Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/15/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| Presentation: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and Iija Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 15, 2022
1:35 p.m.
1:35:37 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Adam Wool
ALSO PRESENT
Rob Carpenter, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; James Marks,
Director, Program Development, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
and IIJA OVERVIEW
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
^PRESENTATION: STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
and IIJA OVERVIEW
1:36:34 PM
ROB CARPENTER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced himself
and turned the floor over to his colleague.
JAMES MARKS, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program and IIJA Overview" (copy on file). He moved to
slide 2 and relayed that his presentation would discuss the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and why
it was important and necessary. He would also be sharing
some new information about the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Federal Aid Highways Program
(FAHP). He would end his presentation with the plans the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT)
had for the year ahead.
Mr. Marks advanced to slide 3 to offer information on STIP.
He read from the slide as follows:
• The STIP is 4-year program required in federal
regulations, (23 USC 135 & 23 CFR 450) & (17 AAC
05.155)
• The STIP lists federally funded surface transportation
projects in the State
o must be fiscally constrained
o must be a public process
o is approved by FHWA & FTA
• Failure to comply, jeopardize federal funding in
Alaska
• State regulations distribute funding and define State
programs, notably:
o National Highway System (NHS)
o Alaska Highway System (AHS)
o Community Transportation Program (CTP)
o Trails and Recreational Access for Alaskans
(TRAAK)
• The State maintains a 10+ Year Extended STIP
1:39:14 PM
Mr. Marks moved to slide 4 and indicated that the STIP was
composed of about 25 percent state programs and 75 percent
capital improvement projects (CIP). State programs included
items such as preservation and maintenance, and CIP
included items such as the National Highways System (NHS)
and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to the bullet point on slide 3
that specified that the STIP was required to be a public
process. He asked for more details about the process.
Mr. Marks replied responded that he would provide a high
level overview of the process in the presentation. He
explained that notices went out to the public when a new
STIP was being developed and there was also a list of STIP
contacts that received notices of a new or amended STIP.
Additionally, notices were published in at least one news
periodical, such as the Anchorage Daily News (ADN). The
public comment period would last for about 45 days, during
which DOT received the comments and kept a record of the
department's response using a comment log.
1:41:43 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the public process had been
steady over the years. He wondered if there had been more
or less public participation recently.
Mr. Marks answered that the participation waxed and waned.
He stated that there was significant interest in IIJA, and
there was an increase in participation when new IIJA
information was released.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that Representative Rasmussen had
joined the meeting.
Representative Johnson asked for details about the STIP
process in unorganized boroughs.
Mr. Marks replied that he had a slide later in his
presentation that addressed the various STIP cycles in
unorganized boroughs.
Representative Edgmon asked how the STIP process and IIJA
interacted. He was curious how IIJA and other new federal
programs would affect the work done by DOT and the
legislature. He shared that there was strong interest in
his district about the federal funding.
Mr. Marks answered that there was a slide that addressed
the matter later in the presentation. He relayed that DOT
was trying to manage expectations and emphasized that IIJA
was a re-authorization and not a relief act.
Representative Carpenter asked for a definition of the
Community Transportation Program (CTP) and the
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which were
listed on the slide as examples of CIPs. He thought the
public would be familiar with the other CIP examples on the
slide.
Mr. Marks responded that CTP and TAP were the interfaces
used by the public or by public officials in order to
nominate projects.
Representative Carpenter asked if TAP was a subcategory.
Mr. Marks replied that the regulations were a bit out of
date. He explained that TAP was the new federal program and
involved funding for components such as bike and pedestrian
facilities. There was a carve-out for recreational trails,
but it usually was transferred to the jurisdiction of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
1:47:45 PM
Mr. Marks advanced to slide 5 showing an illustration of
the STIP process. The box in the upper left corner showed
how the needs for a project might be sourced. The
department collected a variety of data as part of its
function, such as performance and condition data of the
roads or the socioeconomic needs of the area. All
identified needs went into a database which moved the
process along to the needs evaluation and management
category on the slide. He explained that when funding was
identified and holes in funding began to appear, the
department would do a call for projects, which was the next
step in the process. He pointed to the group icon at the
top of the slide indicating when the public was notified,
solicited, or otherwise involved in the development
process. The public was first notified when there was
intent to apply for funding for a project. Defining the
criteria for a project and releasing an intent to apply was
important because both needed to be in place before a
project could be submitted.
