Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
02/15/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR6 | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 30-DEDICATED TRANSPORT FUND/PUB TRANSPORT
1:48:04 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 30, "An Act relating to the transportation
infrastructure fund, to local public transportation, to the
municipal harbor facility grant fund, to motor fuel taxes, to
the motor vehicle registration fee, to driver's license fees, to
identification card fees, to the studded tire tax, and to the
vehicle rental tax; and providing for an effective date."
1:48:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 30, labeled 27-LS0193\D, Kane, 2/15/11,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version D was
before the committee.
1:49:54 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of one of the joint prime sponsor's of HB
30, explained that the proposed committee substitute (CS) would
remove all references to airport and space leases. She
explained that several dates still will need to be corrected,
but those dates will be addressed in subsequent versions of the
bill. She offered to provide a section-by-section analysis of
the bill. Section 1 would provide fees from identification
cards would be deposited into the proposed transportation fund.
The bill would add a new section to identify fees that would be
deposited to the proposed Alaska Transportation Infrastructure
Fund (ATIF), including certain motor vehicle registration fees,
and motor fuel taxes. Special registration fees, including fees
for license plates would be deposited into the general fund.
She noted that three percent of the funds destined for the
proposed ATIF would also be deposited into the general fund to
administer the Alaska Mandatory Insurance Act, which provides
the same requirement as current statute.
1:51:12 PM
MS. ROONEY stated that proposed Section 3 would provide that
vehicle registration fees for licenses and permits, commercial
fees and tests, and all other fees including revocation of
license fees shall be deposited into the proposed ATIF.
Proposed Section 4 would make a conforming amendment by removing
a reference to the watercraft fuel tax, which is deleted in this
bill. It also removes the references to the Fisheries Business
Tax in relation to the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Fund
(MHFGF). She explained since the marine fuel tax revenue is
used for the dedicated fund, this language is being deleted
since a mechanism will remain to address the MHFGF. Proposed
Section 5 of HB 30 would amend the list of program receipts so
that only special registration fees will be accounted for
separately and deposited into the general fund.
1:52:22 PM
MS. ROONEY stated that proposed Section 6 describes the sources
of appropriations to the fund. Revenue from motor fuel taxes,
vehicle registration, driver's license fees, studded tire taxes
and other revenue designated by the legislature would be
deposited to the proposed ATIF, as well as future funds such as
toll road fees. The DOR would manage the fund as an endowment.
This proposed section would require the DOR's commissioner to
manage the account to yield a six percent real rate of return
over time. It provides that appropriations to the proposed ATIF
do not lapse. She pointed out that the first five years the
return rate is set at five percent. The DOR is required to
report to the legislature on the condition and investment
performance of the fund. She related that 50 percent of the
revenue will be deposited into the ATIF to improve the fund and
allow the fund to grow at a modest rate. The appropriation
would be available for capital projects and major maintenance
for transportation and related facilities. The legislature
would also have flexibility to change the statute, and not be
required to ask for voter approval to change the constitution,
for catastrophic events in which the legislature needs to use
the proposed ATIF for operations. She explained that
appropriations cannot be used for federal matching funds unless
the total matching funds do not exceed 20 percent for that year.
She commented that this provision was added to avoid supplanting
the funds already used for federal matching funds.
1:54:58 PM
MS. ROONEY explained that proposed Section 6 also would outline
the maximum percentage of the proposed ATIF that can be
appropriated to certain categories of projects, including up to
80 percent could be directed to roads and surface
transportation, 25 percent could be used for aviation, and 25
percent could be used for the Alaska Marine Highway System
(AMHS). She elaborated that the total adds up to more than 100
percent, but would also provide built-in flexibility for the
legislature to fluctuate the amount appropriated for each
category.
1:55:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for an explanation on how the
percentages were derived.
MS. ROONEY explained the original percentages added up to 100
percent, which were taken from the DOT&PF's long range
transportation plan. Those percentages were "bumped up" and
represent a "ball park" figure.
