025, Department of Transportation executed a $28.5 million stage one design-build contract.
By entering into a design build agreement that includes both permitting and construction,
the contract inherently constrains the ability to perform any meaningful alternatives analysis,
Incorporate tribal consultation considerations or public input.
The contract initiates $28.5 million of project momentum out of sync with a process of identifying
if and how the project should move forward.
The public comment period for Cascade Point Ferry Terminal Stage 1 opened and closed after
that contract was signed, meaning public inputs could not meaningfully inform the core design
As of February 4th, 2026, a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps must now determine whether that application is complete, including a NEPA review and a National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 assessment.
Because the Clean water Act section 404, permit triggers review under the National Environmental Policy Act that review must evaluate the major federal action.
and its connected actions and cumulative effects as a whole rather than segmenting components
that lack independent utility or would foreclose opportunity to consider alternatives.
Under standard practice, feasibility analysis, environmental review, alternatives, analyses,
and tribal consultation occur before construction contracts are executed.
That sequencing allows decision-makers to determine whether a project should proceed
before public funds are committed.
Our concern is that the state has committed these funds to a project that is not driven
by a community express transportation need that does not yet have secured funding for subsequent
stages that comprise the full project.
The risk, match, and downstream funding of permitting or review is delayed or denied,
and committing these fund presumes the outcome before required baseline environmental review,
permitting, or consultation on forms of weather and how to proceed.
The public development process is not the process of getting to a yes, but determining whether a Yes is appropriate in which context.
Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank You, Mr. Breen.
Are there any question from committee members?
Ms. Epstein, did you have anything that you would like to add?
Yes, thank you, and my appreciation to the Committee for holding this hearing on the
proposed CAHPSK Poins Ferry terminal project.
My name is Lois Epstein, I am an Alaska licensed engineer with my own small business, L&E engineering
and policy located in Anchorage.
I have approximately 20 years of experience working on Alaska transportation issues throughout
the state, including extensive familiarity with transportation planning and financing.
Here today is a technical consultant for Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, which
estimate the entire cost of the Cascade Point Project, and to assess whether industrial
mining benefits are the primary reason for Alaska DOT's planned expenditures.
You should have in your packet a table titled, Estimated Cost of The Cascade Points Terminal
Project which I developed recently.
The importance of this table is to show legislators based on Alaska DOT estimates and approximate
capital costs of the cascade point project, all based their own data.
While Alaska DOT's website, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Programor STIS
and AlaskaDOT presentation to the House Transportation Committee on February 5th and 10th only include
There is a needed Stage 3 with associated costs that is missing.
It hasn't been presented to the legislature.
This Stage three is discussed as part of highway access in a key internal DOT memo from 2019 on the Cascade Point project.
The bottom line, when including Stage Three, is that a present?
The cascade point project will cost over $120 million with large portion, more than $60
million, coming from state capital project funds for needed very terminal construction
and road and bridge upgrades.
Note that the estimated cost table does not include needed lease payments to go about,
which currently are unknown, nor does it include maintenance costs.
Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board, Alaska DOT presentation to the House Transportation Committee.
It's greatly concerning that the Alaska marine highway system 2045 long range plan was altered
from the draft to final, with the Cascade Point project now included as a data complete
AMHOV, the Board, documented its concerns with this change in its October 29, 2025 letter
to the legislature and governor of Dunlove, which has also contained in your packet.
Additionally, The Alaska DOT presentation cited the 2004 Southeast Alaska Transportation
Plan in five slides.
That out-of-date presentation is of little to no use when making current transportation
Nevertheless, Alaska DOT has spent $4.5 million so far on design work for the Cascade Point
Project, a project that's not reflected in the current regional transportation plan for
Southeast, nor endorsed by the Alaska Marine Highway Operations Board.
The federal government needs to approve regional Transportation Plans as they inform the state.
until there is an updated Southeast Alaska transportation plan.
If this is not done, the state may need to repay federal funds expended.
Notably, in December 2025,
the federal government requires a Matsu borough to repay nearly $6 million in federal fund
for building an unused ferry terminal that resulted from poor planning decisions.
Moreover, I would add that the $28.5 million contract signed by Alaska DOT could have been
used instead as a state match for nearly, and this is a big number, $300 million in roads
and bridges statewide.
Last slide 18 from that presentation entitled, Cascade Point Ferry Terminal, fiscal net
as the values for total additional facility costs are only operational costs, not capital
costs which were not included in the end king analysis.
As shown in estimated cost table, I developed the capital costs for this project are substantial,
i.e. over $120 million and Alaska DOT needs to be transparent with the legislature about
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these points.
Thank You Ms. Epstein.
Senator Tobin has questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it's good to hear from you Lois.
I have a question as I'm just looking at your estimated cost and I apologize if this is not a
question necessarily needed to be directed toward you but maybe to the Department of Transportation.
I don't see in here any evaluation for if there was a cultural site that was discovered or
I have heard that there may be some concerns that
there is cultural historic sites in your experience or at least in
your estimation. Would that, how significantly would that increase the overall cost?
Through the chair, Lois Epstein, thank you, Senator Tobin. There is a concern about the
I'm going to defer to Tyler Breen, who looked into that a little more carefully than I
have, and maybe we can answer your question.
For the record, Tyler Brin, Senator Tobin.
There are indeed significant cultural resource concerns in the area that we have a history
going back looking at this project and other prior projects, including final EIS for previous
iterations of similar projects that have identified cultural resources at the site.
In our work, collaborating on our technical comment, we've collaborated with
Saikuni Fran Houston, spokesperson of the Auk Kwan, and Naomi Michelson,
And in their estimation, they noted that they were not consulted on any cultural resources
in the development of this plan.
So to that end, there are significant concerns we have with the cataloging or progression
of development in absence of knowledge of what actual resource impacts may have, may be at
the site.
Senator Tobin.
As I'm trying to look for a dollar amount, and maybe Miss Epstein might be able to add into this.
If we don't do that work upfront, if we do not talk to our communities upfront.
What does the cost incurred to the state to go back and
redo design plans to potentially divert particular pathways because we can't necessarily pay over cultural sites?
Senator Tobin, I do believe that question would be more appropriately answered by my colleague, Lois.
Yes, through the chair, Lois Epstein, Senator Tobin, it's hard to come up with any particular
estimate right now.
However, that is certainly a concern depending on who in the federal government looks at
considers whether everything legally required to be done have been considered, whether appropriate
federal consultations have occurred, all that could set back a project and should any sort
of federal match money be used.
This is a little bit complicated because right now we're using state money, which has a different
set of implications because it takes away from other projects throughout the state.
be used, that's the kind of thing that they're going to consider before approving additional
funding or, you know, in a workplace scenario such as occurred with the ferry terminal building
across from Anchorage in the map to actually requiring repayment.
Thank you.
Senator Russia.
Following up on the cultural and historic and combining that with the possible use of federal dollars,
does that bring in the possibility that the feds may be interested in cultural historic values of the certain places
that were identified in a different light than the way we have?
I'm sorry, uh, through the chair, Senator Russia, is I don't think I can speak to the
values that the feds may have on cultural resources.
Because I know in projects, excuse me, I thought, because in
projects before when the Feds were involved, they actually had to go through their process,
also, which actually took a lot longer than the process we've used.
When we've gone through that process, just as our state's historic and cultural assessment values.
Dr. Senator Rousher, what I can speak to is the fact that under this
permitting process a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 analysis would be required.
Thank you.
Senator Keel.
