Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/28/2024 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Update: State Transportation Improvement Plan – Department of Transportation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 28, 2024
9:00 a.m.
9:00:35 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Ryan Anderson, Commissioner, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities; Sean Lynch, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Transportation Section, Department of Law;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
UPDATE: STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
^UPDATE: STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
9:01:00 AM
Co-Chair Stedman explained that the committee would hear
from the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) regarding the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), which was the federal funding process for
the state. He noted that there had been a "hiccup" that
resulted in the submission being denied on the federal
level. He shared that as the committee was trying to work
through the budget process, it had asked DOT to present on
the status of the STIP. He wanted the committee to
understand the gravity of the situation.
Co-Chair Stedman continued that Senator Bishop was a former
chair of the Capital Budget and Co-Chair Hoffman was the
current Capital Budget chair. He asserted that the
committee was not endeavoring to find fault or blame, but
rather to work through the situation to get things back on-
track.
9:03:59 AM
RYAN ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced himself and thanked the
committee for allowing DOT to present. He asserted that the
department had been working seven days a week since the
February 2024 findings by the Federal Highway
Administration. He turned to the presentation entitled
"Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Update" (copy on file).
9:05:05 AM
Commissioner Anderson looked at slide 2, " What is the
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)?":
• Required under 23 USC 135 and 23 CFR 450.218 and 17
AAC 05.155
• Four-year planning document
• Includes all federally funded surface transportation
projects
• Fiscally constrained
• Contains other projects of regional/statewide
significance
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulationsandguidance/tra
nsportationplanning/statewidetransportationimprovement
-program-stip
9:06:24 AM
Senator Bishop referenced Commissioner Anderson's mention
of working seven days a week since the decision on the STIP
application. He asked whether the department had added
staff to handle the workload.
Commissioner Anderson answered "yes," and noted that there
would be additional slides that illustrated the matter. He
discussed the various staff working on the issue. He
estimated that there was close to a cumulative 300 years of
experience working on the problem.
9:07:53 AM
Commissioner Anderson spoke to slide 3, "How does the STIP
Impact Projects on the Street?
Project Delivery Continues:
• Operating under a 2020-2023 STIP Extension until
March 31, 2024
• Projects continue to be obligated under the
extension close to $200M obligated this year
• Carry over projects continue
Estimated at over $350M
• Over $100M in projects currently advertising for
construction this summer
Commissioner Anderson addressed the flow chart shown on the
slide, and noted that DOT obligated projects by phase,
including design, construction, maintenance and operations,
and planning. He iterated that a project started in design
was a phase 2 item and had to be in the STIP. He continued
that right-of-way for projects also had to be in the STIP,
as well as production. He said that every sequence required
STIP documentation.
9:10:09 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked Commissioner Anderson to address the
first bullet on slide 2, and whether it required a 30-day
review.
Commissioner Anderson explained that the STIP extension
until March 31 the deadline for the completed resubmittal.
9:10:50 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman wanted to convey the importance of the
issue for the public. He understood that Alaska was the
only state in the current year that had been asked for a
resubmittal, which he considered a drastic step by the
federal government. He asked how important the resubmittal
was to the state, so that state services would continue. He
emphasized that it was hard to downplay the importance of
the program, and the request by the federal government for
a resubmittal. He stressed that the subject was not a
trivial matter.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Anderson to give background on
the submittal and resubmittal process.
Commissioner Anderson affirmed that DOT had gone back and
through and looked at past STIP requests. He relayed that
the federal government had offered recommendations in the
past but not corrective actions. He offered the usual
timeline regarding submittals. He described that other
states were doing a "rolling STIP," in which they submitted
a STIP every year or two years, rather than four years, so
that there was always an active request.
9:14:37 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the state's current STIP
situation was rare.
Commissioner Anderson replied in the affirmative.
9:15:02 AM
Senator Bishop wanted to put a finer point on the matter
from a monetary perspective. He asked whether DOT had
modelled and cash-flow scenarios. He asserted that the
committee was present to help the department but was also
tasked with planning. He did not think he needed to stress
the importance of the potential impact on the construction
industry in the state.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that the department had not
done specific modelling. He quantified that the state's
typical award over a year was approximately $750 million.
