[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61091-61098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29251]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DENALI COMMISSION
Denali Commission Work Plan for Federal Fiscal Year 2001
ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Denali Commission was established by The Denali Commission
Act of 1998 to deliver the services of Federal Government in the most
cost-effective manner practicable to communities throughout rural
Alaska, many of which suffer from unemployment rates in excess of 50%.
Its purposes include, but are not limited to, providing necessary rural
utilities and other infrastructure that promote health, safety and
economic self-sufficiency.
The Denali Commission Act requires that the Commission develop
proposed work plans for future spending. In accordance with the Act,
the Commission solicited project proposals from local governments and
other entities. The Act further requires that the Commission publish
annual work plans in the Federal Register for a 30-day period,
providing an opportunity for public review and comment.
This Federal Register Notice serves to announce the 30-day
opportunity for
[[Page 61092]]
public comment on the Denali Commission Work Plan for Federal Fiscal
Year 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Staser, Federal Co-Chairman,
Denali Commission, 510 `L' Street, Suite 410, Anchorage, Alaska 99501,
Phone: (907) 271-1414, Fax: (907) 271-1415, Email: JS[email protected],
http://www.denali.gov.
SUPPLEMETARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Denali Commission Work Plan can
be obtained by contacting the Denali Commission as provided in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
Jeffrey Staser,
Federal Co-Chairman.
Denali Commission 2000-2001 Work Plan
November 15, 1999.
Work Plan--Contents
Part One--Denali Commission Purposes and Approach
Purposes of Commission
Challenges to Development and Economic Self-Sufficiency
Commission Relationship with Other Organization
Commission Schedule
Staffing
Funding Criteria
Additional Criteria for Infrastructure Projects
Additional Criteria for Economic Development Projects
Part Two--Fiscal Year 2000 Work Plan
Project Selection Process for FY 2000 Bulk Fuel Program and
Utility Upgrades
Other Power Related Projects Under Review
Other Projects Under Review
FY 2000 Work plan
Part Three--Work Plan for FY 2001 and beyond
FY 2001 Work Plan
FY 2002 and Beyond--Defined Funding Needs
Part One: Denali Commission Purposes and Approach
Purposes of Commission
The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Division C, Title III, PL 105-
277) states that the purposes of the Denali Commission are:
To deliver the services of the Federal Government in the most cost-
effective manner practicable by reducing administrative and overhead
costs.
To provide job training and other economic development services in
rural communities, particularly distressed communities (many of which
have a rate of unemployment that exceeds 50 percent).
To promote rural development, provide power generation and
transmission facilities, modern communications systems, bulk fuel
storage tanks, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs.
Challenges to Development and Economic Self-Sufficiency
Geography--The State of Alaska encompass twenty percent of the
landmass of the United States, encompassing five (5) climatic zones
from the arctic to moderate rain forests in the south.
Isolation--Approximately 220 Alaskan communities are accessible
only by air or small boat. Some regional hub communities are separated
by over a thousand miles from their State Capital.
Unemployment--The economy of rural Alaska is a mix of natural
resource extraction and traditional native subsistence activities. Many
Alaskans are absolutely dependent on subsistence hunting and gathering.
Cash paying employment opportunities in rural Alaska are scarce;
unemployment rates exceed 50% in 147 communities.
High cost and low standard of living--Over 180 communities suffer
from inadequate sanitation and a lack of safe drinking water. Residents
pay up to 61 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity even with State
subsidies for rural power.
Commission Relationship With Other Organizations
The Commission intends to act as a catalyst to encourage local,
regional, and statewide comprehensive assessment, planning and ranking
of needed infrastructure improvements and economic development
opportunities and training needs.
The Commission working with existing agencies or other
organizations whenever feasible, intends to improve coordination and to
streamline and expedite the development of needed infrastructure,
economic development, and training.
The Commission may build on the work of both Federal and State of
Alaska agencies to identify statewide needs, to establish priorities,
and to develop comprehensive work plans.
The Commission will seek the support and involvement of affected
local communities, governing bodies, businesses and other
organizations.
The Commission will encourage partnerships between government, non-
profit organizations, and businesses to expedite sustainable economic
and infrastructure development.
