Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/28/1993 03:30 PM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT MEETING
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Senate Finance Committee Room
January 28, 1993
3:30 p.m.
TAPES
SFC-93, #17, Side 2 (525-end)
SFC-93, #19, Side 1 (000-563)
CALL TO ORDER
Senator Bert Sharp, Chairman, Senate Transportation
Committee called the joint meeting of the Senate Finance and
Senate Transportation committees to order at approximately
3:20 p.m.
PRESENT
The following members attended:
Senate Finance Senate Transportation
Senator Pearce Senator Sharp
Senator Frank Senator Kerttula
Senator Kelly Senator Kelly
Senator Rieger Senator Phillips
Senator Sharp Senator Lincoln
Senator Kerttula
ALSO PRESENT: Senator Little; Frank Turpin, Commissioner,
Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities; Keith Gerken,
Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Ron Lind, Director of Plans, Programs, and
Budget, Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities; Dan
Keck, Mayor of Sitka; Jerry Heimbuck, Assistant Division
Administrator, Federal Highways, Alaska Division; Jeff
Hoover, fiscal analyst, Legislative Finance Division; and
aides to committee members and other members of the
legislature.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
An overview of the impact of the federal Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
was presented by the Commissioner and representatives
of the Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities.
Upon convening the meeting, Senator Sharp advised of a
listen-only teleconference link to Anchorage and Fairbanks.
FRANK TURPIN, Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation and
Public Facilities, came before committee. He explained that
while the details of the surface transportation act have
been difficult to understand, the state fared well in terms
of the amount of funding. Alaska is slated to receive $211
million a year. Due to Gramm Rudman and other budget
constraints, Congress did not provide full funding for the
past year. The state thus received $178 million.
The Surface Transportation Act assumes that the interstate
highway system is complete. Therefore, activities other
than the building of highways were also addressed. The
intent is to provide flexibility and allow other modes of
transportation (transit) to receive funding. The Act
heavily emphasizes local participation. It requires all
communities with populations of more than 200,000 to conduct
their own planning and distribution of funds. Anchorage
has, for some time, had such a planning process. The
process has now been expanded to several other cities.
The Act also dedicated funds for enhancement of the highway
system. In general, this refers to aesthetic improvements
such as scenic turnouts, bicycle trails, restoration of
historical sites, etc. Alaska will receive approximately
$11 million a year for this purpose. The department has
received $100 million in requests for the present year. The
problem is selecting from among the projects.
Highway safety was also emphasized and funded at $11 million
annually. The definition here covers "almost everything
except rebuilding the road." In some instances, if a
history of accidents is evident, funding can be used to
straighten a curve, etc. Highway safety moneys provide for
delineators, reflectors, and traffic lights. Wise
expenditure of $11 million for safety will require much
statewide information.
Section 118 (F) (copy of sectional text appended to these
minutes as Attachment A) of a previous Act, exempts Alaska
from restrictions applied to other states. Noted sectional
language allows expenditure of federal funds on "any type of
road within the state," meaning "any public transportation
thoroughfare." To meet local road needs statewide, the
department developed the Borough Transportation Plan. The
department sought to develop a plan for local participation
in how moneys would be spent. That is in keeping with the
intent of ISTEA. The department also sought to provide
stable funding by providing an annual sum of money to local
boroughs. The boroughs could then plan in advance as to how
funding would be expended in both current and future years.
The Borough Transportation Plan would divide highway funds
into two areas:
1. Local road projects planned at the local level.
Local
planning would be paid for by federal funds.
There would be no additional expense to the
community.
2. The remainder of the highway system was designated
"the
core highway system." These are roads that tie
local communities together. They are, in effect,
Alaska's main highways.
The core system also runs through communities. It will
continue to be the department's responsibility, and funding
therefor will continue to be expended as in the past.
All projects (local and core) will be brought together in
the DOTPF capital budget submitted to the legislature for
approval.
Issues that had to be resolved related to how much of the
total funding should be spent on local roads and how funding
could be fairly distributed among the boroughs. The state
commenced meetings with mayors of the four largest boroughs.
A subsequent meeting of all mayors led to a recommendation
that the department go to the Alaska Municipal League and
request appointment of a committee to work with the
department to resolve the above-noted issues. A committee
was created and numerous meetings with mayors, city
councilmen, and members of the legislature ensued.
Ground rules were developed calling for 35% of total federal
funds to apply to local roads. If full federal funding is
provided, 35% would total $85 million a year. Core roads
are to be closely defined and uniformly determined in all
areas.
