This summary provides an overview of the FY 2009 Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) Project Selection meeting, held in Anchorage, AK on December 16-17, 2008.  The agenda and meeting minutes from the US Army Corps of Engineers meeting on December 18, 2008 in Anchorage, AK regarding project updates and the barge landing study are also included as an attachment.  The summary also provides the list of the projects selected at the TAC project selection meeting. 

The primary purpose of this meeting was for the TAC to select FY 2009 road and waterfront development projects on December 16th and 17th, 2008, for TAC approval and incorporation into the Transportation Program.  Other Committee work included:

• Program overview including status of program finances and operations
• Review and discussion of draft Commission-wide project selection policies
• Receive the program quarterly report and updated project status list
• Report on major project partnerships with the FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• Review of project nomination and selection processes 
• Set date and location of next meeting

In a separate meeting on December 18, several Committee members attended a Commission/USACE joint-projects status meeting.  These monthly meetings are important to the success of the joint project mission.  The December meeting included a review of the new project development section at the USACE, Interagency and International Support, that has been set up to serve an array of agency and international clients, including the Denali Commission.  

Program Development

The TAC and Denali Commission management, through the program’s project nomination and selection processes have successfully guided the program to a focus on basic safety and quality of life capital projects throughout rural Alaska.  Agencies and communities recognize this focus across the state as an appropriate target for program funding.

Selected road projects are generally basic community street improvements and waterfront development projects have focused on community needs and projects to improve regional transshipment operations.  An emerging and important capital project effort is barge landing improvements throughout coastal and riverine Alaska that can significantly improve the safety and efficiency of barge operations.  These barge landing improvements are likely to become a significant portion of program’s future waterfront development work.

Over the course of program development, the FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway Division, and the US Army Corps of Engineers have become central partners in project delivery.  In both cases, product delivery and interactions with communities has been excellent.  Partnerships with regional borough and tribal governments continue to develop and improve, and many midsized coastal communities continue to successfully partner with the Commission on local port and harbor projects.  DOT&PF also continues to be a solid partner on state-owned local roads projects that improve safety and quality of life. 

The key to program success continues to be grounded in the annual project nomination process that maintains local control over project scope, and the TAC project selection process that keeps the Commission focused on rural Alaska’s most pressing transportation improvement needs. 

Meeting Start Up  

Due to an array of factors, largely assignable to the Program Manager, the Committee faced not only the material mailed to them prior to the meeting, but also a mass of paperwork when they arrived at the meeting conference room.   

What initially was a stack of reports at 9:00 am quickly became a mound of paper that by 10:00 am had literally melded into one large paper morass on the conference table.  There were two lessons learned from this experience.  One, all documents to be used at the meeting must be in the binders sent to committee members 3-4 weeks in advance of the meeting.  The Committee has to have time to review and be familiar with all documents.  Two, if additional documents are brought to the meeting, they and their respective index sheets must be put into the binders before the meeting begins. 

Project Selection

After staff reports, a draft Commission policies discussion, and Committee housekeeping items, the project nomination process got underway.  The Committee’s experience with project selection quickly revealed several trends that held throughout the FY 2009 process:  

• An established project nomination process and Committee consensus about project priorities has narrowed the range of nominated projects.  It is apparent from the FY 2009 nominations that communities generally understand from posted ranking criteria and project selection guidelines that the Commission is looking to address basic rural transportation needs. 
• Community street and board road reconstruction and extension
• Regional port improvement and small boat harbor  inner-harbor facilities construction 
• As a result, the Committee saw a narrow range of project scores for basic repairs and improvements took away some of the numeric scoring value. 
• It became clear through project discussions both amongst Committee members and with project sponsors, whether a project was ready for the stage of work being requested and whether the project was serving a basic transportation improvement purpose

• In those cases where project sponsors had sufficient funds for design, the Committee asked the sponsor to complete design and return to the Commission for consideration of construction funding when final design documents were complete

• In some cases, there was a need to segregate utilities including water/sewer, lighting and electrical from the road work to evaluate eligible construction costs and to determine the percent of participation a Commission award would make to the road element.  In at least one major project, this exercise showed the road element was not ready for construction and that the Commission contribution would have been 100%, which is undesirable given the opportunity for Tribal Shares to contribute to the project

• Community, regional and in some cases, owner support played key roles in decisions about accepting some projects.  In at least two cases, local sponsors nominated good projects, but either the land or the facility itself was owned by another entity or agency.  If the owner did not support the nomination, the Committee did not evaluate the project, and asked the owner and sponsor to coordinate on a new nomination for FY 2010

• In some cases, the Committee selected a project for funding, but did so with directions to the sponsor.  In the case of the Gambell Evacuation Road project for instance, the Committee specified that Commission funding go to the first 2.5 miles of roadway, as this is the distance to a safe elevation and the proposed road beyond that distance is to reach other termini. 

