Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
02/24/2009 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB133 | |
| Federal Stimulus Package Update by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (dot&pf) | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 24, 2009
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 133
"An Act relating to traffic control devices on highways and
claims related to those devices; relating to designation of
highway systems; making conforming amendments; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
FEDERAL STIMULUS PACKAGE UPDATE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES (DOT&PF)
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 133
SHORT TITLE: TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES/HWY DESIGNATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) WILSON
02/13/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/09 (H) TRA, FIN
02/24/09 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KEITH UNDERKOFFLER, Intern
Representative Peggy Wilson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 133 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Peggy Wilson.
MARK NEIDHOLD, P.E., Chief
Design and Construction Standards
Division of Design and Engineering Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 133.
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Transportation Section
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 133.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 133.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an update on the Federal Stimulus
funding.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:29 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Doogan,
Gruenberg, Johnson, and Wilson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Munoz and Johansen arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
1:02:38 PM
HB 133-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES/HWY DESIGNATIONS
CHAIR WILSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 133, "An Act relating to traffic control devices
on highways and claims related to those devices; relating to
designation of highway systems; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
1:03:29 PM
KEITH UNDERKOFFLER, Intern, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska
State Legislature, read a prepared statement, as follows:
Fundamentally there is no more important principle
with regard to traffic control devices than
uniformity. When drivers see a red octagon they know
to stop. When they see a green light they know to go
and so forth. The certainty in the driver's mind of
what action to take is increased because of his/her
familiarity with uniform signs. No where is there,
say, a green light that is intended to mean stop.
This is precisely the issue that HB 133 addresses.
Currently, the Alaska Traffic Manual (ATM), produced
by the federal government and supplemented by the
State of Alaska is not set out in statute and
therefore local governments and private developers are
able to use signs unfamiliar to drivers, making the
roads more dangerous. This practice violates the
federal Uniform Vehicle Code and could easily be ended
by affirming the ATM in statute. Further, HB 133
ensures that the appropriate design is used for any
given situation. The ATM makes very particular use of
the phrases may, should, and shall, intending the
"shall" statements to be mandatory regulations, the
"should" statements to be recommendations, and the
"may" statements to be permissible installations.
Again, the intent of HB 133 in confirming these
statements is uniformity. If regions or
municipalities differentiated in their understanding
of these statements driver safety would be compromised
because they would not always know what to expect in
each situation. By confirming a uniform, mandatory
standard set out by the federal and state government,
HB 133 makes it clear what exactly the state or
municipality has to do to protect its citizens. It
provides clear requirements and makes traffic control
device installation uniform across the board. All
Alaskans will benefit from knowing exactly what each
traffic control device means.
1:06:49 PM
CHAIR WILSON stated that she does not intend to move HB 133
today.
1:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked the bill sponsor and her staff
for the well drafted statement as well as the work that is being
done on traffic control devices.
1:07:16 PM
MARK NEIDHOLD, P.E., Chief, Design and Construction Standards,
Division of Design and Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), explained that he
is responsible for the development of the department's statewide
procedures and standards for the design and construction of
highways and airports. Additionally, he is responsible for the
implementation of those procedures and standards by the regional
offices. Alaska uses the national Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), and an Alaska supplement to provide the
direction and uniformity with respect to traffic control
devices. The MUTCD is the federal standard while the Alaska
supplement amends the federal document to addresses unique
situations in Alaska. The Alaska Traffic Manual is a
compilation of the two manuals mentioned and is approved by the
Federal Highway Administration (FWHA). He related that traffic
control devices is the term the DOT&PF uses to describe all
signs, signals, and markings as well as other devices that are
used to warn, guide, regulate and inform traffic. He opined
that markings are fairly self-explanatory. First, signs
including stop signs, yield signs, curb warning signs, speed
limit signals, and street signs. Second, signals include the 3-
ball traffic signals used for vehicular direction, pedestrian
signals, and railroad crossing signals. Third, markings include
the paint lines so the stripes on the side of the road, the
painted crosswalks, turn only arrow and the gore chevrons that
mark interchanges. Traffic control devices are a compilation of
all three devices. The ATM provides the direction regarding
placement and application of those devices.
