Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House transportation committee reviews town highway grant programs, says demand far outstrips funding
Summary
Department staff told the House Transportation Committee that four town-highway programs—including structures and Class 2 roadway grants—total about $17 million in annual appropriations while towns applied for roughly $57 million in projects, prompting questions about long-term funding and resilience planning.
State transportation staff briefed the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 5 on four town‑highway grant programs, describing program rules, how projects are prioritized and a gap between municipal demand and state funding.
Transportation maintenance engineer Chad Greenwood told the committee the department administers the Town Highway Structures Program, the Class 2 Roadway Program, a non‑federal disaster program and a federal disaster (FHWA) bridge/road emergency fund. Greenwood said the structures program is funded at about $7.2 million a year and the Class 2 program at about $8.6 million. Greenwood described local match requirements and maximum award limits for the programs.
The briefing matters because committee members said town officials across the state are applying for far more work than the state can fund, leaving municipalities to wait years for grants and to rely on emergency reimbursements after storms.
Greenwood said the Town Highway Structures Program covers bridges, culverts 36 inches in diameter or larger and retaining walls on class 1, 2 and 3 town highways. He said the statute sets the program funding and that typical grants are capped at $200,000. For structures Greenwood said the local match is 20% of the total project cost, or 10% for towns that have adopted the state’s code and standards (as described in the department’s guidance).
On the Class 2 roadway program Greenwood said funding and the $200,000 maximum mirror the structures program and described local matches of 30% of total cost, or 20% if a town has adopted local codes and standards. He said those programs have been relatively steady for the past three fiscal years.
Committee members pressed staff on how projects are selected. Greenwood and staff said district project managers (DPMs) meet with towns annually, compile applications into a district allocation and prioritize projects using a queue based on ratios (for structures, the district’s number of structures; for Class 2, class‑2 mileage and recent grant history). Staff said the queue is intended to distribute funds equitably across towns and districts and that towns are encouraged to reapply annually if they are not funded in a given year.
Committee members also asked about disaster programs. Staff described a Town Highway Non‑Federal Disaster program, funded at about $1.15 million in recent years to assist towns for emergency repairs that do not qualify for FEMA or FHWA emergency relief. Greenwood said the state also maintains a $4 million pot of state money to front emergency repairs on federally eligible town highways until federal reimbursement is available (FHWA emergency funds are triggered at statewide damages of about $700,000 for FHWA eligibility). Greenwood said the federal‑aid emergency money is intended to cover emergency work and is later reimbursed by federal sources.
Lawmakers repeatedly raised the gap between applications and funding. Committee discussion cited a department summary showing roughly $57 million in town requests versus approximately $15.8–16 million the state has been able to award across the programs in recent years. Representative Courtney asked why $593,000 had been reverted from the Class 2 program in the current budget; staff said that question required follow up with budget staff (Candace) and would be answered later.
Members asked about other practical issues: whether towns may apply for multiple projects (yes, separate applications per project), whether grant applications roll over (no; towns must reapply but may resubmit the same project), and whether the state helps small towns prepare applications and hydraulic analyses. Staff said district project managers provide substantial technical assistance, meet with towns about 60 days after town budgets are passed and can help with sizing culverts or with engineering needs.
The committee also discussed climate resiliency and whether the grant programs prioritize upsizing structures to reduce future damage. Staff said district managers consider need and condition in prioritization and federal programs encourage resiliency upgrades where feasible. Members suggested that current funding levels—and a reliance on emergency funding after storms—leave towns behind on proactive resiliency work.
Several committee members urged deeper, longer‑term budget conversations to address the structural funding gap. Greenwood and staff framed the current programs as steady but limited by annual appropriations and said the department can provide additional detail on expenditures and applications when asked.
The presentation ended with staff offering to provide a map and more transparent tools on the agency website so committee members and towns can see which roads are federal‑aid routes, which are Class 2 roads and which towns have recently received grants.
Ending: Committee members said they will follow up with department staff for more data on reversions and program expenditures, and expressed interest in scheduling a demonstration of the department’s mapping and application‑tracking tools at a future meeting.
