Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
DENALI COMMISSION
Denali Commission
NOTICE: NOTICES
SUBJECT CATEGORY: 5-Year Strategic Plan
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: Introduction
The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Title III, Pub. L. 105277, 42
U.S.C. 3121) created a StateFederal partnership to address crucial
needs of rural Alaskan communities, particularly isolated Native
villages and other communities lacking access to the national highway system, affordable power, adequate health facilities and
[[Page 29276]]
other impediments to economic self sufficiency. Guided by five
Commissioners representing statewide nongovernmental organizations,
the unprecedented results to date testify to the efficacy of inter
agency teamwork, effective training, and the setting of high
sustainability standards by those closest to the problems at hand. The
Commission is a highly effective catalyst for enhanced collaboration
among Federal, State, tribal and local governments as well as private
sector, nonprofit and other interests. The over arching goal of
enabling economic self sufficiency is based on effective community comprehensive planning, and regional support.
This document will guide the reader through:
Purpose of the Commission
The Denali Commission Act of 1998, as amended (Division C, Title III, Pub. L. 105277) 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 communication systems, bulk fuel storage tanks, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs. Vision
Alaska will have a healthy welltrained labor force working in a diversified and sustainable economy that is supported by a fully developed and wellmaintained infrastructure.
Mission
The Denali Commission will partner with tribal, Federal, State, and local governments and collaborate with all Alaskans to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services, to develop a well trained labor force employed in a diversified and sustainable economy, and to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's basic infrastructure.
Values
Catalyst For Positive ChangeThe Commission will be an organization through which agencies of government, including Tribal governments, may collaborate, guided by the people of Alaska, to aggressively do the right things in the right ways.
Respect For People and CulturesThe Commission will be guided by the people of Alaska in seeking to preserve the principles of self determination, respect for diversity, and consideration of the rights of individuals.
InclusiveThe Commission will provide the opportunity for all interested parties to participate in decisionmaking and carefully reflect their input in the design, selection, and implementation of programs and projects.
SustainabilityThe Commission will promote programs and projects that meet the current needs of communities and provide for the anticipated needs of future generations.
AccountabilityThe Commission will set measurable standards of effectiveness and efficiency for both internal and external activities. Goals
The goals generated by the strategic planning process define conditions that must be created to realize the Denali Commission Vision.
1. All Alaska, no matter how isolated, will have the physical infrastructure necessary to protect health and safety and to support selfsustaining economic development.
2. Local residents in Alaskan communities will be provided the opportunity to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to be employed on the construction, operation and management jobs created by publicly funded physical infrastructure in their communities.
3. Alaskans will have access to financial and technical resources necessary to build a cash economy to supplement the existing subsistence economy.
4. Federal and State agencies will simplify procedures, share
information, and improve coordination to ensure equitable delivery of services to all Alaskan communities.
Implementation Guiding Principles
Additional Guiding Principles for Infrastructure:
Additional Guiding Principles for Economic Development:
[[Page 29277]]
Additional Guiding Principles for Training:
Intergovernmental CoordinationThe Memorandum of Understanding:
The Denali Commission Act recognizes that our mission can be
accomplished only through a collaborative, coordinated effort by the
State of Alaska and key Federal agencies. The State of Alaska also
recognizes benefits can be furthered if State agencies work in a
collaborative and coordinated effort. With this in mind, Denali
Commission has drawn up a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which more
than 20 agencies have agreed to, that outlines some points of agreement
that will facilitate the collaboration and coordination necessary for
achievement of the purposes of the Denali Commission and related missions of agencies who are parties to the MOU.
The points of the MOU are
Organizations. Nonprofit and other organizations in Alaska are a valuable resource for State and Federal Agencies. They provide regional planning, program support and partnering opportunities
The Commission has determined that the scope and scale of infrastructure issues facing rural Alaska are staggering. The total of known basic infrastructure needs for Alaskan communities is estimated to be over $13 billion. These infrastructure needs include:
Housing Construction/Development
Multiuse Facilities
Power Utilities
Fuel Storage
Drinking Water and Waste Water Facilities
Solid Waste Management Facilities
Health Care Facilities
Airport Facilities
Road and Trail Construction
Port, Dock and Other Marine Facilities
Telecommunications
Community Facilities
Comprehensive Planning
Comprehensive Planning
In Fiscal Year 2005, the Denali Commission will continue to collaborate with other funding agencies and with all impacted and interested parties to address identified needs on a priority basis. In addition to FY05 appropriated funds of $2.5 million the Commission expects to receive approximately $3.8 million in interest from the Trans Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund and $22 million from the Department of Health & Human Services.
Prioritization of Projects for FY 2005
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, was selected as the Commission's top priority for infrastructure funding. Primary health care facilities were identified as the second infrastructure theme for the Commission beginning in FY00. These two themes will continue to be the top priorities for infrastructure funds through FY05, and the Commission, consistent with Congressional intent, may add one or more additional themes.
For planning purposes, the Commission has allocated a total of $28,300,000 using the Commission's approved formula for FY05: FY05 projected TAPL interest TAPL & FY05 funding funds combined Bulk Fuel.............................................. ................. $3,610,000 $3,610,000 Health Clinics......................................... $20,900,000 ................. 20,900,000 Operations............................................. 3,600,000 190,000 3,790,000
Total.............................................. 24,500,000 3,800,000 28,300,000
In accordance with the Denali Commission Code, Administrative funds (5%) are solely the responsibility of the Federal CoChair. Allocation of the balance of funds (95%) will be made by the full Denali Commission, utilizing the guiding principles previously outlined in this document, and priority systems designed specifically for each budget category.
Project implementation will generally be accomplished through State, local or Federal government entities, regulated utilities, or nonprofit organizations. It shall be the responsibility of all such implementing organizations to comply with all applicable laws. Any special requirements will be articulated in the funding agreement between the Denali Commission and the funding recipient. The MOU will serve to guide intergovernmental coordination and collaboration among agencies.
Projects resulting from funding of infrastructure themes generally
are consistent with high priorities identified in community plans. The
existence of community plans greatly facilitates the location, design,
and completion of infrastructure projects within a community. Performance Indicators for FY 2005
Energy:
[[Page 29278]]
rural Alaska by renovating or building a bulk fuel storage facility in 2 communities.
Health Care:
Financial and Technical Resources:
Government Coordination:
Work Toward the President's Management Agenda
President George W. Bush has set forth a strategy to improve
management of the Federal government through governmentwide goals in five mutually reinforcing areas:
Human Capital
Competitive Sourcing
Improved Financial Management
Expanded eGovernment
Budget and Performance Integration
The Denali Commission is making progress in these strategic areas in the following ways.
Human Capital
The Denali Commission attempts to be innovative in its recruitment and retention of staff. With a small permanent staff and ``onloan'' staff from partner agencies and organizations, the Denali Commission has a flat organization chart, making it simple for customers to reach the staff they need to and get the answers they require, through electronic messaging, telephone, or inperson.
An additional advantage of a small organization is the ease of managing the accurate measurement and appropriate rewarding of staff for performance. Denali Commission utilizes many human capital investmentoriented strategies for retaining qualified and effective staff, such as preventive health programs, and appropriate training. Competitive Sourcing
As a very small agency headquarters, Denali Commission is highly motivated, by necessity, to comply with this initiative. Although formal assessments have not been carried out on the competitive sourcing opportunities, Denali Commission regularly utilizes contractors and private enterprise for many of our tasks. Examples include development of innovative database and accounting systems, computer maintenance, and document scanning services.
Improved Financial Management
Five of the Denali Commission permanent staff are responsible for all operations and finance. Limited to 5% overhead, the agency has, and will continue to, enthusiastically participate and pursue automation and forwardthinking technology whenever possible. Through advances in technology, we will continue to realize internal efficiencies and increases in effectiveness.