He thought that DOT could look at previous numbers and
attempt some modeling.
9:17:03 AM
Senator Bishop relayed that he had always given kudos to
DOT for its resource distribution. He asked whether the
state would lose funds that other states would potentially
be able to sweep from Alaska.
Commissioner Anderson affirmed that if Alaska was not able
to spend all its apportionments, other states could receive
the funds.
9:18:20 AM
Commissioner Anderson referenced slide 4, " 2024-2027 STIP
Timeline Overview," which showed a graphical timeline and
overview:
Alaska DOT&PF STIP Timeline
Dec 2021
Work starts on E-SRIP or STIP Manager
May 2023 Decision Point
DOT&PF moves to a new platform after E-STIP fails
July 2023
Draft STIP open for public comment from July 20
Sept. 3
Nov 2023
DIT&PF submits new revised draft per FHWA request,
reflecting federal feedback
Jan 2024
FHWA asks DOT&PF to soft submit on Jan. 11. DOT&PF
formally submits on Jan. 19
FEB 2024
Feb. 12 FHWA provides Formal Finding
DOT&PF formally resubmits STIP to FHWA
Commissioner Anderson shared that the department had
instituted the E-STIP to make the STIP more accessible to
the public and provide a more solid system for employees.
He highlighted step 2 on the timeline, and DOT's decision
point of moving to a new platform after the failure of the
E-STIP. Numbers under the E-STIP had been inaccurate. He
contended that the new platform functioned better. He noted
that DOT had added personnel in May 2023 to transition to
the new platform.
Commissioner Anderson mentioned a "fair amount of
consultation" with FHWA to submit the revised November
draft. Another draft was requested in January. He noted
that consultations in January prompted DOT to formally
th
submit on January 19.
9:23:06 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman requested, in the spirit of transparency,
a list of projects obligated under the extension. He asked
for geographical information on the projects, for Alaskans
to be made aware of where each project stood. He addressed
the decision point in May 2023 on the timeline, and asked
Commissioner Anderson to discuss the new platform. He asked
how moving to the new platform in May affected the decision
by the FHWA.
Commissioner Anderson turned to slide 5, "The ESTIP Problem
(Dec. 2021 April 2023)
Why a New Platform?
• Previous STIPs were built from individual
spreadsheets
• Cloud Based
• Modern Tool for DOT&PF & MPOs (Metropolitan Planning
Organization)
Improved planning functionality
• Dec. 2021: RFP signed - work begins
• April 2022: Certification test shows financial
information not accurate
• May 2023: Team stops work on E-STIP given flaws are
deemed beyond correction with remaining time in
federal fiscal year
Commissioner Anderson qualified that the department was
building the platform themselves and was reliant only on
internal resources.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the STIP was oversubscribed.
Commissioner Anderson answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether DOT had a list of projects
that had been removed or reordered to adjust to the
decision from FHWA.
Commissioner Anderson did not have the information at hand
but agreed to provide the information.
9:27:14 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about the new platform and mentioned
three regions in the state. He asked what participation or
involvement by the regions were present in the development
of the new platform.
Co-Chair Stedman explained that there were Northern,
Central, and Coastal regions in the state, along with
Fairbanks and Anchorage.
Commissioner Anderson stressed that DOT was providing
training and resources to ensure that the regions could
simultaneously begin documenting project estimates, scopes,
and schedules. He said that staff, project managers, and
directors could monitor projects and provide input that
would be included in the STIP.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked that DOT come forward with the
regional directors, as he considered that the directors
played a critical role in the process.
9:29:24 AM
Senator Bishop asked about the new platform. He had
reviewed submissions on the platform and had noticed that
one project was denied due to a lack of public comment. He
asked whether the public could comment electronically or
whether those comments were given in person.
Commissioner Anderson did not recall which project Senator
Bishop referenced.
