Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
03/20/2020 09:00 AM 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 | |
| SB115 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 20, 2020
9:04 a.m.
9:04:58 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Johnston called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick (Via Teleconference)
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Sponsor; Darwin Peterson, Staff,
Senator Click Bishop.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Brandon Spanos, Deputy Director, Department of Revenue; Rob
Carpenter, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
SUMMARY
CSSB 115(FIN)(efd fld)
MOTOR FUEL TAX; EV REG. FEE
CSSB 115(FIN)(efd fld) was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 115(FIN)(efd fld)
"An Act relating to vehicle registration fees; and
relating to the motor fuel tax."
9:05:41 AM
SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, SPONSOR, reported that the state had
not raised its base excise tax rate on motor fuel since
1970. In 1970, the motor fuel tax accounted for 6 percent
of the state's operating budget. After adjusting for
inflation, an $.08 fuel tax rate in 1970 was equivalent to
the purchasing power of $.52 at present. In other words,
Alaska's fuel tax had lost 82 percent of its purchasing
power since 1970. Senate Bill 115 proposed to raise the tax
rate of fuel from $.08 to $.16 per gallon and marine fuel
from $.05 to $.10 per gallon. He reported that with the
increase, Alaska would still have the lowest marine fuel
tax in the nation and would move from last to 41st in its
ranking on highway fuel. Senate Bill 115 did not impose an
aviation fuel increase. Prior legislatures had discussed
raising the aviation fuel tax and determined that Alaska
was competitive with its cargo planes and wanted it to
remain that way. The aviation fuel tax was left alone.
Senator Bishop continued that the bill would generate
approximately $33 million in additional state revenue and
could potentially take effect as soon as July 1, 2020. He
thought the bill was a meaningful step towards the state's
ability to fund maintenance and operations. He mentioned
that state motor fuel tax revenue had declined by more than
$800,000 over the previous three years from FY 19 to FY 21.
In the prior year, the Department of Transportation and
Facilities Maintenance (DOT) was given hollow leg receipt
authority for $1.2 million. He requested a brief at ease.
9:08:59 AM
AT EASE
9:09:14 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Bishop continued that the money did not transpire
because the trend was going down because of a greater use
of higher fuel mileage automobiles. It also had to do with
more electric and hybrid vehicles being on the road.
Meanwhile, maintenance was not keeping up. He noted his
district had lost 5 maintenance stations. A station at
Silvertip, which served one of the most traveled roads in
Alaska, was also lost. He asked members for their
consideration on the bill. His staff would review a
presentation.
Co-Chair Johnston thanked the bill sponsor for coming to
the meeting.
Senator Bishop commented that his office had scheduled
appointments with each lawmaker.
9:11:15 AM
DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, introduced
the PowerPoint Presentation: "Senate Bill 115 Motor Fuel
Tax."
Co-Chair Johnston indicated the committee had been joined
by Representative Tilton.
Mr. Peterson began with a review of the history of the
motor fuel tax in Alaska on slide 2. In 1945 Alaska's first
motor fuel tax was levied at $.01 per gallon. The last time
the motor fuel tax was increased, raised to $.08 per
gallon, was in 1970. In 1977 the marine fuel tax was
increased to its current rate of $.05 per gallon. He
reported that the aviation fuel tax was raised in 1984 to
$.047 per gallon. From September 1, 2008 through August 31,
2009 the state suspended the motor fuel tax on all fuel
types. He continued that 2015 was the last time there was
any change to the motor fuel tax component. House Bill 158
[Legislation passed in 2015 Short Title: Refined Fuel
Surcharge; Motor Fuel Tax] added a surcharge on motor fuel
of $.0095 per gallon which was intended for spill
prevention and response.
