Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
02/21/2023 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Department of Transportation and Public Facilities - Federal Programs & Infrastructure and Jobs Act Funding | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 21, 2023
1:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin McCabe, Chair
Representative Sarah Vance, Vice Chair
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jesse Sumner
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Genevieve Mina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES - FEDERAL PROGRAMS & INFRASTRUCTURE AND JOBS ACT
FUNDING
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES MARKS, Director
Division of Planning and Program Development
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities Federal Funding to Date and Planning for the Future."
JUDY CHAPMAN, Deputy Director
Division of Planning and Program Development
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented the PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities Federal Funding to Date and Planning for the Future."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:00:52 PM
CHAIR KEVIN MCCABE called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Representatives McKay,
Sumner, Stutes, Mina, Vance, and McCabe were present at the call
to order. Representative C. Johnson arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities - Federal Programs & Infrastructure and Jobs Act
Funding
PRESENTATION(S): Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities - Federal Programs & Infrastructure and Jobs Act
Funding
1:01:34 PM
CHAIR MCCABE announced that the only order of business would be
the presentation by the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities on federal programs and funding.
1:02:16 PM
JAMES MARKS, Director, Division of Planning and Program
Development, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), co-presented a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Federal
Funding to Date and Planning for the Future," [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. He stated that the
presentation will look at the past year, current plans, and
future objectives, as seen on slide 2. In planning over the
last year, he said that DOT&PF has been pursuing a more agile
framework, so it would be "nimble" in its response and more
action oriented. He stated that during the presentation he will
inform the committee what has been learned about the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). He stated that
he will address the changes planned and how this will affect
investment in transportation in the state. He noted that IIJA
is a very large transportation bill; therefore, DOT&PF would
need partners to get more of the funding out to the communities.
MR. MARKS stated that IIJA has not only supplied more funding,
but it has also provided many new programs, with additional
direct recipients, such as nonprofits and Tribes, as seen on
slide 4. Because of this, he explained, there has been capacity
restraints at the federal level. In the past this funding had
been given to only apportioned programs, such as state
departments of transportation.
MR. MARKS continued to slide 5, which showed the national view
of the eight apportioned programs. He explained that
"apportioned" means that the funding would be put through a
statutory formula before going to each state. He pointed out
that in five years IIJA would be providing a 32 percent increase
in funding in Alaska across the board.
MR. MARKS moved to slide 6, titled "Alaska's Transportation
Share." He noted that the bar chart shows a more complete
picture over time, as all the possible investments are being
investigated. He pointed out that over time Alaska is seeing a
significant growth in IIJA. He discussed this in detail.
1:10:03 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question, agreed that the
allocation for 2023 will go down by $3 million. He noted that
some of this is because of annual appropriations, while some is
the reaction to the environment, such as emergency relief
funding. He noted that this number will always change.
MR. MARKS, continued to slide 7, titled "Federal Formula
Programs." He noted the programs listed on the slide, pointing
out that the growth that occurred in IIJA is not level, as some
programs would receive large increases, while others would see
no increase. He discussed the increase in IIJA that Alaska will
receive. He remarked on the programs that made up most of the
growth nationwide.
1:12:30 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question, pointed to slide
5 and noted that PROTECT is the acronym for Promoting Resilient
Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving
Transportation. This means the program is focusing on
resiliency to climate change and natural disasters. The program
requires states to have a resiliency improvement plan. He
stated that there are four main categories the PROTECT program
allows funding for: planning, at-risk assets, environmental
protection, and coastal community protections. In response, he
stated that the Carbon Reduction Program addresses green energy,
such as electric vehicles and the infrastructure for these, or
anything that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He stated
that this would require states to make a greenhouse gas
reduction policy. He stated that performance measures would be
made, with states creating their own targets. In response to a
follow-up question, he expressed uncertainty whether this would
cover any vouchers for purchasing electric bicycles.
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question, stated that ice
roads would not fall under the Carbon Reduction Program or
PROTECT, but this would fall under a new eligibility for an
existing Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG).