To keep pace with the GovernmentWideAccounting (GWA) initiative, a new accounting system was developed in FY 04. The Commission utilizes the Veterans Affairs (VA) Financial Services Enterprise Center as consultants on this project. This accounting system maintains the highest quality of accuracy in reporting to OMB, Congress and the public.
Staff are working in conjunction with other Federal agencies to accomplish automation to the extent feasible, with Federal Treasury payment and collection systems (IPAC, ASAP and SPS). We are currently a pilot test site for the Internet Payment Platform (IPP) which is being developed by Treasury for the efficient and timely payment of vendors. Expanded EGovernment
Denali Commission is committed to managing our projects more
effectively and more transparently to partners, customers and the
public. The Denali Commission Project Database is a significant step in
this direction. The Denali Commission Project Database, now operational
on our Web site, is an initiative that permeates several of the five
strategic areas of the President's Management Agenda. To enhance
project management and information sharing with our partners and the
public, Denali Commission has developed an Internetbased database of
all Commission projects. This tool is for tracking and managing Denali
Commission and partner project data. The database is built to provide
information that is easy to use, has the highest degree of integrity
and maintainability, and is accessible for all interested parties. In
keeping with the Denali Commission mission, the system allows for
collaboration to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government
services. Within the database, managers and grantees perform online
reporting; provide project financial information, project photos and
other information on all Commission funded projects. Also available
within the database are priority lists of projects yet to be funded in
communities across Alaska. Across the State of Alaska, Federal, State and local entities (including regional nonprofits, health
corporations, and tribal governments) share a vision for developing a
shared, central database (or portal) to further improve the transparency of government.
Denali Commission now has an active link to our agency Web site located on http://www.FirstGov.gov to help citizens find information and obtain services from that central location. We are working to place Denali Commission grant opportunities on the http://www.Grants.gov Web site as well. Additional eGovernment projects that Denali Commission is monitoring and will participate in include eTravel and e Authentication. To maximize IT partnerships (and coordination) with other federal agencies, Denali Commission works with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of the Interior (DOI) to support our local computer network.
Our commitment to internet and electronic payment and collection systems is hailed by our vendors and customers, especially in this large state with sometimes slow and unpredictable mail and telephone (Internet) services. These systems assist with streamlining and ensuring timely and accurate transactions.
As we build and develop strong IT infrastructure at Denali Commission, we maintain a high level of vigilance that proper and adequate security is set in place. Our plan for IT development always includes an assessment of value to the public, avoidance of duplication and the goal of transparency and accountability.
Budget and Performance Integration
The Denali Commission, by legislation, is limited to 5% overhead/ administrative rate. So, 95% of our funds go directly into making progress toward our vision:
Alaska will have a healthy, welltrained labor force working in a diversified and sustainable economy that is supported by a fully developed and wellmaintained infrastructure.
Denali Commission has set in motion the tools to assist the staff in measuring
[[Page 29279]]
performancethe Project Database and the new accounting system. We
require our grantees to establish and meet milestones, and we publish
those on the Project Database. We set goals at an agency level for
construction projects reaching completion each year. That is the bottom
line that will improve the lives of the residents of Alaska. And we set
internal benchmarks for the quality and efficiency of services provided
to our customers. That keeps the Denali Commission staff on track in
prioritizing individuals' work time. We measure ourselves against these standards constantly and check on them as a team monthly.
Strategic Plan20052009
Challenges to Development and Economic SelfSufficiency in Alaska
Geography/ClimateThe State of Alaska encompasses twenty percent of the landmass of the United States, encompassing five (5) climatic zones from the arctic desert to moderate rain forests in the south.
IsolationApproximately 220 Alaskan communities are accessible only by air or small boat. Some village communities are separated by hundreds of miles from the nearest regional hub community or urban center. The average community is over 1,000 miles from the state capital.
UnemploymentThe economy of rural Alaska is a mix of government or governmentfunded jobs, natural resource extraction and traditional Native subsistence activities. Many rural Alaskans depend on subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering for a significant portion of their foods, but also depend on cash income to provide the means to pursue subsistence activities. Cashpaying employment opportunities in rural Alaska are scarce and are highly seasonal in many areas; unemployment rates exceed 50% in 147 communities.
High Cost and Low Standard of LivingOver 180 communities suffer from inadequate sanitation or a lack of safe drinking water. Residents face high electric costs: 61 cents per kilowatthour for electricity in a few communities (average in rural Alaska is approximately 40 cents per kilowatthour which is over 6 times the National average of 6.75 cents) even with State subsidies.
The Commission determined that the scope and scale of
infrastructure issues facing rural Alaska are staggering. Assessment of
needs and refinement of estimates will be an ongoing process. The total
of known infrastructure needs is estimated to be over $13 billion.
Training and economic development needs have not been quantified, but
the unmet needs in these areas are also believed to be quite large.
Consequently, it is imperative that efforts to address the most essential needs be both focused and strategic.
Funding category Category / class Needs ($) Total ($)
Infrastructure.......................... Housing Construction/Development 1,800,000,000
Power Utilities................. 300,800,000
Fuel Storage.................... 362,500,000
Drinking Water and Waste Water 650,000,000 Facilities.
Solid Waste Management (\1\) Facilities.
Primary Health Care Facilities.. 481,000,000
Other Health Facilities......... 514,000,000
Airport Facilities.............. 1,300,000,000
Road Construction............... 8,600,000,000
Port Facilities................. 300,000,000
Telecommunications.............. (\1\)
Community Facilities............ (\1\)
Other........................... (\1\)
Subtotal........................ ................. 13,794,300,000
Economic Development.................... Comprehensive Planning.......... (\1\)
Other........................... (\1\)
Job Training, Education, Capacity Comprehensive Planning.......... (\1\) Building.
Other........................... (\1\)
Total........................... ................. 13,794,300,000
* Supporting information for the assessed need by category is provided in Appendix A \1\ Unknown.
Goals, Objectives and Key Activities
Goal #1:
All Alaska, no matter how isolated, will have the physical
infrastructure necessary to protect health and safety and to support selfsustaining economic development.
Objectives:
1. Energy facilities (bulk fuel storage, power generation and transmission) will be constructed and upgraded at a significantly accelerated pace.
2. All Alaskans will have reasonable access to primary health care services.
3. All Alaskans will have safe drinking water and sanitary waste disposal systems.
4. All Alaskans will have reasonable access to telecommunication services comparable to those available in major urban centers at comparable costs.
5. Construction of other basic physical infrastructure including
but not limited to roads, ports, airports, and community facilities will be accelerated on a priority basis.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
[[Page 29280]]
Performance Indicators:
Goal # 2:
Local residents in Alaskan communities will have the opportunity to
acquire skills and knowledge necessary to be employed on the
construction, operation and management jobs created by publicly funded physical infrastructure in their communities.
Objectives:
1. Local residents will have access to skills and knowledge training that is necessary for employment on publicly funded physical infrastructure in their communities.
2. The Denali Commission's investment in physical infrastructure will be protected by local residents trained to operate and maintain facilities.
3. Workers from outside a community will not need to be imported to fill construction, operations and maintenance jobs necessary for publicly funded physical infrastructure.
4. Communities will benefit from the increase in earnings from local residents employed on publicly funded physical infrastructure.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
Performance Indicators:
Goal # 3:
Rural Alaskans will have access to financial and technical
resources necessary to build a cash economy to supplement the existing subsistence economy.
Objectives:
1. All Alaskans will have access to programs that provide entrepreneurial education. Technical assistance and business services will be available to entrepreneurs and business owners.