1:10:04 PM
MR. NEIDHOLD stated that the ATM also provides where and when
not to use the devices or direction to avoid overusing the
devices. He opined that to preserve the highest level of safety
to the public, uniformity is necessary statewide. He offered a
scenario in which a person encounters many bump signs, but
doesn't experience a bump. The person is conditioned to ignore
the sign and not slow down for the signs. When the person does
not slow down but encounters a sign followed by a bump, an
accident or injury could occur.
1:11:22 PM
MR. NEIDHOLD related that if speed signs are misused, the
consequences are more severe since driving around curves at a
high rate of speed could easily result in an accident. This
bill makes the ATM the standard to ensure public safety and
clarifies the department's role in classifying and designating
highways. He explained the department would be able to
designate and classify roads, apply different funding
categories, and different design standards for road including
sidewalk, curve radius and other requirements. He concluded by
stating the DOT&PF supports HB 133 since it adopts the traffic
manual and makes it the uniform statewide standard.
1:12:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether a definition for
traffic control devices is provided in statute.
MR. NEIDHOLD offered that the definition is included in the ATM
manual.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thought that it would be
helpful for the public to know what is intended and not just the
traffic control person.
1:14:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the ATM will apply to trails as
well. He inquired as to whether the DOT&PF will need to put
numbers on houses or mailboxes. He also asked if a big problem
exists in Alaska.
MR. NEIDHOLD responded that the ATM does not cover mailboxes and
house numbering, and is specific to traffic control devices that
are used to warn, inform and regulate. In further response to
Representative Johnson, answered that the ATM addresses
pedestrian signage and contains many levels of guidance
depending on the location and the use. He explained that it
would include bicycle paths and some trails, but not trails in
remote Alaska or West Glacier Trail at the Mendenhall Glacier.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if the Joseph C. Williams, Sr.
Coastal trail in Ketchikan would need different signage.
MR. NEIDHOLD said he was not familiar with the coastal trails.
He offered to provide information to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN clarified that the trail in question is
the Joseph C. Williams, Sr. trail.
MR. NEIDHOLD, in response to Chair Wilson, stated that the only
signage that would be changed by the bill would be to replace
signs that do not meet the national standard, such as if a
community erected a pink stop sign.
1:18:40 PM
MR. NEIDHOLD, in response to Representative Doogan, agreed that
it would be safe to assume that signage put up by the DOT&PF
would meet the signage standards in the ATM.
1:19:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to whether the rule apply to
municipalities
MR. NEIDHOLD answered yes.
MR. NEIDHOLD, in further response to Representative Munoz, said
he did not know for certain if the requirements would cause any
financial burden. He recalled that some municipalities have
supported adopting the ATM. He also explained that projects
designed by local governments using federal "pass through
dollars" are using current ATM standards. Thus, he said he
would not anticipate any impact on those projects.
1:20:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Section 5, to paragraph 13
of HB 133, to the definition of "traffic control device" that
includes devices such as pedestrian facilities, bicycle trails,
and multi-use pathways. He inquired as to whether any other
items should be included in the definition.
MR. NEIDHOLD said that the definition is based on the national
standard so he is comfortable that the definition is
comprehensive. He acknowledged he had forgotten the definition
for traffic control device was included in the bill.
1:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether HB 133 adopts the
federal standards for signage.
MR. NEIDHOLD related that the federal rule requires states to
use the national standard.
1:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification as to whether the
standards are construction standards such as for curb and gutter
or solely for signage.
