Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/01/2025 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 | |
| HB186 | |
| Overview: Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundary Process and Considerations | |
| Overview: Testimony by Fast Planning Policy Board Members | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
May 1, 2025
1:03 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 186
"An Act relating to the use of apprentice labor in public
construction projects; and relating to a report on the use of
apprentice labor in public construction projects."
- MOVED CSHB 186(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BOUNDARY PROCESS
AND CONSIDERATIONS
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: TESTIMONY BY FAST PLANNING POLICY BOARD MEMBERS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 186
SHORT TITLE: APPRENTICE LABOR IN PUBLIC PROJECTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CARRICK
04/11/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/11/25 (H) TRA, L&C
04/24/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/24/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/29/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/29/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/25 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
05/01/25 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries."
LAUREN LITTLE, Chief Engineer
Division of Project Delivery Services
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries."
SCOTT CRASS, Member
FAST Planning Policy Board;
Borough Assembly
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony during the overview of
the FAST Planning Policy Board and answered questions.
JACKSON FOX, Executive Director
Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the overview of
the FAST Planning Policy Board.
KIM SOLLIEN, Executive Director
Matanuska-Susitna Valley Planning for Transportation
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the overview of
the FAST Planning Policy Board.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TED EISCHEID called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives McCabe,
Stutes, Mina, Carrick, and Eischeid were present at the call to
order. Representatives Tilton and Moore arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
HB 186-APPRENTICE LABOR IN PUBLIC PROJECTS
1:04:29 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 186, "An Act relating to the use of
apprentice labor in public construction projects; and relating
to a report on the use of apprentice labor in public
construction projects."
1:05:12 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK, as prime sponsor, recapped HB 186. She
reminded the committee that the proposed legislation is twofold.
In reference to the operable term "practicable", she said the
proposed legislation would ensure a percentage of labor on
public projects with the cost of $2.5 million, or over, is done
by apprentices. She stated that the other purpose of the
proposed legislation would be data gathering on apprenticeship
utilization.
1:05:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 186,
labeled 34-LS0816\A.1, A. Radford, 4/23/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to public construction
contracts;"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 36.05.005 is amended to read:
Sec. 36.05.005. Applicability. This chapter
applies only to a public construction contract that
exceeds $150,000 [$25,000]."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK objected.
1:06:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE spoke to Amendment 1. He began with the
background on the Little Davis Bacon Act (LDBA) in Alaska, which
requires contractors on public construction projects with the
cost of $25,000, or over, to pay prevailing wages. He pointed
out that this threshold had been last updated in 2011; however,
the cost of construction projects has increased "90 to 110
percent." To support local contractors, he expressed the
understanding that other states have raised or eliminated this
threshold. To reflect inflation and account for Alaska's unique
geography, he stated that the proposed amendment would raise the
threshold to $150,000. He argued that a $25,000 threshold would
be unworkable in rural areas off the road system where there is
not a large workforce. He continued that this would also reduce
regulatory burdens on small projects, as LDBA compliance imposes
significant administrative and reporting requirements,
increasing project and engineering costs.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued that Amendment 1 would be
supportive of local economies, as a higher threshold would allow
small and rural contractors to bid on public projects. He
remarked that the integrity of LDBA would be maintained, as the
proposed amendment would protect wages for medium- to large-
scale projects, including projects under HB 186. He continued,
stating that the 15 percent use of apprentices would not change,
but the administrative burden on smaller contractors would be
alleviated. He pointed out that these contractors often provide
training to apprentices. He described this as "a pipeline" for
apprentices, stating that the proposed amendment would encourage
this. He summarized that Amendment 1 would reflect economic
realities, promote rural participation, and ensure public
dollars are spent efficiently. He added that raising the LDBA
threshold would modernize the current statute, without
undermining its core purpose. He stated it would also
strengthen HB 186's goal of building a skilled workforce.