2. Entrepreneurs will have access to capital resources appropriate for their circumstances including bank loans, micro loans, BIDCO loans, venture capital, SBA loans, USDA Rural Development loans, U.S. Department of Commerce EDA loans or grants.
3. Support access to partnership funding for community based utilities, infrastructure and health delivery projects.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
Performance Indicators:
Goal # 4:
Federal and State agencies will simplify procedures, share
information, and improve coordination to enhance and improve the
efficiency of the delivery of services to Alaskans and the communities in which they reside.
Objectives:
1. The Denali Commission will limit its own administrative expenses to no more than 5% of its total budget and will ensure that all Denali Commission partners are kept to the lowest possible overhead needed to complete a project.
2. The Denali Commission will work to gain acceptance of a single community developed comprehensive plan as the basis for all Federal and State agency funding.
3. The Denali Commission will work to gain acceptance and
utilization of a single comprehensive database for information (plans and project information) for rural Alaskan communities.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
Performance Indicators:
[[Page 29281]]
Implementation Guiding Principles
Additional Guiding Principles for Infrastructure:
Additional Guiding Principles for Economic Development:
Additional Guiding Principles for Training:
Intergovernmental CoordinationThe Memorandum of Understanding:
The Denali Commission Act recognizes that our mission can only be
accomplished through a collaborative, coordinated effort by the State
of Alaska and key federal agencies. The State of Alaska also recognizes
benefits can be furthered if State agencies work in a collaborative and
coordinated effort. With this in mind, Denali Commission has drawn up a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which more than 20 agencies have
agreed to, that outlines some points of agreement that will facilitate
the collaboration and coordination necessary for achievement of the
purposes of the Denali Commission and related missions of agencies who are parties to the MOU.
The points of the MOU are:
Organizations. Nonprofit and other organizations in Alaska are a valuable resource for State and Federal Agencies. They provide regional planning, program support and partnering opportunities
Power Utilities
Need: $300.8 million.
Annual Funding: Denali Commission to establish.
Source: AEA Assessment, 2000.
Background: 178 communities were surveyed by the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) which was completed in 2000. The total need for power utilities which includes power plant construction,
rehabilitation, distribution, and cost reduction projects totals
$300.8 million. The information presented below is separated by
needs of communities that are part of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) and all other remote communities.
AVEC
$76,000,000Power Plant Construction and Rehabilitation
$18,000,000Wind Power Generation Projects
$1,800,000Other Power Distribution
Total AVEC: $93,800,000
Other Communities
$131,000,000Power Plant Construction and Rehabilitation
$20,000,000Power Distribution Construction and Rehabilitation $56,000,000Energy Cost Reduction Projects *
Total for other communities: $207,000,000
Based upon current and projected funding, AEA anticipates
completing the program of upgrading projects for communities outside of AVEC by 2015.
* Energy Cost Reduction Projects include: Alternative Energy
Projects (Wind $30 million and Hydro $20 million) and Energy Efficiency Upgrades $6 million.
Bulk Fuel Storage
Need: $362.5 million.
Annual Funding: $55 to 65 million Denali Commission Funding.
Source: AEA Assessment, 2000.
Background: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) initiated an assessment of bulk fuel
[[Page 29282]]
tank farms in rural Alaska communities in 1996. This assessment was
completed in 2000. In September 2003, staff was requested to
undertake an analysis of what it would take to complete the bulk
fuel program in four more years of funding for the remaining
communities in the AEA assessment. For Federal Fiscal Years 1999
through 2003, the Commission allocated $97.5 million to bulk fuel
projects. Thirty three bulk fuel facilities have been completed with
at least partial Commission funding. Another 13 fuel facilities are
in construction, and 53 projects have received some level of design
funding. AEA is responsible for 141 projects while the Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) has assumed responsibility for
51 communities under construction agreements between the Commission
and AVEC. To date (including the 2003 construction season), AEA has
upgraded 9,500,000 gallons of capacity and has projected that
11,000,000 of capacity remain to be upgraded. AVEC has completed 2.5
million gallons of fuel facility upgrades and has projected another
15.9 million gallons remain to be upgraded. The average project size
AEA has undertaken is decreasing in size from an average of
$2,100,000 in 2001 to a projected cost of $1,700,000 in 2004. The average cost of upgrading since 2001 (including the 2003
Construction Season) is approximately $15.00 per gallon. It was not
anticipated that this cost would increase over the next few years,
however there has recently been a 50% increase in the cost of steel,
so material costs are rising. AVEC projects tend to be larger, more
expensive projects than AEA projects. , since they are generally in larger communities.
The four year funding plan for bulk fuel indicates a need for $50 to $55 million for bulk fuel in FY04, and $55 to $65 million a year for the following three years, if projects are completed under our current standards and practices. This aggressive funding plan would result in completion of the known bulk fuel upgrade needs by the end of 2010
Water and Wastewater
Need: Current need: $650 million (FY 02 estimate for Alaska Natives only). (Funded Fiscal years 19602002: $1.33 billion)
Annual Funding: There are six existing primary funding sources
for developing and improving water and wastewater facilities in
rural Alaska. Those sources and the amounts contributed in federal fiscal year 2002 are shown below.
U.S. Public Health ServiceIndian Health Service....... $17,863,000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water 3,958,200 Tribal SetAside.......................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Tribal 7,053,100 SetAside..............................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Infrastructure 36,494,500 Grant..................................................
U.S. Department of AgricultureRural Development....... 23,120,000
State of Alaska, Village Safe Water..................... 19,873,370
Total............................................... 108,362,170
While these amounts vary from year to year, the annual average for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 is $85.7 million. The trend has been towards increased funding levels.
Background: Assistance in developing water and wastewater
facilities in rural Alaska is provided to communities through two
programs. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) is the
organization responsible for administering Indian Health Service,
and EPA Indian SetAside sanitation construction funds in Alaska.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's Village Safe Water (VSW) program is the organization responsible for
administering sanitation construction funds provided by the State, EPA (nonTribal SetAside), and the USDARural Development.
Both ANTHC and VSW work with rural communities to plan design and construct sanitation systems. ANTHC and VSW have developed a close working relationship despite the relative recent transfer of the sanitation program from IHS to ANTHC in October 1998. The priority funding lists of both organizations are coordinated and generally complement each other. ANTHC predominately works in Alaska communities with Nativeowned homes, whereas VSW works in all rural communities (Native and nonNative). A lead agency is designated for each community receiving assistance. Lead agencies typically have responsibility for administering all State and Federal funding in the community.
Existing funding streams and programs are making progress towards satisfying the overall need for sanitation facilities in rural Alaska. An estimated remaining need of $650 million and a current funding level of $108 million combine to suggest a 6year timeframe for meeting the need.
The Denali Commission has not targeted water and wastewater improvements as a major initiative for infrastructure funding due to the level of funding and effort already underway in this sector of critical infrastructure. However, the Commission is involved in improving planning and interagency coordination.
Primary Health Care Facilities
Identified Need: $145 Million from the Commission to fully address clinic needs.
Annual Funding: Typically $25 to 30 million.
Source: Annual funding is a mixture of Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) funding and Denali Commission funding.
Background: It is estimated that funding of $220 million will be
needed in order to address the expected demand for primary care clinics after the FY2004 funding cycle. At current match
requirements, the Denali Commission estimated funding requirement will be $145 million.
The Commission has adopted a 7Year plan for development of primary care clinics based upon annual funding cycles of $25 to $30 million. With this sustained funding level the Commission and its partners should be able to build or renovate a primary care clinic in every community in Alaska that wants such a facility and can demonstrate that clinic and the services are sustainable for 30 years. The Commission is beginning Year 3 of the plan with a goal to discontinue funding in FY2009 for primary care clinics except for expansions due to medical equipment upgrades and some renovations. ``Other Than'' Primary Health Care Facilities
Identified Need: New Hospitals$322,000,000 Expansion of
existing Hospitals$130,000,000 Expansion of Behavioral Health Facilities$62,000,000
Annual Funding: Typically $6 million.