Senator Bishop explained that a project was at Manly Hot
Springs and the comment was that there had been no
interaction with the tribe.
Commissioner Anderson understood that tribal projects had
to be incorporated by reference and were not listed in the
STIP. He considered that the Manley Bridge had been a great
success for the state, a project that the tribe and the
state had co-funded. He noted that MPOs were not supposed
to be listed in the STIP.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a definition of MPO.
Commissioner Anderson replied that MPO is the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, which included
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Mat-Su.
9:32:08 AM
Commissioner Anderson considered slide 6, "May 2023
Decision Point
May July 2023: New STIP Development
• Commissioner's office involvement
• 30 person DOT&PF Multidisciplinary Team
• Focus on
o Technology
o Engagement
o Fiscal Constraint
o Project Delivery
o Programming & Planning
Commissioner Anderson thought it was important to note that
when building a STIP, there were many disciplines involved.
9:33:36 AM
Commissioner Anderson displayed slide 7, "New STIP
Platform: Shift to Modern Tools (timeline reference)":
Open-Source Platform
• Cloud based
• Multiple users
• Intuitive
• Glitches worked out
New tools for public and staff
• Tables
• Dashboards
• Spreadsheets
• Workflow
Public could select projects based on region,
investment area, legislative district or type of
project.
Staff tools to link to project delivery, track cost
increases, Legislative Authority.
Modernizing internal process to provide timely,
accurate and transparent communication with the public
9:34:57 AM
Senator Bishop went back to his question from the previous
slide regarding public comment. He asked whether public
comment was now all online, or whether it was in a public
setting.
Commissioner Anderson that there was an online portal,
newspaper, radio, and social media outreach. He said people
wrote letters and there were a handful of public meetings.
He stated that there had not been significant public
comment in person.
9:36:16 AM
Commissioner Anderson highlighted slide 8, " 45 Day Public
Notice (July 20 Sept. 3)
STIP Outreach:
• Publication in statewide newspapers
• Statewide STIP mailer
• Public meeting
Targeted outreach:
• Presentations to civic, trade groups
• Direct email to cities, boroughs, tribes
• Direct email to transportation related NGOs (Non-
Governmental Organizations)
• Direct contact with underserved communities
• MPOs
• Joint House & Senate Transportation Committee
Presentation
Mass communication:
• Press releases/earned media
• Social media
• Radio PSAs to rural Alaska
9:37:25 AM
Commissioner Anderson looked at slide 9, "Consultations
After Public Notice (Sept. 4 Jan.)
• Aug. 2023, Dec. 2023, Jan. 2024: MPO Consultations
• Aug. 2023 Jan. 2024: FHWA Consultations
o FHWA STIP position in Alaska still vacant
o FHWA and MPO Exec Directors meeting without
State involvement
o FHWA guidance lacked clarity
• Sept. 4 Nov. 2023: Resolution of 1,200 Public
Comments
• Sept. 15, 2023: FHWA Approves STIP extension
• Nov. 2023: FHWA requests an updated STIP draft
• Jan. 11, 2024: FHWA requests a "soft submittal" to
give feedback
• Jan. 18, 2024: FHWA provides no feedback
• Jan. 18, 2024: Alaska DOT&PF Decision to Submit
Formally
9:40:01 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked about getting a copy of radio
communications to rural Alaska and any other mass
communication the department may have had with rural areas
of the state.
9:40:26 AM
Commissioner Anderson addressed slide 10, " Resolution of
Public Comments":
Project Comments: 1200+
• 36% on West Susitna
• 11% mention Manh Cho
• 6% on Sterling Hwy/Anchor Point
Other Comments of note:
• Mat-Su Area Roads
• Anchorage Area Roads
• Kenai Area Roads
• Southeast Area Roads
• AMHS projects
• Cascade Point
• Juneau North Douglas Crossing
• Cooper Landing Bypass
• Glenn Hwy Highland Interchange
Public Comments:
• 909 Individual
• 12 Legislative
• 59 Local Government/Tribes
• 67 Non-Governmental Organizations
• 86% Alaska based comments
• 14% Out of State comments
Commissioner Anderson explained that the new platform could
separate state and out-of-state comments.
