Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
01/25/2022 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (stip) and Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (iija) Formula | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2022
1:01 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Grier Hopkins, Chair
Representative Sara Hannan, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Louise Stutes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mel Gillis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP)
AND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT & JOBS ACT (IIJA) FORMULA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
RYAN ANDERSON, Commissioner Designee
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program.
JAMES MARKS, Director
Division of Program Development and Statewide Planning
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint, titled "Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program and IIJA Overview."
ROB CARPENTER, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the overview of
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:01:00 PM
CHAIR GRIER HOPKINS called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. Representatives
Drummond, McKay, McCabe, Cronk, Stutes, and Hopkins were present
at the call to order. Representative Hannan arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
and Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA) Formula
OVERVIEW: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
and Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA) Formula
1:01:31 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the only order of business would be
an overview of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act formula.
1:02:50 PM
RYAN ANDERSON, Commissioner Designee, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) provided
introductory remarks on the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
1:04:24 PM
JAMES MARKS, Director, Division of Program Development and
Statewide Planning, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, presented a PowerPoint, titled "Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program and IIJA Overview" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. He said that the
presentation covers the state and federal regulations governing
STIP and the project-development process. He stated he would
also give an overview of the Federal Aid Highways Program
(FAHP). He began by explaining that in order for the state to
receive federal funds for surface transportation projects under
STIP, these projects must be fiscally constrained, solicit
public input, and be approved by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). He pointed out that state projects are broken down into
the National Highway System (NHS), Alaska Highway System (AHS),
Community Transportation Program, and Trails and Recreational
Access for Alaskans.
1:08:54 PM
MR. MARKS stated that, except for preservation or minor
rehabilitation projects, STIP project delivery time runs around
4 to 8 years. He explained that a [10-plus] year program of
projects is maintained in order to understand total project
costs. Explaining STIP composition, he said it is broken down
into state programs and capital improvement programs. State
programs comprise 25 percent of STIP, and these include programs
for preservation, maintenance, safety, bridges, culverts, and
rail and freight transit. The remaining 75 percent of STIP is
in regulation for capital-improvement programs, which include
NHS, AHS, and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
1:10:11 PM
MR. MARKS pointed out that slide 4 shows the simplified STIP
process for developing projects and soliciting public input. He
stated that the department keeps a maintenance schedule by
evaluating the following factors: socioeconomic, safety,
corridor, military, and local. Once the needs are determined,
input will be solicited and collected for evaluation. He said
that the next step is the call for projects, which begins with
the listing of criteria on the department's website, along with
online public notices. This involves input from stakeholders,
local sponsors, and regions within DOT&PF. He described the
exchange between the STIP team and stakeholders as taking a
significant amount of time. He stated that the input received
could include projects from previous years, preservation needs,
or new programs. He stated that the projects will be put
together into nomination packages. After the Project Evaluation
Board reviews the packages, notices for public input will be
sent out, and a prioritized list will be created. Fiscal
constraint and delivery timelines will be evaluated, and project
selection will occur. He stated that by regulation a new STIP
requires significant public involvement.
1:16:08 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a series of committee questions,
stated that projects are created once they have been evaluated,
as seen in the last cycle depicted on slide 4. He responded
that once everything is funded each year, the total STIP amount
would be between $1 billion and $1.2 billion per year. He added
that this is not just for surface transportation projects. He
referenced a larger list of projects which does not have an
accurate price tag because the estimations have not been made.
He explained that, because of project delivery and cost
estimation, this is a 10-year program; however, STIP is a four-
year program updated every two to three years. He said STIP is
a four-year program, so the funding would be around $4 billion.
1:20:15 PM
MR. MARKS, responding to committee questions, stated that STIP
funding for projects can be updated at the end of the process;
however, funding changes can happen at different times.
Depending on the size, he said, the change can be made within
DOT&PF in a quick process. If the change is big, the process
would involve a STIP amendment. He stated that this occurs
whenever a project is added or deleted from the four-year plan,
a change to the scope is made, or there has been a remarkable
cost increase. He added that this type of change would start
the public notice cycle again. Concerning transparency, he
responded that STIP is a published document, with all active,
current, and historical projects published on the website. In
response to further questioning, he stated the STIP has been
around for decades, with the biggest changes involving
transparency and public involvement. He stated that the biggest
STIP had been the Cooper Landing bypass, which was over $500
million. Concerning the committee's discussion on the
Richardson Highway's funding for overpasses, he responded that,
with the potential influx of funds and the various scenarios
available to the state, the flexibility of STIP funds is being
considered.