1:10:44 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed opposition to Amendment 1, arguing
that it is not relevant to HB 186. She stated that the bill is
about apprenticeship utilization and public projects, but not
about LDBA. She expressed agreement that the threshold should
be raised; however, she maintained that doing this is not within
the scope of the proposed bill. She expressed hesitancy on
adjusting LDBA without more context.
1:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the amendment
belongs in the proposed legislation because apprenticeships are
a function of unions, and this would encourage apprenticeships,
especially in small communities. He explained that contractors
are not in smaller communities because they cannot afford the
threshold; therefore, apprentices cannot build their hours
there. He commented that Legislative Legal Services has advised
the amendment would work with the policies in HB 186.
1:13:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed uncertainty on the proposed
amendment.
1:14:31 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK maintained her objection.
1:14:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tilton, McCabe, and
Moore voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1 to HB 186.
Representatives Stutes, Mina, Eischeid, and Carrick voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
1:15:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 186,
labeled 34-LS0816\A.2, A. Radford, 4/30/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "$2,500,000"
Insert "$5,000,000"
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES deferred to Co-Chair Carrick for comments
on the amendment.
1:15:40 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK stated that Amendment 2 would increase the
contract threshold in HB 186 from $2.5 million to $5 million.
She reasoned this would decrease the number of projects that
would need to meet the 15-percent threshold for apprenticeship
labor hours, and in turn, this would lessen the burden on
contractors and the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities. She stated that this change also takes in
consideration the effects of inflation.
1:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued that Amendment 2 would shrink the
number of projects; therefore, [reducing the need for
apprentices]. He reasoned that "with the demise of Amendment
1," the number of projects would be lessened "on the other end"
as well, and the requirement to use apprentices would be reduced
all together. He expressed frustration because he concurs with
a threshold increase, but he argued that it would need to be
higher. He reiterated that Amendment 2 would reduce the use of
apprentices, and he maintained his objection.
1:17:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested clarification that the proposed
bill would not "require" the use of apprentices; moreover,
apprentices would be used only when "practicable".
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed agreement with the statement. She
reminded the committee that data collection on apprenticeship
utilization would also be included. She stated that, per
Amendment 2, the proposed legislation's intent would remain the
same, and the 15 percent apprenticeship usage would be a goal,
not a requirement.
1:19:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the word
"practicable" is not firmly defined, leaving the "door wide
open" for unions to make the 15 percent apprenticeship usage a
requirement. He suggested that Legislative Legal Services would
agree on this point.
1:20:00 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed support for Amendment 2, as it is a
result of the committee's previous discussion on the proposed
legislation.
1:20:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained his objection.
1:21:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Mina,
Eischeid, and Carrick voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 2 to HB 186. Representatives Tilton, McCabe, and
Moore voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a
vote of 4-3.
1:21:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to report CSHB 186, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
[zero] fiscal note.
1:21:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
1:21:54 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK recognized the concern that the usage of
apprentices could decrease. She argued against the claim that
apprentices are "sitting in lawn chairs" on a regular basis.
She maintained that apprentices of today are the workforce of
the state's future. She noted the loss of federal funding, as
this relates to the loss of apprentices. She continued that the
proposed legislation is a piece of the workforce goal to retain
Alaskans in the state by supplying jobs in the future. She
expressed support for apprentices, suggesting that they are
doing the best work they can.
1:23:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether there were any conversations
concerning LDBA and wages during the research for the proposed
legislation.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK replied that there were no conversations
surrounding HB 186 and LDBA, but she has had these conversations
related to other legislation. She clarified the proposed
legislation is "aspirational," offering a goal for a threshold,
while Amendment 1 would have added a stricter requirement. She
stated that the issues addressed by [Amendment 1] have been
discussed, but not as a part of HB 186.
1:25:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed disagreement, arguing that there
is no current pipeline for apprenticeship programs, and this
leaves only a limited number of apprentices. He expressed the
opinion that an increase in smaller contractors would provide
the needed pipeline for apprentices. He emphasized that
apprenticeship programs need to be improved, and projects in
smaller communities could do this.