Mr. Marks continued that the project started to take shape
once the notice of intent was released, and engineering and
field work would begin. There would be some discussion
between the planning staff, engineering staff, and the
sponsor of a project on whether the department believed the
project would be viable. Once the projects were submitted,
the department would hold a Project Evaluation Board (PEB)
meeting. The board would score, rank, and prioritize
projects in a public meeting. There were a number of
factors that would determine if a project would go forward,
such as fiscal constraint and overall priorities.
1:52:53 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked for more information on the
expected timelines of the process. She was curious how long
a project would remain in each phase of the process.
Mr. Marks replied that each of the phases reflected a
particular period of time. Sourcing, evaluating, and
managing needs was an ongoing process that was always
occurring. He reported that the call for projects phase
would typically take approximately 14 to 16 months. The
department has tried to condense the process, but any
further condensing would reduce the public comment period.
The STIP was updated every two years and would soon be
updated to the 2022 through 2025 version of the process.
However, there were amendment cycles within the process
which triggered the public comment procedure to begin
again. The amendment process took roughly 90 days and
involved changes to the scope or cost of the project.
Representative Rasmussen was curious about the relationship
between public roads and population changes. She understood
that if a new subdivision was built in Anchorage and there
was no direct access to a state road, it would not trigger
a state traffic study. She relayed that Sand Lake in
Anchorage was currently dealing with increased traffic due
to new developments but there had not been any traffic
studies because the developments were not directly
accessible by state roads. She asked how the legislature
and department might collaborate in order to improve the
process.
Mr. Marks responded that the department incorporated land
use planning and other planning in its evaluation process.
There needed to be a balance in the urban centers of the
state and there was already some collaboration between the
department and Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Solutions (AMATS).
1:56:44 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for a description of the steps
involved in the STIP in relation to the Tustumena vessel
replacement project. He noted that the legislature put
forward a "state match" for the Tustumena project in 2018
in anticipation of incoming federal dollars. However, the
project did not move forward. He understood that the STIP
was the reason for the stagnation of the project.
Mr. Carpenter stated his understanding that there were some
issues related to the Buy American Act that prevented
construction of the Tustumena Replacement Vessel (TRV). The
project was recently moved out of the STIP and was set to
be revisited in the 2024 STIP cycle. However, there would
be an upcoming amendment that would likely move the project
up into construction in 2023.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there was awareness of Buy
American issues in 2018 when the appropriation for the
state match was made.
Mr. Carpenter replied that he would follow up on the
question. There had been delays and the project was still
in the design stage in 2018.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether any administration had the
power to step in and determine which projects would move
forward in the STIP.
Mr. Carpenter replied, "To an extent." He explained that
regional planning chiefs were consulted in the process and
timeliness and relevancy of the projects were considered.
Adding projects to the STIP and delaying others was a
balancing act.
2:00:56 PM
Representative LeBon asked if Mr. Marks was familiar with a
roundabout project near Chena Hot Springs in Fairbanks.
Mr. Marks responded that he was somewhat familiar.
Representative LeBon thought the project seemed to have a
substantial amount of public pushback. He asked if it was
common for a project to go through the process and receive
a lot of pushback once it was open to public comment. He
asked if it was possible for the public to halt a project
once it had reached the comment stage.
Mr. Marks replied that the department received the question
frequently and it put together a lengthy response for the
House Transportation Committee that included a list of the
projects that had been canceled due to negative public
comment. However, the department was required to move
forward with a project once federal funds were committed or
it would have to pay the funds back. He relayed that DOT
seriously considered the public's response to a project and
it sometimes resulted in projects getting canceled. He
offered to provide more details about the roundabout
project to Representative LeBon.
Representative LeBon suggested that federal funds had
already been committed to the roundabout project and it was
"beyond the point of no return" despite pushback from the
public.
Mr. Carpenter responded that one of the factors that would
override public comment was safety. He relayed that the
department's safety engineers determined that the project
was in the best interest of the state. The federal
commitment was not a priority to him, and he thought that
the STIP should be reexamined every year.
2:04:32 PM
Representative Thompson commented that Kinross Gold
Corporation was hauling heavy loads from Tok to Fairbanks
and beyond on a daily basis. He noted that there were plans
to add more passing lanes along the road and asked if heavy
hauling activity was taken into consideration in the
planning of road update projects.
