Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2010 09:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR35 | |
| HB356 | |
| HJR35 | |
| HJR42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 35 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 329 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 356 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 10, 2010
9:05 a.m.
9:05:59 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Peggy Ann McConnachie, National Federation of Independent
Businesses; Representative Peggy Wilson, Sponsor; Becky
Rooney, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson; John MacKinnon,
Executive Director, Associated General Contractors of
Alaska; Mark Hickey, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Christie Herrera, Director, Health and Human Services Task
Force, American Legislative Exchange Council; Dave Roland,
Attorney and Policy Analyst, Show-Me Institute, Missouri;
Pat Luby, Advocacy Director, Alaska Association of Retired
Persons, Anchorage; Maria Rensel, Fairbanks; Cam Carlson,
Fairbanks; Randy Griffin, Fairbanks; Mark Regan, Fairbanks;
Dennis Bailey, Attorney, Legislative Affairs; Bob Howard,
Fairbanks; Hugh Browne, Anchorage; Brian Kane, Legislative
Legal Services; Whitney Brewster, Director, Division of
Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration.
SUMMARY
HJR 35 CONST AM: HEALTH CARE
HJR 35 was REPORTED out of Committee with no
recommendation and with previously published
fiscal note: FN1 (GOV).
HJR 42 CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
CS HJR 42(JUD) was REPORTED out of Committee
with no recommendation and with previously
published fiscal note: FN1(GOV).
HB 329 DEDICATED TRANSPORT FUND/PUB TRANSPORT
HB 329 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HB 356 TRANSPORT. INFRASTRUCTURE FUND APPROP.
HB 356 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
9:06:06 AM
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska prohibiting passage of laws that interfere
with direct payments for health care services and the
right to purchase health care insurance from a
privately owned company, and that compel a person to
participate in a health care system.
9:07:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, SPONSOR, presented an overview
of the resolution. He emphasized the seriousness of the
legislation, noting that health care involves everyone and
that 36 states have the issue under consideration. He felt
health care should be a state issue and not a federal one.
He claimed that 85 percent of Americans were happy with
their healthcare system; there were a number of uninsured,
usually illegal immigrants and the young. The real number
of uninsured was close to 10 million; however, they were
all able to receive treatment paid for by others.
Representative Kelly asserted that many were upset by
recent legislation passed by Congress that they felt
represented a dramatic step toward turning the healthcare
system over to the federal government. He relayed that the
proposed resolution would allow the people to vote on
whether or not to participate, prohibit any fines or other
punitive actions surrounding the personal decision, protect
the right of the individual to purchase health care and the
right of doctors to provide lawful medical services without
government fines or penalties, and enshrine those rights in
the state constitution.
Representative Kelly suggested that the legislation would
turn Alaska against the federal government. He did not
believe health care was provided for in the U.S.
Constitution.
9:12:30 AM
CHRISTIE HERRERA, DIRECTOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TASK
FORCE, AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC) (via
teleconference), noted that ALEC was a non-partisan,
national association of state lawmakers. She spoke in
support of HJR 35, which was modeled after ALEC legislation
enacted in 41 states, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care
Act. She pointed out that the legislation was a national
effort endorsed by the Wall Street Journal and that 59
percent of likely voters believed states should have the
right to opt out of federal government programs.
Ms. Herrera stated three reasons why ALEC supported the
bill: It would ensure continued access to health services;
stop mandates that do not work, such as the Massachusetts
mandate; and render unconstitutional any attempt by the
state to require an individual to purchase healthcare
coverage or state prohibition against direct payment for
medical care. The legislation would also protect Alaska in
a constitutional challenge of the new federal health reform
law.
Ms. Herrera addressed several misconceptions that she felt
had come up in other committee hearings about HJR 35. She
assured the Finance Committee that the bill would not block
people from taking advantage of the federal law, but would
give citizens a choice. She dispelled the idea that
prohibiting an individual mandate would exacerbate the
"free rider" problem; she argued that people would continue
to show up in emergency rooms for free health care even
with the new federal mandate. She noted that the newly
insured would still be paid for with subsidies; the new
federal law dictates that a low-income family of four would
qualify for more than $20,000 in government subsidies
through the new exchange. She encouraged passage of the
resolution. She listed states where similar legislation has
already passed, including Virginia, Idaho, Arizona,
Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
9:17:30 AM
Representative Gara commented that he was skeptical. He
asked whether a cost analysis had been done related to how
much it cost those who bought insurance (or the taxpayers)
to make up for those who did not. Ms. Herrera responded
that free riders would show up in the emergency room even
if there was a requirement to buy individual health
insurance. She claimed an individual mandate would
exacerbate the free-rider problem. She offered to provide
data showing that the primary free riders are people on
Medicaid; doctors have been refusing to see new Medicaid
patients because of the low reimbursement rate. The federal
law would put most of the newly insured into the Medicaid
program, which she felt delivered poor care.
Representative Gara asked whether Ms. Herrera had helped
write the constitutional amendment. Ms. Herrera related
that the resolution was modeled after legislation written
by ALEC, an organization of state lawmakers from all 50
states.
9:20:15 AM
DAVE ROLAND, ATTORNEY and POLICY ANALYST, SHOW-ME
INSTITUTE, MISSOURI (via teleconference), described himself
as an experienced constitutional attorney and discussed
constitutional implications of the bill at both the state
and federal levels. He referred to a countdown to an
"unprecedented intrusion" into individual liberty. He
asserted that the individual health-insurance mandate
recently passed by Congress would require citizens to
purchase a product they may not want, a step never before
taken. He maintained that the U.S. Constitution did not
offer protection of personal freedoms; therefore, states
could modify their constitutions to protect their citizens.
He believed HJR 35 would give Alaskans a chance to speak up
for freedom.