1:27:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON expressed appreciation for the attempt to
increase the workforce in Alaska; however, she voiced the
opinion that creating government mandates in the public and
private sectors do not always achieve the sought-after goal.
She concurred with Representative McCabe's comments concerning
moving apprenticeships forward and not burdening smaller
contractors.
1:29:40 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID pointed out that everyone has the same
interest in solving the problem; however, the approach has not
been agreed upon. He observed that the proposed bill would
create a target, not a mandate.
1:30:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Stutes, Mina,
Eischeid, and Carrick voted in favor of the motion to report
CSHB 186, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached [zero] fiscal note.
Representatives Tilton, McCabe, and Moore voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 186(TRA) was reported out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
1:31:50 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:31 p.m. to 1:37 p.m.
^OVERVIEW: Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundary Process
and Considerations
OVERVIEW: Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundary Process
and Considerations
1:37:56 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the next order of business
would be an overview by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities on the Metropolitan Planning Organization
Boundary Process and Considerations.
1:38:26 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Special Assistant to the
Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), co-presented the
PowerPoint, titled "Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries" [hard
copy included in the committee packet]. He expressed the
understanding that any discussion on metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) and area boundaries would need to involve
consultation and coordination between both DOT&PF and MPOs. He
noted that statements have been made in past committee meetings
concerning DOT&PF being uncooperative with MPOs on the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) submissions. He said,
"I would like to respectfully disagree or correct that." He
noted that the department might not be engaging in the way MPOs
would prefer. He maintained that the department wants the
exchange in order to coordinate and meet the needs of MPOs, and,
in turn, have MPOs produce what the department needs in order to
move forward. He expressed the need to correct the perception
that there have been no meetings [between the department and
MPOs]. He added that the department has met with MPOs,
reiterating the opinion that these meetings were not the type of
meetings that MPOs would prefer. He noted that this statement
is a correction for the record.
1:40:36 PM
LAUREN LITTLE, Chief Engineer, Division of Project Delivery
Services, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, co-presented the PowerPoint, titled "Metropolitan
Planning Area Boundaries." On slide 2, she overviewed the
regulatory basis for MPO boundary updates. She explained that
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) mandates when boundaries
must be updated, aligning with the most recent census from the
U.S. Census Bureau. She stated that, for this cycle, the
deadline to have boundaries approved is the end of 2026. She
added that the governor would need to approve this as well.
1:42:23 PM
MR. MILLS directed attention to the attached letters [copies
included in the committee packet], as these explain CFRs and
authorities mentioned throughout the presentation.
1:43:14 PM
MS. LITTLE moved to slide 3 and explained some of the
significant consequences of missing the 2026 boundary-approval
deadline. She pointed out that, in example, projects could be
excluded from STIP and the Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). She added that there are also air quality components.
She stated that projects might not be programed within the
boundaries until the governor approves the compliant boundary.
1:44:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the concern that boundaries
would not be approved. He questioned what would be stopping the
approval.
MR. MILLS replied that the specific areas, which require review
and approval, would be discussed later in the presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the situation in Fairbanks
where the board did not hold a required meeting.
MR. MILLS deferred the question to Ms. Little.
1:46:23 PM
MS. LITTLE responded that this is not a single issue, and
communication has been the largest concern. She stated that
conversations between the department and MPOs need to be had so
there can be an understanding how the boundaries were created,
what are the concerns, and how to work toward a resolution well
before the deadline.
1:47:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that there has
been resistance from the Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation
(FAST) Technical Committee. He questioned whether the
reluctance of this committee to have meetings has created an
issue for DOT&PF.
MS. LITTLE responded that both the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS) and the FAST Planning Policy
Board have not held meetings with the department on boundary
agreements. She stated that both boards have tabled the
discussions indefinitely.