Thank You. Mr. Brin,
To make sure I'm clear, are we talking about those federal requirements being
triggered for the phase that is under contract now or for
the project as envisioned in its totality?
To the Chair, Senator Keel, for
the Project stage, and the current stage one does require a 404 permit.
So, I just, maybe a half step behind it.
My understanding was that it was taking the path that's there now and
It hits the waters of the U.S. contiguous waters.
Where is that?
Through the chair, Senator Keel, there is a bridge over an
address stream that empties into waters with the United States.
So in our communications with U S Army Corps of Engineers, they have noted
specifically that, yes, this stage one requires a 404 permit.
the triggering of the NEPA process requires that the project be evaluated as a whole and
so segmentation into specific stages may put the permitting on legally shaky ground depending
on if it is found that is not being evaluated.
As a hole with, you know, as I noted in my testimony, the portions that don't have independent
utility in and of themselves.
I'm not sure the Fed's bother with that rule, we may or may not like that, but I am not
sure that's something to hit force.
I have a question, Mr. Breen.
Which bridge specifically are you referring to?
Through the Chair, Senator Bjorkman, I believe the bridge is called Bessie Bridge but
I would need to review specifically to get the name to you.
On Besse Creek.
Besie Creek, correct.
Very well, thank you
A couple more questions maybe.
Just want to gauge understanding of what is phase one
of the projects, what does your understanding
of phase 1 of a project is as was contracted for
on 28 July for a amount of 28,495,000?
Mr. Chair, Senator Bjorkin, I could get more specific
Contract it is online. However, my understanding is primarily the uplands development
Okay
Can you be more specific about what that means? I'm trying to get you like I want to know what you understand it to mean
And then my rationale for that is
I would look at you to be a local expert on the project.
So if DOT has communicated with local stakeholders,
I'd expect you know what the Project is.
So what does that mean, uplands development?
What is it?
If I may, Chairman Bjorkland, may I answer?
Sure.
Yes.
Through the chair, what was up to you?
And thank you.
I have looked at the project plan.
It includes a short distance of road.
It included bridge over Cascade Creek.
It include a parking lot and some preliminary work
on the marine aspects of the proposed Cascade Point Terminal.
And that does include building of any sort.
That would be a later stage.
Excellent.
It's my understanding that this money's currently are not being matched with federal money
Any is there anything happening?
To your group's knowledge in phase one of this project under this contract that would preclude or
Involidate the state from being able to pursue federal match money for this product in the future
No, it would not precluded.
I think the reason and what I'd encourage you to think about for the analysis I did
is to show that this amount of money is a portion of what would be required, and it
And a real question that I would have to look at, and I'm still doing the research on this,
but I do encourage the committee to consider raising some questions about it, is stage
one alone and not just to enable the Grand Portage Mine export, because when you look
And I refer you to if in your pocket the KTO story, the main supporters for the project
were the Grand Portage Resources, Kensington Mine, and Gold Belt.
Virtually everyone else, as far as I know, I did not look at all the comments.
I'm just going by the news reports.
was opposed to it, and that includes the communities of Haynes and Skagway, of course.
So, so yeah, the important point, I believe, is to look at the whole project and to see
whether we're expending money that may never, in fact, result in a ferry project. It may just result
in some sort of subsidy to the mining industry. So you know, it's really unclear where
and a lack of DOT and the governor is going with this.
Thank you.
Any further questions?
Seeing and hearing none, thank you very much
for joining us today.
Folks with SEAC, we appreciate your participation
and thank for bringing this perspective to light.
Glad you're here.
We'll take a brief at ease while we set up
for our next presentation.
We're back on the record. It's 202 now here in the Butchovich room
We are here with members of the
Higher echelon the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to continue our conversation about cascade point
I appreciate members from C. Act bringing their concerns about
Potential mines or current mines that are are in The area
But my desire to talk specifically about this project stems from two questions that I have regarding what's happening here.
Number one is probably the most serious I think about what happens after the legislature re-appropriates funds from one place to another place.
And then the governor vetoes those funds.
The governor vetoes those funds, does that mean that they are restored to the original place where the money was taken from?
That's an open legal question that I believe the legislature will pursue and
that the department needs to plan contingencies for about what you all will do.
If court upholds precedent and
sticks with the appropriation power of the legislator, we'll talk about that more.
The other question I have is
As you look at the process for this project, I like mines if we can't grow it. We have to mine it for have mines great
However, we have a very fiscally constrained environment
We Have priority projects that happen around the state. we. Have a contracting community
That's very concerned about the upcoming construction season
what
What is happening in our budget process and in the prioritization process around DOT that elevated this project to such a level that we're only using state dollars for this
project and not combining them with federal dollars to complete this
project, which means an opportunity cost of this expenditure of 20.5 million of 10 times that amount.
$285 million.
So what I'm asking for you all to do today is to make a business case for why the state
decided to spend this $28.5 million on this project this year at a cost of $ 285 million
that we could have used this money to pull down for federal match.
because we have a lot of people with a
lot projects and a
lot jobs that are very concerned.
And so as we talk about that,
I think it's important that the department
be able to make a case for why this project
right now.
So those are the two things that I'm concerned
about and wondering about.
There are a few others.
Mostly like the others are,
and I'll just be super straight with you
in the public.
There have been a lot of things said about this project on the record by some of you,
OMB others, that gave many of my colleagues the impression that things were one way and
they absolutely were not.
Like 100% not, we'll talk about some those things today.
They erode trust in our institutions, and they make people who are already distrustive of government, even more so distressing in what we do.
And if those are things that we stand for, if we believe that government should be for the people, by the
people and of the People, I would have a hard time.
Sitting in front of a microphone, talking to legislators,
But leaving the impression through images and slides or other things that lead people
to believe something other than the truth, that was hard for me to watch this legislature
so far.
So those are the things about why I'm interested in hearing from you today.
So for the record, Catherine Keith, the Deputy Commissioner,
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
With me is Christopher Goins,
the Director of the Southeast Region,
and Craig Tornga, Director Of Our Marine.
program. So really happy to have both of these guys here. The three of us have
spent significant amount of time working on transportation, system analysis,
construction, planning here for not only this project but others in the state.
So, Chair Birkman, some of the questions we'll certainly be able to answer. Some
of them might be outside of our wheelhouse, but we will certainly do everything we
I do believe we have a video that opens up some of the context for cascade point very
terminal project and I think one important thing that we will talk through is the impetus
for this project, the information that has been shared is excellent information, you
know, since 2020 on events that had happened, but this Project Development along with similar
increase the mobility between Juneau and Lynn Canal and those communities and the rest of the
continent. That's been going back decades. So this initiation that we're seeing here has been
the development over many, many years, and many plans and we are happy to talk through those and
Welcome to Cascade Point, a key piece of our long-range vision for a more modern, resilient,
and agile Alaska marine highway system.
Cascade point is part of a bigger picture.
It serves as the specific infrastructure solution recommended by the governor's 2020 reshaping work group to fix system finances.
It executes the regional blueprint of the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan and aligns directly with the southeast conference's economic strategy to stabilize the region.
Cascade Point Ferry Terminal, in addition to the Occ Bay Ferry terminal, will add capacity, flexibility, and operational strength to marine highway, creating a more reliable system for Alaskans.
Occ bay will continue serving other southeast routes, like Huna, Petersburg, Ketchikan and Sitka.
and giving AMHS more options to keep service reliable.
Think of Cascade Point as a new gateway to Haynes and Scagway.
It reduces vessel travel time by roughly three hours per round trip,
while keeping the passenger drive to about 30 minutes from the Okbe terminal.
