Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
03/08/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB22 | |
| HB30 | |
| HJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
2:05:54 PM CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would be HB 30, 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." 2:06:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 30, labeled 27-LS0198\X, Kane, 3/8/11, as the working document. There being no objection, Version X was before the committee. 2:06:24 PM REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative P. Wilson ,Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of one of the prime sponsors, Representative P. Wilson, explained the changes incorporated into the proposed CS.{ explained the changes incorporated into the proposed CS. She stated that the title was changed to add "other fees and taxes related to motor vehicles." She explained that several exceptions were made for specialty funds. Additionally, when capturing the fees in 28.90 that would be deposited into the transportation fund, the bill drafter inadvertently included snow machine fees. Proposed Section 3 identifies that unless otherwise provided by law, state fees or taxes collected less refunds would be deposited to the transportation fund. 2:09:02 PM MS. ROONEY referred to page 5, line 12, of HB 30 to the proposed Transportation Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council (ATIFAC). She read the goal of the ATIFIC, which is the lead in language: (a) The Transportation Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council is established as an individual, nonpolitical body to prioritize a list of eligible transportation projects solely on the factors of nonbiased information and need. MS. ROONEY explained that the goal was to compile the stakeholders to represent as many modes of transportation as possible. This version reduces the size of the ATIFIC to 19 members, of which 17 are voting members. She explained that the legislative seats were changed to nonvoting members to address a concern about separation of powers. Additionally the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF) was reduced to one member, the commissioner or his/her designee. The Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) and the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) Policy Committee members were also removed since this fund primarily would work with state funded projects but not federally funded projects used by those organizations. Version X also removes the representative from the Alaska Federation of Natives but leaves in the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council member. 2:11:52 PM MS. ROONEY referred to page 9, line 27, of HB 30. She explained that "modes of local public transportation" was changed to "modes of coordinated transportation" to better reflect the changes over time and not limit it to local areas alone. MS. ROONEY referred to page 12, lines 5-9, of HB 30 adds a contingency clause so if the voter initiative to change the state's constitution does not pass, none of this bill would go into effect. MS. ROONEY concluded by relating that proposed Section 20 of HB 30 would add an effective date that coincides with the date of the constitutional amendment to establish a transportation infrastructure fund. The original bill set a specific date tied to the 2012 general election. 2:13:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 5, line 30, of HB 30 and asked whether the name of the organization is Alaska Truckers Association instead of Alaska Trucking Association. 2:14:31 PM AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association, Inc. (ATA) agreed the title is the Alaska Trucking Association. 2:14:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to page 9, line 27, of HB 30. He asked whether coordinated transportation is defined. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ indicated the governor recently appointed a coordinated transportation task force to coordinate municipal opportunities statewide. CHAIR P. WILSON clarified that the goal is to include different modes of transportation to use different sources of money and stretch transportation dollars. 2:16:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the Motor Vehicle Registration Tax (MVRT). She said she did not think the bill identified a percentage. MS. ROONEY responded that the percentage is identified in the resolution. In further response to Representative Munoz, she explained it is set at 50 percent. REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the total number of proposed council members. MS. ROONEY answered the proposed ATIFIC is comprised of 17 voting members and two non-voting members for a total of 19 members. CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that the numbers were reduced. 2:17:50 PM RACHAEL PETRO, President; CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC), explained that each year the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC) sets its legislative priorities. Transportation infrastructure has long been an issue for its members. This year is not any different, she said. Creation of an Alaska Transportation Infrastructure Fund is one of the top three priorities of its members. The Alaska business community believes investing in transportation infrastructure is critical for the long term growth of Alaska's economy. Currently, as many of you know, Alaska's multi-modal transportation infrastructure is not only dilapidated but lacks a consistent funding mechanism to address the billions of dollars of multi- modal needs in Alaska. Alaska needs new transportation infrastructure development to provide access to resources, reduce barriers for many communities and allow for safe and more efficient transportation for all Alaskans. The state's highway and airport infrastructure is largely funded by federal dollars, which are under severe threat of significant reduction. The federal government lacks consistent programs for harbors and ports. The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supports HB 30 and believes it represents a good step in the state being proactive to address today's needs while planning for the future. 