MR. NEIDHOLD related his understanding that lane width, curb and
gutter relates to the DOT&PF's role in classification. He
explained that the classification defines which design standard
will be used. Thus, the bill clarifies the DOT&PF's role in the
act of classifying the routes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that the
Municipality of Anchorage holds discussions about classification
of routes such as whether the road is a collector or feeder
road. He further asked whether the state is supplanting the
MOA's ability to classify a road differently than the DOT&PF
would classify a road. He offered that signs would be one
thing, but design and construction of roads is more
comprehensive and would cover trails, gutters, drainage, and
bike paths,
1:25:18 PM
SEAN LYNCH, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Transportation Section, Department of Law (DOL), stated that he
is assigned to the transportation section. He answered, with
respect to Representative Johnson's question, that the federal
standard or the MUTCD is a "floor" and the DOT&PF is adopting
the federal standard. He explained that with the Alaska
supplement the DOT&PF can be more protective than the federal
standard. He further explained that the state classification of
roads determines which standard applies to state roads. This
bill will not change the structure of the road classification
but would repeal section AS 19.10.040, and merge it into AS
19.10.020, which is the requirement by DOT&PF to designate roads
in the highway system.
1:27:43 PM
MR. LYNCH, in response to Chair Wilson, answered that the bill
does not change the classification system that the state
currently uses.
1:28:06 PM
MR. LYNCH, in response to Representative Johnson, agreed that
the standard applies to public roads. He offered that
municipalities have some municipality-owned roads. He related
that the federal standard is a minimum or "floor" standard
nationwide. He stated that the signage for roads in
municipalities and villages is designed to the minimum federal
standard.
1:28:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether signage
requirements would change when a state road traverses through a
municipality.
MR. LYNCH explained that this bill does not add any additional
burden or modify the relationship between the state and
municipal roads. He detailed that when a road segment,
depending on ownership and traffic count could be classified
differently and could have different standards.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
answered that the key words are "functional classification". He
explained that the DOT&PF, under federal law, performs the
functional classification of all public highways of the state,
regardless of ownership. He offered that periodically the
process is updated since traffic volumes change and the purpose
of the road changes. He related that at the highest level, such
as the Parks Highway or Glenn Highway in Anchorage is to carry
traffic from place to place and the roads do not have driveways
or sidewalks except in controlled fashions at interchanges.
While, at the other spectrum are local roads that consist of low
speeds and light traffic volumes. However, in between the two
extremes are minor and major collectors, and minor and major
arterials and interstate or interstate-like roads. The DOT&PF,
through a public process, identifies roads. He opined that most
communities clamor to have their roads elevated to a higher
classification even if signage requirements change since
eligibility for federal funding is generally more available. He
related that higher roads tend to score better in the funding
system. Thus, while a burden may exist, communities generally
push for the higher road classification. He related that
process is currently underway to reclassify Alaska's roads and
is a revolving process that has happened since statehood.
1:33:26 PM
MR. OTTESEN, in response to Representative Johnson, opined that
he did not think there is anything in the bill to worry about,
that the classification of roads is ongoing and the DOT&PF is
asked to elevate road classifications for communities and not
lower them.
1:35:45 PM
MR. NEIDHOLD, in response to Representative Gruenberg, stated
that the intent of the bill is traffic control devices,
specifically signals, markings, and signs, but is not intended
to apply to traffic calming items such as islands, curb and
gutters, or green strips.
1:36:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether the definitions
should include those items, and if not, he suggested adding an
amendment to the definition of "traffic control devices" to
state "or other similar devices" since he said he thought the
language was slightly confusing.
1:37:13 PM
MR. LYNCH asked to address the question. He stated that the
intent is to adopt the MUTCD and the Alaska supplement as the
state standard. He related his understanding that the MUTCD
only addresses signs, signals and markings as defined in the
federal manual, but does not cover islands or greenways. Thus,
this bill is limited to adopting the national standard.
1:38:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested reviewing the language so
that is really clear to the lay person. He said that he does
not have a problem. However, he suggested that perhaps a
reference to the manual would make the definition clear to the
public.
1:38:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN referred to page 2, to paragraph 4, of
HB 133 and asked for a brief explanation of overruling the
Guerrero v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp., P.3d 966 (Alaska
2005).
MR. LYNCH explained that the case, which involved a child who
was hit while on a street, which subsequently resulted in
charges against the DOT&PF for negligent design. He stated that
the court found that the design engineer exercised his/her
discretion, and the DOT&PF could not be held liable except for
the issue of signage. He stated that the MUTCD used the term
"should" and the court inquired as to why the DOT&PF did not
include a sign. He related that this provision attempts to make
the distinction between the "shalls" in the MUTCD, which are
required, and the "shoulds", which are discretionary decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked to put on the record his
gratitude for the cooperative process that Chair Olson and the
DOT&PF are using with HB 133.