• Four projects moving from design to construction, or experiencing substantive construction phase increases did not have nomination forms.  These were approved after much Committee discussion, and in light of funding availability.  However, the Committee directed staff that in the future all such proposals need to be submitted as project nominations within the timing and document requirements of new nominations.

• Several waterfront development projects were approved with the requirement that there be a review in July to determine that proposed State General Funds were in fact assigned to the projects through the State legislative and executive capital budget processes.  Projects that did not receive needed funding would be withdrawn.

• In the waterfront development program, the Committee investigated all opportunities to joint fund projects with the State of Alaska.  In the case of the Gustavus Dock, the requested funding of $1,300,000 was reduced to $750,000 with the remaining 50% to come from a State General Fund appropriation.

• In another example, the King Cove Boat Harbor project was assigned the full $1,500,000 request, even though it is substantially over the recommended cap of $1,000,000 because that funding matched to $1,500,000 in local funds brought in $3,000,000 in State funds to the community’s harbor rebuild.

• A late project brought to the nomination process during the meeting was the recently completed reconnaissance engineering report for the Shaktoolik Evacuation Road.  The project, which was discussed and approved during the meeting, will gain a design year.  This type of extenuating circumstance is accounted for in the project selection procedures, but the Committee clearly would have appreciated having this and other project presented under ordinary procedures and documentation.  

Project Nomination and Selection Process Modifications

At the close of the meeting, the Committee directed staff to implement the following modifications to the Project Nomination and Selection Process:

• Begin the nomination process on August 1 as usual, but include a specific effort to notify rural regional entities including boroughs, regional hub communities, regional tribal non-profits, Community Development Quota organizations and other organizations to ensure they are aware of the nomination process and schedule

• Extend the project nomination period by 30 days to November 1 each year to provide additional time after fishing and hunting seasons for nominations

• Add a third meeting to the annual calendar.  A meeting in early November would examine project nominations and would receive annual progress reports from major Program partners

• Reschedule the Committee’s Project Selection Meeting to mid-January each year to provide adequate time for staff products, including due diligence efforts to review and/or prepare all project nominations

• All projects to be considered by the Committee including Commission projects transitioning from one phase to another must be submitted in the project nomination format and must be submitted to the Committee in the original mail out of the project books 3-4 weeks in advance of the project selection meeting 

• Staff is to request an opportunity to present the Transportation Program to the annual CDQ meeting and at annual regional organization meetings as appropriate 

Committee Operations

As part of an overall review of Committee operations, the Committee directed staff to prepare material for a May 2009 Committee retreat.  Staff will investigate the merit of a facilitated meeting and report to the Committee by March.  Materials and/or issues for discussion at the retreat include:

• Review of ranking criteria to determine whether it is practical to develop a project ranking system within the established priorities that creates more separation in scores for basic projects

• Review of how to accommodate paving in approved projects.  The Committee continues to struggle with the issue of participating in the paving phase of road projects.  It is critical in many cases to preserve the road bed and to reduce dust and mud, but with so many unimproved roads in rural Alaska, paving can seem like a luxury.  The Committee will attempt to develop specific guidelines for supporting paving as part of approved projects

• Review and recommend improvements to the project status report.  This includes making the report more streamlined and adding a new column to indicate each project’s ‘difficulty score’.  Using a 1-5 designation indicate progress and funding stability with 1 being steady progress based on established scope-schedule-budget, and 5 being a project that is not moving forward and/or is likely to be closed out  

Project Selections for Commission approval and incorporation into the Transportation Program system

The attached FY 2009 project selections are provided for Commission review and approval.  Once approved, staff will send letters to each project nomination sponsor to indicate:

• Whether their project was selected for the Transportation Program
• If selected, what level of funding was assigned to the project  
• If selected, what agency is responsible for development and delivery?  This is a new step in the program system.  Most Borough, medium sized cities, regional Tribal non-profits and DOT&PF, will continue to receive awards directly.  However, most small governments, city or Tribal, will see their projects assigned to FHWA-competent development agencies as experience has shown Title 23 CFR regulations that govern Commission funding are too complex and burdensome for small community resources.  WFLHD will be the Program’s major road projects partner, while the USACE handles most waterfront development projects, including the major barge landing design effort currently underway

Please see Transportation's Program Documents webpage for FY09 Project Selections.

IRT Update

Meeting was held on January 15 to review the work plan for the IRT-sponsored survey of a 12-16-mile road corridor between Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Lake.  The corridor survey will set the base of the potential design and construction of a road between the two villages.  The road would provide two primary functions, one is to provide Chignik Lagoon with access to the Chignik Lake airport, a significant improvement over the substandard landing strip at the Lagoon.  The other is to provide Chignik Lake with access to the barge landing at Chignik Lagoon for fuel and freight deliveries.  Currently, Chignik Lake hauls fuel and freight by boat resulting in significant costs and safety risks. 

The survey is expected to take from early June to late August to conduct.  The Federal Highway Administration’s Western Federal Lands Highway Division, a primary transportation program partner to the Denali Commission will provide engineering support services to the military during the survey effort.