Mr. Peterson indicated slide 3 reviewed the current motor
fuel tax rates and the rates proposed in SB 115. Highway
fuel was currently $.08 per gallon. Under the legislation
the amount would increase to $.16 per gallon. Marine fuel
was currently $.05 per gallon. He explained that in Senator
Bishop's original proposal marine fuel increased to $10 per
gallon. However, the House Transportation Committee amended
the marine fuel tax whereby licensed commercial fishermen
could submit a refund request to the department by the end
of the year for a refund for the increase in the marine
fuel tax they paid. In other words, they would continue to
pay the original $.05 per gallon tax but could be refunded
for the $.05 increase. The change was reflected in the
House Transportation version (version E) of the bill
currently under review. Aviation fuel was currently $.047
per gallon and remained the same in the legislation. Jet
fuel was currently $.032 per gallon with no change proposed
in SB 115.
Mr. Peterson reported there was a proposal to increase the
off-road use refund from $.06 per gallon to $.12 per
gallon. The reason for the change was because currently
there was an off-road use refund. A person could qualify
for a refund when they purchased fuel for snow machines, 4-
wheelers, or anything not used on a public highway or
public road. Individuals had to keep their receipts and
submit them to the department for a refund. Currently,
everyone paid $.02 per gallon whether or not they received
a refund. He clarified that since the bill proposed to
double the tax, it would also double the refund. For
instance, under the legislation, if a person paid $16 per
gallon for highway fuel used for a snow machine, they could
submit their receipt for a tax refund. People would
continue to pay an off-road fuel tax of $.04 per gallon.
Representative Wool asked about commercial fishermen being
able to apply for a $.10 per gallon refund. Mr. Peterson
corrected Representative Wool that commercial fishermen
could apply for a refund of $.05 per gallon.
Representative Wool clarified that fishermen would still be
paying the current $.05 per gallon marine fuel tax. He
wondered what percentage of marine fuel was purchased for
commercial use. He thought it would be the majority of the
marine fuel sold.
Mr. Peterson responded that the Department of Revenue (DOR)
did not have the percentage. He had asked what percentage
of the marine fuel revenue was paid for by commercial
fishermen. He thought it was a large percentage. He
indicated that cruise ships and sport fishermen also
purchased marine fuel. It was difficult to determine the
percentage. In 2019, the marine fuel tax brought in
$5.6 million, of which commercial fishermen were
responsible for about $3 million. He admitted he was
guessing. The numbers were not broken down by industry.
9:16:04 AM
Representative Knopp asked about the off-road use refund.
He asked what department people would apply to for a
refund. Mr. Peterson responded that the refund request
would be submitted to DOR.
Representative Knopp asked if federal taxes were removed at
the time of purchase. He also queried if the state portion
was also removed at the time of purchase.
Mr. Peterson did not know the answer to the federal tax
question. He indicated that there was a federal base excise
tax on all fuel nationwide of $.18 per gallon. He was
unsure whether the federal excise tax was withheld. He
guessed it was not but would check. The state tax was not
withheld at the time of purchase. A person had to apply for
a refund of $.06 per gallon with DOR if using the fuel for
off-road use. He reported that the same thing applied to
large scale industrial mines that had equipment that was
not being used for anything but onsite. He understood that
most mine corporations sent in their refund request
quarterly. He stipulated that the equipment could only be
used onsite and not on any public roads.
Mr. Peterson continued to slide 4 which showed the impact
on the average Alaska consumer through the increase in the
motor fuel tax being proposed in SB 115. The number was
determined by calculating the following. The bill sponsor
looked at the number of registered passenger vehicles in
the state (cars and trucks only). There were 654,826
registered vehicles per the Division of Motor Vehicles. He
considered the average miles per year per vehicle selecting
15,000 miles per year as stated in Kelly Bluebook. The
average miles per gallon was 20.85 miles (cars averaged
24.2 miles per gallon and, trucks averaged 17.4 miles per
gallon). The information was provided by DOT. Gallons of
fuel purchased by the average consumer per year was 719
gallons (15,000 miles per year divided by 20.85 miles per
gallon). The annual increased tax cost per vehicle would be
719 gallons multiplied by $.08 totaling $57.52 per year.