Source: Annual funding is a mixture of Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) funding and Denali Commission Base funding.
Background: The estimated need for ``Other Than'' Primary Health
Facilities which includes Hospitals, and Behavioral Health
Facilities comes from the Denali Commission's April 16, 2003 White
Paper on Expanding the Commission's Primary Care Program which can
be found at the following link: http://www.denali.gov/Health Care/
ProgramDocuments/White PaperPotential for Expanding the Denali
Commission Primary Care Program to Other Types of Health Care Facilities.pdf
Airport Facilities
Need: $1.3 billion.
Annual Funding: $6590 million.
Source: Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska (November 2002) and Transportation Investment Analysis (Spring 2002), published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).
Background: Alaska's extensive aviation system plays a crucial role in the movement of people and goods throughout the state. In many parts of rural Alaska, aviation serves as the principal link between communities. There are 1,112 designated airports, seaplane bases, and aircraft landing areas in the State of Alaska. The ADOT&PF owns and operates 261 public airports, the majority of Alaska's public airports. 23 public airports are owned and operated by local governments.
Nearly all of Alaska's airport capital improvements rely on
funding from the Federal Aviation Trust Fund. This fund, supported
by Federal taxes on airline tickets, cargo, and fuel, supplies
monies for capital improvements through the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP), which is authorized for funding on an annual basis.
In recent years, AIP entitlement funds for Alaska's airports varied
from approximately $65 million to $90 million annually. The State or
local sponsor is required to contribute 6.25% in the form of match. The current AIP authorizing legislation expires on
[[Page 29283]]
September 30, 2003, and at this time, it is unknown what changes Congress may incorporate into the AIP legislation.
Road Construction and Major Maintenance
Need: $8.6 billion.
Annual Funding: $260350 million.
Source: Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska (November 2002) and Transportation Investment Analysis (Spring 2002), published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).
Background: Improved surface transportation can have many positive effects including lowering costs for goods and services, improving village to village interaction, and allowing for State and Federal investments in schools, clinics, airports, harbors, and tank farms to serve more communities per project. Because of its vast geographic expanse and young age as a state, Alaska continues to require significant resources for transportation improvements.
The list of unmet surface transportation needs in Alaska is about 1,950 projects with a total estimated cost approximating $8.6 billion. The primary funding source for surface transportation projects in Alaska is federalaid highway funding, which flows through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). State funds are required to match these Federal funds; for most highway projects, the Federal ratio is 91 percent.
The State of Alaska administers most of the FHWA funding allocated to Alaska with the exception of money specifically designated for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which currently amounts to approximately $17 million per year. One important distinction between FHWA and BIA funding for roads is the longterm maintenance obligation. Under FHWA, the recipient is responsible for maintenance in perpetuity, with no Federal support for this activity. Under the BIA funding system, such roads are then added to the Indian Reservation Road system (IRR) and are eligible for a share of a national pot of money allocated to maintenance of IRR roads.
Through the recent TEA21 era, average funding levels have been
approximately $350 million per year, up substantially from the
approximately $220 million under ISTEA (19911997). Most FHWA
funding received by the State stays in larger autodependent
communities, with some funding going to rural communities largely
for sanitation roads and trail markings. Funding for projects off
the road system goes primarily to the larger hub communities. Port Facilities
Need: $300 million.
Annual Funding: $7 to 15 million.
Source: Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska (November 2002) and Transportation Investment Analysis (Spring 2002), published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).
Background: With over 30,000 miles of shoreline, relatively few roads, and 90 percent of the state's population living within ten miles of the coast or along a major river, Alaska's marine facilities are integral to the local, statewide, and international transportation of goods and people.
Ports and harbors have no federal capital assistance program
comparably to the highway and airport funding programs. Federal
funds for ports and harbors come through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps distributes funding on a nationally
competitive, projectbyproject basis. State and local communities
in Alaska have been awarded between $7 and 15 million annually in
federal funding for all Corps of Engineers programs in recent years.
For construction, the Corps requires between 20 and 35 percent match
for projects such as dredging basins, docks, floats, grids, and
upland facilities. Though not a dedicated funding source, the Marine
Users Fuel Tax is the traditional foundation of small boat harbor
improvements in the State, and general obligation bonds have been the foundation of State assisted port development.
Telecommunications
Need: Unknown.
Annual Funding: $15m in FY03 and FY 04 funding for Regulatory Commission of Alaska's Rural Broadband Internet Grant Program. Several other funding support mechanisms including Universal Service Fund also exist.
Background: In January 2001, the Denali Commission, in
partnership with the State of Alaska, completed an inventory of
available telecommunication services in rural Alaska. Among other
findings, the inventory found that 61% of all Alaskan communities do
not have access to local dialup Internet service. This identified
need is being addressed through the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska's Rural Broadband Internet Grant Program, Telecommunications
Industry investment resulting in expansion of Internet offerings in most rural communities in the next 13 years.
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Need: Unknown.
Annual Funding: Generally less than $1,000,000.
Background: Solid waste disposal is a necessity for all rural
Alaska communities as it is for every community in the country.
Observation would indicate that the majority of rural Alaska communities do not have facilities that meet basic legal
requirements for solid waste disposal. The Denali Commission
received $1 million in FY 04 funding from USDA for the development
of solid waste facilities in rural Alaska. Development of this
innovative program and identification of projects is ongoing. 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.
Appendix B: Program Principles Supporting Information
Rural Infrastructure Development
In the evolution of the Denali Commission and its approach to
infrastructure development some principles have been established. These include the following:
infrastructure theme. That priority was continued in FY00, and is expected to continue in FY01 and beyond. In FY00 rural health care facilities were selected as the second infrastructure theme. Other themes may be selected in future years.
organizations will foster the development of a system. This is illustrated by the Commission's efforts in partnership with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, the Indian Health Service, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to develop a prioritization methodology for primary health care facilities.
telecommunications, and rural primary health care facilities are examples of assessments that were initiated in conjunction with interested State and Federal agencies in the Commission's first year.
[[Page 29284]]
with all applicable local, State and Federal laws in carrying out Commission funded programs/projects. For example, the partner must address NEPA and OSHA regulations, Federal auditing requirements, competitive procurement issues and so forth. As a result, the Commission will look to partners who have demonstrated both administrative and program/project management success.
management.
Rural Energy Approach
AEA has employed a twostep approach to bulk fuel project funding that is strongly supported by the Commission. Starting at the top of the AEA priority list, projects are provided 35% design funds one or more years before being eligible for capital funding. This allows for more accurate project cost estimates, resolution of easement and land issues, development of agreements between various local parties in site selection and tank farm ownership/maintenance. This step also serves to filter projects that are not ready for construction, for one reason or another, from advancing to the second step of project funding. This twostep approach ensures that funding does not sit unused by projects that are not ready for construction. Once a project has resolved any obstacles at the 35% design stage, then they are eligible for capital funding.
AEA will reevaluate its priority list from time to time in order to factor in new information, particularly information from the statewide energy strategy. This reevaluation may result in some modification of the list. Funding priorities will also be subject to ``readiness to proceed'' considerations as described in part above. Rural Primary Care Facilities Approach
In the past, communities constructed clinics based upon available grant funds (typically community development block grants of $200,000 to $500,000). Consequently clinic square footage was based upon available funding and not necessarily upon health care delivery service appropriate for the population and demographics of the community. Many clinics are therefore undersized. In FY99 the Commission allocated $300,000 to undertake a needs assessment for rural primary care facilities. The needs assessment was completed in October 2000 and included a database of primary health care facility needs statewide as well as a project prioritization methodology. The Commission's investments in rural health facilities is based on this needs assessment.
