DOT warns of programming risks as MPO boundary updates, operating‑agreement dispute play out

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities officials told the House Transportation Committee on Thursday that unresolved metropolitan planning area boundary updates and operating‑agreement negotiations with Anchorage (AMATS), Fairbanks (FAST) and Mat‑Su (MVP) MPOs could jeopardize the ability to program projects into the MPO Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and could trigger federally required air‑quality and conformity reviews.

Andy Mills, legislative liaison and special assistant at DOT, and Lauren Little, chief engineer at DOT, briefed the committee on the federally required boundary‑update process following the 2020 census and said the deadline to complete and obtain governor approval of new MPO boundaries is Dec. 31, 2026. Little warned that without an approved boundary that complies with federal regulations, “projects may not be able to be programmed within those boundaries until [a] compliant boundary is approved by the governor.”

FAST planning board representative Scott Crass testified by invitation and said the dispute has escalated after DOT advanced National Highway System (NHS) projects that FAST said were not coordinated with the MPO and therefore were not in FAST’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) or TIP. “Federal regulations are clear that all projects proposed for federal highway and transit funding for the transportation network including the NHS must be included in the MPO's MTP and TIP to be eligible for funding,” Crass said. He told the committee he believes DOT has linked boundary approval to acceptance of DOT’s proposed operating‑agreement edits, which FAST members view as stripping local decision‑making authority.

DOT officials said the department has concerns about several MPO submittals. For AMATS, DOT identified boundary extensions into areas such as Chugach State Park and long stretches of the Seward and Glenn Highway corridors where the department said there is limited potential for urbanization and unclear coordination with affected landowners and agencies. For FAST, DOT noted questions about legal defensibility of mapped boundaries around projects such as Chena River flood control bridges and a Farmers Loop “donut hole” omission. Little said those examples and others generated public comments that DOT and the MPOs must resolve.

DOT staff urged renewed coordination and updating of intergovernmental operating agreements that define the “3‑C” (continuing, comprehensive and cooperative) planning processes, project coordination and responsibilities for the National Highway System. Little described situations in which MPO policy boards have voted to remove or rescope projects — actions that, if not handled consistent with federal rules, could cause federal funding to be ineligible or require payback. As an example she cited a FAST decision related to a flood‑control project where a policy‑board vote left the project outside the planning boundary and required further review to confirm federal eligibility.

Jackson Fox of FAST Planning, and Kim Solian with MVP, said MPOs regularly consult with Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration staff and stressed that operating agreements and the 3‑C process are intended to define expectations and avoid future disputes. Fox said renegotiating operating agreements is resource‑intensive — the last FAST agreement required multiple municipal and state attorneys and more than a year to complete — and some FAST policy‑board members opposed DOT’s proposed edits as diminishing local planning authority.

Committee members questioned both DOT and the MPO representatives about where the communication breakdowns occurred and whether the parties could reach agreement before the Dec. 31, 2026 deadline. DOT said it would continue to work with MPOs and federal partners to resolve disputed boundary elements and operating‑agreement language.

No committee action was taken on the MPO materials; the presentation was received for the record and committee members asked for follow‑up clarification on specific boundary comments and timelines.