1:28:55 PM
MR. MARKS directed attention to funding through FAHP and how
this interacts with IIJA. He stated that this is important for
understanding the constraints and the requirements of STIP. He
said FAHP is a federally assisted and state administered
program, and it is tied to specific systems and programs where
states or local agencies pay for maintenance and the match
requirements. He stated that FHWA establishes national highway
policy, regulations, and guidance. It also approves state
proposals and distributes funds, as STIP is an example of this.
He added that state and local governments are responsible for
project conception, planning, design, construction, and
maintenance and operation of highways.
MR. MARKS stated that the six major steps in FAHP are
authorization, appropriation, apportionment, allocation,
obligation, and outlay. He said confusion arises when
associating these terms to the funding amount available to the
state. He remarked that the U.S. Congress's two actions are
authorizing transportation programs and appropriating funds.
The authorization of these programs is through IIJA every five
years, while the appropriations are passed yearly, assigning
money to each program. From here the apportionment is done by
the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). He stated that six
main apportionment programs are statutory in nature, while
allocations are the other funding programs not in statute. He
described the obligation step as "nebulous" and said it would be
discussed at a later time. He described outlays as
reimbursements to the states.
1:33:12 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a series of committee questions,
stated there is already a statute for authorization and
apportionment by the U.S. Congress, and DoT would put the
apportionment through a prescribed formula for money
distribution to the states. He responded that apportionment
formulas usually do not change; however, there have been changes
in IIJA which will be reviewed later in the presentation. He
continued that STIP is built to follow the formulas, and the
total dollars are balanced to each program, but funding can be
moved around.
1:35:20 PM
MR. MARKS explained that IIJA is a five-year transportation
authorization, providing around $550 billion in new federal
infrastructure funding, with around one-half going to
transportation. He stated that this is an investment in public
transit, bridges, clean water, clean energy, and electric
vehicle infrastructure. He stated that Alaska's apportionment
is around $646 million each year. He said the major change in
IIJA is the amount of discretionary grants available, of which
Alaska stands to benefit.
1:36:21 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a series of committee questions on the
discretionary grant program, gave examples of discretionary
grants in IIJA, which are the two ferry grant programs that
address electrification and rural ferries. He responded that,
if a specific appropriation is already in STIP for a project,
discretionary grant projects can be added to this. He responded
that the discretion would be up to the DoT agency.
MR. MARKS, turning focus to the federal appropriations, stated
that this is the budget that gets passed once a year.
Discussing the current year's process in detail, he said the
rulemaking for the current year is still underway, as
eligibility has been expanded for certain programs. He stated
that these programs include electric vehicle infrastructure,
carbon reduction, ferry capital and operating grants, and the
Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient and
Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) formula, which addresses
resiliency in terms of weather events.
1:41:08 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to committee questions, stated that if
the rulemaking process is not complete by August, and funding
does not come through, executing the STIP program would be
difficult, as it operates on the federal fiscal year, and all
funding must be spent by the end of September. He said
typically these budgets are passed by the end of February.
Concerning lead-up work to receiving the funding, he responded
that DOT&PF has ongoing discussions concerning scenarios and
different tools that can be used for different funding
timelines. He said one tool is a concept called "advanced
construction." With this a project can begin, subject to
reimbursement.
MR. MARKS, in response to a line of questioning on ferry capital
funding, stated that the rulemaking process is still being
conducted, but the department is "hopeful" the funding for the
new Tustumena is in STIP. He pointed out the discretionary
grant money for rural ferries could be used; however, this would
be for operating costs, not capital costs. He stated the
capital costs for the Tustumena replacement fund are in the 10-
year plan, and the state appropriations still exist for this.
He responded that there are federal funds programmed for the new
ferry, but it has not gone to construction yet.