Mr. Marks would not be touching on the specific project,
but it was under discussion and various options were being
considered. He confirmed that there was discussion about
passing lanes and there was already public concern about
the impact of the heavy hauling trucks on the road. He
would be happy to provide Representative Thompson with
additional information after the meeting.
Representative Thompson would like more information. He
thought the issue would be important in the future and
would require a substantial amount of funding.
Representative Rasmussen shared that a past constituent of
hers had a near fatal accident along the Seward Highway due
to rockfall. She asked what was preventing the
implementation of the needed repairs along the highway.
Mr. Marks responded there were subprocesses within the STIP
that allowed for faster turnaround, particularly in the
state project category. He offered reassurance that there
were mechanisms in place to speed up the process especially
in cases where there were safety concerns.
Representative Rasmussen asked about the timeline for
expedited projects.
Mr. Marks replied that it depended on the program. For
example, the Highway Safety Improvement Program put
together a list of projects once a year that were ranked,
evaluated, and scored by safety engineers.
Representative Rasmussen asked if anything precluded the
department from looking at a toll for the Seward Highway.
Mr. Marks deferred the question to Mr. Carpenter.
Mr. Carpenter did not believe that there was anything that
would prevent the establishment of a toll. He stated the
Federal Highway Administration had rules regarding the
establishment of tolls, but there were no state rules that
he was aware of.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated that the STIP was a complex
process. He asked if projects identified in the capital
budget sometimes superseded projects in the STIP.
2:11:13 PM
Mr. Marks answered it was a balancing act. An important
factor was that the STIP was on the federal fiscal year and
there was an overlap in the budgets that could create
issues. There was some flexibility in the STIP to move
projects forward within the four-year window, but the
legislative authority component needed to be considered as
well.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if some projects would never get
addressed and would simply disappear from the STIP.
Mr. Marks replied that it would be very rare for a project
to not move forward once the department had committed
federal funds to it.
Representative Edgmon asked if projects could be inserted
into the general obligation bond package independent of the
STIP process.
Mr. Marks replied in the affirmative. He indicated that
projects could also be inserted into the process through an
amendment or a STIP update.
Representative Edgmon asked for confirmation that there was
discretion involved in the general obligation bond package
determination and projects did not need to be in the STIP.
Mr. Marks responded, "Absolutely." He added that building
projects under Title 23 required significant resources and
time which made project delivery times longer and costs
higher.
Mr. Carpenter expanded on Mr. Marks' comments. He reminded
members that the STIP was a planning document that was
required by the federal government in order to spend
federal monies. If a project had received federal funding,
the state was required to either move forward with the
project or repay the federal government.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for a list of projects that had been
halted and the amounts that had to be repaid.
Mr. Carpenter would provide the list.
2:17:01 PM
Mr. Marks continued to explain slide 5 and the STIP
process. The department solicited input from the regional
planners and leadership teams at the beginning of a new
STIP cycle to determine what changes needed to be made. The
plan would then be subjected to fiscal constraint and
public comment, then be passed along to the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), and finally the commissioner. There
was a small do loop in the process when a minor change to
the STIP was proposed, such as an administrative change or
a schedule change that resulted in relatively small dollar
changes. He explained that small changes only required the
approval of the commissioner and would not require the
approval of FHWA or FTA. Any changes that altered the scope
of a project, canceled a project, or added a project and
resulted in a dollar change of 15 percent or more would
require a STIP amendment and trigger the public comment
process.
Mr. Marks moved to slide 6 to discuss FAHP in relationship
to IIJA. He read from the slide as follows:
• Characteristics
o Federally-Assisted, State-Administered
o Funding tied to specific systems and programs
o States or local agencies pay for maintenance and
match
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Role
o Establish national highway policy, regulations,
guidance, standards
o Review and approve state proposals
o Distribute funds and pay States
• State and Local Role
o Project conception, planning, design
o Construction of projects
o Maintenance & operation of highway
2:21:34 PM
Mr. Marks advanced to slide 7 and discussed the six steps
required to receive FAHP funding. The steps were broken up
into the following categories: authorization and
appropriation, which were United States Congress actions;
apportionment and allocation, which determined how funding
was distributed to states; and obligation and outlay, which
involved a formal commitment from the federal government.
