Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
04/03/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Matsu Valley Planning for Transportation: Boundary Development Process and Metropolitan Planning Organization Formation | |
| 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
April 3, 2025
1:13 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: MATSU VALLEY PLANNING FOR TRANSPORTATION: BOUNDARY
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
FORMATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
KIM SOLLIEN, Executive Director
Mat-Su Valley Planning
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"MATSU Valley Planning for Transportation."
DONNA GARDINO, Principal Planner
Gardino Consulting
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the presentation answered questions
on Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
JACKSON FOX, Executive Director
FAST Planning
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the presentation answered questions
on Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:13:02 PM
CO-CHAIR TED EISCHEID called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:13 p.m. Representatives Moore,
McCabe, Mina, Stutes, Tilton, Carrick, and Eischeid were present
at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION: MatSu Valley Planning for Transportation:
Boundary Development Process and Metropolitan Planning
Organization Formation
PRESENTATION: MatSu Valley Planning for Transportation: Boundary
Development Process and Metropolitan Planning Organization
Formation
1:14:02 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the only order of business
would be a presentation on the MatSu Valley Planning for
Transportation.
1:15:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:15 p.m. to 1:18 p.m.
1:18:40 PM
KIM SOLLIEN, Executive Director, MatSu Valley Planning (MVP),
Gave a PowerPoint, titled "MATSU Valley Planning for
Transportation" [hard copy included in the committee file]. On
slide 2, she gave an overview of the presentation, which
included MVP's organizational development, MVP's boundary
development, and the challenges with the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). She stated that
using the 2020 census data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
determined that the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough would
receive an urban area designation; therefore, the borough would
need to form a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 3 and stated that the Mat-Su Borough
received a grant in 2019 to form a pre-technical committee to
help with this development. She noted that the committee
included members from the Mat-Su Borough, the City of Palmer,
the City of Wasilla, the Knik Tribal Council, the Chickaloon
Village Traditional Council, transit advocates, bike and
pedestrian advocates, the Alaska Railroad, and others. She
stated that this group had regular meetings to discuss the MPO
development process, and a pre-policy board was formed. It was
determined that MVP would be a nonprofit organization, and it
received a $1 million grant from the legislature to meet the fee
requirements. She stated that the first Unified Planning Work
Program was approved, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
was finalized, the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) boundary was
approved, and the Policy Board was approved. She added that the
operating agreement was finally signed in December 2023. She
explained that the process had been "a race," as there was one
year to become organized after the U.S. Census was certified.
MS. SOLLIEN stated that MVP's Policy Board consists of seven
members from local governments, while the Technical Committee is
a larger body. She noted the members of the board, as seen on
slide 4. Because most of MVP's roads are within the Mat-Su
Borough, she pointed out that the borough has two seats on the
board.
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 5 and explained that MVP's nonprofit
status has been filed and certified. She pointed out that MVP's
personnel and organizational development would reflect its
nonprofit status. She continued, stating that an executive
director was hired, and a bank account was opened. She stated
that currently staff are being hired, and its MTP would be
introduced soon. She remarked that it has taken over four years
to reach this point.
1:27:49 PM
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Representative
Tilton, explained that MVP's organizational structure has two
bodies, the Policy Board and the Technical Committee, and these
would oversee the staff and the long-range plans. She stated
that the Technical Committee would have 16 members with the role
of supporting staff. She listed the members on the board,
noting that each would represent a mode of transportation. She
stated that the Technical Committee would review all plans and
projects. In response to a follow-up question concerning public
members of the committee, she clarified that all MVP meetings
would be opened to the public and to public feedback. She added
that these meetings would be advertised. She stated that while
most of the committee members would represent government
entities, there would be three public positions. She stated
that the Policy Board would approve the individuals appointed to
these positions.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON commented that private land development
would not be represented on the Technical Committee and Policy
Board.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid,
explained that the MPO process is set up in U.S. Code, Title 23.
For MPOs to be in good standing, she said they would need to
follow the process set out in this federal code. She stated
that in terms of MVP becoming a nonprofit, all the required
organizational steps would need to be completed. She noted that
Fairbanks Area Surface Transportation (FAST) Planning, is also a
nonprofit, and it has mentored MVP.
MS. SOLLIEN responded to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid
concerning the function of MPOs in transportation planning. She
explained that with the advent of the Interstate Highway System
in 1954, grants were given to states to build the country's
highways. She expressed the understanding that often states did
not communicate their highway construction and placement plans
with local communities. She explained that communities were
often in disagreement on the placement of the highways, and this
resulted in lawsuits. Because of the lawsuits, a section was
added to the federal highway bill, which required local
cooperation in order for the states to receive federal funding.