That's a major efficiency gain for one of the busiest routes on the Alaska Marine Highway.
Hanes and Skagway are key ports of entry to and from the interior, connecting southeast
Alaskans to the rest of the state, to Canada, and to lower 48.
Strengthening this link strengthens the entire system.
There are also some tangible benefits that, over time, will make a lasting impact.
and reduces CO2 emissions by 1,190 metric tons annually.
That's like taking 250 cars off the road,
or the electricity use of 200 homes for a year.
At the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
our mission is to keep Alaska moving.
Cascade Point is a key step toward a more modern, resilient,
Keeping Alaska's communities connected today, and for generations to come.
Okay, thank you. And for the record, Catherine Keith.
So this video is visually stunning, of course, because of the area,
but it also highlights a bit of that context that I was referencing,
just how far back overall that this...
the importance of connecting communities
and building resiliency within not only Southeast Alaska
but the state of Alaska.
I just had the opportunity to talk
at the Southeast Conference attendees
during the mid-session summit
and their resiliency was the theme
of their mid session summit overall.
But it highlights.
the approach here that's being taken with Cascade Point,
not as a project in and of itself,
but it is part of a broader theme and a system of
ways that the department can use our resources to be able to
make and support communities and being more resilient and
redundant. Southeast Alaska, like other communities around the
state, have been impacted significantly, whether it's
through washouts, avalanches, floods. There are many reasons
that communities across Alaska which are isolated when they
lose one mechanism, one mode of transportation.
Now the communities at significant risk it could be from our airport weather
stations not reporting it, could, be a
landslide
So this plan among with other projects that were pursuing the goal is to increase resiliency in our transportation system
There's many benefits
that come from any of these project developments.
We'll be exploring three projects
that were proposed in the 2004 Southeast Transportation Plan.
Those are the connectors that we may be able to find
and bear enough island to connect cake in Petersburg
to a faster route for ferry transportation
as well as between Huna and Tenaki.
Using existing forestry roads and other routes
we feel we can leverage resources that are there.
to increase the resiliency of their transportation system
by giving alternatives from getting to point A to Point B,
but then also shorter ferry routes,
which means they'll be able to take advantage
of more frequent service.
The budget concerns that are coming up are very real.
Operating budget is absolutely a concern, not only for the marine highway system, but
our maintenance and operations as well.
We're pursuing any avenue possible to find ways to reduce those operating budgets,
especially in the context of the rural ferry program, which you may know it has not yet been opened up.
for solicitation. So without rural ferry program, those federal funds coming in to sustain the
operations of the marine highway system, we are again going to have to be creative about how we can
maintain service.
So all this to say, it's the context in which
Cascade Point had been initiated many years ago.
Where we're at right now is the cumulation of ongoing
engagement and activity that has been occurring
through other boards prior to even our involvement
that we are now on the implementation side of it,
absolutely, but there has a lot of engagement
and discussion.
So, getting to where we're at now,
we'll talk more specifically now about Cascade Point.
We'll talked about the operational savings,
and then be able to speak to the engineering design
and any project level information.
But the goal here is to talk through the reasoning behind it.
It's not a one-off project.
It is part of a broader system where
we are first focusing on one of
the busiest corridor for the marine highway system.
Thank you, Deputy Commissioner, Senator Tobin has a question.
Thank You, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being here.
I think this is going to be a good conversation and I too share my colleagues' concern about process.
I thing process is incredibly important for public trust.
You mentioned here and you just said it several times that this project has been long in the making.
So I'm looking at the.
The last Marine Highway Operations Board letter to President Stevens, Speaker Edgman, Governor
Dunleady about some of the changes that were concluded in the final document for the long
They did not have consultation on.
We just heard from some of our community partners
that there hasn't been a lot of community engagement
and, of course, tribal consultation.
And of, course I've also been concerned,
because I haven't found any of the public comments
that have been made over this project online.
And so I'm hopeful at this point
that you might just be able to speak to why that is
for a project that has been so long in the making.
It seems as though there's a lack of a public component.
Yeah, absolutely.
Through the chair, Senator Tobin.
Multiple iterations of public comment go back to the original Marine Highway Board M-TAMP
that originally made the recommendation for Cascade Point.
There's certainly a lot of comments that aren't in our possession for that,
but we do have that final recommendation which, as a matter of fact,
one of the recommendations of that report was to have a change management director
that come into the program to help facilitate working towards modernization
including, you know, some of the looking for operational efficiencies.
So, what?
From that report was the Marine Highway Operations Board,
the next stage of engagement.
We actually have had many meetings with AMHAB
going through this project,
talking about the cost analysis,
benefit cost analyses going back probably three years.
And then as the project had more information,
we would go back and present that.
Director Goins here has participated in that,
we've had public comment period for those.
What we do have in our possession as well
state-wide transportation improvement program comments when we first went out
for the four-year step cascade point was in that program it was for leasing
payments however because over the you know several years the way in which this
project was moving forward as we explored options is certainly changed so in
that original step we have had about five million a year going towards lease
payments for The Marine Highway System to lease that facility assuming it
We had many comments come back on that project, I mean, hundreds, and then that high-level engagement has actually
continued on to the recent public comment period,
which if the public is not finding those comments, we can make that
far more available and make it easy to find where they are long and short.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that response.
tribal engagement, and this letter that we have in our packet, if you could speak directly
to those two pieces.
Christopher Goens for the record, regional director, South Coast Region, through the
chair to Senator Tobin.
Wonderful question.
When it comes, I'm going to start with the comments,
and I'll move over to consultation, because both are very important.
And I heard some folks say, you know, getting to yes is really important, but that doesn't
throw the process out and I want to make very clear we didn't throw
the processes out. We have very much been on the front end of
that. I just think people think we are ahead of it
when we're not right at that point per the design and what needs
to go down as far as permitting and designing next steps,
and I will clearly explain that.
Regarding the comments, we had our first public comment period
started in November, was going to end
at the end of Thanksgiving.
We started to hear lots of feedback associated with that
during that time.
There was about 200 and some odd comments that came in.
I was approached and said, hey.
We need to extend this.
We needed to do better engagement.
We're seeing some folks that are coming back and saying things
like, OK, terminals going away.
And we said, oh, that's not good.
That's a completeness understanding.
We made sure they understand that.
But we also wanted to make sure that we weren't having
the end of that comment period during the End of a holiday
season.
So I decided to extended all the way through to January 9th
and open that up.
And that, of course, did exactly what it was intended to
is expose or give time for those comments to come in
so that we can figure out what are those design requirements
that need to be accommodating and moving forward
into the rest of the design that the contractor is doing
that is a contractor.
They still, as part of their requirements,
have to do the permitting process.
And we also made a commitment as a team,
we were gonna answer every single one
of those comment personally.
And we were going to respond every 622 comments.
They do, the people deserve that respect on this, especially as controversial as it is.
So we're in the middle of that process.
I would just say typically on most of our projects, if you looked out, we don't put those comments out there
until the environmental document process, that's really the next stage that we are moving into.
We have submitted the core permit.
that 404 permit application. Through that there is another process
that is the consultation process. That is a formal start when you're using state money and getting a federal permit to go to the
consultation, so we have multiple letters that are written.
And we've been coordinating with the Corps, they have to approve those letters before
we can send them.
And that is the point during that permitting process because they get to make the federal
NEPA decision on this because of its estate dollars.
They have approved those letter.
They will go to all the tribes.
They'll go all of the native corporations and we will work through that 106 process
and the consultation.
