Alaska transportation officials on Tuesday identified the likely winner of a bidding process for building a $350 million vessel to replace the state’s 62-year-old Tustumena ferry.

The M/V Tustumena has been connecting communities along the Aleutian chain to Southcentral Alaska since 1964. Alaska leaders for years have been discussing plans to replace the ferry with a newer vessel.

But the process of constructing a new ferry has been repeatedly delayed and hampered amid shifts in state and federal administration priorities.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski was instrumental in adding funding to a bipartisan federal infrastructure bill in 2021 to build new ferries for Alaska. Funding from that bill, signed into law by former President Joe Biden, will be the primary way the state plans to pay for the new vessel.

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities said Tuesday that it is nearing the conclusion of a monthslong bidding process, and had identified a Louisiana-based shipbuilder to construct the new ferry at a cost of just under $350 million.

That is an increase from 2021, when Gov. Mike Dunleavy announced a plan to replace the Tustumena by 2027 at a cost of up to $250 million. Both the price tag and the timeline have since been altered. The vessel is not expected to be complete until 2029, according to the latest plan.

In a written statement, Dunleavy said Tuesday that replacing the Tustumena reflects his administration’s “commitment to rebuilding this critical transportation network.”

During Dunleavy’s eight-year tenure, ridership and state revenue from the Alaska Marine Highway System have seen significant decline, with an aging fleet and difficulty in recruiting and retaining workers.

After several false starts, the state began seeking bids for the construction of the Tustumena replacement in January. The bidding process was initially intended to conclude in May, but was extended to provide more time for bidders to complete their proposals, according to state officials.

The department did not share how many bids it had received or details on the other bids.

The requirements for the new vessel include a 330-foot-long ship with a range of 4,000 nautical miles, and a capacity of 250 passengers and 28 crew plus 58 vehicles. That would be larger than the current vessel, which has the capacity to carry 160 passengers and up to 34, 20-foot vehicles.

Transportation officials said Tuesday that Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, the Louisiana-based shipbuilder, has a 14-day window to submit all remaining requirement documentation. The award won’t be formalized until that process is complete.

Thoma-Sea recently completed work on the Arctic Fjord, a Seattle-based factory trawler operating in the Bering Sea. The Alaska transportation department stated that the project demonstrates the company’s “ability to successfully deliver complex vessels designed for Alaska’s demanding operating environment.”

The ferry system’s Marine Director Craig Tornga said in a statement that the step toward constructing the Tustumena replacement vessel “represents more than a new ship — it represents renewed confidence in the future of the Alaska Marine Highway System.”

“The replacement vessel will provide improved reliability, enhanced safety, increased operational flexibility, and modern efficient systems that will better serve our passengers, crews, and the communities that depend on us. We look forward to working with the men and women of Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors to deliver a high-performance vessel,” Tornga said in a statement.

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) California voters will face a high-profile “billionaire tax” measure on the November ballot, a proposal supporters say would raise new revenue, but critics warn could push some of the state’s wealthiest residents to leave.

If passed, the measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Tal Eslick, owner of Vista Consulting, said, “I think there is this effort, especially on the part of progressive state leaders, to somehow, you know, go after billionaires or maybe even the trillionaires that may exist in the future.”

Political analysts say a proposal like this could encourage some of California’s wealthiest residents to relocate, potentially taking investment and business activity with them.

Eslick said, “And for that matter, they can come back occasionally to visit and do a little bit of business, but live in a state that is a little more accommodating for them from a tax standpoint.”

Questions have also been raised about what the impact could be for Kern County if billionaires leave the state.

Sherod Waite, CEO of Moneywise Guys, said, “It’s questionable how much revenue would actually be generated from the tax and how much revenue would be lost from those people exiting the state. It’s questionable. It’s a gamble.”

Waite said billionaires leaving could reduce state revenue that could be used in Kern County.

Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

“Think of all the support services that the state offers to the entire state, including us here in Kern County, that are paid for by tax dollars,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has been outspokenly against a state wealth tax and is instead proposing a national tax policy that would tax anyone with a net worth of $100 million.

Newsom said, “It’s time for a national billionaire’s tax and a new social contract. Just think of this, just ten percent of people own 2/3’s of the nation’s wealth.”

Eslick said Newsom’s position can be difficult to square.

“It’s a naturally confusing sort of position to be opposed to the tax in California but be supportive of it at a national level. But I think that’s him walking a treacherous political road,” he said.

Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

In a statement regarding the measure, Assemblyman Stan Ellis said in part, “This would hurt Kern’s energy, Agriculture, manufacturing, and working families through lost investment, fewer jobs and unstable state funding.”