Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/11/2003 09:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 71(TRA)
"An Act relating to funding for transportation projects; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
[NOTE: The initial portion of the sponsor's testimony was not
recorded due to recording technicalities. In lieu of verbal
testimony, Senator B. Steven's Sponsor's Statement is incorporated
into the minutes as follows.]
Sponsor Statement
Committee Substitute for SB 71:
Transportation Enhancement Projects.
Federal law, TEA-21, and its predecessor, ISTEA, mandate that
states expend at least 10% of federal Surface Transportation
Program funds on enhancement such as trails and landscaping.
Over the past several years, the State of Alaska has expended
amounts well beyond the minimum requirements for enhancement
projects that could otherwise be applied to roadway
construction and improvement projects. CS for Senate Bill 71
decreases the amounts allocated for the TRAAK program and
other enhancement projects to be in line with federal minimum
requirements to free up millions of dollars to be available
for roadway construction and improvement projects.
The committee substitute for Senate Bill 71 proposes to reduce
the Department of Transportation's allocation of non-
restricted federal apportionments to projects classified under
the Trails and Recreational Access Program (TRAAK). Under
current DOT regulations, the department allocates at least 8%
percent to TRAAK projects; CS for SB 71 reduces the allocation
to not more than 4%. The bill redirects the other 4% into the
DOT allocation for projects classified under the Community
Transportation Program, increasing this program's allocation
to 37%.
Administrative Order #161 of the previous administration in
1996 established the Trails and Recreational Access for Alaska
(TRAAK) program to address features such as trails, scenic
highways, recreational access points and interpretive
facilities. From 1998 to 2003, over $150 million was allocated
for the TRAAK projects while the federal minimum for
transportation enhancement (i.e. trails, landscaping scenic
beautification) expenditures was $43 million; more than a 200%
increase. These expenditures do not include separate bike
paths or waysides that were included in individual
construction projects in the National Highway System program,
the Alaska Highway system or Community Transportation Program.
Only a municipality that is federally recognized as a
Municipal Planning Organization (MPO) would be impacted by
this section (c) of this legislation, which are Anchorage and
Fairbanks. In 1998, the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS) adopted a policy of
programming 15% of its transportation funding allocation for
enhancements. The three-year average at 15% for transportation
enhancements from 2000-2002 Transportation Improvement Program
averaged roughly $5.5 million. The Department of
Transportation is expecting the Anchorage share of TEA-21
federal-aid transportation funds to increase within the next
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. With the
anticipated overall increase, 10% of the three-year average of
federal-aid highway funds allocated to AMATS during 2004-06
will be roughly $5.8 million, slightly more than what was
allocated during 2000-2002.
[Note: Recording resumes.]
Senator B. Stevens directed the Committee to a spreadsheet titled
"Comparison of Minimum TE Expenditures Required Under Federal Law,
and Total Level of TRAAK Project Funding 1998-2003," [copy on file]
provided by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
He explained that this information depicts the federal surface
transportation funding, the federal and State funding allocation,
and the total TRAAK Program allocation for the years 1998-2003. He
summarized that the federal and State ten percent match for these
years totaled approximately $43 million; however, he declared, the
State spent in excess of $150 million.
Senator B. Stevens advised that Section 1(a) of the bill addresses
the federal and State funding levels, and Section 1(c) addresses
AMATS. He stated that the spreadsheet titled, "Comparison of the
Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS)
Enhancements Allocation at 10% and 15%,"[copy on file] provided by
that AMATS 2001-03 TIP and Draft 2004-06 TIP depicts the year 2000-
03 AMATS allocations, the actual amounts allocated, and the 15
percent and ten percent funding levels. He referenced the proposed
year 2004-06 program funding increases at the 15 percent and ten
percent levels, and he argued that, rather than remove money from
the Anchorage trail system, the ten percent level of funding
specified in this bill would allow the recent average of funds to
be maintained or increased while allowing more funding to be
allocated to actual road projects which, he advised, should be a
priority of the State.
Senator B. Stevens referred the Committee to the pie chart titled
"Distribution of Federal-Aid Transportation Formula Funds Per 17
AAC 05.155-200" within the "Trails and Recreation Access for Alaska
(TRAAK) Program" pamphlet provided by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities. He explained that the larger
of the two pie charts reflects that 41 percent of the federal
funding is allocated to fund the CTP (Community Transportation
Program) that funds the STIP. He stated that eight percent of the
total 41 percent funding is designated for TRAAK with the remaining
33 percent designated to fund the MPOs and all other State
transportation projects.
Senator Stevens summarized that Section 1(b) reduces the level of
TRAAK funding to four percent thereby increasing the CTP to 37
percent, which would benefit all statewide road projects.
Senator Olson commented that while he understands the concern
regarding road project funding needs, he asked whether this
legislation would affect rural trail funds. He emphasized the
importance of rural trails, which serve as the primary
transportation link for many communities
SFC 03 # 18, Side A 10:58 AM
Senator Olson continued that snow machine trail markings provide an
"essential link for people traveling between villages" in rural
areas of the State.