And you know, I've had heard people ask, you what does that process look like?
How much money do we is it going to cost?
answer to that. It depends on the resources that are going to be coming forward and we
know about.
We also know that there is two EISs that have been completed in that area. There's been
extensive studies that had been done. The Corps has even told us, you know, how much
could do some things a little bit quicker and we said no no we want to make sure
we're doing this and getting the input it's worth our time things change over
time we wanna go through that process. So we are doing that. We are taking that extra time that is
with the contractor and the design builder and were going to continue to move through
If there's a request and you want to see them, we got a
request from a reporter and we gave those comments freely.
We redacted personal information, but we give them freely to
the reporter in a in I think a third of the time that we were
required to give that to them or something like that was very
quick. So we want
to be on the up and up for the same reasons about government.
They need to trust thank you director go and to appreciate that answer
As as we all kind of focus on this issue and try to learn more about it
If you have a repeat of information that you've given to house transportation or senate finance if you could just say
Yep said this in this committee, and we can go refer to that
That that would be I think
helpful for for time, but I appreciate your answer senator keel
Thank You, mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today deputy commissioner
Thank, you very much for bringing the the two fellas on either side here
Who whose job it is to to take concepts and and make stuff happen?
I appreciated the sort of broader
Context setting the video and in your comments. I think
for folks who are new to the issue or new
to The Region, maybe a little more context.
Some of the plans that were mentioned have been on the books for decades.
30 years ago, I was sharing about that road between Tenaki and Huna
and the one from Sitka to Burnoff Warm Springs with a tunnel piece and a fist full of others.
think the material number of milestones we can count on those roads well that's
all of them it's drawn lines on a map is the dreaming phase but the the two folks
next to you there are charged with actually making stuff happen and I think
we have to maybe come to terms when it comes time to switch from dreaming to
With the reality that it's it is pretty tough to
to responsibly
And with with good fiscal fidelity and responsibility to the taxpayer
Turn some of those lines into asphalt I
Have folks who ask me tell me that the scary systems problems would be solved if we could just give director Taranga there
Five or six more ships to put on the runs
You know great, but that's not happening either
right that that also is just not in the realm of fiscal possibility. So as as we drill down into
this project and and where we are we're gone. I think maybe it's good to have all the context
in mind. On the slide that's in front of us now I'd like if I may Mr. Chairman just to ask
and we talk about cutting three hours off the ferry run on the triangle from somewhere here in
the city in Buruk, Jr., out of Haynes and Skagway and then back. Can you do it with one crew or do
you have to double crew those boats? Yeah, through the chair, Senator Keel, we would have one
So we, on the larger boats we have, like you're getting to,
we've have crews to cover the 24 hours.
So it's a larger crew so they can cover each.
On the day, what we call the Dayboats,
the Hubbard and Lecanti working out of Juneau.
They have an additional crew
so that they could work these longer runs
like when we're going down,
or doing the full triangle or running down to cake.
So they'll have enough crews so they can work a 16-17 hour.
It's not enough to cover for 24 hours,
but it's enough make the longer runs we have.
If you get to the point that you're doing a 12 hour boat,
then that's what you are getting to.
That's a different set up of crew.
And it has got to fall within the Coast Guard rules
of working that 12 hours.
You can't make that round turn
what the boats we had today.
But in the plan, you know, we have the shuttle that gets constructed the end of 28 that we
have funds for.
That works between Scagway and Haynes, and then you could make your runs between Cascade
Point and Haines.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Keel.
So, appreciate that.
That's very helpful.
Thank you.
I guess there's two follow-ups there.
Is it going Skagway Haines or are we still considering Ketchcan Metlacala and and the second one is
What is the the crew delta between the three options 24 hour run this run 12 hour?
Through the chair senator keel
The the dayboats that we have working out of outta Juneau neither of them have
birthing on board for doing a 24-hour
that up. So they're really set up for just working there, extended hours. Unlike with
the Columbia or the Kennecott that has all the births for working, you know, days in a row.
But if you, for a shuttleboat that would be working a 12 hour as well,
it all depends on the tonnage of that vessel and then what the COI will state,
The shuttleboat, a probably a five man crew, maybe six at the most.
And that's a lot different than what we care if we had a dayboat.
And when the taslinia was working around, that was before my time.
But I understand we have about 14 crew on there, if I remember right, from what I've been told.
But, I'm not sure of that set up.
We're now, we're caring about 24.
All right, Chris, we're going through the record.
I think the video covered most everything on this slide.
The realization is changing from vehicle miles
to reducing nautical miles.
That's where a lot of the benefits
that you saw in air quality and time efficiency savings.
And this side essentially covers that.
But in the case of time and to be respectful of a chair
in your request, I'm going to move on to the next slide
This slide really covers the net fiscal impact
from an operational standpoint.
I wanna be very clear, this does not cover the capital.
I've been upfront and I presented that at AMHAB
what I believe at the time that cost would be
for the Capital Investment of the Cascade Ferry terminal.
That was $90 million, we believe a future construction
contract, a construction contract will be 90 to $100 million
going forward from this.
And so there's that.
We also heard the witness previously state
that there are capital costs on the road.
She referred to as a stage three.
Many of those are because of the asset deterioration condition of
those roads and doing that work. That includes the ferry terminal out to
Lina. It includes Bessie de Echo, which is a chip seal road,
which we had to chip-seal before the Ironman race,
because it was falling apart, and it's about to do that all over again.
And so we've had that project in design for several years now,
and we were going to that because the Asset was at that condition regardless of
Anyways, and we look at our roads and want to make sure that they're in good condition
Regardless, so we do have those projects coming and there's several chip seals in between on other portions that we've been maintaining and that number is a fifty five million dollar
So just full transparency. That's what we're talking about from a capital standpoint from an operating standpoint
We have and I'll just stay in the mean
total efficiency gains from this and lower fuel and things like that of $933,000.
That comes with added facility cost of keeping Cascade up and running,
and that's 480 that has been estimated.
And then there was an estimate based on a national study and ridership.
About 5% was expected by shortening the time, and
that was based upon other, other.
ferry terminal or fairies operating and what they saw when they were saw
redo what
they sought ridership when the saw reduced timing so that was a hundred and
thirty six and that's where we come up with the five hundred ninety
that you saw in the video so
yes after i ask one director goings
um are are you communicating to the public in this committee today
That the construction spec that you would use on the road and its current state with its
current level of traffic is the same construction speck with quality of
surface amount of lifts of material you put down today with it's current
level traffic as it would be if we had a ferry terminal and mine traffic on that
I haven't run the pavement analysis to give you an exact answer, but I will give
you a broad answer of what I believe and not to dodge the question. That's not the intent.
I believed based on what we've heard because we were approached by the mine on a driveway permit.
What they've described for truck traffic, it's fairly minimal actually.
What we intend for ferry terminal traffic and the loads that we have for
of traffic going down that road. I don't expect that pavement section to really change all that much
from what it would be now. We're not talking to, I would
be shocked actually if it was any different for the same 20-year life in general. But again,
I'd like to get you a better answer.
If the intent truly is to have a marine terminal with ferries and bus traffic and mining equipment, hauling material back and forth,
I know from talking about and studying other projects that when you have heavy traffic between five and ten percent of the total traffic,
So this is the type of communication where I think there becomes a credibility gap
between
DOT and what is said and then what people see actually in the field
Like just just say the information. It's okay
Like if mining is going to wear the road and you need to build bridges and we need do infrastructure just
say that we shouldn't apologize in this state for developing our natural resources and going
out and doing the work that needs to be done to make our economy grow.