Mr. Roland acknowledged that questions had been raised
about the effectiveness of the proposed amendment. There
have been very few direct conflicts between a state's
protection of individual liberty and a federal government
demand. He highlighted a Missouri case; the federal
government had required the use of public funds for
educational purposes, but Missouri's constitution forbids
the use of public funds. In response, the U.S. Supreme
Court exhibited discomfort with applying the law because of
the Missouri constitution. The law was interpreted so that
there was no longer a conflict. He maintained that the same
pattern had held true through a number of U.S. Supreme
Court cases.
9:24:37 AM
PAT LUBY, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED
PERSONS (AARP), ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the resolution. He did not believe that
the state constitution should be amended, except for very
serious reasons. He argued that the federal government was
not taking over health care. He noted that 85 percent of
the population was content with current healthcare
coverage. He spoke of new managed-care models, the
importance of networking, and coordinated delivery of
services. He added that in Alaska, Medicaid pays better
than Medicare and maintained that providers see Medicaid
patients. He believed cost containment was necessary and
that something needed to be done about the uninsured.
Currently, 17 percent of Alaskans between the ages of 50
and 64 have no insurance at all. They often go to the
emergency room; those with insurance pick up the tab. The
average cost of the uninsured for every Alaska family was
$1,900 annually. Employers, including the state, also pick
up the cost of those employers who do not provide coverage
to their employees. He emphasized that AARP wants to make
sure all Alaskans participate in healthcare coverage in
order to end cost-shifting. The resolution would allow
people to opt out of coverage.
9:27:08 AM
Representative Kelly opined that Mr. Luby did not represent
all seniors. He had heard from seniors who disagreed with
the sentiments expressed.
Representative Fairclough asked how AARP had reached
consensus on the issue. Mr. Luby explained that the board
of directors had taken a position on the measure. He
maintained that the only way to bring down healthcare costs
was to end cost-shifting. If people were allowed to opt
out, the rest of the people would have to pay for them.
Representative Fairclough inquired whether the stated
position was an Alaskan or national one. Mr. Luby replied
that there was only one national board of directors; AARP
is a national organization and the states do not take
individual positions.
9:29:32 AM
MARIA RENSEL, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
support of the resolution. She reported that she had
collected signatures of others who also strongly supported
the resolution; the people she had talked to did not want
to participate in the federal healthcare reform. She
refuted some of Representative Gara's comments; she
believed people should choose for themselves whether they
want health insurance.
9:32:10 AM
CAM CARLSON, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
support of the resolution. She could not believe that a law
could be passed that prohibited people from buying health
services they wanted. She thought it important to protect
the individual's and the state's rights against intrusions
of the federal government. She did not think the federal
government had expertise in health care and had not done
well with Medicare or Medicaid. She disagreed with
Massachusetts' healthcare plan.
RANDY GRIFFIN, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in
support of the resolution challenging the federal
government. He believed that the state already regulated
insurance companies. He had concerns about his insurance
rates going up. He favored supporting those who could not
afford health insurance, although he did not think the
federal government should be involved. He distinguished
between rights and acts of mercy. He did not want young
people to develop a welfare mentality.
9:38:36 AM
PEGGY ANN MCCONNACHIE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESSES (NFIB), voiced concerns about the federal
healthcare legislation. She spoke in support of HJR 35. She
wanted the right to choose whether to participate in a
health-insurance system. She did not want to be forced to
pay fees imposed by the federal government if she did not
choose to provide health insurance for her three companies.
She felt the resolution would help protect Alaskans and
Alaskan businesses and that Alaskans should have the right
to vote on whether or not they were subject to the federal
government's imposed healthcare restrictions. She noted
that NFIB has taken a position against mandates. She urged
the committee to pass the bill.
9:41:38 AM
Representative Fairclough asked whether NFIB's position was
Alaskan or national. Ms. McConnachie stated that the
position was an Alaskan one. She described NFIB as a group
of small Alaskan businesses ranging in size from one
individual to over one hundred. The businesses banded
together because they employed many people and were
concerned about federal mandates. Co-Chair Stoltze noted
that he has met many members and had become more aware of
the many businesses in the state.
9:43:41 AM
MARK REGAN, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke to
concerns about HJR 35. He reported that he had worked on
many lawsuits brought by Medicaid beneficiaries against the
government during the past 20 years. He maintained that the
language of the resolution would have an effect on existing
as well as future state laws and on the federal
government's authority to impose an individual mandate.
Mr. Regan discussed how the resolution might influence
state law and court rules related to medical child support.
A person with children who is divorced is supposed to have
a divorce decree stating who should purchase health
insurance for the children. He maintained that the
resolution would jeopardize the state medical child-support
system that ensures insurance by court order.
Mr. Regan called attention to HB 423, which was amended in
the Health and Social Services Committee to stipulate that
the freedom of choice policy was not to undercut anything
that was required or provided by the state (including by
state court order); the committee was headed in the
direction of allowing the systems to continue and be
modified. He felt that HJR 35 would jeopardize the right of
a state court to mandate health coverage for children. He
thought the language used might confuse voters.
Mr. Regan addressed the relationship between national
health reform and the individual mandate. The text of the
measure says that no law should be passed which is aimed at
the Alaska legislature and Alaska state law, and has no
necessary effect on anything that happens at the federal
level. He believed that the federal mandate was likely to
take effect without being challenged by HJR 35. He
speculated that the resolution was designed before the
federal law passed to prevent the state from requiring
people to purchase insurance the way Massachusetts requires
people to purchase insurance, to prevent a single-payer or
other mandatory contribution system at the state level. He
did not think the text was aimed (in spite of what the
sponsors intended) at federal healthcare reform individual
mandates, but at the state legislature and the state courts
to prevent a state law.