MR. MILLS directed attention to [the concept of the Three Cs of
transportation planning: continuing, comprehensive, and
cooperative, which the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962
mandated]. He stated that the department interacts with MPOs in
this process, per federal requirement. However, this is not a
requirement for MPOs, so the discussion has not been
bidirectional.
1:49:53 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID asked for clarification on what "reluctance"
means in this case.
MR. MILLS clarified that "reluctance" could relate to setting an
agenda or indefinitely tabling a conversation. He stated that
his reference was to the process of the Three Cs, which is how
the department engages, while MPOs engage using an operating
agreement.
1:51:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified his understanding that MPOs
operate with an agreement between the mayor and the governor,
while DOT&PF has its own way to operate. He corrected his
previous reference to the "technical committee," as the "policy
committee" had tabled the discussion. He expressed the
understanding that the department is not "the big problem." He
suggested that MPOs need to "get back to the table."
MR. MILLS expressed the opinion that MPOs and the department
agree on more than they disagree on. He discussed the need for
a solution on their impasse.
1:53:35 PM
MS. LITTLE moved to slide 4 and noted that federal regulations
only focus on urbanization for MPOs. She pointed out that AMATS
boundary proposal shows expansions into areas that could never
be urbanized, such as the Chugach State Park and the corridors
for the Glen Highway and Seward Highway. She stated that the
department is continuing to review and work with AMATS to
understand the proposed boundary expansions. She moved to slide
5, which showed the boundary expansion proposed by AMATS for the
Seward Highway. She pointed out the map included areas that
could not be urbanized.
MS. LITTLE discussed the "robust" boundary proposal plan
submitted by the FAST Planning Policy Board. On slide 6, she
pointed out the [problems] found in the plan, as follows: legal
descriptions that do not reconcile with geographic information
system (GIS) data; the Chena River flood control bridges, which
were not initially included in the FAST Planning's boundary; an
area that was excluded on Farmers Loop; and the proposed
expansion onto the Richardson Highway, with no potential for
urbanization. She added that there were also questions around
the growth models used to select the final boundary. She moved
to slide 7, which further detailed the Chena Bridge and
Richardson Bridge boundary changes and conflict.
1:59:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the public comments on FAST
Planning's planning boundaries.
MS. LITTLE, in response, clarified that the public comments were
specific to the gap on Farmers Loop, as it was not included on
the boundary expansion. In response to a follow-up question,
she expressed the understanding that the comments went directly
to FAST Planning through a public outreach effort; however, she
stated that she would follow up with an answer on the specific
comments, when they were generated, and who they were directed
to.
MR. MILLS, in response to a follow-up question, expressed his
understanding that FAST Planning had received the comments.
2:01:07 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned the MPO process.
MR. MILLS deferred to the MPO representatives for their process.
2:01:54 PM
MS. LITTLE moved to slide 8 and provided a summary and timeline
of correspondence between the involved entities concerning the
boundary expansions, STIP, and TIP.
2:02:50 PM
MR. MILLS, in response to Representative McCabe, noted the
timeline error in the first bullet on slide 8, as it should
reflect "December 23, 2023."
2:03:32 PM
MS. LITTLE discussed MPO operating agreements, as seen on slide
9. She stated that these agreements are how the department and
the MPO policy boards would interact, as they outline the basic
regulatory framework. She added that every MPO has one of
these, which determines the interaction with the department on
projects, federal funding, and other topics. She pointed out
that the agreements involve other government entities as well.
MS. LITTLE moved to slide 10 and explained the coordination
between MPOs and DOT&PF concerning boundary updates and new
requirements from the federal government. She stated that,
historically, DOT&PF has been able to program the projects it
funded; however, this has changed with federal requirements, and
a new layer of coordination is needed with MPOs, especially on
the National Highway System (NHS) projects. She pointed out
that the department is the only entity that receives and
allocates federal funding on this. She directed attention to
the chart on the slide, which showed the coordinating projects
and the deficiencies of the three MPOs in the state.
