Anchorage Assembly authorizes up to $1.1 billion in Port revenue bonds and approves Terminal 1 construction award

The Anchorage Assembly on April 16 approved an ordinance authorizing the issuance of Port of Alaska revenue bonds not to exceed $1,102,735,000 and, in a separate vote, approved awarding the Terminal 1 replacement construction contract to the Manson Michaels joint venture (MMJV).

The bond ordinance (AO 2025-47) was described by Assembly Member Masolitel as a step to “ensure our contractor that we are walking in partnership” and to provide funds to refinance certain outstanding port debt and to provide additional funds for future capital improvements and related financing expenses for the Port of Alaska. The public hearing for the bond ordinance drew no public speakers and the assembly adopted the ordinance by unanimous consent.

Why it matters: The bond authorization creates capacity in the municipality’s plan of finance for the Port of Alaska modernization program and is a prerequisite for awarding the Terminal 1 construction contract, the administration told the assembly. Municipal staff said this item does not itself authorize sale of bonds; specific issuances would return to the assembly for approval and market timing.

The assembly then took up the Terminal 1 construction contract recommendation (AM 3 27-2025). After brief debate and one amendment to increase the contract change-order authority, the assembly approved the award to MMJV. Assembly Member Salatow moved approval; the amendment to increase change-order authority to $26,000,000 (3.2%) was moved by Vice Chair Zolotov and seconded by Member Brawley. The amended award passed 12–0.

Administration and procurement details: Municipal officials told the assembly the bond amount is intended to provide certainty to the construction procurement and to allow the city to remain agile against market volatility. Municipal Manager Winn Pearson said the ordinance aligns with the plan of finance published in January and “creates the ability for us to move forward, but does not immediately result in whole new economic impacts for the community.” The manager and procurement staff also addressed a bid protest from Pacific Pile and Marine. Administration attorneys said the protest focused largely on the bid bond requirement; the protester submitted an uncertified company check rather than a required bid bond or certified check and later did not cure the deficiency, so procurement ruled the proposer nonresponsive to that requirement.

Procurement timing risks: Purchasing staff and contract managers told the assembly that delaying award risks missing a May 6 limited notice-to-proceed date for long-lead procurement and the May 26 expiration of bid validity (90 days after submission), which could force a rebid and months of delay. The administration said the procurement team had provided extensive written responses to the protest and had shared those responses with the assembly.

Cost context: Assembly speakers noted the bond amount is large but said past port modernization efforts had relied on a mix of funding; the assembly earlier funded replacement of the Petroleum Cement Terminal at a municipal cost of roughly $12,000,000.

Ending: Both the bond ordinance and the contract award passed unanimously, with the assembly and administration framing the actions as milestones in a multi‑year port modernization program that they said is important to Anchorage and to Alaska’s broader freight network.