Discussion subsequently addressed division of funds among
the boroughs. The AML committee reviewed population, the
number of registered vehicles, miles of road, land area,
etc. Combinations were also considered. The committee
first developed a base amount of $350.0 for every borough.
The remainder of the funding is then to be divided one-half
by population and one-half by vehicle registration. In
order to provide for unusual projects that would exceed a
borough's normal capacity, the committee separated out some
funding for contingency. Each borough will then make its
own case for the additional funding.
Commissioner Turpin directed attention to a tabulated
listing of boroughs and funding amounts set forth on the
last page of the second handout (Attachment B) and explained
that it reflects a division of enhancement moneys among the
boroughs. Total funding of $66 million ($59 million in
federal funds plus a $7 million state match) was divided per
the formula based on one-half population and one-half
vehicle registration.
Contingency (competitive) funding of $11 million would be
used to meet needs greater than borough allocations.
Approximately $3 million would be provided for safety-
related projects, and $1 million has been designated for
bridge repair.
The $66 million provided under the formula plus
approximately $18 million in contingency moneys total $84
million for division among the boroughs. Individual borough
funding ranges from $26 million for the Municipality of
Anchorage to $450.0 for the Yakutat Borough.
Commissioner Turpin explained that unorganized boroughs
would be treated as though incorporated within one borough.
The department will conduct planning for these areas with
the assistance of the Dept. of Community and Regional
Affairs. Approximately $7 million would be spent, annually,
in unorganized areas. The Commissioner noted specifically
roads to water sources and sewage lagoons. Money could also
be used for trails between villages.
In response to a question from Senator Kelly regarding
highway planning for Anchorage, Commissioner Turpin
explained that AMATS would do all the planning. That is a
federal requirement for cities with populations over
200,000. Senator Kelly then asked if the legislature would
have any flexibility concerning projects put forward by
AMATS. Commissioner Turpin acknowledged that AMATS "always
anticipates a little legislative discussion." The planning
group generally prepares more than it expects to get. That
is likely to continue.
Senator Lincoln asked if a formula similar to that used for
boroughs was applied to unorganized areas. Commissioner
Turpin explained that the AML committee recommended that
land area and miles not be used. A base number was thus
established and the remaining amount divided one-half on
population and one-half on registered vehicles. Senator
Lincoln next asked if the AML committee contained
representatives of unorganized boroughs. Commissioner
Turpin answered affirmatively. The Senator noted that many
unorganized areas of the state do not have vehicle
registration. The Commissioner explained that for that
specific reason a minimum number of 500 vehicles was used as
the cut off. He added, "We just didn't go below 500 in any
borough." That was designed to protect areas where vehicles
are not registered.
Senator Lincoln asked if the above-noted formulas were
merely being proposed or already fixed in place. She
further inquired regarding a definition of the core road
system. Commissioner Turpin explained that each year the
department develops a plan for investment of federal highway
funds. The only change brought about by ISTEA is that
rather than department development of the entire plan, local
communities are being asked to develop a portion--35%.
Planning has thus been expanded and more localized. KEITH
GERKEN, Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Transportation and
Public Facilities, added that rules established by the AML
working group require review of the program and its formulas
after one year.
Senator Little inquired concerning legislative involvement
in the process. Commissioner Turpin said that all
expenditures would have to be sanctioned by the legislature.
He noted the extensive amount of time required for highway
planning and indicated that the role of the legislature is
policy setting rather than detailed planning.
Senator Little next inquired regarding time lines for
implementing the first part of the ISTEA program.
Commissioner Turpin answered that there was not sufficient
time to incorporate needed planning within the FY 93 budget.
FY 94 will be the first year for incorporation of input from
local boroughs.
Senator Kelly asked if the department had compiled a list of
recommended projects for non-local funding. Keith Gerken
explained that for communities such an Fairbanks, Anchorage,
and Juneau, where planning has been ongoing, the department
has a six-year plan. For many other areas that were not
eligible under the old federal highway act, the department
does not have a backlog of ideas and projects. The
communities themselves will have to identify those needs.
Speaking to the FY 94 capital budget, Mr. Gerken voiced
department intent to amend it within four to six weeks. He
noted that some boroughs are at a point where they will soon
bring forward a list of projects for FY 94.
Senator Kelly asked how projects like the proposed Copper
River Road, road to Whittier, and new mainline ferry fit
into the funding plan. Commissioner Turpin observed that
they are all core projects. A new road within a borough
would fall within the borough plan.
The Commissioner further explained that approximately 15% of
total funds are to be spent on expansion projects. Fifty
percent would be spent on existing roads, including existing
highways. That was an arbitrary decision. The feeling was
that half of the funding should be spent on improving what
the state already has. One-third will go to boroughs for
local projects, and 15% will be devoted to expansion of the
system. The perspective here is statewide, based on the
highest priorities.