1:56:35 PM
MS. ROONEY continued. She explained that proposed AS 37.40.870
establishes June 30 of each year as the date the DOR will use to
determine the market value of fund. The commissioner will
report to the legislature 10 days after the start of the regular
legislative session. This section would also create the ATIF
Advisory Council to make recommendations to the legislature for
projects to fund. She explained that the ATIF's Advisory
Council was expanded to 24 members to allow stakeholders a
voice. She detailed the ATIF's advisory council members. The
advisory council will use criteria developed by the DOT&PF to
make recommendations to the governor and the legislature not
later than October 15 of each year on which capital projects for
transportation and related facilities should be funded from the
fund, she said. Proposed Section 6 also provides definitions,
including "fund" to mean the ATIF's fund as it would be set out
in the state's constitution.
1:59:32 PM
MS. ROONEY stated that proposed Section 7 outlines which
proceeds from taxes on aviation fuel will be deposited and
aviation taxes to be returned to municipalities that own or
operate an airport.
MS. ROONEY explained that proposed Section 8 requires all
revenue from the motor fuel tax to be deposited into ATIP and
all refunds to be paid from the ATIP.
MS. ROONEY related that proposed Section 9 makes a conforming
amendment due to the repeal of AS 43.40.010(j) since this
subsection is repealed in proposed Section 12 of HB 30.
2:00:14 PM
MS. ROONEY stated that proposed Section 10 allows refund
warrants to be made from the proposed ATIF instead of the
highway fuel tax account. Proposed Section 11 provides for 50
percent of vehicle rental taxes to be deposited into the
proposed ATIF. This tax was designed not only to help maintain
roads but for tourism. This would leave the remaining 50
percent in the general fund for tourism purposes.
MS. ROONEY explained that proposed Section 12 provides the
mechanism for studded tire taxes to be deposited into the ATIF.
Proposed Section 13 would amend the list of responsibilities for
DOT&PF by adding the requirement for promotion and support of
local public transportation, and to develop criteria for the
ATIF's advisory council. Proposed Section 14 HB 30 also makes a
conforming amendment to remove AS 43.40.010 from the list of
notices of state agency requests for proposals (RFPs). Proposed
Section 15 would repeal the no longer needed general fund
reference for the watercraft fuel tax account, the special
highway fuel tax account, and the non-public highway use
account.
2:01:24 PM
MS. ROONEY explained that proposed Section 16 describes the
transition during the first five years, referring to her earlier
comment on the use of the 5 percent instead of six percent
return. Proposed Section 17 would stagger the terms of the
proposed ATIF advisory council. Proposed Section 19 would
provide a contingency requirement that the amendment to the
state's constitution must be passed by voters before HB 30 will
become effective. Proposed Section 20 would provide an
immediate effective date for the DOT&PF's responsibility for
promotion and indicates that the support of local public
transportation will apply even if the initiative does not pass.
In response to Representative Munoz, she reiterated that
DOT&PF's responsibility to promote and support local public
transportation will apply even if the initiative does not pass.
MS. ROONEY stated proposed Section 21 would direct that the fuel
taxes and vehicle registration revenue will be deposited into
ATIP once the election is certified. She elaborated the bill
drafter brought this to the sponsor's attention since the
constitutional amendment will take effect once the election is
certified that the language in HB 30 must also conform.
2:03:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE referred to proposed Section 7 of HB 30.
He stated that 60 percent of the proceeds of the revenue from
taxes on aviation fuel would be returned to the respective
municipality that owns the airport. He related his
understanding that currently proceeds are deposited into the
general fund. He asked if this bill would guarantee a minimum
level of funding for those municipalities who own airports.
MS. ROONEY answered that the provision to return 60 percent of
the proceeds of the revenue from taxes on aviation fuel is also
in current statute.
2:04:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether HB 30 limits the proposed
ATIF for state-funded projects only.
MS. ROONEY responded the specific language states that not more
than 20 percent of the proposed ATIF could be used for federal
matching funds, which implies the projects would be state-funded
projects.