[HB 133 was held over.]
^Federal Stimulus Package Update by the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
1:42:23 PM
CHAIR WILSON announced that the final order of business would be
have an update on the Federal Stimulus Package by the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
1:43:23 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF),
stated that the DOT&PF is still digesting the differences
between the two versions, the bill that passed the House of
Representatives, and the final bill - the American Recovery &
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that passed the Congress. He offered to
provide an update on the stimulus package funding for Alaska
that will highlight the differences.
1:44:33 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that 112 days is the first target date
for the DOT&PF to obligate 50 percent of the stimulus package
funding. He offered that 7 days have lapsed and the Congress
agreed on 120 days. He reminded committee members that the
Congress stressed that the bill stressed that projects should be
done in economical distressed areas, which he said are areas in
the country that are 1 percent higher than the national average.
This pertains to all areas in Alaska except the North Slope,
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, Juneau, and Sitka. The
Congress intended the funding to provide good jobs in those
areas.
1:46:02 PM
MR. RICHARDS related that the states must use the funds quickly
or they will lose them under the "Use It or Lose It" provisions
of the bill. He noted that the Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS) and Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation System (FMATS) have a different timeline. If
states are not able to use the funds unable to use them, the
federal funding will be redistributed, he stated. He explained
that the DOT&PF has identified projects in excess of the funding
to be certain that enough projects can move forward.
MR. RICHARDS related that the governor or legislature must
certify that the state will maintain its planned transportation
funding, which essentially means that the stimulus funds will
not supplant state funds. He offered that the certification
must extend through September 2010.
1:48:12 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Doogan, explained
that "planned" would refer to appropriated projects or those
projects that were provided for in its capital budget.
MR. RICHARDS referred to a slide titled "Surface Transportation-
Funding" which he said contained a table of final funding
figures.
MR. RICHARDS then referred to a February 20, 2009 letter that
the DOT&PF sent to Chair Wilson that identifies funding levels
and provides a spreadsheet.
1:50:33 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:50 p.m. to 1:51 p.m.
1:52:01 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained that the amount of stimulus package
funding in the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is
funding for Alaska that is designated for highways and bridges.
The amount the state is to receive is set at $175.5 million,
with an allocation for AMATS of $19 million, local roads in
communities whose population is less than 5,000 will receive
$33.7 million, funding for enhancements is set at $5.3 million,
and other state and local roads' share is set at $117.6 million.
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Chair Wilson, explained that CMAQ
refers to congestion, mitigation, and air quality. He recalled
discussing previously that funding was not designated for CMAQ.
1:53:03 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Munoz, explained
that the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) was previously
eligible for funding in transit funds. However, in the final
bill that passed the Congress, the vast majority of the funding
went to the municipal planning organizations (MPOs) in Anchorage
and Fairbanks and the AMHS is not eligible for funding. He
pointed out that a provision within ARRA that will allow for
allow projects to be nominated for eligibility. Thus, the Port
of Anchorage will be able to request projects for consideration
that are not in the current funding.
1:54:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to whether AMHS projects
would be eligible under the National Highway System category.
MR. OTTESEN explained that the state and local share of funding
is a broad category that could be used for AMHS or ports. He
stated that within the regular STIP program, the NHF and the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) are both AMHS eligible.
1:56:21 PM
MR. RICHARDS continued. He reiterated that the "Use or Lose
Rule" requires that states obligate 50 percent of the funding
within 120 days and must obligate all of the funds within 12
months.
1:56:35 PM
MR. RICHARDS referred to a slide titled "Aviation Funding" and
stated that Alaska's share was significantly diminished to $82
million. Funding will flow directly to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), who will determine which projects are
funded using FAA criteria. He related that in Alaska, that
airports are either state owned and locally owned. He offered
that the bulk of the funds will be allocated to state-owned
airports, but some will go to locally owned airports such as
Juneau International Airport. He related that the Rural
Aviation Program will receive $71 million and $3 million will be
allocated to the International Airport System at Anchorage or
Fairbanks. Additionally, $7.5 million will be allocated to
municipal airports. Further, the "Use It or Lose It Rule" will
apply and the DOT&PF will be ready to capture any additional
funds that other states cannot use.