9:41:04 AM
Senator Kiehl asked whether the STIP was the 413 paged
document on the departments website.
Commissioner Anderson replied that that was the STIP
document; a supplemental 1,100-page document included
public engagement.
Senator Kiehl referenced a joint legislative transportation
hearing in which he had inquired about tribal
transportation plans. He said that the 413 paged STIP
document did not state that they were listed by reference,
only that they exist, and the state is compliant. He
referenced the finding that stated that tribal
transportation plans were not included in the STIP.
Commissioner Anderson explained that Tribal Transportation
Improvemnet Programs (TIPS) were a requirement that had to
be adopted by reference. He said that the department would
incorporate all the TIPS projects into the STIP.
Senator Kiehl requested that someone from the department
assist him in finding the information on the STIP platform.
9:43:14 AM
Senator Bishop understood that the department was working
got make sure the current STIP problem never happened
again.
Commissioner Anderson answered affirmatively.
Senator Bishop asked whether the department had researched
the growth in public comment.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that he liked to think that
DOT had an excellent communications team and that
technological improvements had made the public comment
process easier for Alaskans.
9:45:40 AM
Co-Chair Olson looked at the top of slide 10 and the 36
percent of public comments pertaining to the West Susitna
project. He asked for the breakdown of the comments in
favor versus against.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that most of the comments
were against the project. He added that there were some
comments for the projects.
Co-Chair Olson asked whether the department still planned
on going forward with the project despite the mostly
negative comments. He thought the Native corporations that
were in the area were not supportive of the project and
were strongly opposed. He said that he had seen no proof to
the assertion that there were resources in the area that
would be economically viable.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that the comment DOT had
received from FHWA and the project was regarding not having
a bridge in the scope. He said that the department intended
to go ahead with the project. In 2016, DOT had done a
reconnaissance study, which included information about the
benefits of the road. The study addressed mineral
extraction and energy.
9:49:20 AM
Senator Wilson added that the project was supported by the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Commissioner Anderson answered affirmatively.
Senator Wilson asked for a breakdown in the demographics of
the public comments.
9:49:48 AM
Senator Kiehl was familiar with the $400 million project
that included the bridge, but that the bridge was in the
STIP as a $73 million project. He thought there was a
crossing project in his district that had municipal support
and a congressional appropriation, which was listed at $270
million in the STIP. He asked how the decision was made to
list the projects so differently, with one at a fraction of
its cost and one at its total maximum cost.
Commissioner Anderson thought that the West Susitna project
included a public road that would open the area to the
public. He said the road would be a basic gravel road,
which would keep costs down, and would provide access to
land west of the Susitna.
Co-Chair Stedman referenced the tribal road program, and
asked about the dollar amounts by region.
Commissioner Anderson agreed to provide the information.
9:52:13 AM
Commissioner Anderson advanced to slide 11, "Fiscal
Constraint/Project Delivery Corrections":
Existing Challenges
• Over $3B programmed
• Project Estimates & Schedules
• Inflation and Large Projects
• Legacy Projects
New Challenges
• New Interpretations
• Fiscal Constraint - Overprogramming
• NHS routes/MPO TIPs
• Amendments and Administrative Modifications
Commissioner Anderson expounded on the existing and new
challenges faced by the department.
9:57:57 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for more specific information about
the fiscal constraints and overprogramming faced by the
department.
Commissioner Anderson explained that programs were listed
by fund types and portions of money were applied to certain
programs. He said projects were bound by the money
obligated. He said that funding flexibility had become
constrained in 2024.
9:59:30 AM
Senator Kiehl did not follow the comments regarding the
MPOs. He thought it sounded as though there was an issue
with how the projects were listed. He asked whether the
problem at the federal level was about how the projects
were listed, or whether it was a disagreement about the
size of the projects.
Commissioner Anderson deferred to Mr. Lynch.