Commission Schedule
The Commission will hold quarterly public Commission meetings and
make every reasonable effort to maximize public participation in plan
development and update.
In order to integrate the Commission work plan with the federal FY
2001 budget cycle, the Commission intends to have the FY 2001 work plan
completed by December 1999. This will complete a multi-year work plan,
which will be updated at least annually.
Staffing
The Federal Co-Chairman is solely responsible for Commission
staffing and administrative matters. Staffing will be kept to a
minimum, and the Commission will utilize staff detailed from federal,
state, or other organizations to the maximum extent possible. Contract
support will also be utilized where appropriate.
Funding Criteria
The following criteria are intended to foster careful and
systematic planning and coordination on a local, regional and statewide
basis for infrastructure and economic development, and to strongly
support local involvement in project planning and implementation.
Projects should be compatible with local cultures and
values.
Projects that provide substantial health and safety
benefit, and/or enhance traditional community values, will generally
receive priority over those that provide more narrow benefits.
Projects should be sustainable.
Projects should have broad public involvement and support.
Evidence of support might include endorsement by affected local
government councils (municipal, Tribal, IRA, etc.), participation by
local governments in planning and overseeing work, and local cost
sharing on an `ability to pay' basis.
Priority will generally be given to projects with
substantial cost sharing.
Priority will generally be given to projects with a
demonstrated commitment to local hire.
Commission funds may supplement existing funding, but will
not replace existing federal, state, local government, or private
funding.
The Commission will give priority to funding needs that
are most clearly a federal responsibility.
Additional Criteria for Infrastructure Projects
A project should be consistent with a comprehensive plan.
Any organization seeking funding assistance must have a
demonstrated commitment to operation and maintenance of the facility
for its design life. This would normally include an institutional
structure to levy and
[[Page 61093]]
collect user fees if necessary, to account for and manage financial
resources, and having trained and certified personnel necessary to
operate and maintain the facility.
Proposals should include a cost breakdown by phase
including breakout for design, construction and annual O & M.
Additional Criteria for Economic Development Projects
Priority will be given to projects that enhance employment
in high unemployment areas of the State, with emphasis on sustainable,
long-term local jobs or career opportunities.
Projects should be consistent with statewide or regional
plans.
The Commission may fund demonstration projects that are
not a part of a regional or statewide economic development plan if such
projects have significant potential to contribute to economic
development.
Part Two: Fiscal Year 2000 Work Plan
In order to provide focus for the Commission's second season of
work, the theme of ``Rural Energy'' was selected by the Commission to
provide consistency and build on work completed in FY 1999. Bulk Fuel
Storage and Utility Upgrades continue to be an important part of the
Commission work.
The following paragraphs describe in detail, the project selection
process used by the Alaska Energy Authority. Throughout FY 2000,
Commission and staff will be working on development of additional focus
areas or ``themes''. The goal of the Commission is to build on the
success of the energy program and increase the number of focus areas or
``themes'' along with associated funding. The themes will consist of
specific programs or project areas that show a great need and limited
funding to address that need.
Bulk Fuel Storage
Background--The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) documented major
deficiencies associated with rural bulk fuel tank farms in 1991 and
began the process of notifying communities that failure to correct
deficiencies would result in substantial fines and suspension of fuel
deliveries. Deteriorated tanks dating back to WW-II vintage were
leaking petrochemical contamination into local water supplies causing
sickness in children and elderly people. Lack of building code
compliance further exposed residents to a high risk of catastrophic
fire. Large numbers of tanks lacked adequate spill control features.
Arctic and sub-arctic communities are totally dependent on these
leaking fuel storage tanks for heat, power and light. In most
instances, fuel is delivered annually by barge. Suspension of even one
delivery would have catastrophic impact on local residents, many of
whom live in a subsistence economy without cash to bring fuel tanks
into compliance with federal standards or to pay fines. Overwhelmed by
the cost and urgency of this crisis, residents appealed their plight to
State and Federal Government representatives.
In 1994 the Governor and Congressional Delegation responded by
requesting a moratorium on enforcement actions until an effective
solution could be found. With funds provided by Congress specifically
for this purpose, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
working through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA, formerly the Alaska
Division of Energy), identified a work backlog, not including cleanup,
estimated at approximately $450,000,000. Principle responsible parties
were often traced to pre-statehood federal agencies or to a hodgepodge
of now defunct entities. No one accepted responsibility.