1:58:25 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Munoz explained that
the map titled "Alaska Aviation Projects AIP & Stimulus 2009",
and the categories listed as "Stimulus Program - Expected
Projects", "Stimulus Program - Contingency Projects", and
"Stimulus Program - Municipal Airport Projects" are the
universal projects that will be available for FAA selection.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that Juneau would be eligible for
funds not on the list.
MR. RICHARDS answered that Juneau would be eligible but that the
FAA is making the decision based on its scoring criteria. He
reiterated that Juneau projects are not on the list.
1:59:45 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, explained
that ARRA stands for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, which refers to the stimulus funding package.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to whether the state has in
the process and whether it would be helpful for the legislature
to pass a resolution to request priorities.
MR. RICHARDS answered that the input the DOT&PF has had so far
is to identify the projects that would be eligible in terms of
timeliness. The FAA then used its internal ranking system. He
opined that if the legislature is so determined to provide a
recommendation, that suggestion could be accomplished by sending
a letter to the FAA.
2:01:27 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in further response to Representative Gruenberg,
stated that the FAA projects ranked are the ones shown on the
map that scored high and are the ones identified as likely to be
funded. He stated that the department did not provide a
priority order. The FAA has closely worked with the DOT&PF to
determine and narrow down projects.
MR. RICHARDS recalled a recent trip to Washington DC and that
the focus is to use money to get people to work. He stated that
the DOT&PF has a very good relationship with the FAA.
2:03:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled his prior request for a list of
aviation projects submitted to the FAA.
MR. RICHARDS stated that he would provide a list to Chair
Wilson.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to whether the municipal
airports are eligible for $7.5 and also eligible for the larger
pot of $81.8 million.
MR. RICHARDS answered that the allocation to Alaska is $82
million. He opined that it will be up to the FAA to determine
what will go to the 256 state-owned airports as opposed to the
10 or 12 local airports.
MR. RICHARDS, in further response to Representative Munoz,
answered that he was not sure if Juneau submitted its runway
safety project for consideration. He offered his belief that
the project was previously funded in the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) and is ready to move forward.
2:05:54 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Chair Wilson, agreed that the "Use
It or Lose It Rule" will apply to all transportation funding
projects.
MR. RICHARDS referred to a slide titled "Criteria to
Prioritize". He related that the DOT&PF used the following
criteria to prioritize projects: the Governor's gasline
readiness announced projects, the economic distress preference,
the ability to leverage other dollars, the number of jobs
created in the 2009 season, and mandatory set-asides, such as
transportation enhancement and MPOs.
2:08:07 PM
MR. RICHARDS referred to a slide titled "Fairbanks and
Anchorage". He stated that AMATS and FMATS were treated very
differently by the ARRA formula. He stated that $50.8 million
was sub-allocated to AMATS by law, and $.76 million was sub-
allocated to FMAT by law, with the same general rules to apply.
MR. RICHARDS referred to a slide titled "30% Local Funds". He
related that the ARRA calls for use of the 1991 formula in 23
USC. He explained that Alaska has been exemption the past 18
years. The ARRA overrides the exemption and funds will flow to
communities whose population is over 200,000 and under 5,000.
Those communities in between will benefit, he stated.
2:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that in the
past Alaska has had an exemption that allowed it greater
latitude to use funds but that the ARRA does not allow an
exemption.
MR. RICHARDS agreed, adding that the provision applies only to
funding in the ARRA.
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, answered
that the challenge Alaska faces is the ARRA requires 30 percent
of the funding must be used for local funds. Thus, the ARRA has
narrowed the scope of the projects that DOT&PF can fund using 30
percent of the funds. He offered that the DOT&PF considered
attempting to correct this but those types of bills work slowly
through the Congress so it is unlikely the matter can be
remedied given the timeframe to obligate the ARRA funds. In
further response to Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Richards
informed members that the DOT&PF has presented the issue to the
Alaska Congressional delegation. He said he was not certain of
the outcome.