Senator B. Stevens stated that the intent of the bill is to
continue to fund TRAAK trail needs at the four percent level. He
stated that some of the projects on the "Tentative Advertising
Project Schedule as of Friday March 7, 2003" [copy on file]
provided by the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
are not trail enhancement projects "but are actually large road
projects that are being funded." He pointed out that Item #12 is a
highway and that Items #13 and #14 are road rehabilitations. He
asserted that the TRAAK program should continue to provide funding
for "rural transportation corridors."
Senator Olson clarified that while he understands the intent of the
bill, he is requesting verification that the rural trails would not
be negatively impacted by this legislation.
JAMES ARMSTRONG, Manager, Transportation Planning, Municipality of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage and voiced
support for the bill. He noted that the March 3, 2003 letter from
the Municipality of Anchorage Mayor, George Wuerch, to Senator Ben
Stevens [copy on file] endorses the legislation.
TED VOLIN testified via teleconference from Anchorage to voice
support of the four percent TRAAK funding level as specified in the
bill.
Senator Hoffman voiced concern that, while this legislation would
result in more dollars being available for road improvement needs,
federal standards might prevent the money from being spent in rural
areas. Therefore, he suggested that consideration be given to
specifying an allocation for Rural projects.
Senator Hoffman asserted that restrictions should be imposed on the
TRAAK program to prevent further abuses in the program;
specifically to ensure that urban road projects should be required
"to vie" for designated road project funding rather than TRAAK
funds. He expressed that, without restrictions, rural areas would
be required "to compete" against larger community "mega-projects"
for funds of "a smaller pie."
Senator B. Stevens voiced that this legislation would provide an
additional $13 million "to meet all other State and local needs,"
which, he argued, would include Rural needs.
Mr. Ottesen voiced that the issue of whether rural trials that are
used by machines should be viewed as TRAAK or CTP projects has been
debated for years. He voiced the position that rural trails should
be recognized as part of the CTP program "as they are moving people
and their goods for the sake of commerce and daily living," rather
than being used "as a recreational asset." Therefore, he continued
they would be "more adequately funded" than they currently are if
the CTP funding increases from 33 percent to 37 percent.
Senator Hoffman countered that the Department's "ranking criteria"
rates Rural projects "very low" and "favors" higher service areas.
Mr. Ottesen assured that the formula would be revisited when the
next STIP is developed. However, he continued, that while many
Rural trails have been funded, the Department has experienced a
backlog of projects due to the difficulty in implementation. He
stressed that the Department supports village trail projects "as
they save lives," they help people move food and fuel from
community to community, and "they are a highway in the very real
sense of the word."
Senator Bunde understood that, were this bill adopted, $3 million
of AMATS funding and four percent of TRAAK funding, amounting to
approximately $13 million, would be available for road projects.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that the total amount of federal
funding would remain the same; however, he continued, four percent,
rather than the current eight percent, would be allocated for TRAAK
funding. He stated that this would result in additional CTP funds.
Mr. Ottesen verified that were the percent allocated to TRAAK
reduced to four percent, an additional $13 million would be
available for road projects in FY 04.
Senator Bunde surmised, therefore, that approximately $15 million
would be made available to transport people above the current
allocation.
Mr. Ottesen agreed.
Senator Olson asked whether this legislation would affect marine
transportation; specifically channel markings.
Mr. Ottesen explained that the State is unable to use federal
highway funds for ports or navigation aides. He voiced optimism
that, through the Denali Commission, these types of projects might
be eligible for funding, and he noted that the Department, in
anticipation of this funding, is supplying the Denali Commission
with pertinent information "on the types and needs that exist."
Senator Olson asked who is currently responsible for the
maintenance of channel markers in rivers.
Mr. Ottesen responded that "aides to navigation" are currently the
responsibility of the US Coast Guard.
Co-Chair Wilken asked the Department's position regarding the
legislation.
Mr. MacKinnon responded that the Department has issued a "Best
Interest Finding" from Commissioner Mike Barton, signed in January
2003, that reflects a Department funding reduction to TRAAK by
approximately $11.5 million for remaining half of federal fiscal
year 2003.
Senator Hoffman reiterated his concern that rural projects would be
competing for fewer TRAAK dollars; therefore, he asked whether the
additional monies available for CTP could be specified to address
rural needs. He further inquired as to whether language could be
added to the TRAAK program to ensure that the "mega-projects,
particularly the road projects," do not absorb the available
funding.
Mr. Ottesen conveyed that this money is designated as
Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding. He communicated that rural
projects are eligible through CTP and TRAAK; however, he noted, the
State has spent beyond the federal TE specifications for TRAAK
which has allowed for rural boardwalks and trail markings.
Therefore, he suggested, "a better approach might be to revisit"
the State formula to ensure that rural projects could "compete on a
even basis with more urban and suburban projects."
Senator B. Stevens moved to report CS SB 71(TRA) from Committee
with previous fiscal note and individual recommendations.
Senator Hoffman objected. He requested that the issue of rural
trail funding be addressed as the bill proceeds through hearings in
the House of Representatives.
Senator Hoffman withdrew his objection.
Without further objection, the bill REPORTED from Committee with
previous fiscal note #1, from the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|