Electric power
Background--Rural communities of Alaska, much like the rest of the
nation, are dependent on electric power for basic life support. Unlike
most other areas of the country, Alaska's rural communities are remote
(not connected to a power grid) and subject to extreme weather
conditions. When a system fails, there are no backups and the life and
safety of people are in jeopardy. Funding for upgrade and maintenance
of systems has been grossly inadequate, resulting in many systems being
unsafe, undependable, and very expensive to operate. A comprehensive
assessment of needs has not yet been completed, but the AEA has
identified a number of systems needing immediate assistance. The AEA
has also identified some opportunities to replace or supplement high
cost diesel power with alternative energy sources.
Project Selection Process for FY 2000 Bulk Fuel Program and Electric
Power Utility Upgrades
The Commission focused on the most severe problems first by drawing
on an extensive database compiled by the Sate of Alaska in coordination
with EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). This data was used to develop
a preliminary ranking of communities based on the current condition of
their facilities as reported by both State and Federal field
inspectors. To these preliminary rankings the Commission then applied
additional selection criteria, including:
Citations or warning letter from EPA, USCG, or other
regulatory agencies.
Imminent threat to health and safety, or threat of winter
system failure.
Alternative or supplemental community/region specific
funding opportunities, i.e., Federal through the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or Sate through the Department of
Education.
Financial need based on existing costs, rates, and income
levels.
Community commitment and support of tribal elders.
Factors reviewed by the Commission staff, working with Alaska
Energy Authority, in formulating recommendations to the Commissioners
included:
Opportunity for consideration of small tanks and economies
of scale.
Community size.
Cost sharing.
Demonstrated administrative, operation and maintenance
capability.
Any federal tax delinquency of tank farm owner(s).
Community contribution and commitment.
Past experience working in the community.
Unusual conditions or costs.
Beginning in FY 01, two additional criteria will be key to
selection for Denali Commission funding:
1. Consistent with statewide energy strategy now under development;
and
2. Consistent with an adopted community based comprehensive plan
Ultimately, project selection reflected the active involvement,
cooperation and support of federal and state regulators, tank farm and
electric utility owners, and community leaders.
Project Management Procedures
The Commission determined that the most cost-effective manner to
reduce overhead and adminsitrtive costs involved with managing its Bulk
Fuel Storage Tank Program in FY 2000 was to take full advantage of the
Alaska Energy Authority contracts and structure, while maintaining
appropriate oversight.
Key elements of project development used by the AEA are:
1. Consult with Facility Owners and Community Representatives.
Staff traveled to the community to meet with tank farm owners, utility
owners, and community representatives to obtain information, to develop
an initial project concept, and to determine
[[Page 61094]]
project participants. Community representatives include municipal
government, tribal government, and the Village Corporation. The
Commission made approval by village elders a prerequisite for funding.
In this way, traditional cultural values are sustained and potentially
harmful community impacts are minimized.
Any tank farms that would not be included in the program for FY
2000 are also identified and the reasons for such exclusion are
determined. If deficient facilities will not be upgraded as part of the
Commission's program, efforts are made to develop a plan with the
facility owner on how those facilities will be brought up to code in
the future.
2. Consult with State and Federal agencies. The Commission asked
the AEA to coordinate with other agencies and to determine potential
sources for supplemental funding of the project wherever possible.
Federal agencies include the USCG, EPA, HUD, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
and Public Health Service. State agencies include the Departments of
Education, Environmental Conservation, and Transportation and Public
Facilities.
3. Develop Grant Agreement. When agreement is reached on a project
concept, and funding has been identified, the AEA prepares a grant
agreement and a ``consolidation agreement.'' Grant agreements not only
formalize the funding commitment project but also commits grantees--the
future owners of new or reconstructed facilities--to assist in project
development and to properly maintain the projects in the future.
a. Most labor is hired locally on` `force account'' by the local
grantee or government entity. The only ``outside'' hires are typically
foremen, who must have extensive experience, and specialized skilled
labor (i.e., welders) not usually locally available. In the future,
through focused training, we hope to be able to fill all positions
locally or at least within a region.
b. A private sector firm is retained to perform the project
accounting, local payroll, and invoice payment, a significant advantage
in cost and time compared with government administration, particularly
in the context of tight construction schedules.
c. Competitive bids are solicited for equipment and materials. The
AEA has chosen to use State regulations for competitive awards among
vendors.