2:04:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said she was under the impression that one
of the benefits of the fund was to fund state-funded projects as
a means to reduce red tape.
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that this language would help to
address uncertainty since it is not possible to predict the
future. At times, the state would appropriate matching funds
and receive quite a bit more in federal funds. She clarified
that she did not want to prohibit this practice so she limited
federal funds to 20 percent in the bill.
MS. ROONEY clarified that the amount could also be zero as the
language reads: "...and the amount of all appropriations from
the fund to match federal money does not exceed 20 percent of
the total amount available for appropriation from the fund."
CHAIR P. WILSON added that the proposed ATIF's advisory
committee would work to stretch funds so unless it was
absolutely necessary the committee would not otherwise do so.
2:06:30 PM
PAT KEMP, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), referred to page 4 of the original
version of HB 30, which read, "An appropriation from the fund
may not be made to a project for which federal money has been
allocated..." He suggested this language may be a little too
restrictive. He apologized to the committee for not having a
copy of the committee substitute before him.
2:08:24 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON said that the issue may have been brought up and
addressed.
MR. KEMP said he thought his comment may be moot.
2:08:56 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that the DMV has not
taken a position on the bill. She explained that the DMV has
submitted a fiscal note which identifies a concern. She
explained that if the ATIF was currently in effect, the DMV
would have deposited all of its $45 million in registration fees
into the fund. She highlighted that these funds would have been
deposited in FY 10 to the ATIF if it were in place.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if the $45 million is everything the DMV
collects.
MS. BREWSTER answered no. She explained that the DMV also
collects fees for titles and specialty license plates. The DMV
would still use those funds to operate. She further explained
that the DMV is funded via program receipts, meaning that it
operates from the revenue it collects. The remaining fees that
would be available to the DMV under HB 30 would not be
sufficient enough to cover its operating or capital budget, she
said.
2:11:09 PM
MS. BREWSTER explained that the DMV's revenue is deposited to
the general fund but the DMV's current FY 12 operating budget
request is for approximately $15,473,700, or about $15.5
million. The way the process is structured via program receipts
is that the DMV operates from revenue it generates. She offered
that for the DMV to continue to operate the structure would need
to be changed to allow the DMV to be entirely funded from the
general fund. In further response to Chair P. Wilson, Ms.
Brewster explained that the DMV spends a lot less than the
revenue it generates. The DMV generated approximately $54
million in FY 10 without the motor vehicle registration tax that
is directed to local government. The DMV uses the regular
appropriation process to obtain its funding, she said.
2:12:45 PM
MS. BREWSTER, in response to Chair Wilson, agreed that instead
of being funded from its receipts, which would be directed to
the ATIF under HB 30, the DMV would need to supplant those fees
with something else. She referred to the roughly, $6.467
million reflected in the fiscal note. Since the budget request
is approximately $15.5 million, the DMV would need an additional
$6.5 million in order to operate. In further response to Chair
P. Wilson, Ms. Brewster answered that the DMV would be funded by
the general fund if it is the will of the legislature for it to
do so.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if that is the current process.
MS. BREWSTER answered the DMV would use a slightly different
process since the DMV is funded from program receipts and not
directly from the general fund.
2:14:30 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the accompanying resolution, HJR 4,
which allows the legislature to fund "...up to six percent of
the average market value of the fund over the previous five
fiscal years for transportation and related facilities that are
designated by law, for costs related to motor vehicle licensing
and registration that are designated by law, and for the costs
to administer the fund as designated by law." She asked whether
that would be sufficient for the DMV operations.
MS. BREWSTER answered that language might be sufficient funding
for the DMV. In further response to Chair P. Wilson, she agreed
to review the specific language and report back to the
committee.
2:15:32 PM
MR. KEMP referred to page 3, lines 24-26, to Version D of HB 30.