2:07:45 PM
MS. LITTLE, in response to Co-Chair Eischeid, clarified that the
marks in the boxes on the chart were indications of deficiencies
in agreements. In response to a follow-up question, she stated
that the Matanuska-Susitna Valley Planning for Transportation
(MVP) has the least deficiencies because it is the newest
agreement. She added that it was modeled after the successes
with FAST Planning and AMATS.
2:08:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE directed attention to the chart where it
is noted that each of the three MPOs are missing the periodic
reauthorization. He expressed the understanding that this
denotes a signature between the governor and the mayor.
MR. MILLS expressed agreement with the statement.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE pointed out that the last time the plan
for AMATS had been signed was by Governor Tony Knowles. He
questioned the responsibility of updating the authorizations.
MR. MILLS affirmed that the signature on AMATS is from 2002. He
expressed the understanding that this is considered a "base
authorization." He discussed issues on other signatures on
these documents. He expressed the importance for determining
whether an agreement has been reauthorized, as federal
requirements would be at stake.
2:11:27 PM
MS. LITTLE moved to slide 11 and briefly overviewed compliance
with CFRs. She explained that the department is not being
arbitrary, rather it is responding to federal changes. She
moved to slide 12, which showed a timeline chart for boundary
change approvals. She walked through the approval steps,
including the revision of the boundary agreements, as this would
in turn trigger the revision of maps, GIS boundaries, and
documentation. The agreements would need to be submitted to the
governor, with the final submission by the end of 2026 to the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). She expressed the importance of
coordination on various topics to resolve conflicts on projects.
MS. LITTLE moved to the chart on slide 13 and addressed
intergovernmental operating agreement approvals. She pointed
out the importance of moving the agreements forward and
incorporating the legal recommendations on federal requirements.
She stated that this is the area where [MPOs and the department]
need to work together on to coordinate projects and resolve
conflicts. She gave an example of a conflict that arose with
federal funding when an MPO cancelled a project. She pointed
out that the federal funds for the project would need to be paid
back and posed the question of who would pay back the funding.
She reiterated that coordination needs to be clear in the
operating agreements to avert unresolvable conflicts.
2:15:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE requested an example of a federally funded
project cancelled by its MPO.
MS. LITTLE responded that the funding for the Crow Creek project
has shifted to other projects. If this project were closed
without construction, per FWHA's rule, the money would have to
be paid back. She stated that the FAST Planning Policy Board
voted to remove the Safer Seward project, and federal funding
has already been spent on this. This would require either a
state payback or state funding to continue the project. She
remarked that when this type of decision is made outside of the
department's control, it is "hard to stomach."
2:17:43 PM
MR. MILLS underscored that the Safer Seward Highway project
would be a clear example of an MPO boundary disagreement
effecting an in-progress project. He discussed the issue with
safety on the Seward Highway, emphasizing the importance of
resolving the issue.
2:18:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed concern that the state could be
responsible for repaying federal funding.
MS. LITTLE clarified that while the state could be "on the hook"
to repay federal dollars, the match was from the local
municipality; however, the federal payback would be around 90
percent of the funds.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID asked whether the state has already paid back
any federal funds.
MS. LITTLE, in response, clarified that this has not happened up
to date; however, if procedures are not rectified, this would be
a potential for current projects that MPOs changed.
MR. MILLS noted the term "non-PAR," which refers to when a
partner does not sign off on an agreement. In this case the
state would be "on the hook" to repay federal funds, as the
state must conform to federal requirements in numerous areas.
In response to a follow-up question, he pointed out that some
examples of federal partners would be FHWA and FTA.
2:22:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referenced the discussion and the
reauthorization that have been postponed indefinitely by FAST
Planning. He questioned whether this would be the issue
concerning the possible reimbursement of federal funds.
MS. LITTLE, in response, clarified that the reauthorization
resolution is the agreement that would need to be worked through
for the updates on the operating agreement. She continued that
when the department brought the need for this forward to the
FAST Planning Policy Board, the board voted to postpone the
discussion indefinitely; therefore, the department and this MPO
cannot find resolution because the conversation will not occur.
