Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/14/1996 01:42 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 14, 1996
1:11 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Gary Davis, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Jeanette James
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Bill Williams
Representative Don Long
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
creating a highway fund.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 49
SHORT TITLE: DEDICATED HIGHWAY FUND
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/16/95 2238 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/16/95 2239 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, FINANCE
02/01/96 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
02/01/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/02/96 2597 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) NT 3DP 2NR
02/02/96 2597 (H) DP: PORTER, GREEN, JAMES
02/02/96 2597 (H) NR: OGAN, IVAN
02/02/96 2598 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
02/02/96 2598 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
02/14/96 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SAM S. KITO III, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on CSHJR 49(STA) and
CSHJR 49(TRA)
DAVID W. HAUGEN, Vice-President
Lynden Transport, Incorporated
1029 West 3rd Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 279-7501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHJR 49(STA) and CSHJR 49(TRA)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-5, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Transportation Standing Committee was called to order by
Chairman Gary Davis at 1:11 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives G. Davis, Masek, James, Sanders, and
Long. A quorum was present.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS announced the agenda was CSHJR 49(STA).
HJR 49 DEDICATED HIGHWAY FUND
Number 066
REPRESENTATIVE JEANETTE JAMES, sponsor of CSHJR 49(STA), said it
was developed narrowly, utilizing state taxes on fuel used for the
propulsion of motor vehicles, allowing the legislature to
appropriate money from this fund only for the maintenance of roads
and highways. She referred to other bills, involving proposals for
highway maintenance funds, that failed due, in part, to the
complexity of those bills. Those bills utilized revenues from
state license and fees for the registration, operation and use of
motor vehicles, aircraft and water craft as well as from the use of
the state transportation facilities, including the state ferry
system. She added that these bills allowed the legislature to
appropriate money from the fund for maintenance and operation of a
state or local government transportation facility, for the
improvement and construction of harbor facilities, or the
administration and enforcement of motor vehicle laws. She said
historically when a bill moves through the legislative process, a
"Christmas Tree" approach happens, by this she meant the adding of
additional clauses to a simple bill. She said this approach was
what killed similar bills.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES described her involvement with CSHJR 49(STA).
She said she negotiated this issue last year and had filed another
bill which had a broader scope. She decided against the other bill
because she felt a narrow approach was needed in order for CSHJR
49(STA) to pass. She said she was willing to negotiate the issues,
but didn't want changes made so that control over the fund was
lost. She said, in discussions with the public, that they didn't
mind paying a higher road or use tax as long as that tax was used
only for highway maintenance.
Number 295
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that the current tax, 24 cents per
gallon, brings in $24 million a year with the current road
maintenance cost totaling $75 million per year. She said the
current tax would need to be tripled in order to pay for current
maintenance. She said, if you triple the tax a fund must be set up
to guarantee that the tax won't fund something else.
Number 352
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said this CSHJR 49(STA) was an important
constitutional amendment which would be put on the ballot. She
said everyone she talked to was in favor of CSHJR 49(STA). She
said she did not approve of dedicated funds, but this is an
appropriate fund, and added that many other states have a dedicated
fund for this purpose. She advocated giving the legislature the
ability to appropriate funds, and said there was no sense of going
to meet on budget issues when everything had already been decided.
She said she would be willing to answer any questions on CSHJR
49(STA).
Number 392
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said that it has been his experience that the
public complains most about permanent fund dividend accounts, and
the second grievance was usually about the maintenance of roads, in
regards to the condition and plowing of the roads. He asked for
clarification on a specific point and was told that section was
deleted from the current version of CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 450
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she deleted that section because the
focus of the CSHJR 49(STA) was getting too broad. She added that
license fees pay, into the general fund, about three times what it
costs to maintain that service.
Representative Bill Williams joined the committee meeting at 1:16
p.m.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS mentioned a proposed CSHJR 49(TRA), but said he
wanted to keep the discussion focused on CSHJR 49(STA) and to
decide later in the meeting which version the committee would chose
as its working document. He reiterated that the amount the fuel
tax earns is less than the maintenance cost of $75 million, which
does not include the cost of capital projects.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG said, in Barrow, roads are owned and
maintained locally. He questioned a tax which would be imposed in
his district, but wouldn't receive the benefits of it.