We shouldn�t have to apologize for that.
But where it gets hard is when everything gets obfuscated and convoluted and conversations
that have no basis in reality and then people distrust government.
That�s what makes it harder.
I would like to help you develop stuff, right?
And I don't care if it makes it harder
to shoot wolves out the road or not.
Like, oh well, I guess I'll give up
some wolf hunting opportunity.
But you have to be willing to tell all of the things.
And that's what I'd like
to have more transparency on.
Senator Tobin.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman.
And speaking in the vein of transparency,
and I'm just curious,
impacts for particularly to the Alaska Marine Highway System and to DOT, there's going to be
ancillary impacts to surrounding community maintenance. Additional lane miles means there is going
to more traffic accidents. There's more likely that the bikers will be going out in those directions
and that you could have pedestrian and vehicle interactions. I'm curious when those get brought
into the conversation, when we start to evaluate with the impact to this surrounding
community, not just environmental, but also to lifestyle folks who live down that road might be.
through the chair, Christopher Goens again to Senator Tobin.
That's a wonderful question.
Bessie de Echo was one of the projects previously to that.
All the highway proportions have been widened
to have six foot shoulders.
Bissie De Echo has scoped prior to me getting involved
in Cascade Point to do the exact same thing
for riderships with pedestrians and bicyclists
and recreational folks.
That was the intent.
to really make sure we're taking care of those folks and again that comes prior to this. So
it aligns very well with what we've been trying to do for decades and widening and making that
more accessible for the community members that are out there. Getting back to the transparency
on the ridership and what's going on there, I will tell you the number, the mine when they
you know, I think it was one truck or an hour or maybe it
was two. It was really small. And when you talk about the
actual loads associated with that, that's small, and I'm just
telling you what they've told me, right? You take and you add
in the ferry traffic that goes on and the vessel if it runs
once a day, That's 300 vehicles on the vessels,
right 300 and what can you take? No, how many a
day on average? Yeah, doing a round turn. So you're gonna take
Just about 50 so you're gonna do that twice. Okay, so now we're talking about a hundred vehicles and the axle will dissociate with that
So I get back and I can dive into the science and we can report that back to you
But that that usually doesn't change very much the typical depth of the asphalt that is there so
And not trying to obfuscate or anything just being flat out with you. That's the Science
Senator keel thank you, mr. Chairman we
add some uh vehicle trips for the walk-on passengers you dropped off um but um so so looking at
this slide sorry i keep coming back to numbers that's what i do um live in this line right so we
we don't have any labor savings on here i i'm keep trying to free up some sailors for director
This estimate of five hundred ninety thousand with with a bottom ninety million dollar total project cost is
Little little rough on the investment site
There was conversation earlier on
About whether future phases of this project will be done with federal funds or not
And mr. Chairman we we tried to explore this little with the commissioner first week of December
I guess we haven't scheduled that conversation
by federalizing or de-federalizing projects generally.
So I'll drill in on this one.
There's about $28 million, $29 million of general fund
contracted in this first phase.
If the state's gonna go ahead with the rest,
are we talking about doing it all with general funds?
Are we talkin' about doin it as a federal project?
Because the delta there is
a whole lot of money.
Yes, through the chair, Senator Keel, this first phase is a state funding.
What we're proposing next is to, and you'll see it in a step,
is build the next stages of this that are moving from uplands, which is the state money
to end to the Marine with a step federal dollars, much of the same match scenarios that we had before.
That's the intent moving forward. We also intend to own the right away going down from the main
highway. Again, it's a half a mile down. It's what we'd likely think is going to be a culvert
over Cascade Creek. And that leads down to that. So I hopefully that answered your question.
the center kill that is helpful. So I I will never pretend to be an expert on the truly
Byzantine process that has federal highway fund transportation funding rules. God bless
you. The team you have a DOT who can figure that out. But at one point, one of the cities
in the region tried to take over a project and was shocked to learn just
how tough it is to follow all those rules.
Is this contract gonna proceed in such a way
that it follows enough of those roles
that Uncle Sam doesn't say sorry,
we're not gonna pay you for phase two
because you didn't do phase one the way we like?
Through the chair or Senator Keel, absolutely.
And in the state dollars on this project
are going to be covered under this contact.
the edge of the land.
There is no extension into federal dollars associated
with us or tied to it in any way, shape or form.
And we intend to essentially spend all that state dollars
on that contract before we take a federal dollar.
So there should be absolutely zero risk.
And what was stated earlier by CX representative that we need to be fearful of losing out on federal dollars in that process
Any future stages that are funded with federal Dollars
We will go through the proper processes that our very challenging
We agree with you and that community that went through that to make sure that
We do not trip on ourselves in That case regarding those federal Dollar's
and
there won't be risk on that because we'll follow those standard processes and we've been having
those conversations with the core on how to delicately do that. Then I imagine it begs the
question why for this $28.5 million, why didn't this go through the federal process? Why is this
Why is this expenditure?
This is one of the core questions I have today.
Why has this expenditures not going through this step
in the federal process?
What's the rationale?
To the chair, that wonderful question.
One of things that we recognized in this spring
is there was an opportunity to run two parts
of a project in parallel.
And that could be done with a design build contract
under state dollars with the limited scope
that would allow for the staging under that state
in that core permitting process that we would walk through and so it gave us an opportunity
and that was presented as an option to the, you know, to our leadership as something
that could be possible and then marine work which would take additional consultation and
efforts with like no one and other components that is usually takes a long time and those
state dollars gave the opportunity to speed up portions of that and again run in parallel.
I'm not seeing, help me understand the benefit of why these things need to run in parallel.
If we're, if we are hurrying up so we can wait just as long for a federal process,
why is opportunity cost of $285 million that this $28.5 million could pull down from a
federalized project?
Chair Berkman, I'll talk to the specifics of the project.
The greater question that you're asking,
I'm gonna let those who've made those decisions
answer that question, that's not meant for me to answer.
But if you've ever sat through
and worked on a marine project
and gone through the NIMPS process
and the difficulty communicating with the federal partners
on that who have to give you the permit,
it takes years and is exceptionally strenuous process
to go through and challenging.
You can speed up processes and I've sat in these committee meetings before and been asked
why can't you make it go faster.
Well this is a way to make projects go fast on the whole.
And so this allowed for parallel work and we look at those and bring those things to
the surface and present those as options.
And then once those options are presented, we're given direction and you run.
That was done in this case and unfortunately I'm not going to be able to answer that question.
for you because that's a bigger picture question outside of my realm. Thank you. Please continue.
All right. So bear with me. Christopher Goens for the record. I'm going to repeat
this because I think it's really important to understand what the gold belt partnership is on
this slide. And this project works because it aligns state transportation responsibilities
Cascade Point sits on the land owned by Goldbelt and Urban Alaskan Native Corporation.
Rather than treating that as a constraint, the state structured a formal partnership to ensure
clear roles, accountability, and long-term certainty. The partnership is documented again in that 23
memorandum. Going forward, DOT and PF is responsible for the public marine transportation infrastructure.
Gold Belt retains control of its land
for any planned or non-state development.
Gold belt is not dictating public transportation decisions,
but merely ensuring those decisions are compatible
with their core plans outside the proposed right away.
Each party stays within its core mission,
and Goldbelt is responsible to permit
their land activities themselves.
State investment is limited to the ferry terminal and related public infrastructure.
Gold belt may pursue commercial or industrial development independently if and when their market conditions justify it.
That development is not prerequisite for the Ferry Terminal and does not rely on state funding.