2:23:17 PM
MR. MILLS concluded the presentation.
2:23:29 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID asked whether DOT&PF could have done something
different to change the conflict with MPOs.
MR. MILLS responded that there are many factors in the interplay
of this relationship. He expressed the belief that every entity
is working to advance the infrastructure programs; however, "we
are just at odds with the interpretation." He continued that
this is why something needs to be put in writing, with all
parties at the table. From the department's perspective, he
expressed the belief that a hard dynamic has been created
because MPOs did not receive the engagement they sought. He
pointed out that problems have existed between DOT&PF and its
federal partners, but through communication, this has improved
over the past year. He suggested that, if the department and
MPOs could work together, instead of focusing on their
disagreements, this could also happen.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID suggested that the answer could be worked
through by focusing on the future, not the past.
2:26:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the crux of the
problem is the "blurred lines of responsibility" and the
question of "who works for who?"
2:27:08 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK related that in an attempt to understand the
relationship between the entities, she made a chart, which
resulted in the question of whether the concern should be the
authority structure.
MR. MILLS responded, "We all work for the people;" however,
there is a structure and recognizing this could help understand
the mission.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK commented on the complicated matter at hand.
She expressed the understanding that in the relationship between
the federal partners, the department, and MPOs, no entity works
for the other. She expressed the understanding that MPOs must
consult with the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), while
receiving funds through DOT&PF, and DOT&PF would make allocation
decisions and receive funds through FHA, but it must consult
with MPOs. She continued that FHA must consult with MPOs on the
funds that are allocated to DOT&PF. She questioned the veracity
of these statements.
MR. MILLS responded that he would follow up after the meeting
with an answer in writing. He pointed out that there are roles
and responsibilities, and every entity listed has this. He
suggested that the interplay of the roles and responsibilities
are not completely understood by each. He stated that the
department is working to codify responsibilities to reduce
complications in the future, and this could be done in the
operating agreements. He expressed hope that this work would
yield positive results and better coordination in the future.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK made the observation that there is a tendency
to look at the problem from the top down, starting with federal
highways, moving to DOT&PF, and then to MPOs. She continued
that during disputes, the next organization down should not be
blamed, as there is room for improvement for each entity.
2:32:33 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID made closing comments.
2:32:54 PM
^OVERVIEW: Testimony by FAST Planning Policy Board Members
OVERVIEW: Testimony by FAST Planning Policy Board Members
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the final order of business
would be the Testimony by FAST Planning Policy Board Members
overview.
2:34:05 PM
SCOTT CRASS, Member, FAST Planning Policy Board and Borough
Assembly, Fairbanks North Star Borough, stated that he has been
on the board for two years, and, over the past year and a half,
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
has asserted that the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)
do not have authority over projects on the National Highway
System (NHS). He suggested that this is the result from the
denial of federal funding for the new projects that DOT&PF has
proposed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP). He argued that the new, NHS projects on the Richardson
Highway should have been in coordination with the Fairbanks Area
Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning. Because FAST Planning
was not involved, the projects were not included in its
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) or its Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
MR. CRASS stated that federal regulations are clear - to be
eligible for federal highway and transit funding, the projects
must be included in the MPO's MTP and TIP. He noted that the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) has
also been denied federal funding for projects proposed by DOT&PF
in the STIP, as these should have been coordinated with AMATS.
He explained that the dispute with FAST Planning has escalated
to the point where the department will not approve FAST
Planning's new metropolitan planning area (MPA) boundary, which
had been unanimously adopted by the Planning Policy Board in
2023. He added that the board's department representative had
been included in this process.