Currently, the average Alaskan consumer paid about $57.00
per year. The increase would essentially double the amount
to $115.04 per year.
9:19:37 AM
Mr. Peterson turned to slide 5 which reviewed the proposed
new electric vehicle registration fee. The Senate Finance
Committee amended the bill to add an electric vehicle
registration fee. The amendment was offered because
electric vehicles, becoming increasingly popular, did not
pay any fuel tax but drove on the roads contributing to
wear and tear. The other body thought it was prudent to
include an additional registration fee. The bill sponsor
had looked at other ways of possibly capturing that group
of vehicles potentially metering the electric usage on
vehicles. However, it was not feasible. Most other states
charged an additional registration fee similar to the fee
proposed in SB 115.
Mr. Peterson reported that the definition of an electric
vehicle was included in the legislation - a vehicle that
was powered solely by an electric motor drawing current
from rechargeable batteries, fuel cells, or other portable
sources of electrical current and manufactured primarily
for use on public streets, roads, and highways. The
vehicles had to be 100 percent electric. Presently, there
was a biennial registration fee for all passenger vehicles
of $100. The proposed change would increase the fee to $200
($50 biennially). The revenue was collected by the Division
of Motor Vehicles just like a regular registration fee was
collected. However, the addition would be deposited into
the highway maintenance fund. The intent was clear that the
additional registration fee was to be used for highway
maintenance. There were approximately 600 pure electric
vehicles in Alaska at present. He noted the population of
electric cars would continue to grow.
Mr. Peterson reported that the other body also proposed an
additional registration fee for plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Plug-in hybrids were those electric vehicles that operated
on gasoline and electricity. Hybrids were defined as
vehicles capable of using gasoline, diesel fuel, or
alternative fuel and was powered in part by electrical
energy using a battery storage system capable of being
recharged from an external source of electricity and
manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads,
and highways. He continued that the biennial registration
fee increase proposed for plug-in hybrids was $50
biennially ($25 per year). The sponsor came up with the
amount based on the fact that hybrid vehicles purchased
gasoline and paid some motor fuel tax. The funds would also
be deposited into the highway maintenance fund. There were
approximately 300 hybrid vehicles in Alaska. The total
revenue generated from the increased registration fee was
about $100,000 per year.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the senator's office had talked
about other types of alternative vehicles. Mr. Peterson
responded that the senator had not considered other
alternatively fueled vehicles. He would be happy to address
a change to the bill for vehicles that did not use gasoline
or electricity for power.
9:23:56 AM
Representative LeBon asked whether the marine tax revenues
would be used for marine purposes.
Mr. Peterson responded in the affirmative. He elaborated
that there were currently four funds within the general
fund that were designated. All highway fuel revenue
proceeds were deposited into the highway maintenance
account. All marine fuel revenues were deposited into the
watercraft account. He indicated there was an account for
jet and aviation fuel and an account for off-road fuel.
Whether or not a refund request was made, the $.02 per
gallon amount would be deposited into the off-road account.
He reported that the highway maintenance account had always
been appropriated by the legislature for highway
construction and maintenance. The statute also allowed for
the funding to be used for ferries. The watercraft fund was
used for ports and harbors. The harbor matching grant
program was used for the upkeep and maintenance on Alaska's
harbors. The jet and aviation fuel taxes were used strictly
for airports. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had
a requirement that any revenue raised from aviation and jet
fuel went back into the airport. It was essentially a
dedicated fund because the state was not allowed to use the
revenue for anything other than airports. The off-road
account was designated for trails.
Representative LeBon asked about the highway fuel tax
increase. He wondered if the tax applied to both private
and commercial uses. Whereas, the off-road use tax had a
separate designation between commercial and private use. He
clarified that no matter whether a person was using the
highway for personal or business travel, they were
responsible for paying the additional tax. He asked about
the marine fuel tax and whether it only applied to personal
use. Commercial users could apply for a refund. He asked if
he was accurate. Mr. Peterson replied, "That's correct as
proposed by the House Transportation Committee Substitute.