4. Develop Consolidation Agreement. The consolidation agreement
binds all of the tank farm participants and records agreement on
specific ownership and management structure for the new facility upon
its completion.
5. Place Project Funds and Set up Accounts with Trustee Accounting
Firm. The AEA uses a standing contract with a private sector accounting
firm to provide all accounting and payment services required. The
Commission releases funding for projects involving Denali Commission
funds to the trustee firm as oversight criteria are met.
Disbursements to vendors for project materials, to engineering and
construction management firms for services rendered, and to force
account labor are made by the trustee firm only as directed by the AEA
and/or Commission. The trustee firm, in order to ensure clear, up-to-
date budget and expenditure information for each project, provides
monthly expenditure and activity reports.
6. Projects Design and Site Selection. In consultation with the
project participants and community representatives, the AEA then
proceeds into site selection and project design. The participants must
agree to the site and design before funds are committed to project
construction.
The AEA maintains standing contracts with local engineering firms
for a broad scope of services. At the present time, the AEA has four
such contracts in place that will remain in effect through December
2000, at which time a new set of contracts will be issued. At any time,
the AEA can issue one or more work orders to any of these four firms to
immediately begin work on a project related task. These firms are
primarily for project design, both for bulk fuel storage and for
electric utility upgrades.
7. Site Control. Similar contracts are in place with a right-of-way
firm to immediately begin work on site control services, including all
takes related to land ownership determination, ownership transfers,
leases, and easements. The site control task begins in conjunction with
preliminary designs specifically on the determination of land
ownership. When the project design has been adopted, the contractor
proceeds with all steps needed to acquire site control. The present
contract runs through February 2000, at which time one or more new
contracts will be issued.
8. Permitting and Environmental Compliance. Commission oversight
ensures that all applicable permits and regulations pertaining to
project construction and operation are obtained or satisfied. Among
these permit sand approvals are the following:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a ``general permit''
that will expedite approval under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
for the placement of fill material in wetlands for rural bulk fuel
storage facilities. This approval process, which is necessary for
virtually all tank farm projects in rural Alaska, normally requires 3-4
months to complete but is expected to require only 15-30 days under the
general permit.
The State of Alaska has adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) as part
of its Alaska Administrative Code requirements for building permits.
The UFC was not written for rural Alaska conditions and, in some cases,
is difficult or impossible to apply to rural Alaska tank farms.
Therefore, the AEA and the State Fire Marshal signed a memorandum of
agreement that provides practical solutions to problems posed by UFC
requirements. The agreement reflects consideration for dispensing tank
placement, tank setback, flood protection, fire-resistive supports or
pilings, dike wall materials, equipment placement inside the secondary
containment area, overfill prevention equipment, and bulk transfer to
small tank vehicles.
9. Construction Management and Local Hire. Local hire is a basic
principle of the Commission. The Commission seeks to stimulate the
creation of not only jobs, but also careers. Local labor helps hold
down project costs. Local hire means that people who are knowledgeable
about the project will remain in the community after construction.
As mentioned above, four project management firms supplement the
AEA's in-house ability to provide overall project management. These
flexible contracts are set up on a work order basis--whenever the AEA
needs to assign a project manager to a project, it will be able to
issue a work order that specifies the particular individual or skill
set to be assigned. This provides access to as many project managers as
needed, whatever the workload demands.
This is essential to maintaining the force account construction
approach that has been successful in the past and has been well
received by local communities. A project manager is needed to
communicate directly with the community grantee, the design engineer,
the site control contractor, and the on-site construction foreman; to
handle material procurement, scheduling and transportation; and to
provide financial management and control.
10. Operations and Maintenance. The Commission oversees the
preparation and proposal process, including details on operations and
maintenance (O&M) responsibility. Local sponsors must participate in
addressing their estimated
[[Page 61095]]
O&M budget and revenue requirements. The Commission also supports
training for tank farm operators.
