Currently the state of Alaska has multiple capital project evaluation boards and committees that utilize different criteria scoring and evaluation rubric, if any, for potential capital projects. However, it can be difficult to analyze Alaska’s Capital Project budget when each highway, harbor, runway, and school building is evaluated distinctively and focused upon different weighted score criteria. As such, it is in the public best interest to create a standardized criteria scoring and evaluation process for capital projects funded by the State of Alaska to improve the cost efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure investment and economic development in the State.
The bill would establish the Capital Project Evaluation Division within the Office Management and Budget (OMB). The goal is to create standardized criteria scoring and evaluation rubric across all types of capital projects that meet both state and federal requirements. This would allow a clear assessment of Alaska’s capital projects across departments, regions, and different types of infrastructure to improve the cost efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure investment and economic development in the State.
Evaluated based on following criteria:
1) Safety – including the reduction of fatalities or serious injuries the expenditure is likely to achieve, the proximity of the project to safety hazards, and any possible reduction of emergency response time.
2) Accessibility – including an increase in access to jobs or services or a reduction in traffic congestion.
3) Land use – including the projects efficient use of land for the land’s intended function.
4) Environmental impact – including improvement to the natural environment, mitigation of harm to the natural environment, and changes to air or water quality.
5) Economic development – including the projects effect on the movement of goods, economic development projects, private sector development, and the future economic development and private sector economic growth.
6) Maintenance – including whether the project adequately accounts for the ongoing maintenance costs and the project’s effect on future maintenance and the operation costs to the state, and if appliable, a political subdivision of the state.
7) Urgency – including whether the project meets a foreseeable need or could be completed without state funds.
8) Operational importance – including the number of people served by the project and available alternatives.
9) Local ranking – whether a municipality or other pollical subdivision of the state has requested a project and the importance of the project to that municipality or political subdivision.