He turned to slide 8 and relayed that the authorization
category referred to IIJA. He read from the slide as
follows:
• 5 Year Transportation Authorization
• Around $550 B in new Federal infrastructure
investment, including largest investments ever in:
o public transit
o dedicated bridge
o clean water
o clean energy
o electric vehicle infrastructure
• ~$664M for Alaska in Apportionment
• Significant number of Discretionary Grants
Mr. Marks explained that the goal was for the state to work
together to compete against the other states in the nation
and not to rouse competition between Alaska agencies.
Mr. Marks looked at slide 9 and noted that the
appropriation category also referred to IIJA. He elaborated
that appropriation happened every year but it was typical
for appropriations acts to not be released until December,
January, or February. He read from the slide as follows:
• FFY22 Federal Appropriations have not occurred
• Operating under a Continuing Resolution
• Rule-making still underway for new programs, such as:
Expanded Eligibility for STBG, HSIP, etc.
o EV Charging Infrastructure
o Carbon Reduction program
o PROTECT formula and grants
o Ferry Capital and Operating grants
Mr. Marks added that when the state was operating under a
Continuing Resolution (CR), the new appropriations were not
permitted to begin or be funded. For example, the state was
expecting to receive about $7.8 million for electric
vehicle (EV) infrastructure and DOT was working with the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to put the required plan in
place by August of 2022 for approval by FHWA.
Mr. Marks addressed federal aid highway apportionments on
slide 10, which related to the apportionment category. He
indicated that apportionments were defined in statute and
there were six main programs. The programs and the average
percentage of apportionment funding provided through each
program was as follows:
• NHPP
o National Highways Performance Program (~58%)
• STBG
o Surface Transportation Block Grants (~27%)
• HSIP
o Highway Safety Improvement Program (~6%)
• CMAQ
o Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (~5%)
• NHFP
o National Highways Freight Program (~3%)
• MPO PL
o Metropolitan Planning Organization Planning (~1%)
2:26:45 PM
Representative Carpenter asked what the percentages
referred to on slide 10.
Mr. Marks replied the percentages referred to the
percentages of apportionment funds that were allocated to
the state through each program. For example, 58 percent of
Alaska's apportionment funds came through the National
Highways Performance Program (NHPP).
Representative Edgmon understood that there would be a
federal appropriations vehicle in March of 2022. He
wondered if Mr. Marks could provide a sense of what to
expect from the incoming funds. He recalled that Mr. Miles
Baker had previously provided to the committee a range of
$100 million to $200 million in expected IIJA funds in
calendar year (CY) 22. He asked if DOT was expecting a
similar amount of funds and asked if the bulk of the funds
were expected to arrive in March of 2022.
Mr. Marks responded that Mr. Baker was correct in that
there was a wide range of expected IIJA funds. He offered
reassurance that DOT was running a variety of outcomes
through its models. There were still a great deal of
unknowns and there were more funds that would come to the
state in addition to the apportion funds. The question was
whether the state would continue to receive the funds it
had historically received, and if it did not, how the net
totals would be impacted.
Representative Edgmon thought it seemed likely that the
unknowns would not be cleared up by the time session ended
for the year. He asked if it was a fair assessment.
Mr. Marks replied in the negative. The department was
preparing for all possible outcomes and had considered a
number of different solutions. He agreed that the
department might not be able to implement all of the new
programs in the current year, but he believed the state was
well prepared regardless of what happened in March.
Representative Edgmon recalled that in 2019, the capital
budget was not passed until July. He suggested that
projects might have been pushed to the following year due
to construction deadlines if the legislature had waited
much longer to pass the budget. He thought history could
repeat itself if there were still a significant number of
unknowns by the time session was set to adjourn on May 18,
2022.
Mr. Carpenter shared that later slides would display more
detail on the estimated amounts the state would receive in
apportionment. The most significant unknown was the
allocations, which would be detailed in the appropriations
act once it was released. He expected the state to receive
around $140 million. He was confident the funds would come
but agreed that if the funds came later in the year some
projects might have to be pushed back to the following
year.
2:33:31 PM
Co-Chair Merrick recalled that there had been a discussion
about staffing in a previous meeting. She asked if DOT
would need additional staff to assist with the incoming
IIJA money. She had heard that the department would
specifically need more grant writers. She wondered if IIJA
money could be used to pay for administrative costs.