Goldbelts ownership and cooperative support avoids fragmentation development and ensures
the infrastructure investment respects Alaska land ownership. Native land
ownership, and preserves their desires to have multifunctional do-you support.
We recognize that Cascade Point is outside the existing transit network, possibly making this a
the thing for walk-on passengers was just something we've said as a challenge to solve.
To address this, Goldbelt has proactively committed to providing that dedicated shuttle
connection from Menonal Valley, Okbei and Cascade Point. That commitment solves a broken link for
Cascade point that currently exists at the Okbye ferry terminal. This also presents the
opportunity for potential federal funding options for transit down the road, potentially lowering
the cost impact for Walk-On Passengers. Again, this is a structured partnership that enables the
and retains the ability for Goldback to develop commercial and industrial opportunities,
respects native land ownership, and closes access gaps that would otherwise limit the
terminal's usefulness for the most vulnerable to the fact that the terminal is further
from town with Cascade Point operation. One moment, Senator Tobin.
You mentioned in another committee, the support from the City and Borough of Juneau for a road and a resolution in 1998,
however that road as described by that resolution and the CBJ support for that project was to be built by Gold Belt itself from Echo Cove to Cascade Point.
At what point in the process?
did the road go from that vision,
which Goldbelt would build on its land,
really a private utility corridor across their land.
At what point did
the project go
from the Gold Belt Road to this road now,
which this phase is being paid by only state dollars?
Wonderful question.
Chair Borkman.
So that was 98 or 97 signed by Mayor Egan and Senator Eagan and
It was later on through the EIS process. I believe
Gold belt built that and hopefully I'm not getting the history wrong, but they built. That road
I think it was in 2011 or so the DOT actually went in and did some improvements to it
And there was a ribbon cutting and things like that, and that stopped at its current location now
The DOT has an independent utility in the need for a ferry terminal at this location
and that's been desired by those that are duly elected and through the processes we've
been through with a step and the various committees and this sets us up to make that
next step to have access at Cascade Point and where the half mile came from and what
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, and I don't necessarily have a specific question about the partnership.
I just want to ask a question particularly about this March 2023 memorandum of understanding.
I did go look and find the press release that announced this partnership and in it it talks
about a feasibility study.
I then was looking along on the DOT website and found the actual RFP for that feasibility
study from February 17th, 20-23, I'm curious if we can get a copy of that because I'd
through the chair, Senator Tobin, yeah we'll figure out
that exact reference and we will supply that document to you.
One of the things that we really focused in on is,
and there was lots of questions,
and you heard that from CAC today.
One our engineers report, Kirk Miller, great guy.
about some of the challenges associated
with can you build it there
from an engineering feasibility standpoint.
And that's what I presented to AMHOB.
That was a wind wave analysis
to really understand what it's gonna take
for director Tornga to be able to do
what he needs to to here.
And so that where we had to figure out does.
Does the the wave environment allow for that and what is the engineering we need to take?
And so that was a huge part of that engineering feasibility that
was presented. That was asked to go further for the AMHOB and that
was the work where that Ed King did to help support that.
So, thank you. I'll give you the RFP number just so you have it.
It's 25233020. 2523020 and in it it's a
RFP for professional services to exceed in the range of 500,000 to a million looking for
professional engineering services, to evaluate the feasibility and design of a new ferry terminal
located on Cascade Point. And it's from February 17, 2023 is the date that the submittals needed to be.
So I'm assuming you did this work, so I'd love to see this.
Through the chair to the senator Tobin. Yes, and I believe that was a contract that we signed with P&D engineering
That led to that amhob
Submittal or and this discussion on the wind wave analysis and and that effort, but I'll absolutely get you that contract and let's go
Thank you
Senator Q thank you, mr. Chairman
so director I
Make sure I understand the the rest of the
financial arrangement at one point there was someone mentioned it talk about
a long-term lease from the private landowner, you said we're going to own that right of way.
So if we are going build a thing and the state is going be there for decades,
it probably makes sense to owned rather than lease. How much of what are we going
Through the chair to Senator Keel a wonderful question
Basically, it'll be a half mile road with two lanes going down it
Drain and Johnny either side so the total of that drainage and then the cut to make it
to make it all work and for us to be able to build it,
much like we designed any road throughout this state.
That'll go down and then we'll also own the pad.
And if I'm gonna skip and hopefully I can go backwards.
This shows that right away on the dash line on
the outside covering those cuts and fill the shaded on
the either side of that center line with the numbers
going down the main road really is the cut.
And we go a little bit beyond that.
That's the right way that we're essentially
negotiating at this time.
And so I have to be a bit careful to
be in compliance with a uniform act
because that is one that can trip us.
And I don't wanna do that and then you have that pad
at the very bottom that's that
majority white square that you see at the base and that's where the
ferry terminal structures will be and we're purchasing that land from Gold
Belt so it will go in by the public when this is all said and done.
Senator Kiel.
Okay, thank you. That's a very helpful couple follow-ups. Is the plan for DOT to
The land, oh, the dock, through the chair, Senator Keel,
the Dock itself and the structure that will go beyond that
and moving into stage two.
It ends up on DNR land.
Least land currently gold belt holds some of that lease.
So we're working how to navigate that with DMR
and how to hold that in the end of what the structure of that will be.
The general thought and hope is that we would have as a state control over that land,
and there would be a joint use that Gold Belt could also have access to
and meet the purpose of why they got into the partnership in
the first place, how that.
How that changes in the future or what possibilities exist for leasing pieces of it those are up in. The air, but I we're not an active
Talks about that portion of right now. So mr. Chairman if I can continue
I want to circle back to that in a second
the
Road the cut the site pad you talked about is that going to encompass the drinking water supply and whatever treatment it needs
the septic, or will that be adjacent?
We got into trouble building a prison in another part of the state,
and we were partway into construction when somebody realized, uh-oh,
we're going to need $19 million a year to lease the water supply from somebody nearby.
I don't want to get into that trouble.
Yes, through the chair, Senator Kiel, great question. Absolutely, and you can see on this,
on this drawing at the very top right for that big curve,
hook curve starts, there's something that says
water treatment building and tank.
We're gonna be getting water from Cascade Creek
into that tank, and that's where the water
treatment system will be,
and then gravity feed down into the rest of the system.
And so we have engineers working on that
and designing that in preliminary,
making sure that was feasible.
As part of this exercise leading up to before we committed to move forward. Additionally, there are
wastewater building. You can see there in the center of the buildings
closest to the uphill portion
and also a utility building and other structures to support that terminal building
and the wastewater needs that we have both for the vessel and for passengers waiting.
Yes, we will own
Then the the last one is then if the if The Doc itself is on DNR owns tide lands, and you are working out
the lease arrangement
How about the Doc?
itself, is that going to be kind of like our partnership with Skagway where we're
What is it 512 712 so?
We're gonna lease that from the land owner. What's the
Yeah, through the chair to Senator Keel, great question.
We have essentially that corridor that leaves from that pad, and
that goes out towards the water, we're going to have to be building that.
That's going be a joint, essentially access road, anything that is done.
build out with gold belt that they choose to do will be on the downward side of that page,
the left bottom of the page and that will have to be independently permitted through the core
building a driveway to their private property essentially and that's where
their marine access would come from. There's also an opportunity behind the
wave barrier in an area that we're not using where they could put in a small
boat harbor and it's a single dock that would lay parallel to the wave
barrier top and thats that big hatch to what looks like little boulders that
So, and my mouse, sorry here, here's my
mouse. If you can see it, this is the area I'm talking about where operations
for gold belt could occur and they would have access along this road into that and
they have their own lease or joint and this
is where we're trying to figure out with DNR how that would work and then
Right here would be a potential for a parallel dock
that they could take and place boats on.