2:13:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that
approximately $117.5 million in funding can be spent on any
projects and that 30 percent of the ARRA total funds in Alaska
must be spent on local roads. He surmised that some area-wide
funding could be used to fund projects in population areas in
the state ranging from 5,000 to 200,000.
MR. RICHARDS agreed.
2:14:13 PM
MR. OTTESEN also agreed with Representative Doogan's analysis.
He explained that the amount of eligible projects that could be
used for the $117 million has increased. He highlighted that 50
percent must be used by June 15, 2009. He opined that a
significant number of projects identified for the $117 million
are the exact projects that are queued up and ready to use to
satisfy the 50 percent rule. He further opined that if projects
are switched out too dramatically, that the DOT&PF may lose the
ability to meet the 50 percent rule.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN related his understanding that DOT&PF had
already identified its projects for the $117.5 million. He
referred to the slide "30% Local Funds" and asked whether DOT&PF
anticipated that funding would be allocated for projects in
population areas listed on the slide as "Between 5K - 200K:
balance = 0".
MR. OTTESEN said, "We had a list of projects on last Thursday of
last week, as of Friday we had a different list of projects when
we got this news." He referred to the map titled "Alaska
Highway & Transit Projects Stimulus & STIP 2009". He explained
that some projects moved to the list titled "Stimulus
Contingent" and other projects in the local class moved up to
take advantage of the 30 percent local funding requirement. He
said:
The point I'd like to raise is view this not as a
stimulus list and everything off the stimulus list
just never gets funded. It's almost certain projects
not in the stimulus list will go on the 2010 STIP. So
there isn't really going to be any difference in
delivery. They'll be using a different class of money
but the projects down on the "green list" will end up
being built next year with 2010 funding. That's just
a simple fact of we're emptying the shelf of bid-ready
projects with stimulus so we're going to have to look
to the contingent list to use "Use It Or Lose It"
rules apply to the regular federal aid as well. There
will be no way to not move those projects into the
2010 STIP.
2:16:27 PM
MR. OTTESEN, in response to Representative Doogan, explained how
the formula is applied. First, the 30 percent funding rule is
applied and a formula based on population is applied to identify
funding for the MPOs above 200,000. Next, to identify funding
for communities whose population is under 5,000, the $33.7
million allocated in the ARRA is compared to the 1991 federal
allocation. If the $33.7 million is not greater than 110
percent of the 1991 value, then funding does not exist for the
mid-tier communities. He highlighted that Alaska received
slightly over $32 million in 1991 so the $33.7 million allocated
in the ARRA does not exceed 110 percent. Therefore, zero
funding was allocated for the mid-level communities in Alaska.
He maintained that is how the formula works. He opined that the
Congress did not fully understand the implications of the
formula, partly since specific language is not in the stimulus
bill. Instead, a reference is made to 23 USC in a few sections
of the bill that are long and difficult to interpret. Thus, he
surmised that unless a person had access to the 1991 budget for
his/her state, understood the math, and performed the necessary
calculations in the "frenzied few days" during the deliberations
of the bill, he/she would not realize the overall implications.
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN offered that he is not attempting to place
blame, but rather wants to understand the implications. He
indicated that he thought he understood. He said, "That since
I'm from Anchorage, what's mine is mine, but since
Representative Johansen is from Ketchikan, what's his is
negotiable, I believe is what's happened here. Am I correct
in...?"
MR. OTTESEN agreed. He related that the DOT&PF inquired as to
whether the state has any flexibility in applying this formula
and the response was that the federal provision does not allow
for any flexibility in applying the formula.
2:19:20 PM
MR. OTTESEN, in response to Representative Johansen, explained
that the formulas being discussed are the way each state divides
its funding between the MPOs, local governments, and the DOT&PF.