Mr. Carpenter answered there would be an impact especially
on programming and processing duties. He hoped to supply
the legislature with an infrastructure proposal bill in the
near future. He agreed that more grant writers would be
needed.
Co-Chair Merrick looked forward to the proposal.
Representative Carpenter asked if the administration could
work with the legislature to access additional funding if
it became available.
Mr. Carpenter answered that the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee (LB&A) was technically supposed to approve
unexpected revenue. If there was a large redistribution of
funds in August of 2022, the department could ask LB&A to
approve the use of the money.
Mr. Marks moved to slide 11 and highlighted the statutory
apportionment formula. First, a lump sum for all
apportioned programs and states would be set, then the
state's total would be calculated, then the funds would be
distributed among the state's apportioned programs. Of the
$52.5 billion in federal funds that would be distributed
nation-wide, $664.3 million would be designated for Alaska.
The funds would then been distributed to the programs with
identified needs.
2:38:00 PM
Representative LeBon asked for a description of the
statutory apportionment formula. He asked if it was
population based or need based.
Mr. Marks responded that the formula had never changed, and
it was referenced whenever a new transportation related
bill was put forth. He believed the formula process was
established around 1999 and was based on a number of
factors, such as population, density, and road miles. There
were some provisions specific to Alaska that were worked
into the formula because the combination of the state's
large land area and small population disrupted the formula.
Alaska received a disproportionate amount of funding
relative to the amount of gas excise tax that it
distributed to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Alaska fared
well according to the formula.
Mr. Marks turned to slide 12 and discussed Alaska
apportionments over time. He relayed that FY 21 was an
anomaly due to the influx of American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) and Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) funds. On average, the state
had anywhere from $550 million to $615 million in
apportioned and allocated funds. He explained that the $100
million number listed under allocated funds for FY 22 was a
conservative estimate and the minimum expected amount.
There were some known amounts, but it was possible that the
state would receive additional funds outside of the known
amounts. Although $100 million was estimated, it was
expected that the state would receive closer to $140
million to $160 million in allocated funds.
Mr. Marks turned to the table on slide 13 which illustrated
Alaska's apportionments and set-asides by program. It was
important to understand that the programs under the federal
highway apportionments were "carved up" before Alaska was
granted access to the funds. For example, 2 percent of each
program's funding was reserved for planning costs. The
state did not enact some federal laws such as open
container and repeat offender laws, and penalty funds were
taken from the Surface Transportation Block Grants (STBG)
as a result. He indicated that slide 13 illustrated the
third round of carve-outs from the programs that occurred
before the state was granted access. The purpose of the
slide was to show that not all programs were growing at the
same rate, and that the programs that were growing were not
growing in areas that were considered discretionary. He
stated there were new eligibilities under IIJA related to
things like ice roads and wildlife mitigation, and all new
eligibilities fell under the STBG program.
2:44:41 PM
Mr. Marks looked at slide 14 and discussed what Alaska
would have received from FY 22 to FY 26 if IIJA had not
existed. The department created models based on Federal
State and Technology (FAST) levels in the past and adjusted
for inflation. On average, the modeling found that the
state would have received about $2.9 billion over the five
year period, while IIJA offered $3.4 billion. The $540
million difference was all new money that the state would
not receive without IIJA. He explained that 32 percent of
the new money would be dedicated to the new programs listed
on the slide, which he would discuss in detail later. He
added that 42 percent of the funding was in national
highways and only 6 percent would come through STBG.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the 41.9 percent growth that was
expected for the national highway program included the
Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).
Mr. Marks responded that AMHS was on the national highway
system and therefore highway funds could be used for the
ferries.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for clarification that AMHS was
included in the 41.9 percent growth rate.
Mr. Marks replied that the funds could be used to fund
components of AMHS but the funds were not specific to ferry
boats.
Vice-Chair Ortiz stated he had heard in a subcommittee had
that $135 million of IIJA funds was budgeted for AMHS
operations. He understood that the funds came from a $200
million annual nationwide appropriation and Alaska would
qualify for the majority of the money. He asked if the
money was part of the national highways apportionments.
Mr. Marks answered in the negative. He indicated that the
funds specific to the ferry system were a discretionary
grant and would be in addition to the national highways
apportionments.