Number 632
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that because no highway use tax is paid
in Barrow, then CSHJR 49(STA) does not affect Barrow. She said the
only roads, that this tax applies towards, are maintained by the
highway road system. She said other vehicles that are off the
state roads, have an exemption and do not pay this tax. She cited
the example of logging trucks in the timber areas who are not
subject to this tax.
Number 701
REPRESENTATIVE LONG asked if this intent was going to be identified
in CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 717
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she believed this intent was automatic,
because of the definition of highway use. She said fuels can
sometimes be purchased for vehicles that don't use state highways
and roadways, but that a claim can be filed to get the tax back.
She believed that, if you do not have any state owned roads, you
would not be affected by this tax.
Number 782
REPRESENTATIVE LONG clarified that a tax was being currently
collected, and CSHJR 49(STA) would merely place that tax in a
special fund.
Number 808
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said CSHJR 49(STA) allows the legislature to
make changes to the collection and allocation of those funds.
Number 834
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS asked how CSHJR 49(STA) would affect
the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Number 847
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said CSHJR 49(STA) does not affect the Alaska
Marine Highway System because it doesn't collect any marine fuel
tax. She said the proposed CSHJR 49(TRA) involves the Alaska
Marine Highway System as well as aircraft, but deferred comment on
CSHJR 49(TRA) to its sponsor, Chairman Gary Davis.
Number 834
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS pointed out that the Alaska Marine Highway
System is a highway system that has trouble getting funds to
maintain its operations.
Number 937
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked whether Barrow or the Alaska
Marine Highway System pays this highway user fee.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS deferred that question to Mr. Kito.
Number 971
SAM S. KITO III, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF), was
next to testify. He said the current tax collected is 8 cents per
gallon which generates about $24 million. He said CSHJR 49(STA) is
approximately a "$2.6 million per penny increase". The taxes are
collected at the pump per gallon of gas, so if Barrow is selling
gas to automobile users through a gas pump, they are probably
paying the 8 cents per gallon. If the gas is being used off road,
they can apply for a refund also called an exemption, for off-road
use which is currently 6 cents per gallon.
Number 1036
MR. KITO said the Alaska Marine Highway System does not pay a tax.
He said if we were to fund the Alaska Marine Highway System, it
would most likely be funded out of taxes collected through highway
use because of the definition of the marine highway system. He
said this definition specifies that the Alaska Marine Highway
System is part of the state highway system.
Number 1060
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked for additional clarification on the
Alaska Marine Highway System being linked to the highway system.
Number 1067
MR. KITO said, currently, if CSHJR 49(STA) provided for funding for
the Alaska Marine Highway System, the funding would be taken out of
the highway fuel tax. The reason for this is that the highway fuel
tax is related to the mode of highways and under the statutory
definition the Alaska Marine Highway System is included under this
definition.
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if some of the $75 million, currently
paid on highway maintenance, is being used for the maintenance of
the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Number 1115
MR. KITO said no, it is not. The Alaska Marine Highway System
maintenance is paid out of a separate appropriation. He said to
permit funding of the Alaska Marine Highway System through some
type of dedicated fund, the funding would probably come through
taxes related to highway motor fuel.
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the sponsors intent was to take the
highway use tax, or the tax that is actually causing the need for
maintenance, to be related to the maintenance. She said if the
fund, proposed under CSHJR 49(STA) allowed the maintenance of the
Alaska Marine Highway System, then it is a discrepancy. She added
that she had no problem including the Alaska Marine Highway System
if there is a tax that is appropriate to the use of that system to
pay for the maintenance costs. She felt that the highway tax was
the most fair tax, because it had a direct correlation between the
user and the use of the highway.
Number 1204
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said he believed any version of CSHJR 49(STA)
allowed the legislature to dedicate a tax. He said, if you want to
dedicate a tax, it could be done later through statute. He added
that CSHJR 49(STA) could specifically exempt the Alaska Marine
Highway System from this process.