11. Insurance. The AEA purchases liability insurance to cover
damages that may be claimed during the construction phase of our
projects, and arranges pollution and liability insurance coverage for
consolidated tank farms after the project is complete and placed in
operation. To date, insurance applying to the operational phase has
been purchased by the AEA on behalf of the new tank farm owner for the
first year of operation--no commitments have yet been made for
succeeding years.
12. Regulatory Plans. A part of the AEA scope of work for every
tank farm project is the preparation of all required regulatory plans,
including the Operations Manual and Facility Response Plan required by
the USCG and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
required by EPA.
13. As-Built Drawings and Project Completion Report. Closeout tasks
include as-built drawings and a project completion report, along with a
final project accounting.
Long-Term Follow-up. The AEA developed and maintains a rural tank
farm database. They plan to continue re-visiting rural tank farms on a
three-year rotating schedule to update information on tank farm
conditions, and to provide limited circuit rider services. In the
future, the Commission may expand and integrate these programs into
other initiatives. For example, every three years, staff or contractors
could examine both the tank farms and electric utility systems in each
community, update the data base on current conditions, and provide
preventive maintenance services as needed for both fuel storage and
electrical systems. This may expand to include all utilities in the
future.
Other Power Related Projects
Statewide energy needs assessment and planning is being undertaken
in a cooperative arrangement between the State and federal government
in order to guide capital funding decisions. The Commission is a
partner in this effort with the State and U.S. Department of
Agriculture Rural Development. A comprehensive assessment of issues and
their inter-relationships will be completed by December 1999.
Development of a comprehensive energy strategy is expected to begin in
January 2000.
Other Projects
The Commission received numerous local or community specific
recommendations. To date, these include economic development,
infrastructure, and capacity building projects. Consistent with its
published criteria, the Commission will evaluate each of these projects
and determine eligibility and priority for funding.
Due to the massive needs of rural areas, and the need to improve
the coordination of federal and state programs, the Commission has
initiated several cooperative efforts to enhance coordination among
federal and state agencies, and encourage comprehensive community-based
local and regional planning. As the results of these efforts
materialize, the Commission will develop strategies, or ``funding
themes'', to most effectively accomplish its statutorily mandated
goals. In the meantime it is the intent of the Commission in funding
``Other Projects'' to advance the development of funding themes. When a
new funding theme is developed by the Commission, the purpose, process,
and deadlines for seeking assistance will be announced to all rural
communities and/or regional organizations in Alaska.
FY 2000 Project/Funding Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding category and category class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure: Subtotal.................................. $15,000,000
Economic Development: Subtotal............................ 2,000,000
Job Training, Education, Capacity Building: Subtotal...... 2,000,000
Administration: Subtotal.................................. 1,000,000
-------------
Total................................................. 20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part Three: Work Plan for FY 2001 and Beyond
The Commission determined that the scope and scale of
infrastructure issues facing rural Alaska are staggering. The following
table summarizes identified needs for infrastructure categories such as
drinking water and wastewater utilities, power utilities, and fuel
storage.
The backlog of work in the Bulk Fuel Storage Program alone has been
estimated by the Alaska Energy Authority to be approximately
$450,000,000. No estimate is currently available for some fundamental
needs, including health care facilities and telecommunications.
Assessment of needs and refinement of estimates will be an ongoing
process. The total of known infrastructure needs is estimated to be
over $10 billion. Allocation of funds to various funding categories and
classes within those categories (see following table) will be based on
a formula agreed to by the Commission at the beginning of each fiscal
year. For FY 2000 the formula allocates 75% of available funds to
infrastructure, 10% to economic development and 10% to job training and
capacity building. The Commission has a statutory limit of 5% for
administrative expenses.
On-going feasibility work will guide specific project selection and
approval at quarterly Commission meetings.