Representative Edgmon recalled that the congressional
delegation spoke before the House Labor and Commerce
Committee a few weeks prior and a member had commented that
a tremendous amount of money would be coming to Alaska. He
appreciated the breakout of the funds in the presentation
and thought the amount seemed far more modest. He asked how
he could reconcile the varying perceptions of the magnitude
of the money. He asked what he was missing because the
numbers seemed to be contradictory.
Mr. Marks answered that there would be IIJA funds coming
into the state through other agencies and other avenues
apart from DOT. There were also some estimates and models
that were including the discretionary grants in the totals.
He would have to see the numbers to confirm, but some
projections assumed that Alaska would be receiving a
portion of the discretionary grants coming from outside of
FHWA.
2:49:44 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if the legislature could expect
some of the grant money to come through FHWA.
Mr. Marks responded in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson asked for a description on the
"Protect (new)" line on slide 14.
Mr. Marks responded that there were two new federal
programs included on the slide. He explained that the
Protect program helped make infrastructure more resilient
after natural disasters. For example, there was a provision
in the program that looked at community impacts, evacuation
routes, and access to emergency facilities. The other new
program provided funding for the reduction of carbon. He
indicated that it was different than the existing program
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) in that the
carbon reduction program funds could be used anywhere in
the state. Conversely, CMAQ funds had to be used in a
defined nonattainment area or maintenance area.
Mr. Marks moved to slide 15 titled "Surface Transportation
Block Grants" and read from it as follows:
• Most Flexible FAHP Funds
• New Eligibilities, including but not limited to:
o Ice Roads & Seasonal Road Maintenance
o Wildlife-vehicle Collision Mitigation &
Remediation
o EV Charging Infrastructure
o Rural Barge Landing, Dock, Waterfront
Infrastructure Travel & Tourism Enhancement
• Limited New Money
o STBG Increase from FFY21 FFY22 ~6.7%
o Inflation from Jan. 2021 to Jan. 2022 was 7.0%
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the category of EV charging
infrastructure. He asked if local municipalities would
apply for EV funding and if so, would the application
process be through DOT or through the federal government.
Mr. Marks responded that because EV infrastructure was
under STBG funding, it would fall under the community
transportation program. There were two possible scenarios:
a community could nominate a project using FAHP, or DOT
could coordinate efforts with the EV program, which would
be more plan-driven. In the second scenario, a municipality
would need to identify corridors and develop plans to apply
for funding. He acknowledged that the rules were stringent
and made it difficult for large rural states to implement
projects due to the requirement to build an EV charging
station every 50 miles. The first scenario would allow for
more flexibility and would better fit Alaska's needs.
2:55:36 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for the amount of more flexible FAHP
funds that were available for EV charging infrastructure
purposes.
Mr. Marks answered there was no set amount. The program was
under STBG, which included a long list of eligible items.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if the breakdown would be included
in Mr. Marks' forthcoming proposal.
Mr. Marks asked if Co-Chair Merrick was referring to the
capital budget.
Co-Chair Merrick clarified she was interested to know which
projects DOT was suggesting that the legislature fund.
Mr. Marks responded that the projects would be listed in
the proposal. Some projects like the EV charging
infrastructure might be included in the budget as a program
because there were few guidelines and plans currently
available.
Co-Chair Merrick saw that AEA had requested $1.5 million in
the capital budget to install EV charging stations across
the state. She assumed the requested funds would be in
addition to the IIJA funds.
Mr. Marks did not know the nature of AEA's request, but DOT
was coordinating with AEA. He relayed that he and the DOT
commissioner would be meeting with AEA's executive director
within the next few weeks.
Co-Chair Merrick stated legislators were always curious
when multi-phase plans were mentioned.
Representative Edgmon recalled that Mr. Miles Baker
reported that there was around $22 million for five years
for the rural barge landing, dock, and waterfront
infrastructure project. He asked if his understanding was
correct.
Mr. Marks answered that he did not have the number reported
by Mr. Baker. However, he expected the state would receive
around $142 million through STBG once the appropriations
were passed. The funds could be used for a variety of
purposes and were not divided into categories.
2:58:43 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that he could have
misremembered and did not want to misquote anyone. He
stated that a community in his district had a request for a
breakwater and asked how the project would get in the
queue.
Mr. Marks answered that the request would go through the
community transportation program. He indicated that DOT
would do a call for projects and evaluate the criteria of
the various project requests to determine which projects
would go forward.
