03/15/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB64 | |
| HB10 | |
| HB131 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2011
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson, Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Max Gruenberg
Representative Pete Petersen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 64
"An Act relating to permanent motor vehicle registration; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 64(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 10
"An Act relating to the registration fee for noncommercial
trailers and to the motor vehicle tax for trailers."
- MOVED CSHB 10(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 131
"An Act establishing the Alaska Community and Public
Transportation Advisory Board and relating to a long-range
community and public transportation plan; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 64
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE, KELLER
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) STA, FIN
02/10/11 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/10/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/10/11 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/11/11 (H) STA RPT 2DP 2NR 3AM
02/11/11 (H) DP: KELLER, LYNN
02/11/11 (H) NR: JOHANSEN, GRUENBERG
02/11/11 (H) AM: P.WILSON, SEATON, PETERSEN
02/11/11 (H) TRA REFERRAL ADDED AFTER STA
02/24/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/11 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to Subcommittee
02/24/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/11/11 (H) TRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/11/11 (H) -- Public Testimony --
03/15/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 10
SHORT TITLE: NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STOLTZE, KELLER
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) TRA, FIN
02/10/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/10/11 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
02/24/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/24/11 (H) Heard & Held; Assigned to Subcommittee
02/24/11 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/11/11 (H) TRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/11/11 (H) -- Public Testimony --
03/15/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 131
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY AND TRANSPORTATION ADV. BOARD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MUNOZ
01/28/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/11 (H) TRA, FIN
03/15/11 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID BREMER, Staff
Representative Pete Petersen
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the subcommittee comments on HB
10 and HB 64.
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of one of the
prime sponsors of HB 64.
RICK GIFFORD, Manager
Kodiak Island Borough (KIB)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 64.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 64.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 64.
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of one of the
prime sponsor of HB 10.
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff
Representative Cathy Munoz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 131.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 131.
ERIC TAYLOR
Statewide Plan & Transit
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 131.
DAVID LEVY, Executive Director
Alaska Mobility Coalition (AMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 131.
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 131.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League (AML)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 131.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:04 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives P.
Wilson, Munoz, Feige, Pruitt, and Petersen were present at the
call to order. Representatives Johnson and Gruenberg arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 64-PERMANENT MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION
[Contains brief discussion of HB 10, a related bill that affects
noncommercial trailer registration fees.]
1:07:51 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 64, "An Act relating to permanent motor
vehicle registration; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR P. WILSON asked Representative Petersen to report on the
work the subcommittee did on the motor vehicle and trailer
registration fee bills.
1:08:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to the subcommittee work on HB
10 and HB 64 and indicated the subcommittee met and have made
suggestions to the committee for consideration. He asked his
staff to provide details.
DAVID BREMER, Staff, Representative Pete Petersen, Alaska State
Legislature, explained the changes the subcommittee recommended,
which he said are incorporated into a proposed committee
substitute for the committee's consideration. He stated that
the subcommittee suggested removing the language in proposed
subsection (b) that referred to the lesser of five times the
rate or $100, and replaced it with "three times the rate" which
would apply to the registration fee rate and the Motor Vehicle
Registration Tax (MVRT) collection. The subcommittee suggested
adding a new section, proposed section 4, which would allow a
municipality to establish a permanent MVRT. A municipality
could charge more or less than the three times set in subsection
(b) of the bill.
MR. BREMER reported the subcommittee considered issues with
respect to collections budgeting discussed at prior committee
hearings for both the vehicle registration and noncommercial
trailer registration. He stated that the state revenues would
increase for two years, but revenues would drop off for each
year thereafter. Currently, emissions tests (I/M) are required
in Anchorage. Owners would still be required to obtain
emissions test and present the results to the DMV at the time of
renewal. Older vehicles are most likely to fail I/M testing,
and someone who has permanent registration may move into an I/M
area and there is no way to verify the vehicle can comply with
the IM requirements. Owners in I/M areas would still be
required to obtain I/M testing.
1:13:30 PM
MR. BREMER related that HB 64 is based on Montana's law, which
allows for permanent motor vehicle registration based on a fee
of five times the vehicle registration rate for vehicles that
are 11 years old. The subcommittee suggests inserting language
eight years old and three times the rate. Once a vehicle
reaches 14 years, a municipality would begin to lose revenue.
The benchmark arrived at is a combination of the vehicle age and
a multiplier of the registration rate. He said that 34 years is
the point at which the bill becomes revenue neutral. Montana
permanent registration also applies to light vehicles only, or
vehicles of one ton or less whereas the proposed HB 64 would
apply to all vehicles. Montana provides the county treasurer
the authority to collect the motor vehicle tax. In Alaska, the
tax is an MVRT, which is not collected by municipalities.