Number 1264
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said CSHJR 49(STA) specifies that the revenue
from June 30, 1997, derived from state taxes on the fuel used for
the propulsion of motor vehicles designed for and used on highways
and roads, less refunds, credits, and the cost of collection of
that tax, shall be placed in a highway fund. "Except as provided
in (d) of this section, the legislature may appropriate money from
the fund only for the maintenance of roads and highways by the
state or a local government." She said her intent was that it
would not include the Alaska Marine Highway System. She said she
would like to exclude the Alaska Marine Highway System, unless
there is some provision of tax that comes from the use of the
ferries that are paid into this dedicated fund. She didn't believe
that, currently, there was any such tax.
Number 1333
MR. KITO said the way CSHJR 49(STA) is currently drafted, the fund
could only be used on a surface highway or road. He said if it was
worded, "highway system," then it would include the Alaska Marine
Highway System.
Number 1354
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said the Alaska Marine Highway System has
a maintenance program of approximately $4 million per year to
maintain Coast Guard safety regulations. He said the $4 million is
appropriated yearly by the legislature and he expressed the
difficulty involved with keeping the ferries maintained each year.
Number 1428
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said if you look at any dedicated road or
highway tax, the purpose is to replenish and refurbish any damage
that is being done by driving that vehicle on that road. He said
that CSHJR 49(STA) could specifically mention this point or it
could be left in broad language to be later interpreted through
statute.
Number 1471
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that the Alaska Marine Highway
System is paid for by the state and that the system pays no tax.
She said this is why there is a general fund appropriation, because
the Alaska Marine Highway System has no way of creating any
revenues from its action, as compared to the direct correlation of
a cars debilitation of a highway. She expressed interest on
working on the issue of funding for the Alaska Marine Highway
System, but that CSHJR 49(STA) was not intended to solve that
issue. She said if you were to include funding for the Alaska
Marine Highway System, you would have a problem getting public
approval for CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 1555
MR. KITO said for conceptual purposes, the DOT/PF would look at the
Alaska Marine Highway System as a bridge that links one point to
another and, in that way, it is part of the highway system.
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked if Chairman Gary Davis intended to
move CSHJR 49(STA) today.
Number 1580
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said he had that intention, but the issues
raised needed to be addressed before CSHJR 49(STA) was moved.
Number 1608
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS made a point regarding the fact that those
people in Southeast Alaska are the only ones who have to pay to use
a highway system. He said he would like to talk with the sponsor
of CSHJR 49(STA) and with the Administration to see if there is a
way around this issue.
Number 1643
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the Administration looked favorably on a
bill such as CSHJR 49(STA). She asked if the Administration was
also looking at a dedicated fund to be used for the maintenance of
the Alaska Marine Highway System.
Number 1665
MR. KITO said the Administration had looked at some concepts to
fund the Alaska Marine Highway System through a dedicated fund, but
the conclusion reached was that there was a lot of need without a
lot of revenue. He said they were never able to come up with what
revenue stream might work in terms of the amount needed.
Number 1691
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the full intent and purpose of the tax
that people pay to drive on the roads, through the fuel pump, is
maintenance of the roads. The full intent and purpose of CSHJR
49(STA) is to allocate those taxes, paid to drive on the road, to
fix the roads. She added that when you expand CSHJR 49(STA) into
the Alaska Marine Highway System, the intent changes. She said she
would be willing to look at some other source to provide that
funding. She again referred to public opinion and the need to have
CSHJR 49(STA) directly correlate between taxes and use.
Number 1758
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS reiterated the point that CSHJR 49(STA) needed
to be "sellable" to the voters. He added that CSHJR 49(STA) was
already being complicated through committee suggestions as well as
CSHJR 49 (TRA). He said he wished to discuss CSHJR 49(TRA).
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Barrow, currently, paid the fuel
tax.
Number 1812
MR. KITO said that if a place has a road system, and they are
selling gasoline through a pump for automobiles on their road
system, then they are paying a motor fuel tax. He said if you are
off a road or highway, not specifically a state road or highway,
then you don't need to pay that tax. He cited examples where this
was the case, including four wheelers and generators, and said a
fuel tax exemption could be filed on the gas bought for those
purposes.
MR. KITO said, that places where roads were owned and maintained by
the municipality still pay the 8 cent tax on the gas bought, even
though none of the revenue would be coming back from the state to
maintain those roads.
