Hands Off Our Road Service Areas

Mat-Su Borough Assembly and Mayor

RSA Map

A resolution before the Borough Assembly on Tuesday, February 1, attempts to drastically change the current policy in Road Service Areas (RSA) of using Cost Per Mile (CPM) to a Time and Materials (T&M) as a basis for RSA contracts. This request made by Assembly Member Mokie Tew, would implement a pilot program in RSA 21 (Big Lake), whose members strongly object to this proposal.

The borough’s own study last fall determined that if we transition to T&M contracts, we should expect increases in staff costs.

T&M format does not incentivize cost control or labor efficiency like CPM does, so it requires more oversight and monitoring and puts more risk on the borough, while saddling area taxpayers with extra labor expense.

The existing fixed-price contract structure largely transfers risk to the contractor while providing the borough with price and budgeting predictability. In a T&M structure, the borough would assume more risk, and the total cost would not be determined until after work is completed.
RSA 21 contains more than 100 miles of road, many of which are substandard. The cost of an additional road maintenance supervisor to administrate the duty of calling out contractors as needed for freezing rain and snowfall would fall on residents of RSA 21.

One set of taxpayers and residents should not have to shoulder the burden of a pilot program that has the potential for negative public safety and financial outcomes.
Big Lake residents are concerned about how long it would take for a Palmer-dispatched T&M contractor to provide service during a weather event compared with a contractor committed to a five-year contract under the current system.  

Residents of RSA 21 are satisfied with the quality and value of service they receive from the current contractor, McKenna Brothers Company, and are not seeking a change.

Residents support the assembly exploring the idea of improvements for the existing RSA maintenance contract method before submitting Big Lake residents and property owners to a pilot program.

There is an appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest in this proposal by Assembly Member Tews.

Assemblyman Tew did not inform, or bring his proposal to, the Big Lake community before placing the item on the Borough Assembly consent agenda, in spite of numerous opportunities to do so, and even though he had apparently been working on the proposal for several months.  

The actions of the Big Lake assembly representative show a clear pattern of repeated disregard for the will of the majority of community members. He continues to push this plan despite the vigorous and repeated objections of Big Lake residents, Big Lake Community Council Board, RSA 21 Board, and the borough’s Local RSA “Big Board.”  

The net effect of this specific event is the appearance of an attempted “end around” and avoidance of public process by the submission of the item.

Many residents of this community are very concerned that the actions of our Assembly representative constitute allegiance to his personal agenda and misuse of his position of authority, rather than appropriate stewardship of community resources.
Sponsored by
Default_group_icon
Hands Off Our RSA
Big Lake, AK

To: Mat-Su Borough Assembly and Mayor
From: [Your Name]

I strongly object to the passage of RS-21-135 A Resolution Directing Administration To Establish A Pilot Program And Provide Road Service Area Services Via A Time And Material Contract Structure In Big Lake Road Service Area 21 For The Period Of July 1, 2022, To June 30, 2023."

This resolution, made by Assembly Member Mokie Tew, would implement a pilot program in RSA 21 (Big Lake) over the objections of residents there. We join those residents in objecting to this proposal.

First and foremost, we are concerned that there is no basis for ending the current system two years before the contract ends. The borough’s own study last fall determined that it would be more expensive to implement a T&M contract system, which does not incentivize cost control or labor efficiency like the current CPM system does. It also puts more risk on the borough, and because it requires more oversight and monitoring, it saddles area taxpayers with the extra labor expense.

RSA 21 contains more than 100 miles of road, many of which are substandard. The cost of an additional road maintenance supervisor to administrate the duty of calling out contractors as needed would fall on residents of RSA 21. One set of taxpayers and residents should not have to shoulder the burden of a pilot program that has the potential for negative public safety and financial outcomes.

Secondarily, we are concerned about the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest in this proposal by an Assembly Member who formerly held borough road contracts. Assembly Member Tew essentially sprung this on residents without their consent or input, and he continued to promote it even after hearing objections from residents, the community council, and road service area board. Now it is on the consent agenda and it looks like an attempted “end around” to avoid the public process.

There is legitimate concern that Tew has misused his position in service of his personal agenda. This is not how good, responsive, people-first government should work. We urge you to reconsider this proposal.

Thank you for considering this.