Commissioner Turpin next advised of the impending failure of
Tongass Avenue, a core road in Ketchikan. A great deal of
funding will be needed for repairs. Based on past proration
of funds, it would have taken many years for sufficient
moneys to accumulate. Repairs will now be incorporated
within the department's six-year plan as part of the core
system. Tongass Avenue meets core criteria in that it runs
from the center of town to the marine highway terminal and
an airport. Criteria for core roads was established by the
AML working group for statewide application. Mr. Gerken
stressed the need for clear criteria that could be applied
everywhere. Some determinations, such as community-to-
community connections were natural and easily defined.
There was also need to apply the core designation to
"principal arterials" connecting a community to its airport,
ferry terminal, etc. Alaska has quite a number of
"intermodal connectors."
Referring to the 15% designated for expansion, Senator Kelly
asked if the department would make recommendations for FY 94
expenditures. Commissioner Turpin answered affirmatively.
He explained that most of the systems are in "the low
expenditure years." He subsequently added that a proposed
new ferry would require a substantial amount of the funding.
Mr. Gerken advised of intent to obligate ferry moneys over a
two-year period. Senator Kelly voiced his understanding the
new ferry would "get all of the system expansion program
money in the State of Alaska for the next two years."
Commissioner Turpin observed that "the big money in
expansion is in the year of construction." Funding would
enable the department to conduct planning and design work
for new expansions at the same time it appropriates money to
the ferry. Mr. Gerken added that most expansion projects
(the Whittier and Copper River roads were given as examples)
are expensive and will likely consume allocations for an
entire year or more. He reiterated that the highest
priority for funding has been devoted to upkeep of what is
already in place.
Senator Kelly said that he did not oppose the new ferry, he
simply questioned whether it was a high priority for areas
other than Southeast. Mr. Gerken explained that it would
serve the entire system, including Southwest. It will be
the state's second ocean-going vessel. As a replacement
vessel, it will replace the MALASPINA. It will also be able
to serve the Aleutian Chain and Kodiak and replace the
TUSTUMENA when it is out for refurbishing or overhaul.
Senator Kelly next asked how the new ferry would benefit
areas of the state not served by the marine highway system.
Mr. Gerken observed that over 80% of the state's population
lives in coastal areas. He further advised that interior
areas and communities on the state highway system benefit
from ferry traffic.
End, SFC-93, #17, Side 2
Begin, SFC-93, #19, Side 1
Senator Pearce referred to the executive capital budget and
asked how one would determine which projects were core and
which were local. Commissioner Turpin answered that the
projects are shown separately. Senator Pearce then asked
who would be responsible for maintenance of the core system.
The Commissioner advised that ISTEA moneys do not apply to
maintenance. The department is not proposing to change
maintenance responsibilities in any way. Boroughs are
expected to provide maintenance for new roads they build.
If a borough improves a road currently maintained by the
department, the department would continue to maintain it.
Senator Pearce inquired regarding the impact of additional
programs dealing with transit, safety, air quality, etc.
Commissioner Turpin noted that three areas of the state have
reached non-attainment because of air quality problems. One
of the problems results from dust contamination in the
Mendenhall Valley in Juneau. The EPA is requiring that
roads in the area be paved. That would be part of the local
program. Mr. Gerken explained that Congress considered
automobiles to be a great part of the U.S. air quality
problem. It thus made several connections between the Clean
Air Act and ISTEA. Sanctions can be applied and highway
funding reduced if non-attainment areas do not come up with
plans to meet attainment goals. Non-attainment relates to
dust and carbon dioxide problems. Fairbanks and Anchorage
have non-attainment problems with carbon dioxide while dust
is the contaminate in the Mendenhall Valley and Eagle River.
Funding totaling $5 million annually has been slated for
congestion mitigation and air quality.
In response to an additional question from Senator Pearce,
Commissioner Turpin voiced his understanding that transit
moneys contained within borough allocations are likely to be
spent on additional buses in both Fairbanks and Anchorage.