The proposal did not come from the Senate."
Representative Sullivan-Leonard noted that when the bill
came through the previous year she had protested loudly.
She indicated that at least a third of the Mat-Su Valley
population of 110,000 traveled as commuters to Anchorage.
They would see a significant increase in gasoline charges
on a weekly basis. She could not support the bill because
of a large disparity between her district and other
districts. People living in Anchorage did not commute to
the Valley. Folks living in the Mat-Su were a large part of
Anchorage's workforce. She wondered if the bill sponsor had
considered the issue when developing the legislation.
Mr. Peterson responded that it had been discussed. He noted
that a member of the other body had spoken on the floor
about how everyone made choices about where they lived. The
Mat-Su Borough was an attractive place to live because of
the lower real estate and the availability of land. People
who lived there choose to work in Anchorage because there
were more jobs and the salaries were higher. He reiterated
that it was an attractive choice to live in the Valley.
Representative Josephson asked if the maintenance fund had
historically received help from the general fund. He
queried whether it was totally reliant on the tax. Mr.
Peterson deferred to a representative from DOR.
Representative Josephson restated his question.
9:29:38 AM
BRANDON SPANOS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via
teleconference), responded that the department did not
track the information only the revenue the state received
and deposited into the fund. He suggested directing the
question to DOT or the Department of Administration for the
specifics of the fund.
9:30:13 AM
ROB CARPENTER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via teleconference),
responded that the total budget for highways and aviation
was about $130 million. The highway fuel tax money for $35
million, a mere portion of the total maintenance cost
needed for the state's three regions.
Representative Josephson was concerned with the Senator's
report that five maintenance stations in his district had
been shuttered. He wondered if the closures were partly a
reflection of SB 115 and the overall lack of revenue. Mr.
Peterson thought Representative Josephson had provided a
fair assessment.
Representative Wool recalled the fuel tax raised $35
million. He thought if the tax was doubled, the estimated
revenue would be about $70 million. He was looking at the
calculation for the annual cost per vehicle of $57.00. He
would ask a related question later. He wondered if the
refund was proposed in the House Transportation Committee.
Mr. Peterson asked if the representative was asking about
the off-road use refund or the refund available to
commercial fishermen. Representative Wool was asking about
both. He wondered if the taxes existed prior to the
proposed SB 115.
Mr. Peterson responded that the off-road use refund
currently existed in statute. The refund for commercial
fishermen had never existed in statute. It was new from the
House Transportation Committee.
Representative Wool commented that commercial vehicles paid
into the fund. He asked the number on port maintenance. Mr.
Carpenter wondered if Representative Wool's question was
how much of the motor fuel tax was currently appropriated
towards ports and harbors.
Representative Wool responded partially. He also asked how
much was spent on ports and harbors. He had been told that
the marine tax generated about $5.6 million. He asked for
the total. Mr. Carpenter responded that as the FY 20 budget
was laid out there was approximately $3.6 million of the
motor fuel tax would go towards the marine highway system.
There was nothing from the motor fuel tax going towards
ports and harbor maintenance or the Port and Harbor Grant
Program.
Representative Wool asked if ports and harbors fell under
the responsibility of the state or municipalities. Mr.
Carpenter responded that state owned ports and harbors were
under the responsibility of DOT. He noted the municipal
harbor matching grant program where a local community would
put up 50 percent of the amount necessary for their harbor
and the state would match the amount. As part of the
matching grant program there was a general fund
appropriation for a project in Cordova in the capital
budget. The motor fuel tax could be used for the program
but was not being used currently.
Representative Wool asked whether a commercial fishing
vessel docked in a coastal community would be using a state
or municipal harbor. Mr. Carpenter responded that he did
not currently have a list of state-owned harbors in front
of him. He suggested that the City and Borough of Juneau
had its own harbors. Some harbors were state-owned.