He expressed concern with the language which read: "An
appropriation from the fund may not be made to a project for
which federal money has been allocated..." He explained that
this language may be too restrictive and reviewed the federal
funding process for roads. He further explained that federal
projects are funded through a series of notices to proceed
(NTP). He related that in a typical project the department
obtains NTP approval through the environmental process, followed
by NTP approval through the design phase, then NTP approval for
the right-of-way acquisition, and finally NTP approval to
construct the project. The project is considered "federalized"
the minute the DOT&PF begins design work, he said. Thus, the
DOT&PF would not be able to use the proposed ATIF funds, based
on the current language in the bill, due to the federal
allocation process, he said.
2:18:31 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to environmental impact statement (EIS)
and asked whether the DOT&PF would generally use federal funds
for the EIS.
MR. KEMP answered yes and explained that the DOT&PF uses federal
funds for highways, but not for aviation and harbors. In
further response to Chair P. Wilson, Mr. Kemp answered that the
DOT&PF currently has over 50 projects waiting for construction
funding.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered to review the language. She asked for
further clarification that the DOT&PF cannot use the proposed
ATIF on projects in which federal funds were allocated.
MR. KEMP agreed that the DOT&PF cannot use the proposed ATIF,
under the current restrictive language in HB 30 since some
federal allocations have already been made.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the federal government would
prohibit the state from using state funds on the projects.
MR. KEMP answered that the state could finish the project with
state funds.
2:20:17 PM
MR. KEMP offered some examples to illustrate his point. He
related an instance in which an important project is included in
the Surface Transportation Improvement Project (STIP). When the
STIP is fiscally constrained the project could slip a few years,
which might happen if the project experiences an overrun or a
claim is made. If that happened another project from the STIP
would be substituted, but under HB 30 the DOT&PF could not fund
the substitute project for construction due to the restrictive
language in the bill. In further response to Chair P. Wilson,
Mr. Kemp suggested if projects were reevaluated under another
project evaluation board process that a project may fall in one
fiscal year. A subsequent project could come in with a higher
priority, such as the Knik-Goose Bay Road, which would displace
the earlier project to the outer years. Under the restriction
in HB 30, the DOT&PF would not be able to fund the displaced
project until federal FY 14, he said. The proposed ATIP fund
could not be used to fund the displaced project since the
project had already been "federalized" by the federal allocation
process. He reiterated that the DOT&PF would like more
flexibility to access the proposed ATIF for its projects.
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled the DOT&PF's funding process for
highway projects. She related her understanding that by
starting the project with federal funds meant the DOT&PF would
have to continue with federal funds.
MR. KEMP referred to the restrictive language. He read: "An
appropriation from the fund may not be made to a project for
which federal money has been allocated..." He reiterated that
the federal money would already have been allocated through the
design phase. He offered a scenario in which the design phase
for a project had been completed, the right-of-way properties
had been purchased, and a project was awaiting construction. In
that scenario, federal funds would have been allocated to the
project. With the current restrictive language in HB 30, the
DOT&PF would not be able to use the proposed ATIF funds for the
construction phase of this project.
2:23:28 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to additional language on page 3, lines
26, of Version D of HB 30 that added an exception. She read,
"...unless the appropriation is for matching money for the
project and the amount of all appropriations from the fund to
match federal money does not exceed 20 percent of the amount
available for appropriation from the fund."
MR. KEMP responded that the exception she read pertains and is
limited to matching funds. He related the DOT&PF already has a
matching "pot" for federal matching funds.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered to work on the language.
2:23:53 PM
MR. KEMP provided another scenario in which early right-of-way
acquisition is deemed necessary for a complex project that is
underway and a house came up for sale. The DOT&PF would not be
able to purchase the house under the federal process unless the
DOT&PF had already received a NTP to appraise and acquire
property. This would be a good use for the proposed ATIF, he
stated.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the DOT&PF could purchase the
house using the proposed ATIF even if federal funds had been
spent on the project.
MR. KEMP answered yes. The federal process is done through a
series of notices to proceed (NTP) and the DOT&PF cannot
purchase right-of-way until the final design is complete, and
the final design cannot proceed until the EIS is complete, he
said.