However, the bill allows a municipality to establish a permanent
MVRT. in the original HB 64, motorcycle fees were set higher
than the MVRT. The subcommittee removed the lesser of five
times the rate or $100, which addresses the motorcycle fee
issue, he said.
MR. BREMER recalled the issue of safety, noting that people may
wish to drive their motor vehicle longer, which could lead to an
increase in the number of unsafe cars on the roadway. Permanent
registration is not transferable, but is not enforceable unless
a driver is pulled over by law enforcement. Some members
expressed concern over liability issues if a vehicle with
permanent registration is sold and not reregistered. This
issued is not easily detected unless the person is involved in a
vehicular accident.
1:16:10 PM
MR. BREMER related a concern with respect to DMV funding, which
is receipt based funding. If the DMV revenues decreased to a
level below the necessary funding level, the legislature would
need to enact a new funding mechanism for the DMV's day-to-day
operations.
MR. BREMER highlighted the current Municipality of Anchorage
(MOA) tax cap limits the amount of taxes the MOA can collect.
This bill would increase MVRT revenues in the first two years
significantly with a corresponding property tax decrease. In
year three and thereafter, MVRT revenues would significantly
decrease, which could adversely affect MOA property tax rates.
The MOA's tax cap is calculated annually based on all tax
revenues collected, including property tax, liquor taxes,
tobacco taxes. As MVRT tax income decreases property taxes
would increase.
MR. BREMER related that the subcommittee discussed potential
amendments to HB 64. The first amendment was proposed and
withdrawn for further discussion by the full committee. The
subcommittee considered on page 1, line 12 of HB 64 to replace
"eight" with "fourteen" to push back the eligibility date of
vehicles to lessen potential revenue loss. He reiterated that
the amendment was proposed, discussed, and withdrawn.
MR. BREMER stated the subcommittee considered on page 2, lines
5-6 of HB 64, to replace "three" with "six" times the permanent
registration fees to increase permanent registration cost and
reduce revenue loss. This amendment was considered and
withdrawn. Finally, the subcommittee considered on page 2, line
29 of HB 64 to replace 2012 with 2014 to allow municipalities to
set a permanent MVRT. The municipality must file a notice of
change by January 1 of the preceding year in which the tax
change would take effect. A municipality may not change the
amount of the tax imposed more than once every two years. Some
municipalities set their MVRT last year and would need the
effective date adjusted to enact a permanent motor vehicle
registration tax without incurring a drastic loss of revenue.
1:20:40 PM
MR. BREMER recapped the subcommittee's work on HB 10.
Currently, owners can register their commercial trailers by
paying a one-time fee for permanent registration. This bill, HB
10, would offer the same consideration for owners to register
noncommercial trailers. Some of the same issues were raised,
but the revenue issues were minimal. The sponsor suggested
incorporating language from Section 4, of 64 into HB 10, in
order to allow municipalities a mechanism to collect any
permanent MVRT for trailers. This provision is necessary in the
event that HB 10 passes prior to passage of HB 64.
1:21:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 27-LS0327\I, Luckhaupt, 3/14/11, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version I was
before the committee.
1:22:23 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of one of the prime sponsors of HB 64,
Representative Bill Stoltze, stated that the sponsor reviewed
and the agrees with the changes incorporated into the proposed
CS, Version I. He also discussed the effective date change with
the sponsor, who agrees since it would allow the municipalities
to make an adjustment to the MVRT. Additionally, the sponsor
agreed to add the language from proposed Section 4 of HB 64 to
HB 10, which would allow the permanent registration rate to be
set for noncommercial trailer ownership.
1:23:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the issue for the MOA. She
asked if the municipality takes advantage of increased revenues
and budgets the revenues over ten years whether the MOA would
run into the problem of revenue shortfalls after year two of the
permanent registration for motor vehicles.
MR. BREESE answered no. He discussed this with the MOA mayor's
office, who advised him that so long as the MVRT is collected in
2010 but accounted for 2011-13, that the MOA would not have
issues with major adjustment to the tax cap or tax revenue
collected. The MOA could assign the MVRT revenue to a different
year, such as 2011-2013, the revenue would affect the tax cap in
the subsequent years.
1:24:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recapped the amendments the subcommittee
discussed. The subcommittee did not have consensus on two
amendments. She clarified that the subcommittee brought up the
first amendment for discussion to push back the eligibility date
to a higher level but did not reach any consensus.