Job Training Strategy
The Commission realizes that proper and prudent investment in public infrastructure must include a component for training local residents to maintain and operate publicly funded infrastructure. The Commission further realizes that through its investment in public infrastructure, such as bulk fuel storage facilities, it is creating numerous jobs related to the construction of these facilities and must develop a strategy to ensure local residents are properly trained to receive these jobs.
The Denali Commission's Training Strategy creates a statewide system to increase the local employment rates in Alaskan communities through the development of skills necessary to construct, maintain, and operate public infrastructure.
The Commission has approved 10% of the FY00FY03 funding for implementation of the Training Strategy. In FY04 the Commission received appropriation direction for funding from the U.S. Department of Labor. Through this funding the Commission ensures local residents are employed on public facility construction projects in their communities, while also protecting the Denali Commission's investment in infrastructure by ensuring local residents are properly trained in the operations and maintenance of completed facilities.
The Denali Commission's Training Strategy involves several components that create a statewide system for job training outreach, coordination and delivery in rural Alaska. The Commission has partnered with several statewide organizations that will perform the necessary functions that make up the Denali Commission's Training Strategy.
The Training Strategy provides the Denali Commission the flexibility for future investment in job training needs statewide. Currently the Commission's partners and the Denali Training Fund are focusing on jobs created by the construction of energy and health related projects. In the future, t
SUMMARY: Five-year strategic plan; work plan (2005 FY),
DOCUMENT BODY 2: Introduction
The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (Title III, Pub. L. 105277, 42
U.S.C. 3121) created a StateFederal partnership to address crucial
needs of rural Alaskan communities, particularly isolated Native
villages and other communities lacking access to the national highway system, affordable power, adequate health facilities and
[[Page 29276]]
other impediments to economic self sufficiency. Guided by five
Commissioners representing statewide nongovernmental organizations,
the unprecedented results to date testify to the efficacy of inter
agency teamwork, effective training, and the setting of high
sustainability standards by those closest to the problems at hand. The
Commission is a highly effective catalyst for enhanced collaboration
among Federal, State, tribal and local governments as well as private
sector, nonprofit and other interests. The over arching goal of
enabling economic self sufficiency is based on effective community comprehensive planning, and regional support.
This document will guide the reader through:
Purpose of the Commission
The Denali Commission Act of 1998, as amended (Division C, Title III, Pub. L. 105277) 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 communication systems, bulk fuel storage tanks, water and sewer systems and other infrastructure needs. Vision
Alaska will have a healthy welltrained labor force working in a diversified and sustainable economy that is supported by a fully developed and wellmaintained infrastructure.
Mission
The Denali Commission will partner with tribal, Federal, State, and local governments and collaborate with all Alaskans to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government services, to develop a well trained labor force employed in a diversified and sustainable economy, and to build and ensure the operation and maintenance of Alaska's basic infrastructure.
Values
Catalyst For Positive ChangeThe Commission will be an organization through which agencies of government, including Tribal governments, may collaborate, guided by the people of Alaska, to aggressively do the right things in the right ways.
Respect For People and CulturesThe Commission will be guided by the people of Alaska in seeking to preserve the principles of self determination, respect for diversity, and consideration of the rights of individuals.
InclusiveThe Commission will provide the opportunity for all interested parties to participate in decisionmaking and carefully reflect their input in the design, selection, and implementation of programs and projects.
SustainabilityThe Commission will promote programs and projects that meet the current needs of communities and provide for the anticipated needs of future generations.
AccountabilityThe Commission will set measurable standards of effectiveness and efficiency for both internal and external activities. Goals
The goals generated by the strategic planning process define conditions that must be created to realize the Denali Commission Vision.
1. All Alaska, no matter how isolated, will have the physical infrastructure necessary to protect health and safety and to support selfsustaining economic development.
2. Local residents in Alaskan communities will be provided the opportunity to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to be employed on the construction, operation and management jobs created by publicly funded physical infrastructure in their communities.
3. Alaskans will have access to financial and technical resources necessary to build a cash economy to supplement the existing subsistence economy.
4. Federal and State agencies will simplify procedures, share
information, and improve coordination to ensure equitable delivery of services to all Alaskan communities.
Implementation Guiding Principles
Additional Guiding Principles for Infrastructure:
Additional Guiding Principles for Economic Development:
[[Page 29277]]
Additional Guiding Principles for Training:
Intergovernmental CoordinationThe Memorandum of Understanding:
The Denali Commission Act recognizes that our mission can be
accomplished only through a collaborative, coordinated effort by the
State of Alaska and key Federal agencies. The State of Alaska also
recognizes benefits can be furthered if State agencies work in a
collaborative and coordinated effort. With this in mind, Denali
Commission has drawn up a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which more
than 20 agencies have agreed to, that outlines some points of agreement
that will facilitate the collaboration and coordination necessary for
achievement of the purposes of the Denali Commission and related missions of agencies who are parties to the MOU.
The points of the MOU are
Organizations. Nonprofit and other organizations in Alaska are a valuable resource for State and Federal Agencies. They provide regional planning, program support and partnering opportunities
The Commission has determined that the scope and scale of infrastructure issues facing rural Alaska are staggering. The total of known basic infrastructure needs for Alaskan communities is estimated to be over $13 billion. These infrastructure needs include:
Housing Construction/Development
Multiuse Facilities
Power Utilities
Fuel Storage
Drinking Water and Waste Water Facilities
Solid Waste Management Facilities
Health Care Facilities
Airport Facilities
Road and Trail Construction
Port, Dock and Other Marine Facilities
Telecommunications
Community Facilities
Comprehensive Planning
Comprehensive Planning
In Fiscal Year 2005, the Denali Commission will continue to collaborate with other funding agencies and with all impacted and interested parties to address identified needs on a priority basis. In addition to FY05 appropriated funds of $2.5 million the Commission expects to receive approximately $3.8 million in interest from the Trans Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund and $22 million from the Department of Health & Human Services.
Prioritization of Projects for FY 2005
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, was selected as the Commission's top priority for infrastructure funding. Primary health care facilities were identified as the second infrastructure theme for the Commission beginning in FY00. These two themes will continue to be the top priorities for infrastructure funds through FY05, and the Commission, consistent with Congressional intent, may add one or more additional themes.
For planning purposes, the Commission has allocated a total of $28,300,000 using the Commission's approved formula for FY05: FY05 projected TAPL interest TAPL & FY05 funding funds combined Bulk Fuel.............................................. ................. $3,610,000 $3,610,000 Health Clinics......................................... $20,900,000 ................. 20,900,000 Operations............................................. 3,600,000 190,000 3,790,000
Total.............................................. 24,500,000 3,800,000 28,300,000
In accordance with the Denali Commission Code, Administrative funds (5%) are solely the responsibility of the Federal CoChair. Allocation of the balance of funds (95%) will be made by the full Denali Commission, utilizing the guiding principles previously outlined in this document, and priority systems designed specifically for each budget category.
Project implementation will generally be accomplished through State, local or Federal government entities, regulated utilities, or nonprofit organizations. It shall be the responsibility of all such implementing organizations to comply with all applicable laws. Any special requirements will be articulated in the funding agreement between the Denali Commission and the funding recipient. The MOU will serve to guide intergovernmental coordination and collaboration among agencies.
Projects resulting from funding of infrastructure themes generally
are consistent with high priorities identified in community plans. The
existence of community plans greatly facilitates the location, design,
and completion of infrastructure projects within a community. Performance Indicators for FY 2005
Energy:
[[Page 29278]]
rural Alaska by renovating or building a bulk fuel storage facility in 2 communities.