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, stated that
these funds must be spend in a maintenance area or nonattainment
area, such as urban areas with dust. In response to a follow-up
question, he stated that most areas in Fairbanks are in
maintenance areas, but there is a new set of rules that would
reduce these thresholds. Concerning the cause of poor air
quality, he responded that changing CMAQ from being related to
car exhaust would take "support from the highest levels." He
added that DOT&PF is working on this.
1:21:20 PM
MR. MARKS addressed the challenges in implementing IIJA, as
listed on slide 8. He stated that DOT&PF has limited capacity
in influencing land use. The department cannot be present at
every assembly meeting in the state; therefore, he said there is
some disconnect with regional needs. He discussed the "silo
mentality" versus the "team mindset." Moving to the next point,
he discussed the outdated data systems that need to be replaced.
The other challenges he addressed include the need for a
multimodal level of service, outdated regulations, slow-moving
bureaucracies, and vague working definitions. He noted that the
slow movement of the DOT&PF bureaucracy is one of the biggest
challenges. Concerning vague working definitions, he pointed
out how the definitions of "rural" and "remote" effect the
distribution of funds.
1:26:39 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning
tracking IIJA funds, pointed out that there are too many "loose
threads" concerning funding and opportunity, and this creates a
fear of missing out on funding. In this regard, he stated that
partnerships have been helpful in the organizational piece. He
discussed the possibility of creating an infrastructure
coordinator position in the office of the governor. In response
to the concern of maximizing funds, he expressed the opinion
that there is no risk "of leaving funds on the table." He gave
an example of how resourcing with partnerships would help. He
expressed the understanding that DOT&PF is not concerned, as it
is actively mitigating against [not using the available
funding].
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning the
vague working definitions, stated that this concerns state
regulation and statute, and it also concerns federal definitions
as well. He discussed making the definitions "more true to the
intent," so areas can be properly classified and funding can be
directed appropriately. In response to a follow-up question
concerning other effects of changing definitions, he stated that
this is a challenge, as these changes would guide future
investments. He discussed historical projects that are indebted
with federal funds, as these could be affected.
1:34:38 PM
JUDY CHAPMAN, Deputy Director, Division of Planning and Program
Development, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
co-presented the PowerPoint presentation, titled "Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Federal
Funding to Date and Planning for the Future." She moved to
slide 10, titled "Family of Plans." She stated that a project
cannot be complete without planning. She discussed the four
tiers of planning: long-range transportation plan, strategic
investment plan, model and system plans, and regional, area, and
corridor plans. She described how this system is a feed-back
loop, and how plans should not "sit on a shelf."
1:36:10 PM
MS. CHAPMAN, in response to a committee question, stated that
the long-range plan is updated every four years for every mode
of transportation. She added that this would be at a "high
level." She stated that there is a federal requirement that the
project be surface based, but because Alaska has a heavy
reliance on other modes of transportation, it would treat these
other modes as surfaced based. In response to a follow-up
question, she stated that DOT&PF could provide copies of
historic umbrella plans, and these would consist of the high-
level modes; however, she noted that subsidiary plans, like the
Alaska Marine Highway System plan and the Alaska Aviation System
plan are not done every four years.
MS. CHAPMAN moved to slide 11, titled "Public Perceptions of
Regional Priorities." She discussed how communities see
priorities differently. She pointed out the six investment
areas in the state, as seen on the map on the slide, and she
went through the list of transportation priorities and each
region's perspective on the priorities. She noted that there
are places in the state with very few transportation options.
MS. CHAPMAN moved to slide 12 and stated that the strategic
investment areas are seen through five different categories:
safety, economic vitality, state of good repair, resiliency, and
sustainability. She pointed out that these are the criteria
used for project nominations.
MR. MARKS moved to slide 14 and discussed the deployment of
programs using the IIJA funding. Concerning the funding, he
noted that the federal regulations had to be written, and this
slowed the deployment. He pointed out that the guidance on the
PROTECT program did not come out until the month before the
fiscal year ended; however, now most of all the program
guidelines have been provided. He discussed the programs that
existed before IIJA and the new programs which qualify for IIJA,
as seen on the slide. The new programs were classified as
either "solicitations" or "state programs."