9:35:44 AM
Representative Knopp asked if only commercial fishing
vessels would qualify for the refund or whether charter
boats would as well. Mr. Peterson replied that it only
applied to registered CFEC vessels. The amendment did not
include sport fishing charter boats or cruise ships.
Representative Knopp asked if the marine fuel tax was used
exclusively for ports and harbors. Mr. Peterson replied
that the intent would be for the additional funds generated
from the marine fuel tax to be used to upgrade the state
and municipalities ports and harbors. The state was 100
percent responsible for state ports and harbors. Municipal
ports and harbors would be funded through the Harbor
Matching Grant Program which was a 50 percent state match
with local municipalities.
Co-Chair Johnston reported Representative Carpenter had
joined the meeting.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there was a figure reflecting the
amount of deferred maintenance for highways. He wondered if
there was a way to determine if the amount had increased
over the years. Mr. Carpenter relayed that the department
had an accounting of its deferred maintenance for all its
assets statewide including highways. He believed the amount
had increased over the previous few years as deferred
maintenance money had declined in the budget similar to
other agencies.
Vice-Chair Ortiz wondered if Mr. Carpenter had a figure.
Mr. Carpenter responded that he could provide the
information. A hearing was supposed to be scheduled at
which time the department would provide great detail.
Co-Chair Johnston asked what road maintenance encompassed.
She was aware snow removal was a part of it. She wondered
if resurfacing for ruts was included. She asked what
defined maintenance was for the highway fund. Mr. Carpenter
replied that maintenance included items such as road
plowing, brush cutting, and road striping to ensure the
roads were in safe condition. He continued that any kind of
reconstruction or major construction would be paid for
through federal highway funds or a federally funded program
rather than state road maintenance funds. Rut repair would
be considered major reconstruction.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the funds were used to keep
Alaska's roads open through the winter. Mr. Carpenter
clarified if Co-Chair Johnston was referring to the motor
fuel tax. Co-Chair Johnston responded, "Yes." Mr. Carpenter
answered that the motor fuel tax was part of the funding
used to keep the roads open in the winter. The department
also had a considerable undesignated general fund (UGF)
component that went towards highway maintenance.
Co-Chair Johnston clarified that the motor fuel tax was one
of the funding sources besides general funds for keeping
all highways open. Mr. Carpenter responded in the
affirmative.
9:40:11 AM
Mr. Peterson reviewed a comparison of Alaska to other
states on slide 6. Currently, Alaska had the lowest marine
fuel tax in the nation. If the bill passed Alaska would
rank 41st rather than 50th. Alaska currently had a more
competitive ranking among other states for jet fuel
th
Alaska ranked 36th. Alaska Ranked 40 in Aviation fuel.
Mr. Peterson explained that slide 7 was a graphic depiction
of how Alaska compared to other states. The far left-hand
side of the bar graph showed where Alaska currently sat and
was the lowest. The numbers came from the American
Petroleum Institute. They published state motor fuel taxes
every year. The information was from January 1, 2020. The
blue line on the graph showed the base excise tax in each
state. The orange showed other state fees and local taxes.
He explained that many states had other state fees which
were charged at the pump for highway fuel including county
and municipal taxes and any other additional fees the state
placed on marine fuel.
Mr. Peterson continued that the federal government levied
an $.184 per gallon federal excise tax on all 50 states
which was not reflected in the slide. Alaska's base excise
tax shown in blue included $.95 per gallon for the refined
fuel surcharge. The other taxes for Alaska shown in orange
included a 1.1 percent weighted average for sales tax from
cities and boroughs. Under SB 115 Alaska would move 10
slots to the right and would rank 41st in the nation.
Representative Josephson was only looking at the base tax.