1:45:37 PM
ROB CARPENTER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, joined the discussion on the new
Tustumena. He stated that the new vessel's funding is
technically outside of STIP, but it is in the 10-year plan. He
advised that STIP is a planning document, and when the federal
government gives approval, the money can be spent. At this
point, the plan for construction is ongoing, but there is no
revenue behind it. The department is speaking with a contractor
about the final design looking at the options for funding
sources. He reiterated that there is a plan for the funding,
but there has not been a point in time when funds were needed
because of construction delays.
MR. MARKS explained that the ferry project is one year out of
STIP, but once at the construction stage the project will be
moved directly into STIP. He stated that the new Tustumena is
currently in the four-year STIP plan, but the new construction
phase is outside of this timeframe because it was unclear when
development of the project would be ready.
MR. CARPENTER responded that the answer to the funding question
is not an easy one, as the planned revenue for the vessel had
been reprogrammed at some point. He responded that there is
already money appropriated for the replacement ferry in state-
matched funds, but the federal expenditure authority is real
money only once construction begins. In reference to last
year's funding, he stated that it had been "in the sweep." He
stated that it went into the AMHS fund, not the general fund.
1:54:58 PM
MR. MARKS, moving the discussion to FAHP apportionments, said
formulas are used to determine the percentage of funding for the
following programs: National Highways Performance Program
(NHPP), Surface Transportation Block Grants (STBG), Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ), National Highways Freight Program (NHFP), and
Metropolitan Planning Organization Planning (MPO PL).
1:55:47 PM
MR. MARKS, responding to a series of questions on MPOs, stated
he would follow up after the meeting concerning the Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System issues in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley. Concerning whether DOT&PF has been working on regional
planning entities for rural and unorganized municipalities, he
responded that there have been discussions with the Alaska
Municipal League, the commissioner, and some of the communities.
Some challenges have been addressed, with some steps developed
concerning the design of a regional transportation organization.
He stated that the commissioner intends to proceed with this
discussion. He responded that the federal definition of
"metropolitan" in MPO is based on population and density. This
had been one of the issues with the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, as
it reached population thresholds but not density. In response
to an additional question regarding threshold amounts, he said
because they vary, he would follow up with an answer. He
affirmed that the only areas that qualify as MPOs would be
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. In
response to a committee question concerning the listed entities'
involvement, he described the following examples: NHPP has to
be used on a designated NHS project; STBGs are flexible funds
which can be used on the state's projects, as opposed to only
federal projects; HSIP collects data on highway fatalities and
injuries; CMAQ is an air quality funding source used only for
maintenance; NHFP is connected with specific corridor projects;
and MPO funds come from other sub-allocated funding sources,
such as STGB. Concerning the money Alaska gets for the NHFP, he
responded that this would be addressed on the next slide.
2:06:21 PM
MR. MARKS listed the steps in the apportionment formula. The
first step is that the funding for the entire nation is
determined by an appropriations Act, or IIJA. In step 2, the
funding is put through the formulas and distributed to the
states, with Alaska's share being $664 million. In step 3, the
funds are distributed to the programs.
2:07:01 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question, stated DOT&PF
would work with the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) on air quality issues in the state. He stated that air
quality money is the most restricted, and the apportionment may
not be fully used. He continued that DOT&PF would work with DEC
on the behavioral side, such as public education programs. He
discussed the funding CMAQ receives per year, which is a
graduated amount based off the inflation factor. He addressed a
committee question concerning the requirement to spend funds
which have gone through apportionment. He explained that this
is one of the questions that causes confusion because of the
difference between apportionment and obligation limit. He said
that, generally, apportionment is good for four years, and it
does roll over, but he would discuss this along with the
obligation aspect further in the presentation.
MR. MARKS, in response to a series of questions concerning the
NHFP in Alaska, stated that this deals with the established
freight corridors connecting the major veins in between ports
and airports. He stated that the department is in the middle of
updating its long-range transportation plan and freight plan.
Responding to a follow-up question, he stated that the industry
leaders would help establish the corridor network, but they
would not determine funding levels. He responded that NHFP is
for all modes of transportation in the state, not just asphalt.
He noted the freight plan, membership list, and projects updates
are all listed on the department's website. He responded that
NHFP and DOT&PF both would help establish routes and appropriate
funding for freight projects. He added that the freight program
is also in NHS, so this funding is paired with NHPP, otherwise
there would not be enough funding for big projects.