10:00:33 AM
SEAN LYNCH, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
TRANSPORTATION SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained that
the concern on the federal level was how the MPOs were
listed and, potentially, how they were designed. He said
that the federal government had not put their concerns in
writing. He thought that the institutional culture for both
agencies was similar. He said that the STIP would be
resubmitted this week and in six months policies and
procedures would be created that would invite coordination
with all MPOs. He stated that all the projects that were
listed to be removed were projects that had traditionally
been included in the STIP. He said that the corrective
action expected by DOT was to put federal land access
projects, tribal transportation projects, and MPOs outside
of the STIP and incorporated by reference. He relayed that
the details of the work going forward to fix the problem
with STIP funding was still being worked out.
10:04:22 AM
Senator Kiehl had thought the cooperative approach and
splitting of influence on how things were designed in
boroughs had been settled. He asked whether the approach of
working out which projects made it on the STIP list had
changed recently.
Mr. Lynch could not address any specific change. He said
that the STIP had been submitted to the federal government
in the usual manner. He did not know why it had been
reported back as problematic. He discussed the MPO process.
10:07:07 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a run-down of the Cooper Landing
Project.
Commissioner Anderson explained that the Cooper Landing
Bypass Project had an original estimated cost in the range
of $350 million, which was increasing incrementally and was
approximately $800 million presently. He said that it would
be 2027 before the bridge was completed. He said that
project completion had been pushed out to 2029. He stated
that the design team was asked to look at extras to
simplify the project to get the road open as soon as
possible.
10:11:03 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to put a finer point on the
subject. He explained that if the entire project was
included in the STIP submission, many other projects would
have to be removed. He said that the committee needed to
focus on the money coming in and the timing of that
funding, particularly for upcoming Capital Budget
discussions.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that there were no planned
expenditures for Cooper Landing in the STIP between 2024
and 2027.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether he could assume that it was
being removed from the STIP and would be addressed in a
future amendment or in the 2027-2028 STIP.
Commissioner Anderson answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether there were any other major
projects that the commissioner could recall that would be
pulled out of the STIP so that FHWA would approve the
resubmittal on March 1, 2024.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that he could bring forward a
list of projects. He thought there were projects on the
Parks Highway, Richardson Highway, and the Sterling
Highway. He stressed that the projects were across the
board. He related that he had asked that projects be
broken up into smaller segments that required less initial
funding.
10:14:02 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought it would be helpful for the DOT
subcommittee and capital budget to have the lists assembled
very soon.
10:14:59 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman stressed that it was critical that the
information be made available quickly. He asked whether
there were any projects in the resubmittal that would
affect the governors current list on the STIP.
Commissioner Anderson agreed to provide the list.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked when he could expect the list.
Commissioner Anderson replied that conversation had been
happening that would hopefully result in the list being
available soon.
Co-Chair Hoffman understood that the resubmittal would have
to go through a 30-day public hearing process.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that the resubmittal went
straight to the FHWA for 30-day review, bypassing public
comment.
Co-Chair Hoffman surmised that the public would not have
the opportunity to comment on substantial changes that
might be made by the department in the resubmittal.
Commissioner Anderson responded that DOT always took
comments but that there was not another public comment
period for this resubmittal.
Co-Chair Hoffman understood that DOT would take additional
public comments into consideration.
Commissioner Anderson replied in the affirmative.
10:17:18 AM
Senator Wilson asked if any project partnerships were at
risk due to certain projects being removed from the STIP.
Commissioner Anderson responded that fiscal constraints had
impacted projects across the board.
Senator Wilson expressed concern about state funded
projects that had been moved to the STIP and whether the
projects would lose momentum going forward.
Commissioner Anderson thought the primary impacts were on
the national highway system routes. He recognized the
importance of the department's partnerships with
municipalities.
10:19:33 AM
Senator Bishop asked about the eventuality of the state
having to step in with General Fund dollars. He asked about
the treasury being made whole should the federal dollars be
realized.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that he had not asked the
question. He said that expenses were eligible after the
obligation approvals were received; the state could be made
whole after authorities had been received.