Number 1885
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS clarified that the municipalities could pay
a tax and not have that tax go back and support that municipal
road.
Number 1891
MR. KITO said that was correct, except for the component which is
tied to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)
revenue sharing for roads. He said it is not a direct tie. He
said the community receives a stipend for each center line mile of
road that it owns.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the Fairbanks North Star Borough road
service areas receive money from the DCRA. She added that she was
not aware that Barrow was paying a fuel tax from which they did not
receive any money.
Number 1930
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said it would be difficult to estimate the
amount of time people spend driving on state roads as compared to
municipal roads.
Number 1955
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said if this constitutional amendment, CSHJR
49(STA), were to go through and it appeared that money raised from
the tax could be channeled back to the locality. She said those
localities would be better off under CSHJR 49 (STA), then they are
currently.
Number 1977
MR. KITO said they could be better off under CSHJR 49(STA), if
enough money was collected and deposited into the fund. Currently
the money collected from the fuel tax does not meet state
maintenance needs. If more money were collected, under CSHJR
49(STA), that money could be used to fund DCRA revenue sharing for
local roads.
Number 2001
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS then discussed the proposed CSHJR 49(TRA). He
said the proposed CSHJR 49(TRA) changes the fund to a
transportation fund, instead of limiting it solely to a highway
fund. Taxes are collected from motor vehicles, marine or water
craft tax, and aircraft tax and put into a dedicated transportation
fund. CSHJR 49(TRA) also allows the legislature to appropriate
money from that fund for maintenance and operation of state and
local government transportation systems. He said CSHJR 49(TRA) is
a broader resolution allowing the legislature to dedicate funds for
ports and harbors, airports as well as highway systems, including
the Alaska Marine Highway System. He said CSHJR 49(TRA) addresses
the long term issue of the possibility of receiving more revenues
which under CSHJR 49(TRA) could then be dedicated to other
purposes.
Number 2162
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated the intent of CSHJR 49(STA) was to
directly correlate the use of the tax with the user. She thought
the idea of marine taxes going to marine use and aircraft taxes
going to airports was a good thing, but expressed concern that the
public might perceive the taxes they pay in the highway tax, might
go to fix docks rather than the highways. She understood that
legislation can specify how money is allocated, but without the
specific wording, it is left open to public speculation on what
might happen. She again cited the "Christmas tree" example and her
intent of CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 2247
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS clarified that if more tax was collected than
spent on maintenance costs, then the fuel tax would be cut. He
then asked if both the CSHJR 49(STA) and the proposed CSHJR 49(TRA)
could be on the table for testimony.
Number 2279
MR. KITO said the DOT/PF would like to see harbors, not so much
aviation, in a dedicated fund. He said if the state has a
dedicated revenue stream for the harbors program, the state would
then be able to transfer harbors back to the communities. He said
in the past five years, the revenue collected through the marine
motor fuel tax has been in the neighborhood of $7 million, of which
37 percent has gone to harbor facilities with the rest going into
the general fund. In a marine dedicated fund, the Administration
would like a move away from maintenance and operations towards the
construction and operation of facilities. He said the mooring fees
collected by the communities pays for the harbors, but that the
dedicated fund could be used for a replacement fund for their
harbor systems.
Number 2347
MR. KITO said separating the taxes collected into a dedicated fund
makes it easier to sell to the public. He said the DOT/PF would
support the construction of highways from this fund, if at some
point revenues collected are more than the cost of the yearly
maintenance.
Number 2378
MR. KITO said, in regards to aviation, current revenue collected
through taxes is not enough to cover half of aviation operation and
maintenance costs.
Number 2391
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if it takes a third of the $7 million
collected for marine fuel taxes to maintain the facilities.
MR. KITO said from a historical perspective, 37 percent has been
spent on harbors over the past five years.
Number 2400
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there was a need to spend more than
that amount on harbors.
Number 2404
MR. KITO said yes, according to the DOT/PF there is a need to spend
more for harbor repair and replacement. He said DOT/PF is
currently in the process of transferring harbors to communities,
but the revenue does not exist to do this. He cited the DOT/PF
expenditure of $100,000 for the South Cove harbor facility to
transfer it over to the city of Craig. The Administration hoped
that through a dedicated revenue stream, more of this could happen
with the 90 harbors Alaska currently owns, with the exception of 22
facilities not under the jurisdiction of specific communities.