Of necessity, the Commission's work must be phased over a number of
years based on the urgency of competing needs and availability of
funding. The theme of rural energy, as one important prerequisite to
all other utilities and economic development, guided the decisions for
FY 1999 and will continue to be a primary area of focus in FY 2000. For
planning purposes, the Commission budgeted $45,000,000 using the
Commission approved formula. This funding increment is based on the
addition of one or possibly two themes for FY 2001. The theme(s)* will
build on the success of the existing program and provide funding for
programs and/or projects that demonstrate a great need, federal
responsibility, and limited amount of funding to meet the need. A
graphic representing the ``theme'' concept is shown below. For
illustration, the graphic shows a basic program amount of $5 million
(Economic Development, Training, Administration, etc.), $15 million to
be applied annually to the first theme, and incremental amounts of $10
million for subsequent themes.
BILLING CODE 3300-01-M
[[Page 61096]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09NO99.002
BILLING CODE 3300-01-C
The Commission seeks to be informed by the public year to year as
to how best to allocate its efforts and thus reserves the option of
chaning its allocation formula after hearing from the public. Likewise,
there may be variations in specific areas of focus from year-to-year to
reflect the public sense of priority and judgement of the Commission.
Once the Commission approves specific projects, they are assigned to a
category class.
The incremental budget plan for FY 2001 is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding category and category class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure: Subtotal.................................. $33,750,000
Economic Development: Subtotal............................ 4,500,000
Job Training, Education, Capacity Building: Subtotal...... 4,500,000
Administration: Subtotal.................................. 2,250,000
-------------
Total................................................. 45,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: In FY 2001 in addition to other applicable criteria, any
project selected for funding should be a part of a community based
local or regional comprehensive plan. Additionally, any energy
related projects should be consistent with the comprehensive
statewide energy strategy.
The following table summarizes current estimates of needs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding category and category class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure:
Housing Construction/Development.................. $1,800,000,000
School Construction and Major Maintenance......... 530,000,000
Power Utilities................................... 168,000,000
Fuel Storage...................................... 450,000,000
Drinking Water Facilities.........................
Waste Water Utilities............................. 1,058,000,000
Waste Management Facilities.......................
Health Care Facilities............................ (\1\)
Airport Facilities................................ 926,000,000
Road Construction................................. 5,600,000,000
Port Facilities................................... 214,000,000
Telecommunications................................ (\1\)
Community Facilities.............................. (\1\)
Other............................................. (\1\)
-----------------
Subtotal...................................... 10,546,000,000
Economic Development:
Comprehensive Planning............................ (\1\)
Other............................................. (\1\)
Job Training, Education, Capacity Building:
Comprehensive Planning............................ (\1\)
Other............................................. (\1\)
-----------------
Total......................................... 10,546,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Appendix A for background Information on this table.
\1\Unknown.
Appendix A
Housing Construction/Development
Need: $1.8 Billion.
Annual Funding: $58-87 million.
Source: Housing and Urban Development FY 1999 Report.
Background: According to the FY 1999 report published by HUD,
Alaska has a need for 12,519 new units. At an average cost of
$145,000 per unit, the total need for new housing is approximately
$1.8 billion. This estimate does not include repairs and renovation
projects. The number of units needed has increased from the 1990
census, which showed over 11,000 units needed.
[[Page 61097]]
At the current rate, 400 to 600 units are constructed in Alaska
each year (approximately $58-87 million).
Projects are prioritized and funded in a variety of ways
including grants to local housing authorities, regional housing
authorities, low interest loans, and transfers to other agencies.
Entities providing funding for housing includes, but may not be
limited to, HUD, AHFC, and USDA.
School Construction and Major Maintenance
Need: $530,183,470.
Annual Funding: No recurring funding source.
Source: Final Agency Decision: 4/5/99; Project Priority List
Published by the State of Alaska Department of Education.
Background: Based on requests from individual school districts,
the State of Alaska Department of Education (DOE) has compiled a
listing of school construction and major maintenance projects. DOE
has reviewed the project requests and distilled the eligible
projects to list that totals $530,183,470.
The state school construction program is not currently funded.
This program is the primary responsibility of the state and will
remain such. However, there may be opportunities for the Denali
Commission to assist the state in areas that are federal
responsibility such as bulk fuel storage upgrades.
The Denali Commission will continue to work with the State
Department of Education, and at the point when a school construction
program is funded, will work to determine if there is an opportunity
for the Denali Commission to assist with some federally mandated
component of the program.
Power Utilities
Need: $168,000,000.
Annual Funding: No program of annual funding.