Thank you.
I want to clarify, when we talk about right-of-way acquisition,
I thought I heard you say you were only acquiring
right away for the last half mile of the road.
However, I think I remember the right
of way, current right way ending not far past Echo Cove
and extending.
most of the way. What is the length of right away that needs to be acquired?
to chair work and again wonderful question and I have to ask a lot of these
questions of what are we on what do we not own. At the very top you see this
dashed line I'm hopefully you can see it with my cursor and and here at the
very bottom that's the existing right away to Glacier highway that was
extended out to the end and then there's a private gate as it sits today that
And that it all the way down until you hit the water's edge is about a half mile long
That's the portion that we're purchasing as part of stage one
Okay, the reason I asked you is as I drove the road that's frost heaved and
Doesn't look like it can handle traffic for significant more volume or period of time
I'm mapping software the right-of-way ended very quickly
After echo cove
That's why I asked the question
So do you I would like to continue I think we can maybe wrap this up in 15 or 20 minutes
Do you have any place that you?
have to be you would?
like-to-be
Or would I could should I plan for another day for you all to join us again chair Bjork man for the record Catherine Keith
You would love to
Continue and complete answering all the questions absolutely, so that's okay with everyone here
Okay
Please continue
All right, hopefully backspace will work nope
There we go
So I'm not gonna for the sake of time read
my prepared comments. I'll just talk to what we have here. What we're seeing and what this slide
was intended to initially show was the comments that we got, the 620 through that extended period,
were distributed throughout southeast. We're generally seeing them from here, so that's good.
We saw a report, you probably read it, said the bottom bar was...
Gave the impression of plus or minus who is in favor of it. That was never the intent
Of that it was just to say there are concerns on that side and and my prepared comments
We're we're going to very much go over the fact of
There are, there are a lot of folks that have concerns that are very, very valid and we take that as a challenge to work through those.
You know, it's very clear to me that there people that in opposition of that and that number is 90% plus right now.
And we, take, that very seriously. There, are there, folks also that, or in favor of this project.
that's industry, that is the operating engineers local 302, the Greater Juneau Chamber of Commerce
and other groups and so we recognize that there is a diverse set of comments and set
of concerns and we're going to be working through all of those and those include those environmental
I just want to remind folks that is really we're getting the nuts and bolts of that and that
consultation is going to be through that core permitting process that we are just starting.
And that's a key piece. And those comments are going help us navigate that, and make sure that
right? That's going to be the decision and the core is going
to help us do that process and that environmental document and
to get that NEPA process. So this, again, it's very important
to give this these comments. We're not done either.
I mentioned that on Thursday.
We recognize that there's additional need for conversations.
We're still figuring out what is some of the marine side of things going to look like
too.
And so we want to go to the public in March or sorry, April and do two types of meetings.
One is a presentation with an open house setting where we're going have about nine or ten of
our staff there to answer questions.
get through the same questions like you have with the public and get to have those conversations.
From there, we want to go into a hearing style where people are going to get the opportunity
to speak and we will get a listen. We don't intend to move forward until we have
those discussions. And so...
you know, folks have made the, have said that we're breaking ground to summer
starts. That's not the case. Right now we fully believe that the best timeline
we can really hit is probably the fall of 2026. But this has to play out
and those decisions has be made and we want to make sure we are doing them the
right way. So I'll leave it at that for brevity.
Thank you, Mr. President, and that, or excuse me,
Mr Chairman, it's a long day,
and I still have a bill up.
Give me a hand.
Yeah.
I'm also not on five committees, like some of my fellow committee members here.
So I just have a question, because I would say that I am probably the most freshman person here on this committee,
and I have commented on a lot of DOT plans and projects of the years.
I've never actually commented after money has been awarded or after a plan has put in place.
This seems very atypical to me. It also seems like a great way to-
break public trust because it feels like you are moving forward prior to actually hearing good
feedback. And you did just say something that I'm really curious by. You know, my best insight
is the Fairview Pell, where we've had multiple iteratives of that particular project. It's been
between a no build and a build, but the build has so many different iterative. So it's concerning
So can you help break that down for me, because I think that's a little bit where I have some concerns.
You've taken public comment after the fact, and now it sounds like you're kind of holding people hostage.
Through the chair to Senator Tobin, that is fair.
That's very fair. It is a different process, it's a design build contract. You are bringing
a contractor on but you're bringing a contract on to do all the engineering and the environmental
and whole process just like you would do in any sort of project. And I can understand how it
might fill that way. The fact of the matter is that's an at-risk decision that was made to move forward.
So, if we can't get to that build, then the contract would be terminated and we would
move.
That's still an alternative.
I think it's very important to also recognize there's been a lot of talk about all sorts
of other different...
projects and EISs that occurred into into this area and Cascade Point never limits those alternatives
and it was very careful that we made sure that that was the case because we don't want to limit
the alternatives that could have been something else down the road and cascade point really doesn't
but we're following that process and procedures
and going through to make sure we get those public comments.
And if we don't, there is a chance
that we may have to terminate that contract.
And I don' t want to hide that, it's a reality.
And it is risk in making a parallel decision
to move forward, so.
So I guess as we look at then the contract dated 28 July,
last summer, I'll read a paragraph from there and it describes what I perceive to be off-ramps
and maybe you can help me understand what those off ramps are.
It says,
A notice of work and O.W.
And payment of associated fees must be made to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce
Development before a notice to proceed will be issued by DOT and PF.
The contractor must provide DOT and PF a copy of the approved
NOW form stamped as received by DOLWD before it notes
to proceed will be issued.
Then the Now form and additional information can be found
at this link.
What does that mean?
We have requirements of reporting work to make payment for work performed.
This contract outside of that, and the detailed, the design build contract that was attached to that.
Outlayed that there was engineering and environmental work that needed to happen before you ever get to construction.
But for us to, make, payment, for the engineering work and for all those other types of things.
we have to make sure that those processes are followed
so that we can make proper payment for the contract
that was being signed.
Hopefully that answers your question.
I understand that to be an answer.
I don't know enough about the process
to incorporate it into my schema.
A simpler question would be donny think
that it hurts your negotiation with a private firm to secure right of way, if you've already
spent money on the project, $28.5 million with the contractor to design and start building the
project. I haven't been around forever, but I've never seen this type of situation happen where
you give out a contract to build a road and you don't even own the ground yet.
help me understand why that's happening.
Chair Borkman, that fair question.
You know, almost all of our projects,
we expend millions and millions of dollars
before we ever owned the property.
That is a standard operating procedure
because most of the time, federal requirements
make us go through all the same things we're doing now
before, we can make certain offers.
to own that property. What is unique about Cascade Point is we have already an
outlayed partnership with somebody that has a joint interest in developing a dual
use port. So, well...
Normally, that risk would be high.
The fact of the matter is that partner there is a committed partner and has shown honest
and good faith through this process to date and the decision was made by those that were
duly elected to continue with that.
So that's where we sit today.
Yeah, I understand that and I understanding wishing that partners are act honestly and
participation and interest in a recent ballot question
around cruise ships in the city in borough of Juneau,
have many people questioning that locally.
If your partner is a benevolent actor in their community
and how they choose to participate
in conversations that happen here,
I think that's why this issue and others
attract a lot of attention.