Representative Edgmon surmised that it was unknown if the
state would receive the full $142 million in the March
appropriations vehicle, and the projects that would be
eligible for the funds were the projects that were already
in the queue. He thought the next year would be more
competitive.
Representative Thompson referred to slide 14 and stated
that Fairbanks had the worst air quality in the state. He
asked if Fairbanks would be eligible to apply for carbon
reduction funds.
Mr. Marks responded that the details were still unknown.
Traditionally, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)
could not nominate individual projects for the state, but
the rules had become less stringently enforced in the
federal government.
3:02:31 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there was a portion of IIJA funds
that would be directed to municipalities directly and would
allow collaboration with the federal government.
Mr. Marks replied, "Both." He elaborated that the MPOs
received $3 million in planning funds which were
distributed according to a formula. The capital program was
funded through a variety of sources, including the STBG.
Funds from STBG and TAP were received in population sub-
allocations. A portion of funds received through STBG were
designated for areas with a population greater than
200,000; therefore, the funds were given to AMATS. He
expected that the fund amounts would see an increase of
about 6 to 7 percent. Municipalities could also apply for
discretionary grants, and there was a strong preference in
the current federal administration to connect with local
communities directly. The FHWA had gone from managing 52
states and some MPOs to managing over 60,000 eligible
direct recipients. There was significant federal concern
about how to handle the increase, and FHWA was hiring from
700 to 1,000 new employees to help manage the increased
workload.
Representative Carpenter referred to slide 14 and asked
what the state matching requirement would be. He wondered
if federal funds would involve a matching requirement as
well.
Mr. Marks responded that there would be a matching
requirement for both fund types. He elaborated that Alaska
had benefited from a sliding scale system that only
required the state pay a 9.3 percent match for most of the
programs on the slide. There were some programs that did
not require that Alaska provide matching funds at all.
Other states typically paid upwards of 20 percent per
match.
3:08:03 PM
Representative Carpenter referred to the column on slide 14
that showed the expected IIJA funds for FY 22 through FY 26
by program. He noted that the total of all the IIJA funds
was expected to be around $340 million over the next five
years. He asked if his assessment of the planning factor
was correct.
Mr. Marks explained that the number that should be used for
planning purposes was the $340 million total extrapolated
out. He noted that the state would receive additional
allocated funds totaling around $140 million which would
also require a match and need to be considered in the
calculations.
Representative Carpenter thought the $764 million figure on
slide 12 referred to state funds.
Mr. Marks clarified the figure was federal funds.
Representative Carpenter asked if Mr. Marks was suggesting
that calculating 10 percent of $764 million over five years
would elicit a more accurate total.
Mr. Marks responded in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson commented that he had seen
increasingly smaller capital budgets since the recession in
2014 and the state's match had averaged around $150
million. He asked if the estimated $764 million would be in
addition to the modest amount in the capital budget and if
the $764 million would be incorporated every year.
Mr. Marks responded that DOT's modeling factored in 2
percent inflation every year and modeled the figures out
over five years.
Representative Josephson commented that oil was currently
at $90 per barrel and next year it would be at $40 per
barrel.
Co-Chair Merrick noted a document detailing AEA's
electrical vehicle infrastructure plan (copy on file) had
been handed out.
Representative Carpenter asked what the difference was
between the FAST and IIJA budgets on slides 13 and 14. He
thought the $764 million match would be in addition to the
$150 million that was typically in the capital budget.
Mr. Marks answered that slide 14 only showed apportioned
funds, however the state received more in allocated funds
that was not included on the slide. The slide intended to
demonstrate the programs through which the money was being
delivered to the state. In terms of total match
requirement, the apportioned and the allocated amounts
would both need to be considered, and there would be a
matching component involved in forthcoming discretionary
grants as well.
3:12:57 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood that the governor had suggested
an obligation of $125 million in the budget. He asked if
the $125 million figure would cover any amount of the other
matching requirements.
Mr. Carpenter answered that the budget did not include
matching funds. He explained that DOT had presented the
budget as a placeholder.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there would be some obligation
funds for FY 22 or FY 23 that would need to be included in
the capital budget.
Mr. Carpenter agreed there would be an amendment to address
the increased funding level.