Source: Percy Frisby, Director, Alaska Energy Authority.
Background: According to the Alaska Energy Authority (formerly
the State of Alaska Division of Energy), they have needs in the
following categories for the following amounts.
$68,000,000 Power Plant Construction and Rehabilitation
$100,000,000 Power distribution system construction, expansion and
rehabilitation
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a state agency commissioned
with oversight of energy related infrastructure in rural Alaska. The
agency functions predominantly in areas that are typically not
covered by a utility cooperative. These power plants and
distribution systems are typically in areas where the economic base
is insufficient to bond or self-fund construction of the power
facilities and other sources of funding are required. At the current
time, the AEA is the only source of funding for these projects, and
there is no defined funding stream to take care of the above stated
needs.
Another interest of the Denali Commission is to work towards
conserving energy usage in rural communities. Efficiencies such as
generator efficiencies, structure insulation, waste heat recovery,
transmission efficiencies, and alternative power generation are all
possible topics of consideration for the Commission.
Fuel Storage
Need: $450,000,000.
Annual Funding: $15-18 million ($8-10 million Denali
Commission).
Source: Division of Energy (Alaska Energy Authority) Briefing
Report dated September 24, 1999.
Background: The Alaska Energy Authority initiated an assessment
of all bulk fuel tank farms in rural Alaska communities in 1996. The
three-year project assessed the condition of the tank farms,
including the total fuel capacity of each in terms of gallons.
Approximately 180 communities were surveyed during the three-
year assessment period. Total storage capacity of the surveyed
communities is 75,221,754 gallons. Assuming an average cost to
upgrade as $6/gal, the total cost to construct new code compliant
tank farms in each community is approximately $450,000,000.
Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste
Need: $1,057,512,641.
Annual Funding: $78.1 Million; $18 Million ANTHC, $21.6 million
FC&O (Incl. AHFC, EPA, USDA-RD and state).
Source: Sanitation Deficiencies System Update, May 1999,
Published by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Department
of Environmental Health and Engineering, Division of Sanitation
Facilities Construction.
Background: The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC)
is the responsible organization for administering the Public Health
Service (PHS) construction program here in Alaska. The currently
defined needs, according to the ANTHC/PHS Sanitation Deficiency
System that estimates the overall need in the areas of Water/
Wastewater/Solid Waste, to be $873,670,525. Currently the ANTHC
receives approximately $18,000,000 annually to perform this work.
ANTHC has responsibility for the tribal communities and the mission
is to provide facilities for Native Alaskans. There is some overlap
with the VSW program.
Source: SFY 2000 Capital Budget Priority Lists, 12/16/98;
Published by the State of Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Facility Construction and Operations.
Background: Village Safe Water (VSW); The State of Alaska
Village Safe Water Program is a division of the State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation's Facility Construction and
Operations (FC&O) Division. The division provides grants for
planning, design, and construction of water, sewer, and solid waste
projects in small, rural communities throughout Alaska. The
currently defined needs as submitted by VSW only reflect the
requests from communities interested in projects. This amount does
not reflect the overall need. The current list of requested projects
totals $105,690,744. The current funding level for VSW is
$41,890,574.
Municipal Matching Grant and Loan Program provides grants and
loans to medium sized communities for planning, design, and
construction of water, sewer, and solid waste projects. The program
is a division of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation's Facility Construction and Operations (FC&O) Division.
The currently defined needs as submitted only reflect the requests
from communities interested in projects. This amount does not
reflect the overall need. The current list of requested projects
totals $78,151,372. The current funding level of this 50% matching
grant program is $18,164,200.
It should also be noted that the information provided by FC&O is
not broken out by project type, nor does the division have the
resources to provide such a breakout.
Health Care Facilities
Need: Unknown.
Annual Funding: Unknown.
Source: None.
Background: There is no comprehensive source of information
relating to the needs for local healthcare facilities. Typically, a
community or village will build a clinic and lease the facility back
to the organization responsible for healthcare in their community.
The Commission has allocated funding to complete an assessment of
healthcare facility needs during the next year.
Airport Facilities
Need: $926 Million.
Annual Funding: $58-87 Million.
Source: 995 Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska;
Published by State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. And the current FAA Aviation Improvement Program (AIP).