Mr. Regan spoke to what HJR 35 would do: Because of the way
federal way is structured, the resolution would take the
state out of a role of protecting Alaska citizens in terms
of the health-insurance exchanges through which people
might get subsidized health insurance from private
companies. He explained that the federal law stipulated
that starting in 2014 the health-insurance exchanges were
to be regulated by the states if the states signed on, and
regulated by the federal government directly or by some
non-profit if the states did not sign on. Each individual
state was given a choice. He suspected that if the language
was passed and enacted by the voters, the main effect it
would have on federal healthcare reform would be that the
state could not operate the exchanges. The state would then
no longer be engaged in healthcare regulation; the federal
government would run the exchanges.
Mr. Regan compared the situation with the federal
government's relationship to subsistence regulation. The
state is able to regulate under the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) if it has laws
that do a certain set of things, but if the state does not
have those laws or if the laws are unconstitutional, as the
Alaska Supreme Court has found them to be, the federal
government does the regulating on federal land. He claimed
that the proposed constitutional amendment would put the
state in the same position. The state would be taking
itself out of the health-insurance business, and the state
would not be able to protect Alaskans through regulating
the exchanges.
Mr. Regan argued that if there is a constitutional
challenge to the individual mandate and to the exchanges,
it would not be assisted or undercut by passage of the
constitutional amendment.
9:52:27 AM
Representative Fairclough asked whether the amendment would
prohibit a parent mandated by the court to provide for
health insurance for a child in a custody situation. She
also wanted a response regarding the issue of taking Alaska
out of the role of making regulatory decisions.
DENNIS BAILEY, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (via
teleconference), agreed that the first issue could be a
potential interpretation of the language in Section 2 of
the bill. He was not certain, but believed the second issue
also appeared to be correct: the federal government or non-
profits could run the programs if the state did not run the
exchange programs; then they could be run by non-profits or
by the federal government.
Co-Chair Stoltze queried the phrase "potential
interpretation." Mr. Baily replied that the language said
that it would prohibit the state from penalizing a person
for making a particular healthcare choice. For example, if
the state requires a parent to provide health insurance for
a child under a divorce decree, the constitutional
amendment could be interpreted to prohibit a penalty on the
choice of the individual not to do what the court says. He
opined that a conflict would be presented.
9:56:48 AM
Representative Austerman requested that Mr. Regan put his
testimony in writing. Mr. Regan agreed to do so.
Representative Kelly commented that the same questions were
being addressed in 36 states and suggested that there would
be many questions like the ones posed by Mr. Regan.
Representative Fairclough stated that she was supportive of
the legislation, but wanted to examine its unintended
consequences. She wanted to build a record for the courts
to look at. The intent of the resolution was that the
national government should not tell states what to do
regarding healthcare coverage in the state.
Co-Chair Stoltze also wanted to look at all possible
consequences of the federal mandate.
Representative Kelly agreed with the statements. He said
the bill process was just beginning and the committee's
comments would be on the record.
Representative Fairclough explained that she commented
about the intent on the record because the court uses
meeting minutes to consider legislative intent.
10:00:44 AM
BOB HOWARD, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference) urged support of
a constitutional amendment to protect Alaskans from the
federal government's overreaching legislation. He stated
that whether the amendment passed or not, the federal law
already existed. He requested strong language on other
possible federal mandates besides health care. He hoped for
a broader statement through a constitutional amendment that
would prohibit passage of any law that would compel a
person or an employer to purchase any good or service, or
that levied any penalty, tax, or surcharge on a person or
employer for failing to purchase any good or service.
10:03:15 AM
Representative Doogan asked who Mr. Howard was speaking
for. Mr. Howard replied that he was speaking on his own
behalf.
HUGH BROWNE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), opposed the
bill because he thought spending time fighting the
President or the federal legislation was a waste of time.
He agreed with statements made by Mr. Regan and the state
lawyer about possible unintended consequences. He was
against spending resources to fight a federal law that had
already been passed; the resolution would affect the state
and not the federal government. He maintained that the bill
could take liberties from Alaskans and that there were
beneficial things in the federal healthcare bill. He was
concerned that the bill would cause a constitutional fight
over health care. He thought the result would be
ineffectual since the language in the resolution says that
no law shall be passed; he emphasized that the federal law
had already been passed.
10:09:16 AM
Representative Kelly acknowledged that the passage of the
federal healthcare bill had stirred up discussion. He
reiterated that 36 other states had taken stands against
the federal bill. He noted that Alaska had been counseled
to proceed carefully and thoughtfully. The process was
underway in Alaska with the governor and the attorney
general looking at it. He pointed to additional legislation
related to the issue: HR 14 and HB 423. He maintained that
the issue would not go away. He stated that "America is on
the march" and maintained that the legislature must pay
attention. He urged considering unintended and intended
consequences. He concluded that the legislature should not
give up.
10:11:53 AM
Representative Gara offered to help make the resolution a
better piece of legislation. He believed that people should
get the medical care they needed, but he thought the
provision would work against people getting it. His major
concern was that he did not believe in creating false
expectations among the people who elected him. He stated
that the resolution was unenforceable and unconstitutional.
Representative Gara pointed out that there were people who
disliked other federal programs, such as the space program,
environmental regulations, and the federal tax system, but
in the end, Americans "get what they get" from Congress and
the President; if they don't like it, they can elect new
Congress people and a new president. He disagreed with
Alaskan legislators pretending to be Congressmen on
television and trying to change a congressional law with a
piece of state legislation, which he thought created false
expectations among the public.
Representative Gara maintained that he did not want to
write something blatantly unconstitutional into the state
constitution. He likened it to trying to change the First
Amendment through language in the state constitution, or
putting language into the state constitution removing the
right to freedom of religion. He argued that America does
not work that way. He did not want to pretend to the
Alaskan public that a measure like HJR 35 could change
something.