She pointed out that this had led to the creation of MPOs. She
explained that once a community reaches a population of 50,000
people in a contiguous area, it would need to form a planning
organization, or MPO. She asserted that this ensures all
entities involved would work together. In response to a follow-
up question, she clarified that to receive federal
transportation funding, the community must form an MPO.
1:42:29 PM
MS. SOLLIEN, beginning on slide 6, explained MVP's process of
developing its metropolitan boundary. Once a community is
designated by the census, she said the community's MPO must plan
its urban area boundary, looking at 20 years into the future.
This plan would concern the area of projected population growth,
and MTP would reflect this growth. To determine this, she said
MVP put together a boundary development strategy, which was
approved by its Policy Board. This strategy looked at
population forecasts, current issues, development trends, and
more. She stated that after the final boundary report, the map
was created. She moved to slide 7 and slide 8 and explained the
results of the census in 2020 in more detail. She reiterated
that once the census designates an area as urban, to continue
receiving federal highway funding, an area's MPO must be
established within one year, as seen on slide 9. She stated
that federal regulation would not dictate the size of an MPO's
policy board, but the board must have members from the area's
largest city and the state's transportation department.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Representative
Tilton, explained that if a city opts out of being part of the
area's MPO, projects would still be planned in the city.
However, any city opting out would not have a voice on the
project or access to the funding.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe, clarified that the federal requirement would be that the
planning area boundary encompasses the urban area boundary. She
explained that the city would not have a voice on the local use
of federal funds if it opted out of having a member on the
policy board. In response to a follow-up question, she
clarified that if a city is not a member of the local MPO, the
city would have to pay the federal funding portion going into
any of its projects. She explained that if the city did not
agree to the project, it simply would not pay the match, and the
project would not move forward. She deferred to Donna Gardino.
1:54:47 PM
DONNA GARDINO, Principal Planner, Gardino Consulting, expressed
agreement with Ms. Sollien's answer to Representative McCabe's
question. She explained the purpose of MPO transportation
planning, which is to create a network with a boundary. She
added that needs would be identified in MTP, and this plan would
be reviewed by the public and the stakeholders. She continued
that if a city in the MPO boundary does not want a project, it
simply would not pay its nonfederal share.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON questioned the representation of the Knik-
Fairview area, as it is located outside of the Mat-Su Borough.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response, stated that the borough would not have
"road powers" in the Knik-Fairview region; however, it would be
responsible for the infrastructure. Concerning any projects in
its long-range plan, she said that MVP would have conversations
with local entities, and projects would be open for public
review and comment. She noted that the committees and boards
would consider all public comments.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID commented that the mayor of the Mat-Su Borough
does sit on an MVP board.
1:59:28 PM
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 10 and continued to speak about the
boundary development strategy. She reiterated that, per federal
regulation, this would include a 20-year perspective on future
urbanization and the minimum boundary. She pointed out that
MPV's boundary ended up being smaller, as it focuses on a fast-
growing area with the greatest need. She stated that MVP's
final draft boundary would have to be approved by its Policy
Board and the governor. She noted that the boundary would not
need federal approval, but it would need to be forwarded to the
relevant federal agency, along with MVP's operating agreement.
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 11 and spoke about how the location
of the boundary was determined. She stated that this concerned
population growth, spatial distribution, and contiguous "hops
and jumps." On slide 12, she explained that a population
forecast to 2045 had to be chosen. She pointed out that MVP
planners had looked at 10 different forecasts, and they ended up
choosing the Department of Labor and Workforce Development's
forecast because it showed a middle range of population growth.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Co-Chair Carrick,
clarified that a project outside of an MPO's boundary could be
addressed if it effects transportation within its boundary. She
noted that MPOs could adjust its boundaries or planning to
accommodate a potential increase in traffic. She explained that
if a project outside of an MPO's boundary affected funding, the
board could address this. In response to a follow-up question,
she stated that the U.S. Census Bureau would determine the
Metropolitan Statistical Analysis, and MPOs could increase their
boundary up to the size of this analysis. She noted that if the
population projection were not exact, there would be no penalty.
She stated that there is a requirement that the boundary is
reviewed every 10 years, but boundary adjustments could be made
at any time.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe, provided her understanding that if a project outside of
an MPO's boundary effected its funding, the MPO's policy board
could address the project.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that MPOs should
work on projects only in their planning areas. He argued that
garnering funding or commenting on a project hundreds of miles
outside of an MPO's boundary would not be the MPO's
responsibility.
2:14:46 PM
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 13 and pointed out that MPV's
projected population growth would add another 46,000 people to
the borough in the next 20 years. Reasoning that some of these
people would not move to the urban areas, she noted that this
number was reduced to 43,000. To understand where these people
would move, she explained that the borough's parcel data had
been reviewed. She noted that any publicly owned lands, lands
with preexisting structures, and agricultural lands were removed
from this review.