Background: The Federal Aviation Administration currently
provides most of the funding for airport projects throughout the
state. The state or local sponsor will contribute roughly 10% in the
form of match. There are 1,112 designated airports, seaplane bases,
and aircraft landing areas in the state of Alaska. The Alaska
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT& PF) owns and
operates 261 public airports, the majority of Alaska's public
airports. Additionally, 23 public airports are owned and operated by
local governments.
Backlog of airport projects in the state amounts to
approximately $926 million ($1.3 billion in an informal, 1997 tally
completed by statewide aviation).
Historically, funding that the state receives for airports from
the FAA AIP program has ranged from $58 million in 1990, to $81
million in 1998.
Road Construction and Major Maintenance
Need: $5.6 Billion.
Annual Funding: $320,000,000.
Source: 1995 Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska;
Published by State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
Background: The State of Alaska administers all of the Federal
Highway funding allocated to Alaska with the exception of money
specifically designated
[[Page 61098]]
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which amounts to approximately $14
million per year. Although overall funding levels are up for roads,
the BIA share has slipped from $16 million under ISTEA. The BIA
funding does not go far considering it must provide for
approximately 200 tribes.
Overally needs for highway and road projects were estimated at
$5.6 billion in 1995. Average funding levels are estimated at
approximately $320 million, up from approximately $220 million under
ISTEA.
Most of the FHWA funding stays in the rail-belt, with some
funding going to rural communities for sanitation roads and trail
markings. Funding for projects off of the road system goes primarily
to the larger hub communities.
Port Facilities
Need: $214 Million plus.
Annual Funding: Varies by year, typically between $0-5 Million.
Source: 1995 Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska;
Published by State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
Background: The State owns 78 of 95 public harbor facilities,
operates those harbors through agreements with local governments,
and provides financial and technical assistance to communities
expanding or developing new harbors to meet demand and economic
development objectives. The state of Alaska DOT&PF estimates that
there are approximately $214 million in deferred maintenance, port,
and harbor projects. The department's goal is to eventually be out
of the harbor and port business with the possible exceptions of
Alaska Marine Highway System facilities, and several refuge floats
in remote areas.
In recent history, there has been little to no funding for ports
and harbors in the state of Alaska. Most of the funding that is
received provides match to Corps of Engineers funding. Some funding
appropriated in recent years has gone to repair and transfer of
selected harbors in the state. In rural Alaska, there is an as yet
undefined need for harbor facilities for small communities located
in the coastal areas and along the river systems. Many communities
currently pull small boats up on to the beach and in some locations,
this can be hazardous and environmentally detrimental. The Denali
Commission may consider undertaking an assessment to determine the
needs in this area.
Telecommunications
Need: Unknown.
Annual funding: Unknown.
Background: Telecommunications and Internet technologies, which
are revolutionizing daily life in the United States, are not
reaching most Alaskan communities. The positive impact Internet
connections will have on education, training, healthcare and
economic development in rural communities can not be overemphasized.
The negative impact of leaving the rural communities behind in
technological advances will only further compound the challenges of
self-sustainability for rural Alaska.
The remoteness and sparse populations that so uniquely identify
rural Alaska also are the primary limitations for private
telecommunications to justify connections in most communities.
Typically, small communities have access only through the local
public school or library, and tribes may have access through a
program being implemented by the Department of Interior. Private
users are prohibited from accessing these federally subsidized
services. So, an individual who wishes to access vital information,
obtain distance education or training, open a web-site for commerce,
or have an e-mail account from home, must use ``1800 dial-up
access''. Such service in rural Alaska costs between $200-$400 per
month for basic e-mail and minimal Web browsing.
The Denali Commission will evaluate the availability of basic
telecommunications, Internet technologies, and other advanced
telecommunications in relation to the future of economic
development, education, training and healthcare in rural Alaska.
Community Facilities
Need: Unknown.
Annual Funding: Unknown.
Background: Communities have a need for community assembly
facilities for various purposes, including planning, meetings,
traditional functions, and recreation for youth. These facilities,
when available, are heavily used in rural communities. No assessment
mechanism is in place for determining statewide needs for community
facilities.
[FR Doc. 99-29251 Filed 11-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3300-01-M