Senator Bishop thought he would go further into the issue
in subcommittee.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned the subcommittee process and
requested that future presentations concentrate solely on
the STIP and cash flow.
10:21:33 AM
Senator Wilson wondered whether DOT had a definition of
consultation and coordination, so that all parties
involved were speaking the same language.
Commissioner Anderson replied that the next few slides
would speak to Senator Wilsons question.
Co-Chair Stedman requested that the department discuss Tier
2 and Tier 3 as well.
10:22:42 AM
Commissioner Anderson looked at slide 12, "Formal STIP
Submittal and Federal Findings":
Corrective Actions - Tier 1
• Tier 1, Finding 1: MPO and Other Transportation
Improvement Programs
• Tier 1, Finding 2: Project Groupings
• Tier 1, Finding 3: Fiscal Constraint
• Tier 1, Finding 4: STIP Amendment and Modifications
Corrective action
• Tier 1, Finding 5: Self Certifications, Federal
Findings, and Federal Approvals
Impacts/Issues
New interpretations of federal code
• True Fiscal Constraint
• Discretionary grant estimating
• MVP (Mat-Su Valley Planning) MPO
• MPO Boundaries
Commissioner Anderson discussed the findings. He addressed
Finding 4 and stated that an exception could not be made to
the threshold rules. He addressed the table on the slide,
which showed STIP Revision Thresholds. He explained that
Finding 5 was about the conformity freeze in Fairbanks. He
stated that if there was a project that could be exempt
from the conformity freeze if it did not add to air
pollution the project could be exempted through a process.
10:26:39 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that Commissioner Anderson had not
touched on advance construction, which was a concern of the
committee. He mentioned previous concerns about advance
funding for construction and the creeping increase of that
funding. He understood that the number had gone up and was
close to double the amount.
Commissioner Anderson acknowledged the increase. He said
that the federal government would reimburse the advance
construction dollars. He said the current number was $450
million and the expenses were constantly converted. He
believed the advance funding was an important tool in
managing the overall cash flow for project delivery.
10:29:29 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked, from a policy perspective, whether
there should be bookends on the process regarding the
dollars expended on advance construction. He reiterated
that the funding for advance construction was increasing
regularly and without policy discussion. He wondered how
much flexibility the department was allowed.
Commissioner Anderson considered that there was a lot of
flexibility in how the department wanted to plan. He
thought that $450 million was a good cap for the
department.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how many years in advance the
department could make funding changes.
Commissioner Anderson did not think there was a rule about
the timeline.
10:31:53 AM
Commissioner Anderson showed slide 13, "Impacts of New
Federal Interpretations":
Loss of Flexibility
New interpretations of federal code
True Fiscal Constraint
Discretionary grant estimating
MVP MPO
MPO Boundaries
10:32:12 AM
Commissioner Anderson referenced slide 14, "Moving Forward:
Tier 2&3":
Action Areas:
• New DOT&PF Policy Addressing:
o DOT&PF/MPO Coordination
o TIP Management Consistency
o Performance Targets
• DOT&PF Dedicated Team focused on MPOs
• Tackle State of Alaska MPO Planning Authority
Conflict
• AMATS Transportation Management Area (TAM)
Certification Review
Commissioner Anderson relayed that within the Tier 2
aspects of the planning findings the federal government had
stipulated that:
the following federal actions must be resolved prior
to Fed. Highway and FTA approval of the first STIP
amendment or within 6 months of FHWA and FTA approval
of the STIP, whichever comes first.
Commissioner Anderson added that the department would be
focused on those stipulations over the next six months. He
stated that the MPOs and public involvement and
consultations would be reexamined with a focus on
coordination of interested parties. STIP management in
coordination with the TIPS within the MPO would also be
investigated for consistency. He said that further focus on
performance targets would also be a priority. He shared
that there would be a dedicated team working on the MPOs
and coordinating with the department. He related that
planning authority would be discussed. He
Co-Chair Stedman asked Commissioner Anderson to discuss
toll credits and they related to the AMHS.