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 14, which showed a map of the
boundary area that highlighted privately owned land on unbuilt
parcels under five acres. She noted that the map on slide 15
highlights parcels of land that have current platting actions.
She added that these parcels could hold around 20,000 residents.
She moved to the map on slide 16, which highlighted privately
owned land on unbuilt parcels over five acres. She noted that
this could hold another 200,000 residents. For the boundary
development to meet the threshold, she stated that development
density, traffic impact zones, and census blocks would need to
be looked at, as seen on slide 17. She stated that the use of
public utilities was also considered in making a projection.
MS. SOLLIEN moved to slide 19, which displayed the final map of
the draft boundary. She stated that this draft was shared with
stakeholders, who were asked about any other possible
developments in the area that could impact the boundary. She
stated that 72 comments were received. She displayed a chart on
the comments and actions taken, as seen on slide 20. She stated
that these comments were documented in a report. She noted the
map on slide 21, which highlighted the areas concerning the
public comments shown on the previous slide. She discussed some
of the public comments, as they related to the map. She moved
to slide 21, which displayed the final boundary approved by the
Policy Board. She pointed out that it includes the urbanized
area and the projected urbanized area. She noted that it covers
120 square miles, with a population of 73,000 people. She
reiterated that the Policy Board and the governor approved this
map.
MS. SOLLIEN transitioned to the discussion of MVP's challenges
with the STIP development, as seen on slide 25. She stated that
as a new organization, MVP is still building its processes. She
noted that many of MVP's committee and board members have never
served in this capacity, so everything is new for them. She
stated that MPV's involvement with the STIP development has been
inconsistent. She opined that the obligation of MVP would be to
support local control of federal funding; therefore, members and
entities would need to work together on how the money would be
spent.
2:24:46 PM
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid,
noted that during the time she worked for the Mat-Su Borough,
there had been a STIP team. She explained that in the STIP
development process, meetings would be had with planners and the
relevant entities to look at projects and discuss funding. She
stated that as a new entity, MVP has not completely understood
its allocation from the different funding sources. She noted
that through the STIP development, the funding amounts have
changed, and there has been confusion. She stated that the
Policy Board is supposed to determine the funds going to
projects already in process, but the funding amounts have not
been consistent. She stated that there are questions that need
to be answered concerning the allocation amounts and the Policy
Board's recommendations. In response to a follow-up question,
she expressed difficulty, as things have been different from
what she expected. She explained that she works on detailed
paperwork where STIP changes need to be addressed. She
expressed frustration that there had not been enough
communication on the inconsistencies and errors prior to the
STIP's release.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that MPOs are planning
organizations, and they would not approve contracts or have
other fiscal duties. He expressed the opinion that her
struggles with the funding concerns DOT&PF responsibilities, not
MVP's responsibilities. He expressed the understanding that the
funding amounts would change; therefore, MPOs do not always get
their full funding requests.
MS. SOLLIEN expressed the understanding that MVP is in a
different situation from other MPOs because it does not yet have
MTP or a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). She argued
that what has been programed into STIP should be moving forward.
She expressed agreement that MVP would not be issuing and
managing contracts; however, it would be the steward of the
funding. She asserted that this needs to be documented
correctly for all approved projects. She continued, arguing
that the process needs to be documented and communication needs
to be consistent.
2:32:14 PM
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Representative
Stutes, affirmed that she previously worked with the Mat-Su
Borough and had been involved with STIP at that time. In
response to a follow-up question, she stated that in the past
she had a close working relationship with the STIP team;
however, she expressed confusion on who is now developing STIP,
as planners were not sharing information.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed the understanding that the
commissioner of DOT&PF has stated that the current STIP planners
have no prior experience. She questioned whether there is a
single fund of money for allocation to MPOs.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response, stated that FAST Planning and MVP are
small MPOs compared to Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (AMATS). She stated that a portion of
the Surface Transportation Block Grant would go to the urbanized
areas. She noted that this portion is by formula based on size.
She deferred to Ms. Gardino.
2:36:10 PM
MS. GARDINO stated that the funding is allocated by formula.
She stated that MPOs would not directly receive the funding;
rather, they would receive the numbers so projects could be
programed up to this amount. She stated that this number has
changed for MVP with every STIP amendment, which is unexpected.
She stated that MVP has requested that the formula funding be
presented in a memo so it could be assured that projects would
be supported.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that sometimes STIP projects
have been declared ineligible for federal funding. She
expressed concern for what would happen to these federal dollars
if an MPO is already entitled to the funding for projects deemed
ineligible.