Number 2448
DAVID W. HAUGEN, Vice-President, Lynden Transport, Incorporated,
was next to testify. He said his company was in general support of
CSHJR 49(STA). He said Lynden has operations in all modes within
the state of Alaska including the air cargo business, the trucking,
as well as in marine operations. He said the dedicated fund, as
specified by Representative James, makes sense and his company
would support it.
TAPE 96-5, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. HAUGEN said his company is not sure what the amount of tax
would be, but that his company would be willing to pay their fair
share of that tax, as long as they were reassured that the money
would go directly to the dedicated fund. He said this is how the
trucking aspect of his company perceives CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 030
MR. HAUGEN said his company would defer any comments about the
proposed CSHJR 49(TRA) as they had just received a copy of it. He
said he would like to see more clarification regarding the
different components of the transportation committee substitute,
specifically how the Alaska Marine Highway System would fit in with
CSHJR 49(TRA). He also questioned how a dedicated fund would work
as far as aviation was concerned. He said the air cargo portion of
Lynden operates out of Anchorage International Airport which is
already a dedicated fund between the Anchorage and Fairbanks
airports.
Number 069
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS clarified that the trucking part of Lynden
Transport, Incorporated would not object to a motor fuels tax if it
was dedicated to benefiting the highways. He then asked if his
company would conceptually accept a higher marine fuel tax if it
was dedicated to improve port facilities around the state.
Number 096
MR. HAUGEN said that was "true at this time" because of lack of
information regarding this issue. He added that this would also be
true under the air component of Lynden Transportation. He said
CSHJR 49(TRA) appears to be a more complicated version, especially
in regards to going between modes. He said his company would
insist that the modes be kept separate, so that money derived from
marine fuel taxes go to marine projects, as the same with airports
and surface transportation. He felt this could be accomplished
within the language of the legislation. He said if it could be
done and it was a fair treatment, his company would not object to
paying a higher tax. However, his company would object if they
felt they were paying for something that they did not utilize or
money is used in ways that they have no control over to fund
something that is well beyond the scope of something Lynden
Transport, Incorporated does as part of their business.
Number 154
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said in the committee packet, a 1988 study was
included, which discussed the transportation system in the state of
Alaska.
Number 183
MR. KITO said the current amount collected through aviation
gasoline and jet fuel was approximately $9.5 million.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said there is a question of how to incorporate
language between the sponsor and Representative Williams. He said
there was also the question of which committee substitute the House
Standing Committee on Transportation wants to adopt. He said he
would amend the transportation committee substitute to separate the
taxes by modes.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES repeated the figures of collecting $24
million, spending $75 million and said that the amount being spent
on operation and maintenance of the highways was insufficient. She
clarified that most of the motor fuel tax collected is going back
to the localities. She concluded that a lot of taxes were being
collected, but not enough was going back for the actual
maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES added that only 37 percent of the marine fuel
tax is going towards maintenance, which is a different situation
than that of the highway and road system. She then asked Mr. Kito
what percentage of aviation tax was spent on maintenance.
Number 293
MR. KITO said the amount spent on aviation operation and
maintenance was approximately $23 million.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the aviation system and the highway
system are similar, but that the marine system is different. She
said if you separate the modes, and only 37 percent is going to be
spent on the marine facilities, the public will object to that high
tax. She said when you try to make a fair assessment of how these
taxes ought to be collected and used, we find that the state is
completely out of balance. She said it is going to be a hard sell
to the people, who want more money spent on the roads, to tell them
the amount they spend is not even starting to pay for the services
currently provided. She said people are willing to pay more, if it
is going to be spent on the roads. She said she preferred her
narrow version of CSHJR 49(STA), but she would be willing to see if
any language could be inserted, separating the modes for collection
and dispersement.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated that the Alaska Marine Highway System
was a different type of situation then the situation proposed under
CSHJR 49(STA). She said allocation of funds for maintenance of the
Alaska Marine Highway System will need to be done under the general
fund, fares, or some other provision. She said she would want to
specifically exclude the Alaska Marine Highway System so that the
language in CSHJR 49(STA) translates into surface roads and
highways.