2:25:34 PM
REBECCA ROONEY related her understanding that one of the designs
of the proposed ATIF is to allow for state only developed
projects. She recalled that once a project is federalized the
DOT&PF must follow the federal rules.
MR. KEMP agreed. He stressed that the examples he gave were
ones in which the DOT&PF would have already followed the federal
process. Once the design, EIS, ROW processes are completed,
these projects are ready for construction and essentially are
"sitting on the shelf" awaiting funding. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) doesn't have an issue with states funding
the construction phase of their projects with state funds for
projects developed under the federal process.
MS. ROONEY confirmed the sponsor's goal for the proposed ATIF is
to provide a means to provide transportation infrastructure to
Alaskans without constraints imposed by the federal process.
2:27:10 PM
MS. ROONEY pointed out the previous draft of HB 30 limited the
fund to capital projects and deferred maintenance. The ideal
situation would be for the federal funding stream to continue
and for the proposed ATIF to provide additional funds. She
predicted if that were to happen the state could actually
achieve overall improvement in its transportation
infrastructure.
MR. KEMP offered his belief that will happen with this bill, but
he suggested the language is a little restrictive. He
highlighted that some features within a project may not be
eligible for federal funding, including an instance in which a
highway contains a driveway structure which consists of a pad
built on pilings and beams. The federal funds could not be used
and the state would need to fund replacement. So the proposed
ATIF would be a good source of funds to do so. He related
another scenario in Valdez, in which a park road was paved with
federal funds. However, the pullouts were not eligible for
federal funds so the state funded the pullouts, he said. He
asked the committee to consider building in more flexibility to
allow the DOT&PF to better use its Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
2:28:51 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that Version D of HB
30 would not allow more than "80 percent of the appropriations
from the fund may be used for projects related to roads and
surface transportation" in proposed AS 37.14.860. She read an
excerpt from proposed AS 37.14.860 (b): "...unless the
appropriation is for matching money for the project and the
amount of all appropriations from the fund to match federal
money does not exceed 20 percent of the amount available for
appropriation from the fund." She asked whether "matching"
should be changed.
MR. KEMP offered one approach would be to set aside a percentage
of the proposed ATIF fund to perform these types of projects.
He anticipated that during the first few years of the proposed
ATIF, a large number of federal projects would be available for
construction. This bill could provide a means to access state
funds on projects developed under the federal process, he said.
He then acknowledged that the proposed ATIF Advisory Board would
first need to develop the project list.
CHAIR P. WILSON, in response to Mr. Kemp, related the committee
could consider the DOT&PF's request for more flexibility.
2:31:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether any federal allocation was
used in the Elmore Road Extension in Anchorage.
MR. KEMP said he thought so. He elaborated by saying that most
of the recent state-funded projects have been developed using
federal funds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the DOT&PF could have used
the proposed ATIF on the project.
MR. KEMP agreed it could have given his interpretation of the
language in proposed AS 37.14.860 (b), which read, "...An
appropriation from the fund may not be made to a project for
which federal money has been allocated..." Not only has the
money been allocated to a certain project but it's been spent,
he said.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding of the
argument, but he also indicated he also did not want to provide
too much flexibility. He expressed interest in finding the
balance.
2:32:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether federal funds could be used
up to a certain stage of a project.
MR. KEMP responded that each project would be a little
different. He stated that the DOT&PF would work to figure out
how to accommodate the majority of projects.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that staging would move the project
further along.
2:33:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding from the examples
given that if federal funds were spent on a project the DOT&PF
might find an opportunity to expedite a project by using the
ATIP. She agreed it could be helpful to reduce the barriers and
provide flexibility since the goal is to finish projects. She
offered her belief that HB 30 could help accomplish the goal.
2:34:13 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related a scenario in which federal funds were
used on a project. She asked whether the DOT&PF must continue
to follow the more cumbersome federal process. She related that
the state doesn't want to sacrifice any quality but would like
to avoid any unnecessary steps, just as the DOT&PF did in the
Dowling Extension project. She asked whether the state could
expedite projects that were initially started with federal
funds. She emphasized her goal, which is to construct projects
faster for less cost with the same quality.