Health Care:
Financial and Technical Resources:
Government Coordination:
Work Toward the President's Management Agenda
President George W. Bush has set forth a strategy to improve
management of the Federal government through governmentwide goals in five mutually reinforcing areas:
Human Capital
Competitive Sourcing
Improved Financial Management
Expanded eGovernment
Budget and Performance Integration
The Denali Commission is making progress in these strategic areas in the following ways.
Human Capital
The Denali Commission attempts to be innovative in its recruitment and retention of staff. With a small permanent staff and ``onloan'' staff from partner agencies and organizations, the Denali Commission has a flat organization chart, making it simple for customers to reach the staff they need to and get the answers they require, through electronic messaging, telephone, or inperson.
An additional advantage of a small organization is the ease of managing the accurate measurement and appropriate rewarding of staff for performance. Denali Commission utilizes many human capital investmentoriented strategies for retaining qualified and effective staff, such as preventive health programs, and appropriate training. Competitive Sourcing
As a very small agency headquarters, Denali Commission is highly motivated, by necessity, to comply with this initiative. Although formal assessments have not been carried out on the competitive sourcing opportunities, Denali Commission regularly utilizes contractors and private enterprise for many of our tasks. Examples include development of innovative database and accounting systems, computer maintenance, and document scanning services.
Improved Financial Management
Five of the Denali Commission permanent staff are responsible for all operations and finance. Limited to 5% overhead, the agency has, and will continue to, enthusiastically participate and pursue automation and forwardthinking technology whenever possible. Through advances in technology, we will continue to realize internal efficiencies and increases in effectiveness.
To keep pace with the GovernmentWideAccounting (GWA) initiative, a new accounting system was developed in FY 04. The Commission utilizes the Veterans Affairs (VA) Financial Services Enterprise Center as consultants on this project. This accounting system maintains the highest quality of accuracy in reporting to OMB, Congress and the public.
Staff are working in conjunction with other Federal agencies to accomplish automation to the extent feasible, with Federal Treasury payment and collection systems (IPAC, ASAP and SPS). We are currently a pilot test site for the Internet Payment Platform (IPP) which is being developed by Treasury for the efficient and timely payment of vendors. Expanded EGovernment
Denali Commission is committed to managing our projects more
effectively and more transparently to partners, customers and the
public. The Denali Commission Project Database is a significant step in
this direction. The Denali Commission Project Database, now operational
on our Web site, is an initiative that permeates several of the five
strategic areas of the President's Management Agenda. To enhance
project management and information sharing with our partners and the
public, Denali Commission has developed an Internetbased database of
all Commission projects. This tool is for tracking and managing Denali
Commission and partner project data. The database is built to provide
information that is easy to use, has the highest degree of integrity
and maintainability, and is accessible for all interested parties. In
keeping with the Denali Commission mission, the system allows for
collaboration to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government
services. Within the database, managers and grantees perform online
reporting; provide project financial information, project photos and
other information on all Commission funded projects. Also available
within the database are priority lists of projects yet to be funded in
communities across Alaska. Across the State of Alaska, Federal, State and local entities (including regional nonprofits, health
corporations, and tribal governments) share a vision for developing a
shared, central database (or portal) to further improve the transparency of government.
Denali Commission now has an active link to our agency Web site located on http://www.FirstGov.gov to help citizens find information and obtain services from that central location. We are working to place Denali Commission grant opportunities on the http://www.Grants.gov Web site as well. Additional eGovernment projects that Denali Commission is monitoring and will participate in include eTravel and e Authentication. To maximize IT partnerships (and coordination) with other federal agencies, Denali Commission works with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of the Interior (DOI) to support our local computer network.
Our commitment to internet and electronic payment and collection systems is hailed by our vendors and customers, especially in this large state with sometimes slow and unpredictable mail and telephone (Internet) services. These systems assist with streamlining and ensuring timely and accurate transactions.
As we build and develop strong IT infrastructure at Denali Commission, we maintain a high level of vigilance that proper and adequate security is set in place. Our plan for IT development always includes an assessment of value to the public, avoidance of duplication and the goal of transparency and accountability.
Budget and Performance Integration
The Denali Commission, by legislation, is limited to 5% overhead/ administrative rate. So, 95% of our funds go directly into making progress toward our vision:
Alaska will have a healthy, welltrained labor force working in a diversified and sustainable economy that is supported by a fully developed and wellmaintained infrastructure.
Denali Commission has set in motion the tools to assist the staff in measuring
[[Page 29279]]
performancethe Project Database and the new accounting system. We
require our grantees to establish and meet milestones, and we publish
those on the Project Database. We set goals at an agency level for
construction projects reaching completion each year. That is the bottom
line that will improve the lives of the residents of Alaska. And we set
internal benchmarks for the quality and efficiency of services provided
to our customers. That keeps the Denali Commission staff on track in
prioritizing individuals' work time. We measure ourselves against these standards constantly and check on them as a team monthly.
Strategic Plan20052009
Challenges to Development and Economic SelfSufficiency in Alaska
Geography/ClimateThe State of Alaska encompasses twenty percent of the landmass of the United States, encompassing five (5) climatic zones from the arctic desert to moderate rain forests in the south.
IsolationApproximately 220 Alaskan communities are accessible only by air or small boat. Some village communities are separated by hundreds of miles from the nearest regional hub community or urban center. The average community is over 1,000 miles from the state capital.
UnemploymentThe economy of rural Alaska is a mix of government or governmentfunded jobs, natural resource extraction and traditional Native subsistence activities. Many rural Alaskans depend on subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering for a significant portion of their foods, but also depend on cash income to provide the means to pursue subsistence activities. Cashpaying employment opportunities in rural Alaska are scarce and are highly seasonal in many areas; unemployment rates exceed 50% in 147 communities.
High Cost and Low Standard of LivingOver 180 communities suffer from inadequate sanitation or a lack of safe drinking water. Residents face high electric costs: 61 cents per kilowatthour for electricity in a few communities (average in rural Alaska is approximately 40 cents per kilowatthour which is over 6 times the National average of 6.75 cents) even with State subsidies.
The Commission determined that the scope and scale of
infrastructure issues facing rural Alaska are staggering. Assessment of
needs and refinement of estimates will be an ongoing process. The total
of known infrastructure needs is estimated to be over $13 billion.
Training and economic development needs have not been quantified, but
the unmet needs in these areas are also believed to be quite large.
Consequently, it is imperative that efforts to address the most essential needs be both focused and strategic.
Funding category Category / class Needs ($) Total ($)
Infrastructure.......................... Housing Construction/Development 1,800,000,000
Power Utilities................. 300,800,000
Fuel Storage.................... 362,500,000
Drinking Water and Waste Water 650,000,000 Facilities.
Solid Waste Management (\1\) Facilities.
Primary Health Care Facilities.. 481,000,000
Other Health Facilities......... 514,000,000
Airport Facilities.............. 1,300,000,000
Road Construction............... 8,600,000,000
Port Facilities................. 300,000,000
Telecommunications.............. (\1\)
Community Facilities............ (\1\)
Other........................... (\1\)
Subtotal........................ ................. 13,794,300,000
Economic Development.................... Comprehensive Planning.......... (\1\)
Other........................... (\1\)
Job Training, Education, Capacity Comprehensive Planning.......... (\1\) Building.
Other........................... (\1\)
Total........................... ................. 13,794,300,000
* Supporting information for the assessed need by category is provided in Appendix A \1\ Unknown.