So like, we can say these things,
But they're subjective, and the community in the larger state of Alaskans may or may not believe them.
And I think that creates a lot of weather, similar to what we're seeing outside today.
Senator Keel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, if I can, abstract that concern from the specific
We had, on very different topics, we had a conversation with the Deputy Commissioner
at this committee week or so ago about standardizing some things stay wide and how we do things.
And when it comes to a federal project, there's federal rules, you can't pay more than the
fair value of the thing, but we're not using federal rule.
So in terms of how to protect Alaskans, I think the Chairman, and broadly, generally,
in our overall approach, the chairman makes a really good.
point about whether we're retaining the ability to get the best value.
And that's a comment, not a question. I'll leave it there.
I did have, because I thought we were out of time earlier, I do have one more back on the
partnership slide, and it is also a report for Director Tornga. Gold belt runs a great bus.
businesses in town that use them if if you require your walk-on passengers who come south
to buy a separate ticket when they arrive you have set up your terminal staff for failure and
nightmares the first time somebody's shows up and they didn't read the damn thing and
they Didn't figure out the procedure in the process and They got no money in their pocket
and your Terminal staff locked the door and walk away and there they're in
The lawyers and the risk managers are going to eat you alive.
Director, the current plan for that ain't gonna work.
You're gonna need to integrate so that a walk-on ticket gets people to somewhere near civilization.
I would recommend the agape terminal and all the men in all valleys.
Great, it's even better.
However you wanna do that, but if this project goes forward,
10 minutes walk to hammer and weaken grocery store.
It's not the off bay terminal, where it's a fairly annoying
mile and a half to the Off Bay roundabout.
It was 30 miles out the road.
Going to have to be part of the package.
Thank you.
If we could go now to that timeline slide.
As you look, just make a couple of comments, and then you can respond if we want.
As we look at the slide and comments that have been made in committee previously.
Many members of the public, members, of your staff that interact with advisory boards, many legislators.
Even I heard many legislatures who are relatively familiar with this process and
to the fact that the reason why the 28 and a half million dollars signed for in the contract
date of 28 July, or whatever's left of that remaining appropriation, we're not available
for reappropriation because they had already been spent.
One of your staff members told the MVP board, match money is clean money with no constraints.
Shortly after the legislature started, they had tough decisions to make.
They attempted to re-appropriate money, but the reappropriated money had already been spent by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and it raised concern.
Many of DOT folks as well as OMB folks expressed some form that money
had been obligated money was not available money.
was not there. In some form, using different words of some style. When, on what day, did
the $20.5 million or the toll 30 million re-appropriation, when did that money become
unavailable? On what date, exactly?
Yeah, Chair Bierkman for the record, Catherine Keith.
Yeah we can get back to you on the exact day.
I believe we've provided it in previous documentation
that precedes the July 30th for us.
We'll obligate funds prior to having a contract issued.
And at that point, once we have a contact issue,
they become encumbered.
But I do just want to point out that in response
policy board, Matsu policy Board.
When we're up here providing testimony,
we can only speak to fact and the things that we understand
in our involvement in the project.
Certainly what we've seen, and even in this project,
there are a lot of things
that come, roll off of it,
that may or may not be an accurate representation
of the thing that's we say.
We do endeavor to be as factual and as clear as possible
and we understand sometimes it doesn't come across that way.
But we appreciate the opportunity to speak like this
at these hearings because it allows the public
to hear straight from us exactly look at
these timelines and get the facts.
And we do hope that they come and ask us clarifying statements
when their second or third hand repetition sometimes
that doesn t actually stick to the original story.
Do you have anything?
Yeah, Chris, we're going for the record.
I'll just add that it's probably a little off of your question.
But the legislature passed the budget.
The vetoes were in place.
We knew the veto's were place, and we were moving forward,
knowing, believing that the funding was there.
That was awarded.
And I think they're.
a transcription error or something I think the contract that you had in
front of you was the 28th I thinks the July 30th so apologies for that but
that's when that contract would be awarded and and I know the lawyers are
gonna work this out and i look forward to hearing what the lawyer's come to
conclusion on this whole thing because it would help make my life a whole lot
easier to but I Know that budget doesn't take effect until I believe
of 2025, too. So just for further context and what we were aware of, which budget are
you referring to? I'm referring the budget taking in place 90 days after it was assigned
into legislation. Okay.
A project like this going up for design build contract, this doesn't happen overnight.
This isn't something where in a month or 30 days we can turn around and try to hurry
up and spend money.
This has been going on for years leading back to the initial conversations with Goblet
in 2021.
Bigger conversations are happening about this, but all I can say to the committee and to
the public is that these steps have been going on for several years through reconnaissance
and feasibility and engineering so that we could release an innovative procurement.
We have several of these design builds.
We also have construction manager general contractor approaches,
which are very successful at being able to resolve issues early
on prior to getting out to construction.
It is cost effective, allows us to work with contractor
and be able mitigate any concerns that may happen.
So that's why this one was chosen so that we could have the
contractor on board early and begin to
work through issues.
Anything that's brought up, we can address it early on.
Yep, and I totally understand that.
I total understand.
But when people in the building who normally are
very, very knowledgeable about these things,
hear things from department staff, from OMB,
from others, about whether money is available or not,
and they continue to be under the impression that the money
was not available for reappropriation.
In a very fiscally constrained environment,
in an area where we need money to build other projects,
that we may need state dollars to pull down federal projects
for a number of things to support a pending gas line project.
Or if we needed to use this money
to built a state stand alone project
on some other critical piece of infrastructure,
those could be very important dollars-to-have.
But if this stands, we're not gonna have those dollars
because we spent 28 and a half million
on a road north of Juneau that's my concern and that is a concern of many people here and so
as people look at when re-appropriations were available and what the RFP for the project didn't
go out until after the legislature had adjourned three days after. The capital budget was passed
and was published on May 23rd.
The money had been identified for reappropriation more than a month before that.
So a political decision was made, and I understand, not by you guys, but by someone,
to take $28.5 million of state standalone money,
and spend it on a state stand-alone project in a time when we are extremely fiscally constrained.
I would have liked to be able to come to some kind of conclusion.
And any kind rational explanation as to why we made this decision.
Like, where is the urgency? What is a necessity?
This is nice to have projects. It's probably a great project.
But we don't have money to do it right now.
The legislature told the department and told
the administration we are having hard times and things are going to get worse.
And yet you plowed on to spend this money at the opportunity cost of 10x.
I can't defend our state government as being good stewards of our resources when decisions like that get made.
It's indefensible.
And now we have a legal challenge to this appropriation, which will likely cost the state more money.
It is really bad.
So what do we do?
That's the whole thing. Like I would like to be able to do things from this decision and for
for the people of Alaska that move us forward.
And I understand if there are political motivations
and those are what they are.
But we have to be willing to stand in the gap
some way, some time, somehow to say, what are we doing?
We'll just close by telling you a little story.
I had one of my favorite teachers ever in school. His name is George LaPoint
taught 10th grade literature
And he made us all
read catcher in the rye
Catcher in The Rye is a pretty sweet story about this kid. He had ADD
Holden Coughfield
He'd have protect his little sister and like look out for everybody, but he was pretty troubled dude like he had some problems
But like you had though. he like
He knew what to do when things mattered
And this to me like strikes me as one of those times like really mattered like you come up to this time in a decision with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line
And things go off the cliff there wasn't a catcher in the rye. You just did it
That's all I got for today
All right anything else
There's no further business to come for the Senate Transportation Committee today we are adjourned
323 p.m.