Mr. Marks turned briefly to slide 16 to address FAHP
allocations. He explained that the slide gave some examples
of what the allocations could be. He moved to slide 17 and
spoke to the obligation limit. The concept could be
confusing, and he offered a metaphor to help: if
apportionment was the fish in the ocean, the obligation
limit would be the catch limit. The obligation limit
dictated the upper spending limit that could be utilized in
a given year. Apportionment lasted for four years, and any
unused amounts would roll into the following year. However,
the department had to use the obligation limit by September
30, 2022 or the funds would return to the original source.
Roughly half of DOT's funding came from NHPP, about a
quarter came from STBG, and a variety of other funding
sources rounded out the portfolio. The obligation limit for
Alaska was nine, therefore funds could originate from no
more than nine funding sources. However, he relayed that
the amounts would vary from year to year.
3:17:44 PM
Mr. Marks moved to slide 18 and addressed the year ahead.
He indicated that DOT conducted a survey of over 2,000
Alaskans on how the funds should be allocated. The
department would be conducting a second, more targeted
round of the survey soon. He added that grant coordination
was also being discussed by the department, as well as
standing up a clearinghouse. Due to the increase in direct
recipient eligibility, there were many questions on how to
get a project approved. There were a couple of different
options circulating to create a way to triage and curate
projects. Significant outreach, coordination, and
collaboration efforts would also be increasing over the
next year and the next STIP cycle would begin within the
following few months. Additionally, DOT was implementing an
"eSTIP," or electronic STIP, which seemed to be the future
of the STIP. He explained that the eSTIP would be map-based
and automated to make the process as easy as possible. He
addressed the eSTIP on slides 19 and 20. There would be a
large public portal to allow for public involvement and
every project would be plotted on a map of the state. The
department was also considering implementing a public
comment component in order to facilitate discussion and
allow the department to respond to comments within the
eSTIP itself.
3:23:08 PM
Representative Johnson referenced her earlier question
related to the STIP process and unorganized boroughs. She
asked who to contact for information about the STIP process
in an unorganized borough with no community planner.
Mr. Marks replied that the department had another slide
showing a planner map that he could provide to the
committee. He explained the state was broken up into
regions, each region was further subdivided, and an area
planner was assigned to each area. The map showed names and
contact information for every area or borough, even those
that were not organized.
Representative Johnson asked if the area managers had
meetings in the assigned community and whether the managers
were state employees.
Mr. Marks replied affirmatively. Each region should be
maintaining a planning list so that the area manager could
reach out to solicit input when a new STIP process or an
amendment was put forth.
Representative Carpenter looked at slide 17 and asked if
there was a dollar amount associated with the obligation
amount. He asked if DOT had considered using the Alaska
Regional Development Organizations (ARDOR) to distribute
information to the public. He noted that ARDOR was
indispensable in circulating information to the public
about the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act funding.
Mr. Marks replied that the department was typically given
90 percent of the obligation limitation relative to the
apportionment amount. The obligation limit expired at the
end of September every year, and if a state thought it
would be unable to use the funds by the end of the year,
the federal government would reshuffle the funds to states
that were ready. The reshuffling was referred to as August
redistribution and was an important factor when considering
the obligation limit.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how IIJA would impact the STIP
process. He wondered if the committee would hear more
information about it later on.
Mr. Marks replied that the department would have to spend
time reprogramming the STIP because changes needed to be
made every time new programs were released. There were
projects currently in the STIP that could be rearranged to
relieve some of the strain on the NHS. Some new
eligibilities could be a standalone program, such as carbon
reduction, and some eligibilities may make it into the
community transportation program. He indicated that IIJA
would be incremental in a number of facets of the STIP and
in other plans as well.
3:29:07 PM
Representative Edgmon understood that he needed to
benchmark any new funds coming through DOT against the
amounts the programs would have produced regardless of any
new funds.
Mr. Marks replied affirmatively.
Representative Edgmon thanked the presenters for the
helpful presentation.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked the presenters. She reviewed the
schedule for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:30:19 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| H-Fin-DOT STIP-IIJA Overview 2022-02-15.pdf |
HFIN 2/15/2022 1:30:00 PM |
DOT Overview STIP/IIJA Overview HB 283 |
| DOT STIP IIJA Overview Supporting Document 021522.pdf |
HFIN 2/15/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 283 |
| HFIN - Feb 15 DOTPF Responses to STIP & IIJA Presenation 022222.pdf |
HFIN 2/15/2022 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOT response attachment DOT Planners Map 022222.pdf |
HFIN 2/15/2022 1:30:00 PM |