Goals, Objectives and Key Activities
Goal #1:
All Alaska, no matter how isolated, will have the physical
infrastructure necessary to protect health and safety and to support selfsustaining economic development.
Objectives:
1. Energy facilities (bulk fuel storage, power generation and transmission) will be constructed and upgraded at a significantly accelerated pace.
2. All Alaskans will have reasonable access to primary health care services.
3. All Alaskans will have safe drinking water and sanitary waste disposal systems.
4. All Alaskans will have reasonable access to telecommunication services comparable to those available in major urban centers at comparable costs.
5. Construction of other basic physical infrastructure including
but not limited to roads, ports, airports, and community facilities will be accelerated on a priority basis.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
[[Page 29280]]
Performance Indicators:
Goal # 2:
Local residents in Alaskan communities will have the opportunity to
acquire skills and knowledge necessary to be employed on the
construction, operation and management jobs created by publicly funded physical infrastructure in their communities.
Objectives:
1. Local residents will have access to skills and knowledge training that is necessary for employment on publicly funded physical infrastructure in their communities.
2. The Denali Commission's investment in physical infrastructure will be protected by local residents trained to operate and maintain facilities.
3. Workers from outside a community will not need to be imported to fill construction, operations and maintenance jobs necessary for publicly funded physical infrastructure.
4. Communities will benefit from the increase in earnings from local residents employed on publicly funded physical infrastructure.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
Performance Indicators:
Goal # 3:
Rural Alaskans will have access to financial and technical
resources necessary to build a cash economy to supplement the existing subsistence economy.
Objectives:
1. All Alaskans will have access to programs that provide entrepreneurial education. Technical assistance and business services will be available to entrepreneurs and business owners.
2. Entrepreneurs will have access to capital resources appropriate for their circumstances including bank loans, micro loans, BIDCO loans, venture capital, SBA loans, USDA Rural Development loans, U.S. Department of Commerce EDA loans or grants.
3. Support access to partnership funding for community based utilities, infrastructure and health delivery projects.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
Performance Indicators:
Goal # 4:
Federal and State agencies will simplify procedures, share
information, and improve coordination to enhance and improve the
efficiency of the delivery of services to Alaskans and the communities in which they reside.
Objectives:
1. The Denali Commission will limit its own administrative expenses to no more than 5% of its total budget and will ensure that all Denali Commission partners are kept to the lowest possible overhead needed to complete a project.
2. The Denali Commission will work to gain acceptance of a single community developed comprehensive plan as the basis for all Federal and State agency funding.
3. The Denali Commission will work to gain acceptance and
utilization of a single comprehensive database for information (plans and project information) for rural Alaskan communities.
Key Activities to Achieve Goals and Objectives:
Performance Indicators:
[[Page 29281]]
Implementation Guiding Principles
Additional Guiding Principles for Infrastructure:
Additional Guiding Principles for Economic Development:
Additional Guiding Principles for Training:
Intergovernmental CoordinationThe Memorandum of Understanding:
The Denali Commission Act recognizes that our mission can only be
accomplished through a collaborative, coordinated effort by the State
of Alaska and key federal agencies. The State of Alaska also recognizes
benefits can be furthered if State agencies work in a collaborative and
coordinated effort. With this in mind, Denali Commission has drawn up a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which more than 20 agencies have
agreed to, that outlines some points of agreement that will facilitate
the collaboration and coordination necessary for achievement of the
purposes of the Denali Commission and related missions of agencies who are parties to the MOU.
The points of the MOU are:
Organizations. Nonprofit and other organizations in Alaska are a valuable resource for State and Federal Agencies. They provide regional planning, program support and partnering opportunities
Power Utilities
Need: $300.8 million.
Annual Funding: Denali Commission to establish.
Source: AEA Assessment, 2000.
Background: 178 communities were surveyed by the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) which was completed in 2000. The total need for power utilities which includes power plant construction,
rehabilitation, distribution, and cost reduction projects totals
$300.8 million. The information presented below is separated by
needs of communities that are part of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) and all other remote communities.
AVEC
$76,000,000Power Plant Construction and Rehabilitation
$18,000,000Wind Power Generation Projects
$1,800,000Other Power Distribution
Total AVEC: $93,800,000
Other Communities
$131,000,000Power Plant Construction and Rehabilitation
$20,000,000Power Distribution Construction and Rehabilitation $56,000,000Energy Cost Reduction Projects *
Total for other communities: $207,000,000
Based upon current and projected funding, AEA anticipates
completing the program of upgrading projects for communities outside of AVEC by 2015.
* Energy Cost Reduction Projects include: Alternative Energy
Projects (Wind $30 million and Hydro $20 million) and Energy Efficiency Upgrades $6 million.
Bulk Fuel Storage
Need: $362.5 million.
Annual Funding: $55 to 65 million Denali Commission Funding.
Source: AEA Assessment, 2000.
Background: The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) initiated an assessment of bulk fuel
[[Page 29282]]
tank farms in rural Alaska communities in 1996. This assessment was
completed in 2000. In September 2003, staff was requested to
undertake an analysis of what it would take to complete the bulk
fuel program in four more years of funding for the remaining
communities in the AEA assessment. For Federal Fiscal Years 1999
through 2003, the Commission allocated $97.5 million to bulk fuel
projects. Thirty three bulk fuel facilities have been completed with
at least partial Commission funding. Another 13 fuel facilities are
in construction, and 53 projects have received some level of design
funding. AEA is responsible for 141 projects while the Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) has assumed responsibility for
51 communities under construction agreements between the Commission
and AVEC. To date (including the 2003 construction season), AEA has
upgraded 9,500,000 gallons of capacity and has projected that
11,000,000 of capacity remain to be upgraded. AVEC has completed 2.5
million gallons of fuel facility upgrades and has projected another
15.9 million gallons remain to be upgraded. The average project size
AEA has undertaken is decreasing in size from an average of
$2,100,000 in 2001 to a projected cost of $1,700,000 in 2004. The average cost of upgrading since 2001 (including the 2003
Construction Season) is approximately $15.00 per gallon. It was not
anticipated that this cost would increase over the next few years,
however there has recently been a 50% increase in the cost of steel,
so material costs are rising. AVEC projects tend to be larger, more
expensive projects than AEA projects. , since they are generally in larger communities.
The four year funding plan for bulk fuel indicates a need for $50 to $55 million for bulk fuel in FY04, and $55 to $65 million a year for the following three years, if projects are completed under our current standards and practices. This aggressive funding plan would result in completion of the known bulk fuel upgrade needs by the end of 2010
Water and Wastewater
Need: Current need: $650 million (FY 02 estimate for Alaska Natives only). (Funded Fiscal years 19602002: $1.33 billion)
Annual Funding: There are six existing primary funding sources
for developing and improving water and wastewater facilities in
rural Alaska. Those sources and the amounts contributed in federal fiscal year 2002 are shown below.
U.S. Public Health ServiceIndian Health Service....... $17,863,000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water 3,958,200 Tribal SetAside.......................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Tribal 7,053,100 SetAside..............................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Infrastructure 36,494,500 Grant..................................................
U.S. Department of AgricultureRural Development....... 23,120,000
State of Alaska, Village Safe Water..................... 19,873,370
Total............................................... 108,362,170
While these amounts vary from year to year, the annual average for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 is $85.7 million. The trend has been towards increased funding levels.
Background: Assistance in developing water and wastewater
facilities in rural Alaska is provided to communities through two
programs. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) is the
organization responsible for administering Indian Health Service,
and EPA Indian SetAside sanitation construction funds in Alaska.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's Village Safe Water (VSW) program is the organization responsible for
administering sanitation construction funds provided by the State, EPA (nonTribal SetAside), and the USDARural Development.