He related that the formulas were crafted in 1991 in Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). That
same year, the formulas were made exempt for two states, Hawaii
and Alaska. He surmised that instead of offering an alternate
formula, the ISTEA left it up to the state. He opined that the
state formula has been used for over 18 years and benefits the
MPOs. He said, "I don't know why they chose to cancel this
exemption, basically override the exemption, but the language in
the stimulus bill clearly does that."
2:20:57 PM
MR. OTTESEN, in response to Representative Gruenberg, answered
that historically Alaska has garnered 1.2 percent of the total
federal aid. However, under the ARRA, Alaska is eligible for
approximately .6, or roughly half of the typical federal highway
funding. He mentioned that if the ARRA formula had been
typical, that "there would have been a lot of money for the mid-
tier communities." He highlighted that Alaska is beginning to
see changes in how the Congress will allocate funding. He
opined that the ARRA is more favorable to big population states
and transit. In further response to Representative Gruenberg,
Mr. Ottesen advised that reauthorization has many potential
pitfalls for the state. He mentioned that the governor's
Washington D.C. staff, John Katz, has asked the DOT&PF to
develop a "white paper".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that sometimes a resolution can
urge that an injustice not continue, based on factual arguments.
MR. OTTESEN opined that he thought a resolution might help.
2:23:34 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Johansen, related
that the M/V Bob Ellis Airport Ferry, which is listed on the
Stimulus Contingent list, the need for a second ferry for the
Ketchikan airport. He related his understanding that the U.S.
Coast Guard could decertify the ferry. He related that the
project was originally slated as a general fund project.
Additionally, the bids that came in for that project are in
excess of the amount of funding that was appropriated to the
project. Thus, there is not any ability to fund the project
unless supplemental general fund dollars are appropriated. Mr.
Richards stated that the DOT&PF wanted to identify the necessity
to replace the M/V Bob Ellis. Thus, the replacement ferry is
listed on the stimulus contingent list and also identifies that
federal dollars could be used. However, the existing bid for
the ferry replacement was based on GF dollars and the DOT&PF did
not follow the federal process, which meant that the original
bid had an Alaska bidder's preference. He mentioned that unless
additional general fund dollars are appropriated, the DOT&PF
would need to rebid the project which would likely extend the
timeline beyond the 120-day constraint in the stimulus package.
2:27:49 PM
MR. RICHARDS acknowledged the importance of the project. He
expressed a willingness to work with the legislature to achieve
the project. He referred to a document titled "Alaska Transit,
Highway and Bridge Stimulus List (Based on ARRA 2009), and more
specifically to the headings on the spreadsheet titled "3 % TE
Funds" relating transportation enhancements, "30 % Local Funds"
which relating to the use of the 1991 formula in 23 USC, and "67
% State Funds". He stated that Yakutat Area Paving falls under
the local project, and Ketchikan, based on its population size
is not eligible for local funding, but shifts to the state
funding category or the 67 percent funding that is available to
the state. He recapped that the DOT&PF prioritized using
criteria and ranking the DOT&PF developed to recommend projects
that could meet the goals of the administration.
2:28:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to whether the replacement
ferry for Ketchikan was submitted in the governor's capital
budget or in the amended budget bill.
MR. RICHARDS offered his belief that the M/V Bob Ellis Airport
Ferry was not listed in either bill. He explained that the
appropriations bill for the stimulus package will be out shortly
and he said he thought the funding for the ferry would be
included in that bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN expressed concern that the stimulus
funding would be used to fund the ferry due to the additional
constraints in using the federal funding. He said he was
surprised that the DOT&PF did not include the project in the
capital budget for funding by the general fund. He stated the
U.S. Coast Guard requirement that the community is required to
have two vessels in case of an emergency. He offered that he
did not expect an answer, but maintained his concern.
2:30:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the timing difference for
the projects listed in the stimulus contingent versus the
stimulus recommended projects.
MR. RICHARDS explained that the projects titled "stimulus
recommended" list total $175.5 million in anticipated federal
ARRA funding. He referred to the spreadsheet with a
prioritization factors that reads "turns dirt in 2009" and said
if the box is identified as gray the project should be under
construction within 2009. He explained that the list of
projects titled "stimulus contingent" are projects that have met
the federal guidelines, have followed federal processes for
environmental, right-of-way and design standards, and combined
with the "stimulus recommended" list are the projects that the
DOT&PF has available and ready to use the ARRA stimulus funds.