2:19:10 PM
MR. CARPENTER, in the detailed discussion concerning the
stability of the Port of Alaska in Anchorage, responded to a
series of questions. He stated that the funding for rebuilding
ports is restricted and can be used only for certain port
expenditures. Per the state's recourse on this issue, he
responded that the governor has introduced a general obligation
bond bill which contains money for the Port of Alaska in
Anchorage. This is a combination appropriation with Port
MacKenzie. He responded that he does not know how ports in
other states are funded.
[Committee members noted the seriousness of the issues
concerning the Port of Alaska in Anchorage and Port MacKenzie,
and the opinion was discussed that the money in the governor's
bill would not be enough to make the needed repairs.]
2:27:16 PM
MR. MARKS directed attention to the apportionments made overtime
in Alaska, as seen on slide 12. He advised that the current
amount of funding is unclear because Congress has not yet passed
the budget. He stated that including the relief funds, Alaska
will receive an estimated $160 million annually. In response to
a committee question, he said the funding will grow over the
next five years, but the specific number is unknown. He
responded that there would be funds for workforce training
through DOT&PF. He pointed out how the apportionment would be
broken down among programs. He noted that each of the programs
did not grow at the same rate, and he discussed these numbers
and differences between the programs. Focusing on STBG, he
stated that these are the most flexible funds and can be used in
places which do not qualify for federal funding. He said that
some eligibilities have been added, so the program has been
increased. He listed these as wildlife-vehicle collision
mitigation and remediation, electric vehicle charging
infrastructure, rural barge landings, docks, waterfront
infrastructure, and travel and tourism enhancement. He stated
that STBG increased around 13 percent for the year, while
inflation was at 7 percent. Responding to a committee question,
he stated that the brand-new eligibilities are not in STIP, as
guidelines are still being developed. He continued that the
funding would depend on project-delivery timelines, as the
programing of STBG funds is four years out, coinciding with the
estimated projects delivery dates.
2:34:55 PM
MR. MARKS pointed out examples of allocated funds in FAHP, which
included funds for ferry boats, discretionary grants, earmarks,
and emergency relief. He stated that, because Congress has not
completed the budget, the amount of additional funds is unknown,
and a conservative estimate would be $100 million. In response
to a committee question, he stated that the discretionary grant
application process is competitive and determined by DoT, while
emergency funds come directly to the state as an earmark;
however, the highway infrastructure programs have nationwide
formulas. He stated that each one of these programs has its own
method for distributing funds. In response to a question
concerning emergency relief funds, he stated that these funds
are for natural disasters, like earthquakes, flooding, and
landslides. He said if there is a bridge strike, the money
would be received from a state appropriation. He continued
that, on the federal side, emergency relief is determined on a
case-by-case basis, and there is not "just a pot sitting there."
2:38:51 PM
MR. MARKS addressed the term "obligation limit" used in
reference to federal funding. In comparing apportionments and
allocations, he stated that this functions like a "catch limit."
He used the allegory of commercial fishing with the different
varieties of fish in the sea, which are allocated on a year-by-
year basis in portions which can be utilized. He stated that
obligation limitation concerns the shelf life and the percentage
of what would be used. He stated that the obligation limit
would be 90 percent of the apportionment funding. He noted that
apportionments would last four years, while obligation limits,
which come in one-year portions, must be spent by September 30.
In response to a committee question, he clarified that the four-
year limit applies to apportionment. He continued that
obligation funding is currently an unknown, but it will be
around 90 percent of $664 million in apportionments. This is
specific to statutory apportionments and does not affect the
allocations. He explained that the state can spend 90 percent
of the $664 million.
2:42:09 PM
MR. MARKS addressed some of the major activities that will be
seen over the next year. He stated that the new programs will
be emphasized, especially with the discretionary grants and
other new eligibilities. Outreach efforts will be ramped up,
and a second, more interactive survey will be conducted on the
state's priorities and needs. He referred to the funding holes
in the 10-year plan, which need to be filled, so there will be a
call for projects, and a new STIP will be starting with the new
electronic STIP or "eSTIP," which will address efficiency and
effectiveness.
2:46:49 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS requested multiple follow-up documents.
2:48:32 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:48
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOTPF STIP Presentation HTRA 1-25-22.pdf |
Htra 1/25/2022 1:00:00 PM |