2:20:26 PM JOHN MACKINNON, Executive Director, Associated General Contractors of Alaska, thanked the committee for looking ahead with respect to the transportation needs of Alaskans. He provided a brief work history, relating that he has served as the executive director for the past three years and prior to that was a deputy commissioner for the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). He related that a state funded transportation program is an essential element. He stated that anecdotally, federal dollars is worth about $.75 compared to a state dollar. One important element of a state funded program includes a substantial stream of consistent funding. This bill includes that element, since the endowment fund would spin off five percent a year into the program. Additionally, using motor fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees are an appropriate use of taxes since the connection between the fee and the use is helpful to the public. Another element that is important is that this bill embodies programmatic development of the projects. The one efficiency in the federal program is that it is funded and developed programmatically. Thus, a project is not funded with one block of money. Instead if "x" dollars are required for planning and design the funds are allocated. Subsequently, funding for permitting is allocated and the funding is programmed out over the course of the development and construction of the project, which is efficient. 2:23:12 PM MR. MACKINNON explained that it is not as easy to do in the conventional lump-sum state appropriation. The third element is prioritizing projects on need and facts instead of politics. He related that it is not difficult to look back in the past decade and find projects that were funded that do not represent the highest and best use of public funds. He offered his belief that at least a couple hundred million dollars were spent on projects that could have been spent on projects that represent a better use of money. He suggested the process of prioritizing projects by an advisory group, much like the rural school projects are prioritized in that way and tends to take the politics out so needed projects get funded. He thanked members for some of the changes made. He said going to the coordinated transportation aspect gives the advisory board much more flexibility. It is not just transit but grouping transit needs together in an area. He commented that making the advisory board smaller is also an improvement. He offered strong support for HB 30. 2:24:57 PM MR. THOMPSON explained that the Alaska Trucking Association is a statewide organization representing the interests of nearly 200 member companies from Barrow to Ketchikan. Freight movement represents a large chunk of the state's economy and affects everyone each and every day. One priority of the Alaska Trucking Association has been a state funded capital projects program as federal funding is likely to decrease to a point where it will no longer meet Alaska transportation infrastructure needs. Alaska needs to invest dollars in its system. He said he ATA believes HB 30 goes a long way in setting the stage for a robust state funded capital projects program that will benefit all modes of transportation. As the largest payer of the motor fuel tax, the trucking industry is glad to see an effort to devote these user fees to the improvement and expansion of our state highway system infrastructure. As an association, the ATA has supported fuel tax increase proposals in the past provided that they are dedicated to the highway system. He note changes made in the composition of the ATIFIC and commended the committee. The ATA previously requested a seat on the proposed ATIFIC and is glad to see they are on council members list. He hoped this system would help depoliticize the decision-making process. There may be a tendency to look to the ATIF to support more and more expenditures to the highway system in Alaska. He hoped the ATIF appropriations would provide additional funds to support a robust state capital project's program. Simply put, if the ATIF is not an add-on to the existing transportation funding that it will not accomplish its purpose. He said the ATA believes the ATIF has the potential to supplement existing transportation programs. 2:27:39 PM CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 30. 2:27:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 11, Section 18, to the severability clause. He wondered what the legal issues were. BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, related that the severability clause relates back to AS 37.14.890 (a)(1) and (2). He explained the severability clause relates to the two legislative members of the proposed ATIFIC. He related that there may be a concern in having legislature members on the proposed ATIFIC. He pointed out that it represents a judgment on the part of the committee as to whether the severability clause should remain in the bill. CHAIR P. WILSON asked for his opinion since the two legislative members are nonvoting as to whether the provision should remain. MR. KANE responded that the legislature has definitely lessened any possible problems, but there still may be some issue lurking just generally. He said if it is not in there and it becomes a constitutional issue as to whether the members could be part of the proposed ATIFIC, he thought the members would just be removed and he did not think the proposed ATIFIC would be disbanded solely on that basis. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the issue might be one of a separation of powers. MR. KANE agreed that was the main issue since the members are usually appointed from the executive branch. CHAIR P. WILSON related that the governor would appoint one member from each of the judicial districts. She asked if that would be a consideration. MR. KANE responded that typically legislative members are not part of a council. 2:31:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 5, lines 17-20, and asked whether any precedent or other statutes that would cover these provisions or any case law that would apply. MR. KANE related that the attorney general's office has issued a couple of opinions, but he was unsure if any statutes list legislators along with governor appointees. 2:33:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled a mayor of Anchorage previously filed a lawsuit against the legislature since some legislators were appointed to AMATS. He related that he was one member and the municipality prevailed. He stated he was one of the legislature appointees, and most members agreed it was good to have nonvoting members. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled a lawsuit was filed. He assumed the statute was upheld. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it was not and he was not allowed to serve on AMATS. 2:34:34 PM JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), responded that he represented the DOT&PF during the previously mentioned lawsuit. He stated that the issue revolved around the effective date. The effective date was ruled by judge to be improper but the rest of the statute change was valid. He characterized the issue as being like a rock ready to fall. He explained if the AMATS Board bylaws are ever redone, the timing of which is governed by federal rules, that the state statutes would be triggered and two ex-officio members from the legislature would be added to the AMATS Policy Board. He reaffirmed that the implementation was ruled invalid but not the entire statute. 2:35:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON did not recall the specific details just the outcome. 2:35:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether it would be problematic to have the severability provisions included in HB 30. He said was unsure of how the effective date related to the issue. MR. OTTESEN said he does not believe so. He recalled that the AMATS situation had to do with what was triggering the implementation of law. The governor could not approve a spending plan if the board composition did not include these two members. Thus, the governor was disallowed from approving the spending plan. That what the judge found to be improper, he said. 2:36:46 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that this bill has a contingent effective date, depending on the constitutional amendment. It would only allow the law to come into effect if the voter approved it in 2012. He asked whether the Chair would like to have an alternate plan in place in case that did not occur. CHAIR P. WILSON offered to entertain this in a finance subcommittee. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that would cure some concern. He related that he is not a great fan of dedicated funds. However, he liked the idea of this fund and incorporating an alternate plan would help him become a great fan. 2:38:23 PM CHAIR P. WILSON recalled testimony from the Department of Revenue (DOR) that the committee should think about making a change to the percent of market value (POMV) for its Alaska Transportation Infrastructure Fund (ATIF) ATIF rates. She provided a handout to members titled ATIF payout rates, which showed the payout rates from 4.5 percent to 6 percent. She wanted to be certain the fund would continue to grow and asked members to review the documents. 2:39:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested the finance subcommittee should consider this. He recommended sending the form to the House Finance Committee. 2:40:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled Pat Kemp had concern over 20 percent maximum participation on federally funded projects. She asked if he was comfortable with the language. 2:41:17 PM MR. OTTESEN said he did not have an opportunity to review Deputy Commissioner Kemp's comments. However, he thought that 20 percent of overall fund, not per project. He related his understanding that some categories of funding have a match rate of 40 to 50 percent, although some match rate is usually about 9 percent. He offered his belief that in reviewing the overall program, it was likely that the program would stay within the cap. There are times when non federal funds are extremely powerful to advance projects, and when the department has the choice to make distinction between the two classes of money the DOT&PF can advance projects quicker and at lower cost. He related a scenario in which the Tanana Bridge was demolished. The DOT&PF advanced the project but was stalled waiting for environmental permits. Under the federal rules, the DOT&PF could not move to right-of-way step. The DOT&PF could see it might take several months so it used state funds to purchase several right-of-way parcels. In doing so the department saved an entire year on the project. Using state fund the public benefits, the state can lower project costs and also can save time. He pointed out the DOT&PF needs to have that kind of funding flexibility. 2:43:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report the proposed committee substitute, (CS) for HB 30, labeled 27-LS-0198\X, Kane, 3/8/11, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, the CSHB 30(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB30 updated spreadsheet with different payouts V 2.xlsx |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CSHB30 ver E.pdf |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CS HB 22 version B 2 24 11.pdf |
HTRA 3/8/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 22 |