If the bill became law, Alaska would be ranked 49th or
50th. Mr. Peterson agreed. However, he used Vermont as an
example. Although it had a lower base tax, it had
substantial other state and local fees. He highlighted
Pennsylvania. It had the second highest ranking only behind
California. It had no base excise tax but had considerable
other state taxes and local fees. Ultimately, the taxes
paid by Pennsylvanians was quite high even though the state
had no excise tax. Every state did things differently which
could be seen in the graph.
Representative Wool commented that Anchorage recently
instated a motor fuel tax. He wondered if he would pay the
same motor fuel tax if he were to purchase marine fuel from
the Port of Anchorage. Mr. Peterson, was unsure but thought
it would only apply to highway fuel, not to marine fuel. If
a person purchased marine fuel at a port in Anchorage, they
would be paying $.05 per gallon towards tax.
Mr. Peterson concluded his presentation. He was available
to answer questions. He also had a sectional analysis, if
the committee wanted him to review it.
9:45:03 AM
Representative LeBon asked how the bill would address
permanent registration on vehicles. He asked how an
electric vehicle would be treated under the bill.
Mr. Peterson responded that there was currently a program
in statute called Permanent Registration and applied to all
vehicles in an unorganized borough. It also applied to
municipalities that had opted in. He further explained that
if a vehicle was 8 years old or older, a person could apply
for a permanent registration. The fee was $25 in addition
to the regular biannual registration fee. Upon registration
a Z-Tag was provided. A person would no longer have to pay
a biannual vehicle registration fee. The municipalities
that had opted into the program included Yakutat, the City
of Nenana, the Denali Borough, the Mat-Su Borough, the
Fairbanks North Star Borough, the City of Valdez, the City
of Hoonah, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The
Municipality of Anchorage elected to participate in the
Permanent Registration Program for non-commercial trailers
only, not passenger vehicles. The remainder of the state
did not have a permanent registration option.
Representative LeBon asked how electric vehicles were
treated regarding permanent registration. He wondered if an
owner of an electric vehicle 8 years old or older could
apply for a permanent registration and avoid future
biennial fees.
Mr. Peterson responded that he was correct. Electric
vehicles were treated the same as any other passenger
vehicle. If a person owned an electric vehicle and lived in
an unorganized borough or one of the municipalities he had
mentioned, a person could also qualify for a permanent
registration for an additional $25 as long as the vehicle
was 8 years old or older. He noted that the batteries on
electric vehicles had a life of about 8 years. He had
spoken to a representative from the Juneau Electric Vehicle
Association. He reported that half of the electric vehicles
in Alaska were in Juneau. He found out that when a vehicle
was 8 years old and the batteries needed replacing, most
people simply purchased a new vehicle because of
replacement costs.
Co-Chair Johnston indicated amendments were due by
5:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 21, 2020. She relayed the
agenda for the afternoon meeting and the list of invited
testifiers.
9:50:56 AM
AT EASE
9:51:37 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Johnston announced that bills previously heard or
scheduled would be on the agenda for the afternoon meeting.
CSSB 115(FIN)(efd fld) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
9:51:55 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 115 - FAQs 031320.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Explanation of Changes in HTRA CS 031320.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Sectional Analysis 3.13.20.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Sponsor Statement 3.13.20.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| Senate Bill 115 PowerPoint 3.20.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Leg. Research MFT revenue 1993-2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM SFIN 2/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Federation of Tax Administrators motor fuel tax rates January 2019.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM SFIN 2/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 LFD FundSources_Motor Fuel Tax_2018.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM SFIN 2/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Motor Fuel Tax by State Graph 2.12.2020.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM HTRA 3/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/12/2020 1:00:00 PM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Fall 2019 Revenue Sources Book Chapter 5.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM HTRA 3/12/2020 1:00:00 PM SFIN 2/3/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Letter of Support ASCE 3.13.20.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Support Letter_ASCE 031320.PDF |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 DOT&PF Ports & Harbors 032020.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |
| SB 115 Deferred maintenance Backlog 123119.pdf |
HFIN 3/20/2020 9:00:00 AM |
SB 115 |