Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paving Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Transportation questions paving priorities as interstate work outpaces state-highway resurfacing
Summary
Committee members pressed Agency of Transportation staff about FY27 paving numbers after staff showed roughly 92 interstate miles slated for treatment versus about 55 state-system miles; members said federal performance rules and project readiness are skewing resources toward interstates and asked for a readiness and miles breakdown for state routes.
The Senate Transportation committee on March 19 pressed Agency of Transportation staff for clearer data after a briefing showed an FY27 paving program that heavily skews work toward the interstate system.
Matt Pagotic, highway safety design program manager, told the committee the paving program in the FY27 budget lists an appropriation of about $148.2 million, "an increase compared to last year of about $45 million," and that the department planned roughly 152 miles of paving for calendar year 2026. Pagotic said the staff's program view shows about 92 miles of interstate work (roughly $70 million) and about 55.8 miles on the state system (roughly $45 million), with smaller amounts for class-one town highways.
Committee members said the gap is worrying. One member called the imbalance "appalling," asking whether the department had a target for how many miles should be treated annually to maintain the state system. staff acknowledged industry rules of thumb (a 10-year service-life view suggesting ~290 miles/year across systems) but emphasized that year-to-year spend is driven by project readiness and funding availability.
Pagotic told the panel that federal performance measures for the interstate and National Highway System (NHS) constrain how federal funds can be used: "If our very poor condition on the interstate got to 10%... Federal Highway would step in and dictate to us that we stop spending money on the state system," he said, summarizing the trade-off between meeting federal performance thresholds and funding other statewide pavement needs.
Committee members asked for concrete follow-ups: a comparison of FY26 to FY27 dollar and mileage figures; a clear percent-of-network measure showing what portion of the state highway system the planned 55 miles represents; and a list of state-system projects that are ready to move in FY27. The chair asked staff to return with modeling that shows how additional state match or one-time revenue (for example, a $20 million purchase-and-use tax restoration) would change allocations and allow more state-system paving.
The exchange also covered technical questions about how miles are counted: staff said the department measures state routes in centerline miles, while interstate projects are often counted in "barrel" miles (directional lanes), which complicates direct linear-mile comparisons.
The committee did not vote on any measure. Members directed agency staff to provide the requested breakdowns, readiness lists and scenario modeling before the committee takes further budget action.
The committee is scheduled to reconvene the discussion after staff provides the requested materials.