2:35:50 PM
MR. CRASS expressed the opinion that there are two issues behind
the department's non-approval of the MPA boundary. The first
issue concerns the funding from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) for the bridge replacement on the
Richardson Highway. The problem is that the bridge is outside
of the old MPA boundary, but inside the new MPA boundary. He
stated that the second issue involves linking the new MPA
boundary approval with an updated operating agreement. He
pointed out the department's demand for FAST Planning to accept
the department's proposed edits on the operating agreement. He
expressed the opinion that this would take the decision-making
authority away from the policy board for local transportation
projects on NHS.
MR. CRASS, concerning the first issue, argued that DOT&PF had
succeeded in its efforts regarding the bridge replacement by
traveling to Washington D.C. and meeting with the FHS executive
director, who overruled the Alaska's federal division office on
the project. He added that Alaska's federal division office had
originally required DOT&PF to coordinate the project with FAST
Planning.
MR. CRASS directed attention to the second issue, which is the
department's attempt to make the new MPA boundary approval
contingent on FAST Planning accepting the edits on the operating
agreement. He argued that there are no federal provisions
linking the department's demand for MPOs to accept edits on an
operating agreement. He stated that FHS staff have reviewed the
regulations, along with FAST Planning staff, and they all agree
that [MPA and the operating agreement] are separate documents
with separate approvals. He noted that 2021 had been the last
time the MPA boundary changed, and the governor had approved
this, and the operating agreement was updated. He maintained
that DOT&PF is withholding the new MPA boundary from the
governor's office for approval, for the department's
consideration.
MR. CRASS summarized the problem. He began by pointing out that
federal regulations are clear - all projects proposed for
federal transit funding, including NHS funding, must be included
in the MPO's Metropolitan Planning Program (MPP) and TIP to be
eligible. Therefore, MPO's policy boards have the authority to
accept or reject projects, including those on NHS. He argued
that there has been no undercutting of DOT&PF's responsibilities
to participate in project planning; however, the decision-making
authority is with the MPO's policy board, of which the
department is a voting member. He stated that a list of
projects provided by the department for the incorporation in TIP
should not guarantee incorporation. He maintained that this
would be a decision made by the MPO policy board on a project-
by-project basis. He noted that FAST Planning and AMATS have
exercised this authority in the past.
2:38:54 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID expressed the understanding that there is a
dispute over the interpretation of federal regulations and
authorities. He questioned whether lawyers have been involved
in settling the dispute, and he questioned the path forward.
MR. CRASS replied that the policy board considered obtaining
legal counsel; however, without legal [precedent] it would be an
impasse.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned FAST Planning's indefinite tabling
of the discussion.
MR. CRASS, in response, stated that the policy board tabled the
issue indefinitely because the edits would erode local control.
He expressed the opinion that there was no path forward with the
department's proposed edits. He identified the policy board as
consisting of the two local mayors, a member from DOT&PF, a
member from the state Department of Environmental Conservation,
a member from the Fairbanks North Star Borough, and the chair
from the Fairbanks City Council. He pointed out that the
municipal leadership has a strong desire to retain local control
on project planning.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned whether MPOs could change the path
to come to an agreement or a solution.
MR. CRASS expressed difficulty with a path forward because the
department's proposed changes to the operating agreement are a
nonstarter for certain members of the policy board. He pointed
out that developing operating agreements is an intensive and
costly process, and opening this to change would take an immense
effort, especially with the perspective of reducing local
control.
2:43:15 PM
JACKSON FOX, Executive Director, Fairbanks Area Surface
Transportation (FAST) Planning, added that FAST Planning's last
operating agreement had been updated in 2018, and it took over a
year and four attorneys to negotiate the agreement. He pointed
out that there had been many disagreements, and not everybody
"got their way." In negotiating the current agreement, he said
it would need to go through two city councils and the assembly,
which would bring in more opinions and stalemates. He expressed
the opinion that for the current process, there is not a high
chance of success.
2:44:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE opined whether MPOs should be dissolved,
with the authority given to DOT&PF. He questioned the contact
FAST Planning has with FHWA.
MR. FOX responded that all three MPOs have regular communication
with FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) staff, as all
required planning documents must be approved by these agencies.