Both ANTHC and VSW work with rural communities to plan design and construct sanitation systems. ANTHC and VSW have developed a close working relationship despite the relative recent transfer of the sanitation program from IHS to ANTHC in October 1998. The priority funding lists of both organizations are coordinated and generally complement each other. ANTHC predominately works in Alaska communities with Nativeowned homes, whereas VSW works in all rural communities (Native and nonNative). A lead agency is designated for each community receiving assistance. Lead agencies typically have responsibility for administering all State and Federal funding in the community.
Existing funding streams and programs are making progress towards satisfying the overall need for sanitation facilities in rural Alaska. An estimated remaining need of $650 million and a current funding level of $108 million combine to suggest a 6year timeframe for meeting the need.
The Denali Commission has not targeted water and wastewater improvements as a major initiative for infrastructure funding due to the level of funding and effort already underway in this sector of critical infrastructure. However, the Commission is involved in improving planning and interagency coordination.
Primary Health Care Facilities
Identified Need: $145 Million from the Commission to fully address clinic needs.
Annual Funding: Typically $25 to 30 million.
Source: Annual funding is a mixture of Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) funding and Denali Commission funding.
Background: It is estimated that funding of $220 million will be
needed in order to address the expected demand for primary care clinics after the FY2004 funding cycle. At current match
requirements, the Denali Commission estimated funding requirement will be $145 million.
The Commission has adopted a 7Year plan for development of primary care clinics based upon annual funding cycles of $25 to $30 million. With this sustained funding level the Commission and its partners should be able to build or renovate a primary care clinic in every community in Alaska that wants such a facility and can demonstrate that clinic and the services are sustainable for 30 years. The Commission is beginning Year 3 of the plan with a goal to discontinue funding in FY2009 for primary care clinics except for expansions due to medical equipment upgrades and some renovations. ``Other Than'' Primary Health Care Facilities
Identified Need: New Hospitals$322,000,000 Expansion of
existing Hospitals$130,000,000 Expansion of Behavioral Health Facilities$62,000,000
Annual Funding: Typically $6 million.
Source: Annual funding is a mixture of Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA) funding and Denali Commission Base funding.
Background: The estimated need for ``Other Than'' Primary Health
Facilities which includes Hospitals, and Behavioral Health
Facilities comes from the Denali Commission's April 16, 2003 White
Paper on Expanding the Commission's Primary Care Program which can
be found at the following link: http://www.denali.gov/Health Care/
ProgramDocuments/White PaperPotential for Expanding the Denali
Commission Primary Care Program to Other Types of Health Care Facilities.pdf
Airport Facilities
Need: $1.3 billion.
Annual Funding: $6590 million.
Source: Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska (November 2002) and Transportation Investment Analysis (Spring 2002), published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).
Background: Alaska's extensive aviation system plays a crucial role in the movement of people and goods throughout the state. In many parts of rural Alaska, aviation serves as the principal link between communities. There are 1,112 designated airports, seaplane bases, and aircraft landing areas in the State of Alaska. The ADOT&PF owns and operates 261 public airports, the majority of Alaska's public airports. 23 public airports are owned and operated by local governments.
Nearly all of Alaska's airport capital improvements rely on
funding from the Federal Aviation Trust Fund. This fund, supported
by Federal taxes on airline tickets, cargo, and fuel, supplies
monies for capital improvements through the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP), which is authorized for funding on an annual basis.
In recent years, AIP entitlement funds for Alaska's airports varied
from approximately $65 million to $90 million annually. The State or
local sponsor is required to contribute 6.25% in the form of match. The current AIP authorizing legislation expires on
[[Page 29283]]
September 30, 2003, and at this time, it is unknown what changes Congress may incorporate into the AIP legislation.
Road Construction and Major Maintenance
Need: $8.6 billion.
Annual Funding: $260350 million.
Source: Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska (November 2002) and Transportation Investment Analysis (Spring 2002), published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).
Background: Improved surface transportation can have many positive effects including lowering costs for goods and services, improving village to village interaction, and allowing for State and Federal investments in schools, clinics, airports, harbors, and tank farms to serve more communities per project. Because of its vast geographic expanse and young age as a state, Alaska continues to require significant resources for transportation improvements.
The list of unmet surface transportation needs in Alaska is about 1,950 projects with a total estimated cost approximating $8.6 billion. The primary funding source for surface transportation projects in Alaska is federalaid highway funding, which flows through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). State funds are required to match these Federal funds; for most highway projects, the Federal ratio is 91 percent.
The State of Alaska administers most of the FHWA funding allocated to Alaska with the exception of money specifically designated for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which currently amounts to approximately $17 million per year. One important distinction between FHWA and BIA funding for roads is the longterm maintenance obligation. Under FHWA, the recipient is responsible for maintenance in perpetuity, with no Federal support for this activity. Under the BIA funding system, such roads are then added to the Indian Reservation Road system (IRR) and are eligible for a share of a national pot of money allocated to maintenance of IRR roads.
Through the recent TEA21 era, average funding levels have been
approximately $350 million per year, up substantially from the
approximately $220 million under ISTEA (19911997). Most FHWA
funding received by the State stays in larger autodependent
communities, with some funding going to rural communities largely
for sanitation roads and trail markings. Funding for projects off
the road system goes primarily to the larger hub communities. Port Facilities
Need: $300 million.
Annual Funding: $7 to 15 million.
Source: Transportation Needs and Priorities in Alaska (November 2002) and Transportation Investment Analysis (Spring 2002), published by the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).
Background: With over 30,000 miles of shoreline, relatively few roads, and 90 percent of the state's population living within ten miles of the coast or along a major river, Alaska's marine facilities are integral to the local, statewide, and international transportation of goods and people.
Ports and harbors have no federal capital assistance program
comparably to the highway and airport funding programs. Federal
funds for ports and harbors come through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps distributes funding on a nationally
competitive, projectbyproject basis. State and local communities
in Alaska have been awarded between $7 and 15 million annually in
federal funding for all Corps of Engineers programs in recent years.
For construction, the Corps requires between 20 and 35 percent match
for projects such as dredging basins, docks, floats, grids, and
upland facilities. Though not a dedicated funding source, the Marine
Users Fuel Tax is the traditional foundation of small boat harbor
improvements in the State, and general obligation bonds have been the foundation of State assisted port development.
Telecommunications
Need: Unknown.
Annual Funding: $15m in FY03 and FY 04 funding for Regulatory Commission of Alaska's Rural Broadband Internet Grant Program. Several other funding support mechanisms including Universal Service Fund also exist.
Background: In January 2001, the Denali Commission, in
partnership with the State of Alaska, completed an inventory of
available telecommunication services in rural Alaska. Among other
findings, the inventory found that 61% of all Alaskan communities do
not have access to local dialup Internet service. This identified
need is being addressed through the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska's Rural Broadband Internet Grant Program, Telecommunications
Industry investment resulting in expansion of Internet offerings in most rural communities in the next 13 years.
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Need: Unknown.
Annual Funding: Generally less than $1,000,000.
Background: Solid waste disposal is a necessity for all rural
Alaska communities as it is for every community in the country.
Observation would indicate that the majority of rural Alaska communities do not have facilities that meet basic legal
requirements for solid waste disposal. The Denali Commission
received $1 million in FY 04 funding from USDA for the development
of solid waste facilities in rural Alaska. Development of this
innovative program and identification of projects is ongoing. 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.
Appendix B: Program Principles Supporting Information
Rural Infrastructure Development
In the evolution of the Denali Commission and its approach to
infrastructure development some principles have been established. These include the following:
infrastructure theme. That priority was continued in FY00, and is expected to continue in FY01 and beyond. In FY00 rural health care facilities were selected as the second infrastructure theme. Other themes may be selected in future years.