Representative Doogan voiced his opposition to the
resolution. He related that his father had helped write the
Alaska Constitution. Like any living document, it has been
amended several times. He believed that the resolution went
beyond being a sensible amendment and was purely a
political statement. He was opposed to enshrining political
statements in the state constitution, the basic document
governing who Alaskans are and what they do. He did not
know enough about law to know what consequence the
resolution could have in the end, but he did not want to
put a "passing political fancy" into the state
constitution.
10:16:40 AM
Representative Austerman inquired whether the chair was
planning to move the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze responded that
he preferred to have all 11 members present before doing
so.
Representative Kelly appreciated the committee's comments.
He believed that 70 percent of Americans were upset and
seeking ways to "unscrew the screwing." He acknowledged
that the process was fraught with difficulty, but he did
not believe people would back off. He thought the
resolution was one method that Americans could use to
change the situation or at least send a message. He
predicted change in the upcoming elections. He maintained
that he was not acting in order to be re-elected, but
because he believed in what he was doing. He believed he
was not alone and that the people were not done.
HJR 35 was set aside until later in the meeting.
10:19:54 AM AT EASE
10:39:56 AM RECONVENED
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska creating a transportation infrastructure
fund.
HOUSE BILL NO. 329
"An Act relating to the transportation infrastructure
fund, to local public transportation, to motor fuel
taxes, and to the motor vehicle registration fee; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 356
"An Act making a special appropriation to the
transportation infrastructure fund; and providing for
an effective date."
10:40:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, SPONSOR, pointed out that the
Alaska Transportation Infrastructure Fund (ATIF) required
three separate pieces of legislation in order to put the
fund into practice. The first, HJR 42, would put a
constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow for a
dedicated transportation fund. Next, HB 329 would create
the fund, define how it would be used, and how the
appropriations would be dispersed. The third, HB 356, would
appropriate $1 billion seed money for the fund.
Representative Wilson maintained that Alaska needed to
shoulder more of the responsibility for its own
transportation costs. She relayed that the previous year
the state had received 87 percent of its transportation
funding from the federal government, more per capita than
any other state. A new federal highway reauthorization bill
was anticipated, with less money for states with low
populations. She argued that Alaska needed a dedicated
transportation fund. State-funded projects do not have the
same stringent requirements that the federal government
has, but they still need the same construction standards.
Representative Wilson reported that the House
Transportation Committee had met during the previous
session regarding improving the transportation
infrastructure in geographically-diverse Alaska. The
committee traveled to villages and urban areas to see
firsthand the challenges faced, including safety corridors,
congested areas, and roads in need of repair. The committee
heard from the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and the Mat-Su
Borough, who teamed together to contract an independent
study of the fiscal challenges of transportation in the
state. Larry Persily, a committee aide, had completed an
extensive study of the fiscal options for funding
transportation infrastructure upgrades. There was a full
day of hearings on issues from the national level down to
the local level, and discussion of optimal solutions to the
problems. She maintained that the bill was the culmination
of all the hearings, travel, and hours of research.
Represented Wilson emphasized that she did not take
changing the state constitution lightly. Two dedicated
funds had been grandfathered into the constitution already,
including one for transportation. She asserted that the
time was right to put the fund into place in order to plan
solutions to transportation problems. A dedicated fund
would provide known funds and the ability to provide a
long-term plan for capital improvements and major
maintenance. She believed the voters would be in favor of
the dedicated fund.
10:44:53 AM
BECKY ROONEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, briefly
described the two other transportation bills. She explained
that HB 329 would cover all modes of transportation,
including aviation, roads, surface transportation, bike
paths, ferries, harbors, and municipal assets. The bill
would take the revenue from the fuel tax and vehicle
registration fees and put them into a fund. The Department
of Revenue (DOR) would manage the fund, looking to provide
6 percent of market value (POMV) average over five years.
Each year, appropriations into the fund would consist of
the 6 percent POMV plus 50 percent of the revenues from the
fuel tax and vehicle registration fees. The legislation
would set limits on how much could be appropriated across
the modes of transportation and would create an advisory
council with representation from the legislature, the
public, and the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT/PF). The advisory council would assign a
numeric value to the proposed projects to define which
would be done in a given year. The bill would allow for
Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV) operations, retain all
specialty license-plate appropriations set forth in statute
to date, and retain funds from the aviation fuel tax for
municipal airports. The governor and the legislature would
approve the capital appropriations recommended by the
advisory council; the capital items would go through the
regular budget process.
Ms. Rooney reported that HB 356 would be an appropriation
bill for the $1 billion for seed money.
10:47:25 AM
Representative Gara commended the work done on the bills,
although he was skeptical about dedicated funds. He noted
that he had been told about a provision that interested
him. He believed other areas of the capital budget should
be dealt with in the same manner as school construction,
with some sort of ranking process. He asked whether there
was a version of a Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) process included in one of the bills.
Representative Wilson replied the process was in the
enabling bill (HB 329).
Representative Austerman stated that he had had some
reservations about the proposal at first because it would
take funds that are already being used in the budget
process and dedicate them to a different use. He thought
there was enough time to address the issue before a vote.
He queried a change related to a date on page 1, line 9.
BRIAN KANE, DRAFTER, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), explained that the question referred to a
conforming change needed because the constitutional section
has not been amended since it was ratified. He added that
the real change to the section was the addition of Sections
15 and 18 as allowable dedicated funds; putting the date in
was a clean-up measure.
10:50:44 AM
Representative Wilson asked whether the appropriate
committee substitute was before the committee. She noted
that the bill should be version \C.
10:51:12 AM AT EASE
10:53:25 AM RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze explained that there was a proposed CS and
the chair preferred to offer a constitutional amendment
instead, which would allow a dedicated fund.
Representative Wilson felt that the issue could be taken
care of in the enabling bill.
Representative Joule directed attention to HB 356 (related
to the appropriation). He asked whether the numbers were
strictly from the 6 percent POMV or from that amount plus
the other money available. He wondered what would be
available for transportation funds in the future. Ms.
Rooney referred to the chart "Available Funds From ATIF"
(in the packets for HB 356) with two scenarios. Scenario
one assumed the $1 billion appropriation seed money for the
fund; all of the revenue from the vehicle registration fees
and the motor fuel tax would go into the fund and
accumulate. The only thing available for appropriation
would be the 6 percent POMV averaged over 5 years.
Ms. Rooney continued with the second scenario, the seed
money plus 50 percent of the previous year's revenue from
vehicle registration fees and motor fuel taxes; she
indicated that the total appropriation was shown on the
right-hand side in the last column.
Representative Joule queried the difference between the two
scenarios. He noted that in FY 12, about $36 million would
be available for projects statewide. Ms. Rooney responded
in the affirmative.
Representative Joule questioned the out-years and the
changing numbers. Ms. Rooney replied that the numbers
reflected the compounding of all of the motor vehicle fees
and motor fuel tax in scenario one; the funds would
continue to be put into the savings account and compound;
it would catch up at about year 2018. The choice would be
between spending the money up-front or saving it to spend
in the out-years.
10:58:41 AM
Representative Gara speculated that the amount available
would start in the high $50 million range and then grow to
$100 million. Ms. Rooney agreed. Representative Wilson
clarified that he was referring to scenario one.
Representative Gara understood the need for a healthy
transportation budget. He was concerned that in the early
years, the fund would spin off less than was already spent
on transportation. He was worried about declining state
revenue and availability of funds, which could result in
budget cuts. The legislation would not allow transportation
funding to be cut any lower than the designated amounts,
which was his problem with the dedicated fund. He wondered
what would happen if the state found itself in a situation
where something needed to be slashed. Supporters of the
dedicated fund would be protecting transportation from
being cut, but people advocating for schools would not want
school funding cut, healthcare advocates would not want
health care cut, and so on. The legislature would be forced
to slash something big, and he did not know why one area of
need should be protected more than another. Representative
Wilson responded that if the legislature found itself in
the described situation, the economy of the state would be
in dire straits. She asserted that no matter what was cut,
jobs and economic development would be important in such a
situation. She maintained that the measure would ensure
some economic development for the state.
Ms. Rooney added that Representative Gara's description of
the smaller amount was why the enabling statutes would be
changed to allow expenditure of 50 percent of the revenues
so that something substantial would be seen immediately.
Representative Gara thought a lot of work had to be done to
address as many considerations as possible.
11:02:40 AM
Representative Joule shared Representative Gara's concerns;
however, the other part of the discussion related to moving
forward with transportation infrastructure in the state.
Often, the challenge in Alaska is developing modes of
transportation (surface or otherwise) that would allow
access to resources that the state might want to develop.
He thought development could help avoid the challenges
described.
Representative Fairclough asked where the described funds
[collected from motor vehicle fees and motor fuel taxes]
were currently going and what they were being used for. She
thought the funds went to other state entities, which would
need general fund dollars [if the measure passed].
Representative Wilson replied that the intent of the CS was
to ensure that the state would not take any of the funds
used currently and that nothing would be taken out of the
general fund; the assurance could be put in enabling
legislation. The sponsors did not want to change anything
happening currently with the receipts from vehicle
registration fees and fuel taxes. Some of the receipts go
to different communities for airports; she asserted that
they did not want to touch that funding.
11:05:45 AM
Ms. Rooney added that there were [receipts from] specialty
license plates that go through the general fund to
specialty organizations such as veterans and Special
Olympics; the sponsors did not intend to take that money.
She noted that there were receipts from taxing aviation
fuel that went to municipal airports.
Representative Fairclough pointed to page 1, Section 18,
line 14 and read: "from any sales tax on fuel for the
propulsion of motor vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft,
less refunds, credits, and collection costs provided by
laws, and from a registration fee of motor vehicles, not
special registration fees." She asked whether money would
be put into a fund from some state-revenue sources or
taxation already in place. Ms. Rooney answered in the
affirmative.
Representative Fairclough asked whether the money put in
the dedicated fund would result in less money going to the
places where the money currently went. Ms. Rooney replied
that the funds went into various holding accounts within
the general fund and then were appropriated.
Representative Fairclough queried the total that would have
to be backfilled with general funds. Ms. Rooney answered
$76 million per year.
Representative Austerman asked whether the current gasoline
motor tax went into a dedicated fund. He referred to a
dedicated fund that had been grandfathered in.
Representative Wilson responded that the fund was
grandfathered in, but when the legislature raised the fuel
tax, they were told that the dedicated fund would have to
go.
Representative Austerman pointed to 11 years out using
scenario one, when there would be a little over $2 billion
in the fund. He wondered whether the legislature could use
the money for anything other than transportation if a
situation of need occurred as described by Representative
Gara. Representative Wilson responded that the enabling
legislation would be in statute and that the statute could
be changed if needed.
11:09:45 AM
Ms. Rooney clarified that the legislature could not use the
money for other things without changing the constitution
because the amendment would stipulate that the fund must be
used for transportation capital funds.
Co-Chair Stoltze recalled the last dedicated fund
established by the voters in 1976. There was a revenue
stream and the legislature augmented the fund "far beyond."
He summarized that the idea was to have the legislature be
able to send the gas tax, any other tax, or an amount in a
special appropriation to the constitutionally-protected
transportation fund instead of the general fund.
11:11:05 AM
Representative Gara referred to the chart depicting the
historical amount of state spending on transportation
projects, with a general fund part, a federal part, and
other. He asked whether the fund would be used only for
non-federal transportation projects or if it would be
available for state transportation spending. Representative
Wilson replied that the enabling legislation would limit
how much could be spent on federal projects, but it would
allow spending on federal projects. She preferred to do the
projects as state projects because they tended to be much
cheaper and faster. However, they did not want to limit use
of the fund to only state projects; up to 10 percent could
be used on federal projects, such as for a federal match.
Representative Gara wanted to know how much of the state
money has gone to state projects and how much has been
matching money for federal projects. Representative Wilson
replied that DOT/PF would provide the information.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked why all three pieces of legislation
were being considered at one time. Representative Wilson
responded that she would be happy if the resolution got
through and they waited to do the other ones. She noted,
however, that many people wanted to know the overall
thought process.
Vice-Chair Thomas commented that the large sum of money ($1
billion) could worry people and distract from the
resolution itself. He stated that he liked the idea.
11:13:38 AM
Representative Austerman asked for clarification regarding
the conceptual amendment. Ms. Rooney responded that the
amendment would allow for the use of some of the fund for
the operations of the DMV; the enabling legislation
stipulates that the state must appropriate for those
operations, so they wanted it in the constitutional
resolution.
Representative Wilson added that the program was currently
handled in the way described; receipts were used to run the
DMV and the sponsors did not want to change that. They
wanted to avoid people coming to the legislature for the
funds.
11:15:12 AM
Representative Austerman commented that he would not
support the idea. He opined that all revenue from the DMV
should go to the general fund and then be appropriated
through the legislature so the legislature would know what
was going on. Representative Wilson responded that the
funds would still go through the usual process, through the
subcommittees and so on.
Representative Austerman stated that he did not like the
idea of the DMV being funded through the constitution.
Representative Kelly asked whether the legislature would
have the flexibility of spending 100 percent state funds
and whether the current system of matching funds would
still be in place. Representative Wilson responded yes,
except that 10 percent could be used for federal match
(although it does not have to be used for federal match).
Representative Kelly summarized that the current system of
matching across the board would be permitted but not
required.
11:16:49 AM
Representative Fairclough asked which bill was being
addressed in public testimony. Vice-Chair Thomas responded
all three bills.
JOHN MACKINNON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF ALASKA (AGC of Alaska), stated that the
organization represented over 650 businesses around Alaska.
He provided testimony regarding HB 329; he did not have an
opinion on either the appropriation or the constitutional
amendment. He noted that Alaska had relied on federal
transportation and construction funding for many years. The
federal highway program had used the federal fuel tax,
which has been around since 1916. He thought it was one of
the best programs developed. Alaska did not get to
participate in the program until statehood.
Mr. MacKinnon detailed that for the federal gas tax
collected in Alaska (at $0.184 per gallon), the state
received a return of about six-to-one; for every $1.00
collected the state received $6.00 back. He emphasized that
most states get only $0.90 back for every dollar collected.
He warned, however, that the return may not be allowed much
longer. The federal highway program was a six-year program,
and re-authorization was overdue. He relayed that the
federal administration wanted to hold back, although the
federal committee chair wanted to move ahead; the [re-
authorization bill] has been referred to as the "transit
bill" instead of the transportation bill, and was expected
to favor urban areas with higher populations. He expected
less to come to Alaska as a vast state with limited
population.
Mr. MacKinnon maintained that general-fund appropriations
for transportation projects have been generous in past and
current capital budgets. Over the years, the ability to
spend state funds has greatly speeded up the process. He
noted that one federal dollar was worth about $0.75,
compared to the worth of a state dollar. Federal dollars
were harder to spend as there were more rules and
procedures; state dollars have the same construction and
environmental standards, but could be used more
concurrently instead of consecutively. He pointed out that
there were numerous examples of faster projects.
Mr. MacKinnon stated that AGC of Alaska has been on record
for many years supporting a state-funded transportation
plan. He thought the proposed plan had gone through a long
and thoughtful process and had made great headway. He
believed a key element of any successful program was a
predictable and steady flow of funding; living from one
year's appropriation to the next, through highs and lows,
makes it difficult to have an efficient system. He believed
directing the state motor fuel tax of $0.08 per gallon and
the vehicle registration fees constituted a user fee going
toward the various modes of transportation being used. He
thought the proposed advisory committee resembled the
transportation boards or commissions that most other states
had; the system has worked well in other states.
Mr. MacKinnon concluded that HB 329 would provide a very
good framework for a successful state-funded transportation
program.
11:22:58 AM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), spoke to
HB 329. She explained that currently, almost all DMV
appropriations (including capital and operating) were
funded via receipt-supported services; the division lived
off receipts, and the extra was deposited into the general
fund. The DMV budget went through the appropriation
process, but the funding source was receipt-supported
services.
Ms. Brewster furthered that HB 329 would allow for 3
percent of the appropriation of the transportation
infrastructure fund to be available for DMV's operating
costs. She referred to a letter from the division to the
committee [April 6, 2010, copy on file] outlining the
details. She thought the DMV would have enough funds for FY
12 in terms of operating expenses; but looking forward, it
could possibly have budgetary problems that would result in
the DMV requesting supplemental funding from the
legislature. The vehicle registration fees listed in HB 329
would be transferred into the transportation infrastructure
fund; there would be insufficient funds left to fund the
DMV operations. None of the funds would be capital funds.
She stated that the division did not conceptually oppose
the bill, but wanted to see the language changed dealing
with the 3 percent being available to the DMV. She thought
the language should basically state that anything in excess
of needs for operations would go into the transportation
fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated information about the
technical difficulties, but said that he preferred to
consider the constitutional amendment without having to
figure out all the funding mechanisms.
Vice-Chair Thomas commented that the Commercial Fishery
Entry Commission was fully funded by the fishermen and that
the surplus went automatically to the Department of Fish
and Game to supplement its budget. He thought a similar
mechanism could be used to make sure the DMV was fully
funded each year, with the surplus going to the dedicated
fund.
11:27:43 AM
Representative Gara commented about moving ahead on the
constitutional amendment. He also wanted to go forward on
another statute to evaluate and rank projects to limit
spending and dedicate money to the most important things.
He described the current process related to transportation,
with each district fighting for its own projects. He
thought the capital budget needed to be reformed to rank
projects. He wanted the process to be written into the
proposed transportation fund.
Representative Fairclough suggested limiting the discussion
to HB 42 in order to facilitate the process. She was
concerned that discussion about funding possibilities could
result in losing the overall focus on whether to create a
dedicated transportation fund. She argued that education
and emergency medical services would also benefit from
dedicated funds for transportation.
MARK HICKEY, JUNEAU, noted his 30 years of experience
working on transportation issues in Alaska, including as
commissioner of DOT/PF. He testified in strong support of
the bills, particularly a dedicated transportation fund. He
believed all former DOT/PF commissioners would support the
idea as well. He thought the state needed a reliable and
predictable way to fund transportation, especially the
user-fee concept, since the state did not have a state-
funded program. Alaska was the only state that did not,
which caused considerable problems on the federal level. He
thought the real problem was that the state was not meeting
its transportation needs. The municipalities were forced to
make federal programs meet a variety of needs, which did
not work and was an inefficient use of federal money.
Mr. Hickey informed the committee that at statehood, Alaska
had dedicated taxes from both motor-craft and water-craft
fuels, as well as the school fund (using tobacco tax). The
purpose for the motor-craft and water-craft fuel taxes was
related to operations and maintenance, such as repairs.
11:34:09 AM
Mr. Hickey continued that in 1961, the motor-fuel tax was
changed from $0.04 to $0.08 because the state needed the
revenue. At the time, the Department of Law (DOL) provided
what turned out to be incorrect advice that if there was a
change to a tax that had been dedicated, such as increasing
the amount, the dedicated fund would be lost. Based on the
advice, the Title 19 statute still on the books stipulated
how the money would be used. The legislature amended the
statute to say "may be used" and therefore eliminated the
dedicated-fund status. He did not know whether DOL had
issued a new opinion since that time. When the tobacco tax
was put in place in the mid-1990s, it was demonstrated that
the DOL advice was incorrect. There was a long discussion
about what would happen to the dedicated funds if the rate
of taxation was changed in the future. The members of the
constitutional convention all agreed that since need
changes, the rate can be changed. To lose the dedication,
the tax would have to be eliminated and then brought back,
or the purpose of the tax would have to be changed. As a
result, the tobacco tax was increased for the school fund,
which was still in place and had never been challenged.
Representative Austerman queried the relationship between
HB 42 (Section 18) and HB 356 and how the fund could work
without the $1 billion appropriation. Mr. Hickey replied
that it was complicated to look at all the pieces required.
He believed HB 329 also needed to be considered; it was
designed to supplement the programs in place already and
focus on state-funded capital. He referred to
Representative Fairclough's question about what money would
get displaced; the $76 million was accounted for in the
budget in the highway account as well as being essentially
appropriated to maintenance support along with other
general funds. House Bill 329 would take the money and put
it into the capital side (which could participate in some
federal money but was mostly designed to augment the
federal). There would be a need for additional general
funds to deal with funding for maintenance costs. He
continued that the concept as a whole would require both
the appropriation of a meaningful amount of funds and user
fees sufficient enough to have a program; $20 million or
$30 million spin-off each year would not be meaningful, but
$50 to $70 million in addition to a way to grow the fund
would be meaningful. He thought user fees were important
and had to be looked at. He noted polls showing strong
support for increasing the motor fuel tax as long as the
money raised was used appropriately.
Mr. Hickey opined that the dedicated fund and its
mechanisms would not work very well without some initial,
significant appropriation into the fund. He thought the
foundation was created at statehood with user fees. He
recommended protecting the user fees and then supplementing
then.
11:40:11 AM
Representative Austerman pointed out that putting $76
million each year into the fund would not grow it. He
wanted a fund that would grow, and thought that would take
a significant endowment by the legislature.
Mr. Hickey responded that it would depend on what the funds
were used for. He agreed with the concept in HB 329 of
keeping half of it (or some other amount) to grow the fund
more with the resulting interest deposits. He noted that
putting the money into state-funded transportation projects
represented a significant change from current practice. The
problem of what the $76 million was used for would still
have to be worked out. The need for a state-funded program
had been discussed since 1986 or 1987, when the price of
oil went down to $9 per barrel. Projects were still funded,
but haphazardly. Transportation projects need investment
over time on a programmatic basis, because of environmental
requirements and so on. In the current system, a little
bit of money was acquired at a time, and each subsequent
bit had to be fought for. He acknowledged that the
endowment part was important, but the added benefits of the
user fees focused on state-funded capital in a programmatic
way with a ranking mechanism would represent a significant
change from the current process.
Representative Austerman agreed that something needed to be
done, but stated concerns regarding HB 329 and how to
appropriate the money; with percentages at 188 percent of
the fund and funding sources (page 3), he thought there
would be a lot of competition. Mr. Hickey explained that
there was a not-to-exceed amount that would create some
equity between modes. He explained that Alaska was unique
in terms of the multi-modal challenges, including ports and
harbors as well as aviation.
Representative Gara stated that he was beginning to be
convinced, but he saw a reverse problem that might require
an amendment. He did not want to overspend, to require the
legislature to spend money that it does not need to spend.
He felt a dedicated fund meant that the money had to go
only to transportation funding, but he did not think
transportation funding would be the same in all years. He
noted that the fund would soon have $60 million per year,
but in FY 10, only $35 million was spent on transportation
projects. He questioned what would happen with extra money
during times of less need. He suggested that the bill
stipulate that at the end of the fiscal year, the excess
not spent on transportation (of spin-off money, not
principal) should be put into the general fund.