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning the
Community Bridge Program, he pointed out that there are slides
which will explain each of these programs.
MR. MARKS continued to slide 15 and discussed the Safe Ice Roads
for Alaskans program. He stated that this will now be run
annually. He explained the process of getting the IIJA funding
for this. He further discussed how these projects would be
evaluated, such as community connectedness.
1:47:24 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning how
remote communities qualify for this funding, noted the
challenges and the trappings surrounding the funds. He stated
that DOT&PF has tried to help federal entities understand the
intent of the language, as the federal government has different
definitions, such as the definitions for "routine maintenance"
and "preservative maintenance" are different. Concerning snow
plows, he stated that some maintenance would be funded while
some would not, even if the maintenance is essentially the same
in Alaska. He expressed the opinion that Big Lake is on the
list of applications for the funding; however, if it uses
private contractors for snow removal, this would be a risk. He
noted the criteria to receive the funding. In response, he
stated that the funding would not be distributed unless it is to
a local government, and it would not go to individuals who may
be using their own plows, for example.
MR. MARKS moved to slide 16 and expressed excitement about the
Rural Ports, Docks, and Barge Landings program, which is one of
the new programs that will be funded. He stated that the plan
is to run the program every two years with a funding of $27
million. He noted that there are many eligible entities in the
state for this, but it would be limited by the federal
definition of "rural," as this would not include communities
such as Homer and Seward.
MR. MARKS moved to slide 17, titled "Community Bridge Program."
He noted that the funding amount of $54 million may not seem to
be enough; however, he advised that collectively these funds
would "add up." He stated that this is also a new funding
program. He noted that 15 percent of this funding could be
directed to local and community owned bridges, which was not
available in the past, and he noted that this would not require
a match from the community. He stated that part of the criteria
is for the bridge to be on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI).
He remarked that some large culverts and ferry docks are on NBI.
1:55:23 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question, clarified that
for the funding, the bridge would not need to be under a local
governing body. In response to whether a community bridge in a
subdivision could be funded, he stated that if the bridge is on
NBI and the sponsor and owner agrees and applies, this program
could work. He responded that if the bridge is not on NBI, it
would not receive the funding.
MR. MARKS moved to slide 18, titled "Resiliency and Coastal
Protection Program." He stated that the funding for this would
be distributed through the PROTECT program. He expressed the
understanding that the amount of funding for this is still under
review. He noted that this would include funding for planning,
so concerning future threats and investments, local governments
are encouraged to do this planning. He pointed out that the
communities with repeated threats should apply, as federal
definitions in this program are broad.
1:59:35 PM
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning
evacuation routes due to fire danger, expressed the
understanding that this would be covered, but the criteria is
still being determined. He discussed the one-road-out
communities and the no-road-out communities. In response to a
follow-up question concerning "twice-hit assets," he stated that
this would come down to the definitions. He continued that
"twice-hit" is defined as facilities that have been hit two or
more times [by an environmental impact]. He remarked that the
question would be how to make a facility more resistant. He
stated that he would report back to the committee concerning the
definition of "evacuation route."
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question concerning
coastal erosion, stated that the program's intent would be aimed
at preserving preexisting structures; however, he noted that the
program only provides one-time funding, and this is unlike some
of the other programs. He stated that "coastal communities"
would encompass a broad set of federal definitions. He
explained that investments would need to go to projects that
will not be underwater in the future. Also, the right treatment
for these projects would need to be considered. He stated that
the big picture for this program is to protect communities from
climate change and natural disasters. In response to whether
the coastal protection piece would only have one-time funding,
he expressed the understanding that federal transportation bills
tend to "wax and wane." He stated that this would depend on the
administration and the legislature at the time. In response to
a follow-up question, he stated that any program in the slide
deck that was indicated as "apportioned" would be in statute.