MR. KEMP answered absolutely. He related if a project was built
using the proposed ATIF that it would be considerably faster to
get a project finished. He said if the project was partially
funded with federal funding, that it would depend on stage of
the process as to whether the proposed ATIF could be used.
Theoretically, if state funds became available during the time
the DOT&PF had an NTP authorization through the design process,
the state could start commence the right-of-way process
immediately, instead of waiting for the design process
completion date. It could potentially shave months or a year
from a typical project, he said.
2:36:11 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for a list of the various stages of the
projects that would be ATIP eligible and indicate at which point
the federal requirement would need to be followed.
MR. KEMP agreed to do so.
2:36:42 PM
JERRY BURNETT, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR),
explained the Department of Revenue (DOR's staff prepared a
spread sheet that shows a straight line six percent return
payout which would be deposited into the proposed ATIF. The DOR
referred to the fiscal note. He said he thought a six percent
payout seemed a bit aggressive and could result in a volatility
that potentially might lose money in the fund for one out of
four or five years depending on the timing. He suggested equity
or some other types of investment have a more volatile payment
stream than fixed income. Instead, he recommended the committee
consider a payout in the 4.5 to 5 percent range to preserve the
value of the fund and not risk "a serious blowup" in an early
year. He pointed out that the DOR has experienced this over the
past several years. Otherwise, the model works well and the
percent of market value payout is the proper method payout, he
stated. He also said it is just matter of growing the fund and
the lower payout in first few years would help, but he was
unsure of the crossover point. He thought the expected returns
may do better at a slightly lower payout. He suggested the
committee may wish to consider that aspect and offered to
provide a model using the lower rates if the committee would
like him to do so.
2:39:12 PM
MR. BURNETT, in response to Chair Wilson, responded that the
latest capital market assumptions indicate a real rate of return
at five percent as pretty aggressive. He said in reviewing
equities from 2000-2010, that "it wasn't pretty" since the
return was not a good return. He suggested that somewhere
between 4.5 to 5 percent rate is recommended. He recalled that
the retirement board changed actuarial from 8.25 to 8 percent.
He also suggested that the committee may wish to consider the
rate periodically.
2:40:48 PM
MR. BURNETT explained the fiscal note is based on allocation of
expenditures between funds and in particular, to this fund. He
stated that the DOR manages about $38 billion in the DOR's
Treasury Division, including retirement funds, the general fund,
and trust funds. The DOR must allocate cost. Depending on the
source of the funds, it may not represent an incremental cost
but may be a new allocation to this fund, he said. He
anticipated that some cost would likely be incremental since it
would require some outside management.
2:41:34 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled hearing that the state may consolidate
its funds under the same department.
MR. BURNETT stated that the Alaska Permanent Fund has its own
board as does the retirement fund, but the rest of the funds are
managed under the fiduciary responsibly of the DOR's
commissioner. He remarked that the DOR manages everything
except for the permanent fund. In response to Chair Wilson, he
agreed to provide a spreadsheet using a percent of market value
using 4.5 percent, 4.75 percent and 5 percent rates.
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled Sitka has a permanent fund using a
percent of market value at 6 percent.
MR. BURNETT remarked that if the proposed ATIF had been started
in 2008 it would look "pretty bad." If the fund was initiated
in April 2009 it would look "really good." He was unsure of
what the condition would look like today.
[HB 30 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ATIF Fact Sheet 2011.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 -ATIF Sponsor Stmt ver B.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 ver B.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Persily Report.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 statutes.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 support documents.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Support Miners 1-2011.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HJR4 -Constitutional Change Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 HJR $ |
| HJR004-OOG-DOE-2-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Ver B.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| CS HJR 4 Ver I.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HB 30 support Harbormasters.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CS SJR6 Ver I.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 - sponsor statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Alaska Aviation Support.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| HB030-DOA-DMV-02-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB030-DOT-CO-2-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB30 appropriations spreadsheet (2).pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| SJR 6 letters of support.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |