Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/15/2019 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Fy 20 Budget Overview: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 15, 2019
1:34 p.m.
1:34:58 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bart LeBon.
ALSO PRESENT
Lacey Sanders, Budget Director, Office of Management and
Budget; Amanda Holland, Management Director, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; Mary Siroky, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
None
SUMMARY
FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
^FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES
1:36:04 PM
LACEY SANDERS, BUDGET DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, indicated Amanda Holland would be speaking this
afternoon.
AMANDA HOLLAND, MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced the
PowerPoint Presentation: "FY2020 Governor's Amended Budget
Overview: Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities." She began with slide 3: "FY2020 Budget:
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities" which
showed the funding comparison between the FY 19 management
plan operating budget for the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT) in comparison to the FY 20
governor's amended budget from February 13, 2019. The
difference between the two budgets was a $57,200,800
unrestricted general fund (UGF) reduction and a $38,849,500
designated general fund (DGF) reduction for a total general
fund reduction of $96,050,300. She conveyed that the total
operating budget was $593,349,600 for the FY 19 management
plan. The FY 20 governor's amended budget reflected a total
of $533,126,500.
Ms. Holland reported fund changes throughout the operating
budget for FY 20 in the "other" fund category. There was an
overall increase of $36,352,300 resulting from a
$42 million request for interagency receipts - an authority
to receive funds from other agencies for the newly
established Division of Facilities Services. The division
was a consolidation of facilities maintenance across the
enterprise. It was offset by some reductions in unrealized
receipts in the other fund category. She continued that in
the federal fund category there was a reduction of $525,100
due to unrealizable federal receipts and the depletion of
the last amount of the Adak Airport operation fund (the
fund provided to the state by the federal government
several years prior when Alaska first took over operations
of the airport).
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked the reason for unrealizable federal
receipts in the amount of $525,100. Ms. Holland replied
that in the operating budget the department had some
authority to receive federal reimbursement from the
Transportation Safety Association (TSA) for Alaska's rural
airports. The federal government no longer provided as much
monetary support for law enforcement officials at the rural
airports. Even though the state had the authority in the
budget, the federal government was no longer providing the
funding.
Ms. Holland spoke to the position comparison. There was
some slight movement between the two budgets. She explained
that the changes reflected the positions being moved out of
DOT to the Office of Information Technology within the
Department of Administration (DOA) as well as some
positions being moved into DOT as part of the consolidation
of facilities services.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the potential position changes
if the governor were to move forward with his budget
changes to the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS). He
wondered where the reductions in positions to the AMHS
could be found. Ms. Holland responded that the department
was not deleting any positions in the operating budget for
the AMHS. The positions were funded for 3 months, 6 months,
or a full year depending on the work that was available.
The state needed all of the positions in order to be able
to honor the summer schedule.
1:41:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster responded that effectively the positions
would be gone but were included because of the summer
months. Ms. Holland explained that when the department
budgeted for the positions, it was able to budget them for
2 months, 6 months, 8 months, or 12 months depending on the
work and the funding available. The position control number
(PCN),a unique identifier for each position, would actually
stay in the budget on the department's books for an entire
fiscal year based on the work the state had for each
position for at least part of the fiscal year.
Ms. Holland continued to slide 4: "FY2020 Budget:
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Snapshot
($ Thousands)" which showed some of the budget highlights
for FY 20. The first item was the AMHS transition, an
overall reduction in the budget of combined general funds
of $97,988,800. The total amount was composed of
$64,179,700 UGF and $33,809,100 DGF and included
administration, support, and operations for the AMHS.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there would be a reduction in DGF
because of reduced revenues if the system were to shut
down. Ms. Holland responded in the affirmative. She
explained that the DGF that remained in the governor's
amended budget for FY 20 was revenue that would be
collected during the system's weeks of operation.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked about reduced federal funding
with the closure of the AMHS. Ms. Holland responded that
the department would be using all of its federal funding
receipts in a fiscal year. The state would not lose federal
funding through the AMHS transition.
Co-Chair Wilson asked how much federal funding the state
lost when it decided to build its ferry system in-state
rather than using the state's request for proposal (RFP)
process. It was her understanding that federal funds would
have been available if the state had gone through the RFP
process, rather than a sole source award. Ms. Holland would
get back to the committee with the information.
Co-Chair Wilson asked why in FY 92 the state had 61 percent
in fare box recovery versus 33.3 percent in FY 18. Ms.
Holland did not know the ridership history and the reason
for the spike in 1992 of 450,000 passengers. In FY 18, the
ferry system had a ridership of about 250,000. There was a
large uptick in 1992. She mentioned a switch in the state's
fare box recovery rated when the fast vehicle ferries came
online between 2004 to 2006. The original plan was to
divest some other ferries to maintain a 9-vessel fleet. She
was unsure why the system kept operating the vessels when
the fast ferries came online. As a result, the state fleet
increased to an 11-vessel fleet and resulted in an increase
in operating costs for the following several years.
1:46:27 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the possibility of using the
fleet in a different way to reach the 61 percent in order
to continue service to all locations. It might mean a
reduction in route frequency. Ms. Holland reported that the
department had focused on maximizing service. It had been
the department's direction for the previous 5 or 6 years.
However, it was willing to look at other alternatives and a
different balance between revenue and service. She added
that the department thought a qualified marine consultant
might be able to provide some viable options for how to
provide a good balance of service and revenue generation.
Representative Josephson had never sat on the
transportation committee. He asked if the fleet would be
turned over to a private operation. He wanted to understand
the administration's plan. Ms. Holland responded that the
department wanted to identify the ways in which to realize
reductions in the state's financial liability and
obligations. The door was open to look at several different
options. Options included privatization, public-private
partnership, refining service, and other options. The
department recently put out a request for proposal for the
consultant and included 9 or 10 possibilities as options
for transitioning the AMHS to a more sustainable system.
Representative Josephson asked how many consultants
applied. Ms. Holland indicated the state had received 1
proposal that was currently being evaluated to determine
whether it met the criteria.
Representative Josephson asked if the administration would
consider looking at the issue next year because not many
proposals had been submitted. Ms. Holland reported that the
administration was looking at a full implementation for the
following year. She would be happy to ask about the
possibility of changing the current timeline.
1:50:28 PM
Representative Knopp mentioned the state receiving a
significant amount of federal dollars for transportation.
He was aware that federal dollars associated with airports
came with strings attached. He asked if strings were
attached for the AMHS. If so, he wondered about the
liability to the state.
Ms. Holland replied that all of the federal funding for the
AMHS was received from the Federal Highway Administration.
The Federal Highway Administration had a different payback
policy for the AHS compared to the Federal Aviation
Administration. For example, if the state were to calculate
its responsibility when it was disposing of a federal
highway funded ferry vessel asset, first the state would
have to calculate the federal share. In other words, the
state would have to calculate how much it would owe back to
the federal government.
Ms. Holland explained the Federal Highway Administration's
procedure. The costs expended on the vessel were identified
by year in three categories: federal, state match, and
other state funds. The figures were converted to the year
of sale using an inflation rate. Afterwards, the sum of
each category of year and current year value were totaled.
The federal share was the fraction of funds divided by
total funds and expressed as a percentage. She used the
example of the M/V Taku which was recently divested. First,
the department had the expenditures with no inflation, then
the department did the conversion to 2016 dollars, and the
federal share percentage was calculated to be 63.9 percent.
She asserted that the percentage would be different for
every vessel depending on how much federal money was
invested in the vessel and how long ago the state invested
the federal funds into the vessel.
Ms. Holland continued that the department looked at how
much it would receive for the vessel. The department used
statutory state disposal methodology. The M/V Taku sold for
a gross price of $4,000,000 and the cost of the sale was
$550,000. The net receipt for the M/V Taku was $3,450,000.
After the net price was determined, the department took
63.9 percent of federal funds and subtracted the amount of
$2,204,550. The remainder of $1,200,000 was state funding
and remained with the state. The federal funding of 63.9
percent or $2,204,500 was applied to another Alaska federal
aid project and could qualify as a state match. It could
also be applied to another federal capital project such as
a road or bridge.
Representative Knopp asked if a full analysis had been done
for the entire system. He wondered about the bottom line if
the system were to end. Ms. Holland replied that the
administration had not done a full analysis because the
department was waiting for the options the consultant would
be providing. It could change things significantly. They
might recommend divesting one or two assets or all assets.
All of the AMHS assets combined were worth $1.1 billion.
1:55:45 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz brought up the formula Ms. Holland had
reviewed. He wanted to clarify that the 63.9 percent
federal funding would not have to be repaid to the federal
government but could be used for other projects. Ms.
Holland indicated he was correct. She noted that the money
had to be used for other federal aid projects (other
Federal Highway Administration funded projects). She
confirmed that the state would be able to reuse the money
rather than paying it back to the federal government.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the same would be true for the
terminals in which federal dollars were used to build them.
Ms. Holland responded that it did not apply to facilities
such as terminals and docks. She would get back to the
committee about the process.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if she know enough to determine
whether the state would be negatively or positively
affected. Ms. Holland did not know much about the issue.
She was aware there was a different payback process for a
land-based operation.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if anyone from the department had
looked into the issue. Ms. Holland was aware of several
engineers and transportation planners who had looked at
what the process would be. She knew they were working with
the Federal Highway Administration to better understand
what the process would look like. The department focused on
the vessel first and just received information on the
vessel process in the prior week. They were looking at the
facilities information next.
Vice-Chair Ortiz suggested that the decision to shut down
the ferry system had occurred before the report was
released. He thought the legislature was being asked to
make a decision without all of the information.
Co-Chair Foster interjected that Mary Siroky from the
department might be able to respond to Vice-Chair Ortiz's
questions.
1:59:48 PM
MARY SIROKY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, had not had time to
brief the Office of Management and Budget. The department
had just heard earlier in the day at a staff meeting that
the process for facilities was basically the same as for
vessels. She elaborated that whatever money the department
took in and the related percentage was the state's to spend
as match funding or as part of a federal aid project.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the historical investments
made by the federal government. He asked if there would be
an obligation by the state to sell off or repay money back
to the federal government. Ms. Siroky reported that the
department would do a similar present net value calculation
which would lead to the federal and state percentages. The
percentage would be applied to a sales price. The
percentage of state funds would be put into the general
fund and the percentage of federal funds would remain with
the state and be used for federal aid projects.
Ms. Holland continued speaking to slide 4. She reported
that the proposed FY 20 governor's amended budget would
adjust the operating weeks [days] for the AMHS. In FY 19
the number of operating weeks [days] was 345.9 weeks
[days]. In FY 20 it would reduce down to 84.8 weeks [days]
which would allow the AMHS to honor its published schedule.
The Alaska Marine Highway System published its schedule
through September. In June or July the system would publish
its schedule. Schedules only came out 5 to 6 months at a
time.
Ms. Holland continued that the department was given a
directive from the governor to identify potential
reductions to the state's financial obligation and
liability as related to the AMHS. The report from the
consultant was due on August 1, 2019 and would include the
information that was in several other reports. She relayed
that through the years the department had produced a number
of reports about the AMHS. However, none of them took a
hard look at how the AMHS could transition to a more
sustainable and affordable system. Some of the examples of
the reports the consultant would reference as well as new
information they would be gathering included a 2012 systems
analysis, a 2015 tariff analysis, a 2016 economic impact
analysis, 2017 phase 1 and 2 Alaska Marine Highway reform
reports, numerous annual traffic volume reports, annual
financial reports, and various vessel condition reports.
There was a significant amount of information available and
there was new information for the department to gather,
compile, and synthesize.
Vice-Chair Ortiz returned to the topic of a consultant. He
asked if the deadline for the submission of an RFP from a
consultant was March 11, 2019. Ms. Holland responded
affirmatively. Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that only one
vendor submitted an RFP. Ms. Holland responded, "That is
correct." Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how long the RFP had been
posted. Ms. Holland replied that the informal RFP was
submitted on March 1, 2019.
2:05:17 PM
Representative Josephson wondered if the administration was
asking legislators to defund something before they had a
report describing what a replacement operation might look
like. Ms. Holland replied that the administration had asked
the department to look at various options. Currently, there
was an option on the table in the budget to discontinue
service beginning August 1, 2019 which would be the plan
going forward. Once received, the consultant report would
indicate future plans for FY 21 and beyond.
Representative Josephson suggested that in the window
between October 1, 2019 and 2021 there would not be any
ferry service until a new proposal was adopted. He wondered
if he was correct. Ms. Holland indicated the AMHS would not
provide service. She could not speak to whether private
operators would provide service in its stead.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the costs related to storing
the ferries were in the budget. Ms. Holland responded in
the positive. She indicated that the FY 20 budget and the
plan that the department had proposed with sailings ending
October 1, 2019 accounted for any layup requirements of the
vessels. The state would continue to care and protect its
assets even if they were not running.
Ms. Holland turned to slide 5: " FY2020 Budget: Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities Snapshot
($ Thousands) [con't.]." She reported another change in the
FY 20 governor's amended budget - a reduction in funding
for rural airports in the amount of $46,900 UGF. The state
had 237 rural airports that were owned and operated by DOT
including some seaplane bases. She reported that the
governor issued a directive on February 13th for the
department to analyze options for reducing the state's
financial obligation and liability as it related to rural
airports while also considering the importance of air
travel for many rural communities. The department was
establishing a formal divestment process. The total
operating costs for the rural airport system in FY 18 was
$35.6 million. The total revenues in FY 18 for the rural
airport system was $10.9 million which included airport
leasing receipts of $6.3 million and aviation fuel taxes of
$4.5 million.
2:09:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster had looked at the breakdown of the $46,900
figure. He thought for the Northern region $17,000 could be
saved. There was a list in the finance subcommittee of at
least 17 airports which meant that $1,000 or less was being
spent at some of the airports. He asked what kind of things
happened at the rural airports. He wondered if there was an
assessment each year where someone went out to the airport
sites to evaluate them at a cost of about $1,000. He asked
her to clarify how the $17,000 was being spent.
Ms. Holland answered that the airports had varying costs.
The most expensive airports to operate were the part 139
airports - airports with jet service. The Federal Aviation
Administration had higher requirements for operation
including qualified firefighters, certain lighting, and
runway lengths. Some of the state's airports were
classified as "backcountry" airports which were not
maintained. Pilots used those airports at their own risk.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had several
backcountry airports as well. The state had a few airports
on the road system which required equipment officers caring
for the roads to provide for snow and ice management. The
department would look at the conditions of the airports to
determine where the $17,000 reduction could be absorbed
having the least impact on runways being operable.
Co-Chair Wilson asked why the state was replacing
$3,761,000 of vehicle rental with UGF. Ms. Holland replied
that each year the appropriations of vehicle rental taxes
equaled actual revenue collections in the previously closed
fiscal year. The governor directed OMB to include a capitol
appropriation of 70 percent of the available vehicle rental
taxes to the Alaska Travel Industry Association as a named
recipient grant. The required replacement of the vehicle
rental taxes existed in three departments to allow them to
maintain the level of services provided: The Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, the DNR, and the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for the previous year's percentage
for the travel industry. Ms. Sanders responded that the
entire available amount was distributed to the three
agencies. There was not a specific allocation to a named
recipient grant.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if it was general funds that went out
to the travel industry the previous year. Ms. Sanders
confirmed that it was general funds that went out in the
prior year.
Co-Chair Wilson pointed out that the state was also
replacing the motor fuel tax of $1,232,000 with UGF. She
asked about the short funding. Ms. Holland explained that
the Department of Revenue did its best every year to
project the total amount of motor fuel tax that would be
collected. The motor fuel tax collection rate was not as
high as projected which was the reason the department was
asking for UGF instead. She commented that there had been
an increase in energy efficiency. She noted more fuel
efficient cars that could operate for longer. She noted
there had been an uptick in the use of electric cars which
the department thought contributed to the impact of less
motor fuel taxes being collected.
2:14:21 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked for the FY 18 actuals and
projections. Ms. Holland would get back to the committee
with the information.
Co-Chair Wilson noted airport leasing receipts being
replaced with UGF in the amount of $1,985,000. She asked
for an explanation of the change. Ms. Holland reported the
state having some unrealizable receipts in the department's
airport leasing receipts primarily due to the downturn in
the Deadhorse area. Leasing receipts in Deadhorse had gone
down significantly as well as an overall downturn in the
oil industry. It impacted the amount of money the state
brought in through airport leasing receipts.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about revenue verses operating costs
at the Deadhorse Airport. Ms. Holland reported that for
FY 18 operating costs for Deadhorse were $2,647,000 and the
annual revenue was $2,250,000.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the department could change the
fees to cover costs through regulations. Ms. Holland
responded that the department had the authority to change
landing fees through the regulation process. There had been
pushback from carriers regarding the possibility of
instituting landing fees. She indicated that recently the
community of Sand Point wanted to become a part 139 jet
service airport. The carrier flying into the area as well
as the community requested landing fees to help cover the
increased cost of maintenance by upgrading the airport to a
part 139 facility. The department had some success stories
where it was able to maintain a sustainable and affordable
airport service by working with the communities.
Representative Josephson brought up vehicle rental taxes.
He wondered if the revenue shift would largely cure the
travel industry's problem. He suggested that some of the
vehicle rental tax was being moved from DOT to the travel
industry.
2:18:41 PM
Ms. Sanders reported a long history with the tourism
industry and the vehicle rental tax collections. The
vehicle rental tax collections were designated in statute
for the purpose of tourism marketing and economic
development. Several years prior, a decision was made to
distribute the funding to highways in DOT, to parks within
DNR, and to economic development within the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED). Over
the years there had been some level of funding that went to
Alaska Tourism Marketing through a named recipient grant.
Tourism was managed within DCCED.
Ms. Sanders continued that the request in the capital
budget appropriated 70 percent of what was collected in the
prior closed fiscal year. The estimated 70 percent was
based on a few economic studies that had been completed.
One study, done by the McDowell group, identified the use
of the funding available for tourism marketing. She relayed
that the funding was a tax. It was essentially UGF but was
designated in statute for a purpose. The legislature had
the ability to spend the funding as it saw fit. It could be
spent on anything from a fish study to tourism depending on
the will of the legislature. The proposal in front of the
committee was to follow the allocation of 70 percent.
Therefore, it required backfill of general funds in the
remaining departments in order to preserve the same level
of service for the departments.
Representative Josephson assumed the tourism industry was
delighted, felt protected, and no longer needed
legislation. Ms. Sanders could not speak on behalf of the
tourism industry. In her previous interactions with the
industry, they had expressed that the money collected
should go to their industry. She reminded members the
funding was subject to appropriation. She was aware the
industry's request had varied from year-to-year. She
recalled previous funding level requests of $20 million and
$16 million.
2:22:01 PM
Representative Josephson asked if there were any safety
considerations with rural airport closures. Ms. Holland
responded that safety was one of the first things the
department considered when identifying potential airports
for closure, divestment, or reclassification to
backcountry. One of the first things the department looked
at was the Federal Aviation Administration's purpose and
need. The department considered whether an airport was an
essential service airport or an airport that no longer
provided an essential service. For example, the state's jet
service (part 139) airports were not included in the review
of potential divestment or reclassification. They were
serving an essential need and purpose as defined by the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Ms. Holland continued that the department also looked at
other things in the review which was why it was
establishing a formal process. The department considered
the proximity of alternative airports. She used the
community of Ugashik as an example. It had 12 residents.
The annual airport maintenance contract was $4,800, and an
alternate privately owned airport existed a 1/2 mile away
from the DOT airport. The owners had expressed a
willingness to work with the department. The question was
whether it was worth maintaining an airport when another
was available a 1/2 mile away.
Ms. Holland relayed that there were several other things
the department considered including population. The state
currently had 5 airports in communities with no official
population. She noted that the airport at Deadhorse was one
that needed to be maintained even though it had a
population of zero. The Deadhorse airport was an important
part of the Alaska economy and would not be considered for
divestment or reclassification. Safety was also a concern,
and the Federal Aviation Administration had strict and
clear safety requirements. One of the top priorities of the
department was to ensure that the airports the state was
responsible for were safe.
Co-Chair Foster asked if an airport closure meant that
services such as snow removal would no longer be provided.
He thought the airports would not be barricaded off and
could be used for emergency landings. Ms. Holland responded
that technically they would be open without receiving any
care or maintenance.
Representative Josephson returned to the topic of ferries.
He noted that one of the purposes for the Juneau Access
Road was to provide a ferry terminal closer to Skagway or
Haines. He wondered, if the state did not have a ferry
system, whether the road project would be impacted. Ms.
Holland was not qualified to make policy decisions for the
department.
2:26:47 PM
Representative Josephson mentioned the $42 million
interagency receipts for highways, aviation, and
facilities. Ms. Holland had brought up the new
consolidation of facilities services. He wondered where the
funds would come from. Ms. Holland replied that it was
authority that would allow DOT to accept interagency
receipts from the clients (other state agencies and the
Court System). Currently, DOT provided facilities
maintenance for the Court System. Through interagency
receipt authority the department could receive funds to pay
for the facility maintenance work it performed.
Representative Josephson asked if the funds were reflected
on the other side of the ledger. In other words, were the
funds currently traveling through interagency receipts, or
were the $42 million new dollars the state would have to
raise. Ms. Holland explained that the Division of
Facilities Services was established in FY 18 and began with
DOT. It more recently added some facilities from DOA and
the Department of Education and Early Development. More
departments were coming online every fiscal year. The
departments already had their authority and funding for
care and maintenance of facilities. The $40 million allowed
DOT to have the funds transferred to DOT when it provided
service. The actual funding was already with the agencies
for the work they were currently doing for facilities. When
it was consolidated within the Division of Facilities
Services, the department would have to have authority in
place to accept the funding.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if there was a way to compare the
costs of maintaining the facilities and the department's
projected costs. Ms. Holland responded that she would get
the information back to the committee.
Co-Chair Foster asked for additional detail regarding the
$46 million for rural airports. He provided some examples.
He wondered how much of the cost had something to do with
driving to an airport to assess its condition. He suggested
setting some money aside rather than making a full
reduction. He was concerned that, without someone checking
on an airport, the state would not be aware of any problems
that might arise. He thought a plan might need to be in
place of having assessments done.
Co-Chair Wilson mentioned the current fuel tax. She thought
user fees should be examined for both the highway system as
well as the Alaska Marine Highway System to cover
maintenance expenses. She wanted to be looking at apples-
to-apples. She thought the conversation would be ongoing,
as maintenance was important.
Ms. Sanders referred back to the tourism marketing tax. She
would check her numbers and get back to the committee.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following
Monday.
ADJOURNMENT
2:33:49 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFC 3.15.19 FY2020 Gov Amend Budget DOT.pdf |
HFIN 3/15/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Budget Overview - DOT |