REPRESENTATIVE TILTON questioned the continued funding source
for MVP. She questioned the distribution of the federal
funding.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response, stated that by formula, each of the
three MPOs in the state would be allocated funding to manage
office operations and project planning. She stated that there
also would be funds programed for the MPO's region. She stated
that MVP would receive about $400,000 to do the planning work
and to manage the organization, the board, the committees, the
public involvement, and more. She continued that it would
receive around $10 million in project funding that the state
manages, but MVP would track. She expressed uncertainty
concerning any other organizations receiving funding, as there
are only three MPOs in the state. She added that all entities
involved with MVP would be responsible for matching the funding
that they receive. In response to a follow-up question, she
expressed uncertainty concerning a specific dollar amount on the
administrative costs, as she currently did not have the
formulas.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the term "programing" versus
the term "planning." He suggested that there has been confusion
on the entity that would be "in charge," whether it is MPOs or
DOT&PF. He questioned whether this is "where the head butting
has come in lately."
MS. GARDINO, in response, said MPOs would be responsible for
"planning" MPA and "programing" TIP, as the allocation must be
programed in TIP. She explained that a variation in cost
usually is not a major problem; however, if there were major
project changes, such as in the cost or schedule, this would
have to be reflected in an amendment to TIP. She pointed out
that if not all the funds are programed in a year, the funding
could be lost. She emphasized that if there is a change to a
project, this needs to be shown in TIP, and the funding may need
to be allocated to a different project.
2:46:11 PM
MS. SOLLIEN concluded the presentation.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned whether DOT&PF would oversee
consultation with MPOs.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response, stated that DOT&PF is responsible for
producing STIP. She explained that MVP is in a situation where
it does not have TIP, so this cannot be incorporated into STIP.
She expressed the understanding that DOT&PF would be responsible
for letting MPV know its allocations so funds could be
programed, and this information could be given to the boards and
the public. She reiterated that DOT&PF is responsible for STIP
and the funding coming into the state; therefore, it is
responsible for communicating this in a timely manner so MVP
could proceed with its allocations.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK expressed the understanding that the criticism
from MPOs during the STIP process has been because of the lack
of consistent consultation and communication about the projects
in TIP and potential changes. She noted that DOT&PF would be
the "common denominator" concerning this problem.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether an MPO would "go
around" DOT&PF and directly consult the Federal Highway
Administration for project or money requests. He questioned the
obligation for MPOs to go to DOT&PF first.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response, expressed uncertainty. She stated
that the Federal Highway Administration and DOT&PF are both
partners. She stated that she does not have a frame of
reference for the question.
MS. SOLLIEN, in response to a question from Representative
Stutes, clarified that the purpose of MPO would be to do long-
range planning on projects within its boundaries. She noted
that these projects would be listed in MTP and TIP. She
explained that if a new project came about as a priority, it
would be the MPO's responsibility to bring the project forward
and put it through the process, as both MTP and TIP would need
to be amended. She continued that the MPO's Policy Board could
vote against the project; therefore, amendments would not be
approved. She observed that the state would have a seat on the
Policy Board. She explained that the reasoning for MPOs is so
the entities could collaboratively come together on the Policy
Board and decide on projects. In response to a follow-up
question, she deferred to Jackson Fox. She pointed out that he
has had more experience to answer the question.
2:54:36 PM
JACKSON FOX, Executive Director, FAST Planning, responded to the
question from Representative Stutes concerning whether DOT&PF
had attempted to circumnavigate MPOs in the past. He pointed
out that this had happened with two bridge replacement projects
in Fairbanks. He stated that FAST Planning was never consulted
about these projects as DOT&PF tried to advance them. He
explained that the projects were stopped because they were not
in FAST Planning's MTP or TIP. For these projects to go
forward, he said they would need to be amended into these plans.
He noted that one of the projects moved forward because a new
FAST Planning boundary had not yet been approved, so it did not
need to be in MTP or TIP. He provided details on the reasons
the other plan had not gone forward, noting that it would have
gone forward if the project had been presented in a timely
manner. He expressed the understanding that AMATS has had four
projects with similar situations.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her appreciation for local
involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the bridge projects.
MR. FOX, in response, stated that neither of these bridges have
been in FAST Planning's TIP because they are in good-to-fair
condition. He opined that DOT&PF included the bridges to assist
with the ore haul project. He noted the large volume of public
comment received on these projects.
2:59:44 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID questioned when the new FAST Planning boundary
map was submitted to the governor.
MR. FOX, in response, stated the FAST Planning's process for the
new boundary was completed by November 2023. It was submitted
to the commissioner's office to advance to the governor for
approval in December 2023. He stated that this was a year and
five months ago.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID aknowledged that DOT&PF did not have the
opportunity to testify during the hearing. He thanked the
presenters and made closing comments.
3:02:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
[3:02] p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 20250403 HTRA MPO Boundaries DOT&PF.pdf |
HTRA 4/3/2025 1:00:00 PM |
|
| MVP for Transportation Development 2025 House transportation committee v3 040325.pdf |
HTRA 4/3/2025 1:00:00 PM |