Senator Pearce next asked if state legislation was necessary
to implement ISTEA. Commissioner Turpin explained that in
addition to approval of capital budget items, it would be
necessary to pass legislation requiring that helmets be worn
by those riding on motorcycles. Failure to effect such a
statute will result in Congressional withholding of 5% of
the state's funding for the first year and 10% the second
year. The department has thus introduced appropriate
legislation. Commissioner Turpin advised of his hope there
would be no problem with the bill since, at the present
time, anyone under 18 years of age must wear a helmet while
operating or riding on a motorcycle. Alaska also hopes to
receive increased funding resulting from other states that
are unsuccessful in passing helmet legislation. ISTEA also
entails passage of legislation requiring that anyone
convicted of drug use automatically loses his or her
driver's license for 90 days. Failure to pass the
legislation by April 1 of this year will result in
withholding of 3% of the state's ISTEA funding. In response
to an additional question from Senator Pearce, Commissioner
Turpin acknowledged that needed legislation had not yet been
introduced but would soon be forthcoming.
Senator Pearce next asked if the federal government
concurred in the state's plan and formula allocations.
Commissioner Turpin said that the plan received endorsement
by federal authorities. The state continues to have
responsibilities for monitoring and accountability. Senator
Pearce inquired concerning need to ensure accountability at
the local level. The Commissioner explained that the
department would do most of the accounting except for
boroughs that have demonstrated they practice good
accounting procedures. Most of the funding will initially
be spent as planning money.
In response to an additional question from Senator Pearce
asking if local communities are prepared to assume planning
responsibilities, Commissioner Turpin indicated that he was
amazed by the sophistication of boroughs. As an example, he
noted two projects planned by the East Aleutians Borough.
While $500.0 may not appear to be major funding in terms of
the overall budget, it means a great deal to a small village
with little or no roads. Mr. Gerken added that none of the
boroughs had expressed reservations about ability to manage
the planning process. Of greater concern to both the
department and borough staff is design work and
administration of construction. Those that are capable of
that portion of the work may handle it, if the department is
certain the borough is able to manage the effort. DOTPF
will establish local government assistance within the
department.
Senator Pearce voiced her understanding that the mayor of
the Fairbanks Borough is not pleased with the proposed
allocation process. She then asked what was being done to
work with dissatisfied local communities. Commissioner
Turpin reiterated that extensive participation, discussion,
and meeting time was involved in development of the proposed
formula. He acknowledged that a community in the Fairbanks
area remains dissatisfied. The community feels that
distribution on a historical basis would be more fair.
That, however, defeats the primary purpose of the program
which is to engender more local planning. Mr. Gerken
reiterated that not all of the ISTEA funding is distributed
per the formula. Part of it is competitive--$11 million a
year. A week ago, the AML group reviewed criteria for that
allocation. One proposal for the short term is to look at
projects that have been included in the department plan for
some time. That would favor Fairbanks. This process is not
yet finished. Additional meetings have been scheduled to
work on detail.
Senator Lincoln directed attention to a map designated
"Alaska Interim Core Highway System" (copy included within
the committee minute book), and voiced surprise regarding
the proposed road to McGrath. She then inquired concerning
the initiative behind the proposal. Mr. Gerken explained
that the department developed a policy plan document over a
year ago. Although most of the ISTEA funding will be
devoted to preserving the existing system, department
discussion also focused upon economic benefits to be derived
from expansion of access to other areas of the state. As
part of that process, the department proposed seven or eight
routes from a series of recommendations relating to resource
development and long-range movement of goods. A route to
McGrath was determined to have long-term potential. Mr.
Gerken acknowledged that it would not be an easy route to
construct since it would go near or through the park. The
state began a series of discussions with the park service to
develop a process for identifying right of way. Study will
commence shortly to review advantages and disadvantages and
hear from impacted communities and other interests.
Senator Lincoln voiced concern that when the department
commences to plan it does so from the top down rather than
from the community up. She stressed need to begin the
effort at the community level. Commissioner Turpin noted a
number of requests for a road to McGrath from both residents
of the area and the park service. Issues involving the park
must first be resolved prior to community hearings.
Senator Lincoln noted that the map indicates that routes
outlined in green may fit core criteria. She then raised
questions regarding that designation. Mr. Gerken directed
attention to pages 7 and 8 of an additional handout
(Attachment C), containing language identifying core routes.
He then noted that the Denali Highway is green because the
department believes it to be a core route (a major highway
operated by the state) even though it does not fit well
within the core definitions.
Again referring to the department map, Senator Lincoln
inquired concerning criteria used for appropriation of funds
for the Dalton Highway. Mr. Gerken explained that criteria
used to designate a core route includes connection to a
point of major economic activity (resource development or
export of goods). Funding expended on core routes would
flow from the department's 50%--money for improvement of
existing roads. A route in that area that does not fall
within the core system would be the responsibility of the
unorganized borough.