11:45:12 AM
Mr. Hickey replied that any expenditure was subject to
appropriation; the legislature annually controlled what
funds were spent, although the money in the dedicated fund
could only be spent as prescribed. He underlined that the
backlog for transportation needs were excessive; between
deferred maintenance and capital projects, the need was
more than ten times the amount that would be available. He
emphasized that the user fees collected would not have to
be spent in any given year, if there were not projects that
it made sense to fund. He believed the money would be
protected. He was not sure how a sweep structure could work
within a constitutional amendment.
Representative Gara commented that leaving the money in the
fund would mean it could only be spent for transportation.
He wanted to consider some kind of sweep provision that
would happen after the legislative session was over in a
given year. Mr. Hickey detailed that DOT/PF had a $20
billion backlog in transportation projects. He emphasized
that the costs of the projects were very high. He referred
to one project that cost $70 million. In a good year, he
conjectured the fund could pay for five or six projects,
and thought two or three projects each year was more
likely.
11:47:58 AM
Representative Fairclough asked whether public testimony
was closed.
Vice-Chair Thomas closed public testimony.
11:48:37 AM RECESSED
6:59:40 PM RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze continued discussion on HJR 35.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska prohibiting passage of laws that interfere
with direct payments for health care services and the
right to purchase health care insurance from a
privately owned company, and that compel a person to
participate in a health care system.
7:01:14 PM AT EASE
7:02:05 PM RECONVENED
Representative Kelly MOVED to report HJR 35 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Doogan OBJECTED. He stated that he was
against the resolution. He WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
7:03:00 PM AT EASE
7:03:25 PM RECONVENED
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HJR 35 was REPORTED out of committee with no recommendation
and with previously published fiscal note: FN 1 (GOV).
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska creating a transportation infrastructure
fund.
Representative Kelly MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1:
Page 2, beginning of line 4:
Insert "state fuel taxes and registration fees
received by the fund in that year and a percentage of
the"
Renumber accordingly.
Representative Fairclough OBJECTED. There was discussion
about the version being considered; it was determined that
the version was \P.
Representative Fairclough WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Stoltze MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
BECKY ROONEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, SPONSOR,
explained that conceptual Amendment 1 would allow for a
percentage of the fuel tax and vehicle registration fees to
be appropriated each year. She reminded the committee that
a graph had been shown in testimony related to HB 329 that
would define the amount as 50 percent; the legislature
would have the latitude to change the percentage.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that he opposed the amendment. He
thought there was an adequate vehicle in the proposed
measure for establishing a dedicated fund. He did not think
it fit as well into a constitutional amendment package and
could detract from the discussion.
Co-Chair Hawker stated that he was opposed to the
amendment. He thought the legislation was simple, elegant,
and appropriate without the additional amendment.
Representative Gara stated that he did not support the
amendment. He thought there were two problems: First,
whether there would be enough money in the fund, and
second, he did not want it all spent in years when there
was more than enough. He was concerned that by adding the
other two sources of revenue, there would be more money
than the legislature would otherwise appropriate for
transportation projects.
7:08:04 PM AT EASE
7:08:24 PM RECONVNENED
Representative Kelly WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report CS HJR 42 (JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Gara OBJECTED.
Representative Gara stated that he objected to the
legislation because of the unevenness of needs for
transportation. He did not want a dedicated fund for
transportation in years when there was more money. He
wanted the extra interest earnings to revert back to the
general fund in some years. He maintained that whenever the
legislature was given more money to spend than needed, the
money was spent.
Representative Fairclough pointed out that there were many
transportation needs in the state and the fund had no money
in it. She maintained that the state needed a dedicated
fund established in the state constitution. She emphasized
that without a road system and transportation, people were
stranded without access to food or other emergency needs.
The fund would help in all areas of the state. She believed
in the process. She was concerned about the large and aging
transportation infrastructure in Alaska and wanted the
state to begin taking responsibility for it.
Representative Doogan supported movement forward on
transportation issues and commended the work done. He
stated concerns about the concept of a dedicated fund. He
wondered what would be next after the dedicated fund for
transportation; everyone would like their project enshrined
in the constitution. He referred to California, where all
the money was tied up and the voters have to decide to
allow any extra funding.
7:14:27 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze agreed with some of the policy discussion.
He referred to historical discussion about the issue and
thought the topic was relevant.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Wilson commented that the numbers being
discussed were only relevant if $1 billion dollars was put
into the fund. The amendment would have made it flexible.
CS HJR 42(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and with previously published fiscal note:
FN1 (GOV).
HB 329 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 356 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR42 SWAMC Letter.docx |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 42 |
| HB 329 Const_testimony.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| 2 HJR 35 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 3 HJR 35 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 5 Feb 9th Hearing HESS Questions.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| 6 NFIB Ltr.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| 7 Goldwater Institute Q-A.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| 8 ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| 8 ALEC's Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| 20100409133225145.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HCR 35 |
| 9 Health Care Reform Letter Jan13-2010.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| HJR42 -Sponsor Stmt VerP.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HJR 42 Resolution ATIF[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 42 |
| ATIF values w-out taxes.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| CSHB329-DOT-CO-3-14-10 NEW.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| fund values with taxes.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 329 AK Trans Finance Study.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 SWAMC Resolution.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 TRA Major Changes.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| FY04-FY10 summary Capital Approp (2).pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB356 Approp from ATIF.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 356 |
| HB 356 Sponsor.docx |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 356 |
| TRANSPORTATION_Fiscal_Plan_FY2011.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB329 Letters of Support.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HB 329 -ATIF major changes VerO.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HJR 42 Exec Summary AK Trans Finance Study.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 42 |
| Illinois Research.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| Persily Rpt Financing Transportation.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 42 |
| HJR 42 Use of gas tax revenue by state.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 42 |
| House Finance Letter HB 329 04 06 10.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HJR 35 Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HJR 35 |
| CSHB329-FIN-DOA-DMV-04-09-10NEW.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 329 |
| HJR 42 Amendment #1 Kelly.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2010 9:00:00 AM |