Number 404
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS clarified that the state collects $7 million in
marine fuel taxes annually and we spend 35 percent on operation and
maintenance.
Number 421
MR. KITO said of the marine fuel tax revenue collected for capital
projects, over the past five years, the state has spent an
estimated 37 percent. He added that revenue generated thorough
moorage fees at the harbors, are used at those harbors for very
basic maintenance and operations costs. The Administration
believes that the harbors would still continue to take care of
their operations and some minor maintenance. The issue is making
a provision for long term or replacement of harbor facilities. He
said none of the $7 million goes to the communities. He said if
money was put into a dedicated fund, that revenue would go to
assisting the state in transferring facilities to communities.
Eventually, at some point, the state would share the revenue
collected in taxes with communities that own their harbors.
Number 473
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said the state contracts most of the operation
and maintenance of the harbors and port facilities. He then asked
if the state had any control over moorage or slip fees.
Number 482
MR. KITO said no. He said, typically, the communities will charge
fees in correlation with the operational cost of their facility,
but defer to the state for long term maintenance and replacements
costs which the state has not been able to do over the past few
years.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the CSHJR 49(STA) as
the working document.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS objected for purposes of discussion.
Number 534
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he felt that CSHJR 49(STA) should go
through, and that CSHJR 49(TRA) should be submitted as a separate
bill.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said that the CSHJR 49(TRA) would be amended to
take out the aviation component because the highway fuel tax will
lack additional revenue.
Number 584
REPRESENTATIVE LONG clarified that both the CSHJR 49(STA) and the
CSHJR 49(TRA) want to create either a transportation or a highway
fund. He said the voters would adopt this resolution, and that it
would end up giving the legislature the ability to do what they
want with the fund. He therefore proposed an "amendment to both
copies which is going to be the same, it's taking out all of the
section on page two, section 2 through 11, and move on line one,
`as provided by law' behind transportation fund." He clarified
that he was referring to the CSHJR 49(TRA). His ability to put
forth this amendment was discussed and Representative Long
reiterated his point about giving the legislature such an
authority.
Number 680
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said a number of things need to be addressed
and the proper place to start is with the CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 700
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS asked if the wording, "highway fund", can still
address the marine system.
Number 725
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the CSHJR 49(STA) can be amended in any
way necessary.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS asked if there was any interest in the proposed
CSHJR 49(TRA), seeing none, CSHJR 49(STA) was the working document
before the House Standing Committee on Transportation.
Number 785
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said combining three modes into one bill
creates three different scenarios. The highway use tax collected
is a lot less than what the state is spending. The marine tax that
is collected is a lot more than we are spending and an aircraft
fuel tax is another place where we collect a lot less then we
spend. To combine those three aspects into one bill will be
difficult, but she said she was willing to do it if it is possible.
Number 830
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said the aviation mode should be eliminated
from the proposed changes to CSHJR 49(STA).
Number 847
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the aviation fuel tax is not
representative to the amount that is being spent, and she added
that she didn't feel the users were willing to increase their taxes
a sufficient amount to do so at this point in time. She said "it
is not fair to talk about marine taxes or another bill, but you
know, Representative Moses had another bill on marine taxes that
would have increased the marine tax and shared half of the marine
tax with the locality so that they would have the money to spend on
docks and facilities." She said that bill was a good solution to
take care of local harbors and docks. She suggested that maybe
there was something that could be done, outside of a constitutional
amendment, to correct the marine problem.
Number 907
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS said the problem with Representative Moses bill
was that it increased the tax without the assurance that half of
the money would go to the localities because of the dedicated fund
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the assumption was that the localities
would fix those things.
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS asked if Representative James wanted CSHJR
49(STA) to specify that a share would go to local municipalities.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes, when it was fair, and when the
municipality had road powers.
Number 933
CHAIRMAN GARY DAVIS established a working group composed of
Representatives Williams, James and G. Davis to go over the draft
and come up with changes.
ADJOURNMENT
As there was no further business to come before the House
Transportation Standing Committee, Chairman Gary Davis adjourned
the meeting at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|