In response to an additional question from Senator Pearce,
Mr. Gerken advised that the northern 200 miles of the Dalton
Highway are not open to the public. ISTEA funds cannot be
utilized for that portion. By definition, however, the
Dalton remains a core road and the responsibility of the
state. State general funds would have to be used for
reconstruction of the northern portion.
Chairman Sharp asked if new roads constructed by boroughs
would then become the responsibility of the state.
Commissioner Turpin answered negatively. Mr. Gerken
concurred that boroughs that construct new roads from the
35% funding should be prepared to maintain them.
Chairman Sharp next voiced surprise over inclusion of dust
problems within EPA clean air concerns and dust control
eligibility for congestion mitigation funding. Mr. Gerken
concurred in that surprise. The federal legislation
initially covered only carbon dioxide non-attainment. Final
interpretation determined that air quality dollars can be
spent on dust control. He reiterated that dust problems
have been noted in both the Mendenhall Valley and Eagle
River. Money for paving slated for match by the community
and expenditure in 1993 may cure the majority of the problem
in the Mendenhall Valley.
Chairman Sharp solicited comments and questions from mayors
in attendance. DAN KECK, Mayor of Sitka, came before
committee. He voiced appreciation to DOTPF for the
opportunity to work with the department on ISTEA funding.
The mayor then listed the names of those who participated in
the process. He acknowledged that there is no way to fund
from the largest city to the largest borough and make the
process fair and equitable to everyone. Mr. Keck then
voiced his belief that all who participated feel that, when
viewed from a statewide perspective, the proposed program is
good. The Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs has
agreed to work with and assist communities not located
within boroughs (Petersburg was given as an example). Mr.
Keck concluded his comments by advising that while Sitka
would prefer more funding, from a statewide perspective, it
is satisfied.
DON GILMAN, Mayor of the Kenai Borough, next came before
committee. He explained that, in the past, category III
roads that did not fall within the state or federal system
were largely neglected. When improvements were made, DOTPF
required that design meet federal highway standards.
Communities were thus forced to design secondary roads as
though they were major highways. As a result, the roads
were substantially over built. The proposed ISTEA program
is flexible and will allow for use of funding for design and
construction of gravel connective roads where there is no
need to build to a higher standard. Flexibility is one of
the strong points of the program. The proposal represents a
major method of improving the state transportation and road
systems. Chairman Sharp concurred that new federal
regulations for construction provide the opportunity to "get
a lot more miles out of the dollars available."
JERRY HEIMBUCK, Assistant Division Administrator, Federal
Highways, Alaska Division, next spoke before committee. He
concurred in comments by DOTPF and voiced support for the
proposed program.
Chairman Sharp acknowledged that much field work had been
done by the department and local communities. He then
voiced his understanding that the amount of funding and
formula remain subject to legislative appropriation.
Senator Kelly asked when the department would know how many
federal dollars will be available. RON LIND, Director of
Plans, Programs and Budget, Dept. of Transportation and
Public Facilities, came before committee. He explained that
the state would know the actual amount when Congress takes
action. That amount will not be known while the legislature
is in session. Commissioner Turpin advised that the
department knows approximately what the amount will be. To
protect against that, the department brings in alternate
projects for legislative approval in the event that funding
is greater than anticipated.
In his concluding remarks, Commissioner Turpin said that the
department views ISTEA provisions as another method of
planning a portion of the annual budget.
Senator Lincoln spoke to concern raised by broad, sweeping
regulations at either the state or federal level. She then
asked why the federal government was mandating that states
pass legislation requiring that the driver's license of an
individual convicted of drug use be revoked for 90 days or
risk loss of 3% of ISTEA funding. Mr. Heimbuck said that he
could not respond, advising that the requirement reflects
"something that Congress put together." The main purpose
appears to be to discourage the use of drugs in the United
States and, in particular, drug use while driving. Senator
Lincoln suggested that if the 60 members of the Alaska
Legislature felt that the requirement would be a deterrent,
they would pass legislation without influence from
Washington, D.C.
Senator Kelly voiced his understanding that all local
projects planned by boroughs as well as state projects
planned by the Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities
would have to be appropriated from ISTEA funds by the
legislature through the budget process. Commissioner Turpin
concurred. He further advised that approval would be on a
project-by-project basis rather than in lump sum payments to
boroughs.
Senator Rieger noted a past feeling of constraint regarding
AMATS recommendations for the Anchorage area and inquired
regarding flexibility for the legislature under ISTEA.
Commissioner Turpin said that there is no flexibility for a
city over 200,000. Such cities must plan all federal
expenditures within the community regardless of whether
expenditures are for core or local roads. The department
does not anticipate problems since it has always worked
closely with AMATS.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|