MR. MARKS summarized slide 19, titled "Community Directed
Funding." He noted that this concerns the funds that will be
distributed in 2023. He pointed out that $265 million would be
directed to community infrastructure, contrasting with the $83
million that funded these projects over the last ten years. He
remarked that this represents a 220 percent increase for 2023
only. He stated that there is a big focus on planning so the
right projects will be implemented at the right time.
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question, stated that if a
community wants to be involved it should contact its area
planner to work out the technical details. He acknowledged that
engaging with DOT&PF can be a challenge, as the avenues are not
clear. He noted that DOT&PF is working on creating a local
government assistance office to help communities navigate the
bureaucracies. He offered to help, if possible.
2:13:27 PM
MS. CHAPMAN continued to slide 20, titled "Strategic Partners."
She stated that DOT&PF partners are invaluable. She pointed out
the partnerships listed on the slide and discussed projects that
partnerships have helped. She reiterated the importance of
these partnerships.
MS. CHAPMAN, in response to a committee question, stated that
DOT&PF does work with the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
during its AFN's yearly convention. She noted that DOT&PF also
does Tribal outreach, as it helps get the Tribal Transportation
Offices together to discuss maintenance, planning, and capital
funding issues. She noted that the Tribes have funding
opportunities that DOT&PF does not have. She gave an example of
this.
MS. CHAPMAN moved to slide 21, which addressed community-driven
Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs). She stated that this is
in reference to creating DOT&PF regional offices that would work
in conjunction with communities for planning. She added that
DOT&PF would be there for assistance, but not for control. She
stated that currently there are two RPO pilot projects in the
state, but these are not officially in statute as of yet. She
discussed the two RPO projects in more detail.
2:20:06 PM
MS. CHAPMAN, in response to a committee question, stated that
RPOs would need an avenue for funneling money into communities.
She stated that it would have to be an approved fiscal agent for
federal funds. In response, she expressed uncertainty
concerning what "approved" would mean. She noted that 56
percent of the state is under unorganized boroughs, so these
would be limited to receiving federal funding. She agreed that
partnering with an organized entity that can receive federal
funding would be a good option.
MS. CHAPMAN moved to slide 22, titled "Approach to Discretionary
Grants." She pointed out the Alaska Transportation Planning
Opportunity Hub, which is online. She stated that this is a way
to connect funding for any transportation needs. She described
this as a place for "one-stop shopping." She moved to slide 23,
titled "Discretionary Grants." She stated that DOT&PF has
submitted over $850 million through partnerships for
discretionary grants, of which some have been successful. She
further discussed these grants.
2:24:18 PM
MS. CHAPMAN, in response to a committee question concerning
criteria for the Rural Ports, Docks, and Barge Landings program,
expressed uncertainty and offered to report back on this
program.
MR. MARKS also expressed uncertainty concerning the program
criteria.
MR. MARKS, in response to a committee question on slide 8,
stated that concerning the current challenges, DOT&PF is doing a
department-wide evaluation on efficiency, which involves cutting
through the "red tape," so the department is more agile. He
stated that project and plan delivery times are being looked at,
and the idea of change is being promoted throughout the
department.
MS. CHAPMAN discussed the planning process, stating that the
division is working at transparency by including the public.
She advised that the department should not be too agile, as it
should be ethical as well. She stated that there are some
limits, as the funding has some "strings attached." She added
that cutting the "red tape" would make actions faster, but this
is difficult if things are to be done correctly.
2:29:44 PM
MS. CHAPMAN, in response to a committee question concerning the
redundancies in Juneau for building new docks, expressed the
opinion that this is a good point, and it will be investigated.
MR. MARKS stated that he would report back to the committee with
some statements concerning this evaluation. In response, he
stated that he would provide any available information on this
to the committee.
2:31:43 PM
CHAIR MCCABE stated that sometimes there is a disconnect between
two different agencies. He gave an example of a DOT&PF project
that is not being approached with agility. He suggested that
agencies need to communicate better in order to not waist money.
He gave more examples. He concluded the meeting by thanking the
presenters.
2:33:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:33
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2023-02-21 (H) TRA - IIJA & Federal Funding.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |
DOT&PF Federal Program and IIJA Funding |