He reiterated that if extra funds come to the state due to the
inability of another state to use funding, the "stimulus
contingent" list is important such that the DOT&PF will need
prior legislative authority for those projects. He mentioned
that some of the timelines for the "stimulus contingent"
projects list construction in 2009.
2:32:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that funds are
not available for the projects listed in the "Stimulus
Contingent" list. She inquired as to whether the projects will
be part of a future package for the next round, be included in
the STIP, or are on the contingent list in case any additional
funds are received.
MR. OTTESEN answered that in May or June 2009, the federal
highways administration (FHWA) will poll states to determine if
it can meet the 50 percent requirement, and if so, if other
projects are ready. He related that the state must be ready to
move forward with additional projects from the federal
redistribution. He mentioned that Alaska has always been a net
winner since it is ready.
MR. OTTESEN, in response to Representative Munoz, explained that
if the projects are not funded by June 2009, will be first in
line for the 2010 STIP. He said he could not specifically
identify which projects would be funded in the 2010 STIP, since
it depends on a number of factors. However, he mentioned that
it is likely that the projects on the "Stimulus Contingent" list
will be the projects under consideration.
2:35:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN recalled that Anchorage Metropolitan
Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) has a 12-month timeline.
He inquired how the DOT&PF is tracking the two timelines
internally.
MR. RICHARDS stated that the DOT&PF works cooperatively with the
Municipality of Anchorage on project development.
2:37:54 PM
CHAIR WILSON offered her appreciation for the work that DOT&PF
is accomplishing.
MR. RICHARDS characterized the DOT&PF staff as "hard charging"
to meet this mission.
2:38:27 PM
CHAIR WILSON inquired as to whether the committee could review
the 2009 projects.
MR. RICHARDS referred to the map titled "Alaska Highway &
Transit projects Stimulus & STIP 2009". He stated that projects
listed on "STIP 2009 Advertised" are those projects identified
for funding in the STIP. He reiterated that projects under the
"Stimulus Recommended" and "Stimulus Contingent" and "Stimulus
Transit" are projects that were updated and represent the final
ARRA funding.
MR. RICHARDS referred to the spreadsheet previously mentioned,
and explained that the projects under the heading "State 67%"
are for state assets but can be used for local needs as well.
He reiterated that the projects that are ready will be using
ARRA funding, existing STIP and future STIP funds.
2:41:05 PM
CHAIR WILSON, inquired as to how often the DOT&PF uses private
contractors.
MR. RICHARDS answered that the DOT&PF uses consultants as
partners in project delivery over 50 percent of the time. He
offered his belief that over 65 percent of the projects in
Anchorage are delivered by consultants.
MR. RICHARDS, in response Chair Wilson, agreed that most of the
consultants are Alaskan firms. However, some national firms
will pull expertise to the state and when work in Alaska is
slow; the same firms will use Alaskans for some Lower-48
projects.
2:42:40 PM
MR. RICHARDS, in response to Representative Johansen, stated
that he was not certain how many specific contracts and
consultants have been working to help DOT&PF achieve through the
delivery phase. He also acknowledged that the DOT&PF has sought
some waivers to hire people specifically needed to fill key
positions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked whether the DOT&PF has
specifically contracted out because the department was
"hamstrung by the hiring freeze".
MR. RICHARDS said he did not have that specific information.
2:44:15 PM
MR. RICHARDS referred to a slide titled "Highway $: Our 3
Lists" which he said are the recommended projects, contingent
projects and those projects considered, but are not currently
eligible.
2:45:17 PM
CHAIR WILSON noted that the aviation projects listed seem to be
spread across the state.
MR. OTTESEN said, "It's a pretty exciting time. We're moving
fast. If people aren't comfortable moving fast, maybe they are
uncomfortable. But, I think for the great majority of our
staff, this is kind of...as good as it gets in professional work
at DOT&PF."
2:46:28 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:46
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|