He stated that quarterly meetings are held each year between the
three MPOs, DOT&PF, and the federal partners. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that if there were no MPOs,
planning for urban sections would not receive federal funding
until new organizations were created to replace these.
2:47:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-
Su) Borough has received federal money for the last two decades
without its MPO. He stated that three months ago, he had
requested emails and communication records between FAST Planning
and FHWA, and he received the minutes from only one meeting. He
requested copies of any emails or other communications. He
expressed the understanding that trucking issues were the
beginning of the problems and he questioned this.
MR. FOX responded in the affirmative. He explained that a year
and a half ago, an ore haul through an urbanized area had been
announced, and this had caused significant outcry within the
community. He stated that there were bridge replacement
projects planned to support the ore haul, but FAST Planning was
not included in this. He stated that this was the beginning of
the divergence with DOT&PF.
2:49:42 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID, in reference to the Mat-Su Borough's MPO,
questioned whether the borough had met the MPO requirements
until the most recent census from the U.S. Census Bureau.
2:50:11 PM
KIM SOLLIEN, Executive Director, Matanuska-Susitna Valley
Planning (MVP) for Transportation, clarified that the Mat-Su
Borough had not reached the urban-area population density
threshold to create its MPO until the census was certified in
2022. The MPO was formed within one year of the designation.
2:50:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that having
this is not a requirement.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID interjected, stating that federal funding
would not be received without an MPO designation.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the understanding that some
federal money could be received, but not all.
2:51:20 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed the opinion that Fairbanks needs the
federal highway funding, which requires MPOs, both legally and
functionally. She expressed the understanding that consultation
is required between MPOs and FHWA, from development to going
forward. She asked for clarification.
MR. FOX responded in the affirmative. He expressed the opinion
that FAST Planning has a positive relationship with federal
agencies, with frequent communication.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK, in her understanding of the relationship
between the entities, stated that MPOs make allocation decisions
and receive funds through DOT&PF, and MPOs consult with FHWA.
She questioned the relationship problem concerning this, from
the MPOs perspective.
MR. FOX affirmed her description. He added that all the funding
goes through DOT&PF, and then MPOs would consult with the
federal partners for planning approvals for spending the funds.
He acknowledged that DOT&PF is the fiscal steward of the
funding, so the department could be at risk concerning funding
issues where it has no participation. On what is not working,
he opined that the primary issue is the top-down approach, where
the federal funding goes to DOT&PF, and then to MPOs. With
this, he pointed out that the department asserts that it has the
decision-making authority over the funds.
2:54:54 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed agreement; however, she pointed out
that because of the nuances, the situation is more complex than
simply a top-down approach. She reiterated the question
concerning what MPOs could be doing to address the problem.
MR. FOX referred to the Three Cs of transportation planning,
mentioned earlier in the meeting. He stated that this outlines
procedures and protocols on agency interaction. He advised the
committee that finishing this document would help setup
expectations of each entity, but the terms must be decided. He
recommended that the document be proscriptive, so new parties
could easily understand it in the future. He expressed the
understanding that each MPO is committed to this process. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that the document is
on the agenda for the next quarterly review, as all parties
should be present. He expressed the hope that the document
would be completed in 2025.
2:58:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, concerning the trucking issue, questioned
whether FAST Planning should be able to regulate commercial
traffic on federal highways.
MR. FOX expressed the understanding that regulating freight haul
through the community would not be within its authority;
however, it is something FAST Planning would have liked
involvement in from the start, as traffic impacts in the
community need to be reduced.
2:59:01 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID gave final comments. He provided his
understanding that the idea behind MPOs was to give local input
into transportation planning, because in the past the federal
partners have done projects without consulting local
communities.
3:00:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 20250212 Cleworth FAST Letter.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| 20250225 AMATS Letter.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Amendment 2.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |
| 20250415 HTRA MPO Boundaries FINAL.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 186 Amendment 1.pdf |
HTRA 5/1/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 186 |