10:35:50 AM
Commissioner Anderson referenced toll credits and STIP
comments with concern about how DOT had shown toll credits
on projects and the terminology that had been used. He
recounted looking at the State of Washington for formatting
design. He said that the plan was being reviewed and the
department was waiting for approval.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the approval was in the time
frame as that of the STIP.
Commissioner Anderson responded that there was not a
timeframe for the review. He believed that the federal
government would be responsive.
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that receiving the information in
a timely manner would be necessary for a smooth budgetary
process.
10:37:12 AM
Senator Bishop asked how Commissioner Anderson felt about
Tier 2 actions and whether he thought they were achievable
in the time frame allowed.
Commissioner Anderson replied in the affirmative. He added
that it would take a lot of resources and work.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the necessary work and
resources would impact the Operating Budget.
Commissioner Anderson thought Co-Chair Stedman had posed a
good question. He noted that the department had been so
focused on completing the STIP it had not examined where
the resources would be drawn from. From his perspective,
the work would be internally resourced due to the need for
expertise.
Co-Chair Stedman suggested that DOTs subcommittee
presentation address the resources necessary to resubmit a
successful application.
10:39:08 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked Commissioner Anderson to address
what may be impacted by the federal aviation program.
Commissioner Anderson relayed that the aviation program was
separate from the STIP, and no impacts were anticipated.
10:40:01 AM
Commissioner Anderson turned to slide 15, " Moving Forward
Rolling STIP":
Rolling STIP
Instead of every three years, it's an ongoing
iterative process, building the capacity inside the
department and allowing us to create greater layers of
understanding with the public.
States with rolling (annual) STIPs:
Washington:wsdot.wa.gov/business-wsdot/support-local-
programs/deliveringyourproject/statewidetransportation
-improvement-program-stip
• Montana: www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/stip.aspx
California:catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-
improvement-program
Nebraska dot.nebraska.gov/media/21hc2mkm/stip-pd-
guidelines.pdf
Minnesota:www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/program/stip.h
tml
Texas (every two years)
:www.txdot.gov/projects/planning/stip.html
10:41:10 AM
Senator Wilson asked about the percentage of completion to
meet the resubmission deadline.
Commissioner Anderson estimated that the percentage was
approximately 90 percent.
10:41:48 AM
Senator Kiehl was unfamiliar with rolling STIPs in other
states. He asked whether reauthorizing a two year plan
every year would bring the state to this same position.
Commissioner Anderson replied in the negative. He said if a
new STIP on a two-year cycle would remove uncertainty when
obligating projects.
Senator Kiehl understood it would be a four-year plan every
second year.
Commissioner Anderson thanked the committee for the
opportunity to present. He recognized that the situation
was not ideal, and the department took it very seriously.
10:43:35 AM
AT EASE
10:44:10 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the amendment due at the end
of March. He asked whether DOT would fully extend the STIP
or leave room for adjustments of the MPO process.
Commissioner Anderson said that if the new STIP were
approved through 2027, the department would be in
discussions with the FHWA on how it was supposed to manage
funds dedicated to the national highway system. He said
that amendments could be needed to fund some projects.
Commissioner Anderson showed slide 16, "Thank You.
Questions?":
Ryan Anderson, P.E. Commissioner
[email protected] 907-465-3900
10:46:21 AM
Co-Chair Stedman discussed housekeeping. He noted that the
meeting the following morning would focus on the Operating
Budget and how the state would meet its financial
obligations.
ADJOURNMENT
10:48:21 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 022824 STIP - Legislative Presentation FINAL.pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2024 9:00:00 AM |
STIP |
| 022824 02.12.2024 2024-2027 Alaska STIP FHWA Planning Finding Transmittal Letter 020924 (Transmitted 021224).pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2024 9:00:00 AM |
STIP |
| 022824 02.12.2024 2024 - 2027 STIP FHWA FTA Joint Federal Planning Finding (Transmitted 021224).pdf |
SFIN 2/28/2024 9:00:00 AM |
STIP |