1:25:24 PM
MR. BREESE, in response to Chair P. Wilson, explained that if a
municipality decides to set an MVRT rate, the rate it sets would
cover the municipal tax imposed for the life of the vehicle. In
further response to Chair P. Wilson, he described the
registration fees. Currently, Alaska statutes allow a motor
vehicle registration tax (MVRT) rate to be collected on the age
of the motor vehicle. As per the table set in existing statute,
once a vehicle is eight years old, the rate is flat. Thus,
additional MVRT is not imposed on motor vehicles eight years or
older. A municipality can also elect to impose an additional
MVRT, by ordinance. He recalled that currently, 16
municipalities have done so. He related a scenario in which a
municipality would charge $50 or $100, instead of charging a fee
of $25 set in current statute. The municipality can set the
rate based on the vehicle age and at a rate that a municipality
determines provides adequate revenue for the municipality.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether a municipality could add
additional fees in year nine or 10.
MR. BREESE answered that after year eight, the MVRT rate would
be flat, but the provision would allow a municipality to set a
fee for motor vehicle owners who elect to have permanent
registration. Thus, a municipality could impose an extra fee
and decide the amount of the fee required to register the
vehicle permanently to keep the municipal revenue neutral.
Additionally, the municipality could decide to accept the "three
times" fee as currently written. The proposed Section 4 of the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 64 would allow a municipality
to set a certain tax for permanent motor vehicle registration.
It is possible an owner could decide to wait until his/her
vehicle is 12 years old before permanent registration is
selected. At the point an owner selects permanent registration,
any municipal fees would apply, if the municipality has passed
an ordinance imposing additional one-time registration fees on
motor vehicles, he said. In further response to Chair P.
Wilson, Mr. Breese he reiterated the process municipalities
would use to collect either three times the MVRT or another
amount set by municipal ordinance for any amount it elects to
adopt.
1:29:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that the MOA's Treasurer,
Cheryl Frasca, said the collection of the MVRT is based on
collection rather than on budgeting. He related his
understanding that the MOA is not set up to collect taxes in one
year and budget it over other years.
1:30:15 PM
RICK GIFFORD, Manager, Kodiak Island Borough (KIB), stated that
the KIB still has concerns with HB 64. He said it was unclear
in HB 64 exactly how the MVRT will be administered and
collected. He related his understanding that municipalities use
the MVRT funds for abandoned vehicles, noting that the older
vehicles cause problems in Kodiak. He recalled that the DMV had
a similar fund and reducing the overall MVRT collected would
impact the DMV's ability to assist municipalities. He expressed
his concern over HB 64.
1:32:45 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), stated the CS drastically
reduces the fiscal note from the DMV. She advised the FN was
submitted just prior to this hearing. She highlighted that
removing certain language from the bill solidifies the fees
collected by the DMV.
CHAIR P. WILSON related that she has not yet received the fiscal
note and asked for clarification.
MS. BREWSTER understood. The Governor's office prepared a draft
fiscal note since the CS had not yet been adopted. In the first
year, FY 2012 the change in revenue would increase to
$3,550,000, and revenue would increase in FY 2013 to $4,120,000.
In FY 2014, the DMV anticipates a revenue reduction of $1.2
million, in FY 2015 the DMV anticipates a revenue reduction of
$1,500,000, in FY 2016 the DMV estimates a revenue reduction of
$1,500,000, and in FY 2017 the DMV estimates a $1,800,000
revenue reduction. She stated that the CS dramatically changes
the fiscal note. In response to Chair P. Wilson, she responded
that the DMV's proposed budget is approximately $16 million.
She stressed that with the adoption of the proposed CS, the DMV
does not see an impact on the DMV's budget. In further response
to Chair P. Wilson, she indicated that the proposed changes will
reduce the overall revenue collected, but in FY 10 the DMV
collected approximately $65.8 million in revenue, which is still
substantially more than necessary to run DMV.
CHAIR P. WILSON related the revenue collected would be less
revenue collected for the general fund each year.
MS. BREWSTER agreed.
1:36:16 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), stated that she spoke to a number of municipalities prior
to the meeting. Many of them indicated that the MVRT funds help
with junk car removal. If this bill passes, the municipalities
will need to determine how much tax to require. She said the
municipalities would estimate the proposed MVRT, since it is not
possible to determine how many years an older vehicle may
operate. Thus, some municipalities will have shortfalls or
excesses, accordingly. Additionally, municipalities would still
need to adopt the tax change by ordinance and may result in some
"pushback" from residents. She is most familiar with the City
and Borough of Juneau, which collects $22 per registered motor
vehicle, or basically $11 per year. If an automobile will be on
the road for an indeterminate amount of time, the municipalities
express concern. The system seemed to work fine. She concluded
that the municipalities are at a loss in terms of assessing the
overall impact, which would likely increase personnel. She
said, "The municipalities are not comfortable with this bill."
1:38:46 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 64.
1:38:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested considering the age of vehicle
for eligibility for one-time registration. The current CS uses
eight years, the Montana model uses 11 years. He wondered if
the bill was moved to 11 years it may allow municipalities to be
revenue neutral until motor vehicles are 17 years old. The
number of motor vehicle on the roadway greater than 17 years old
diminishes rather quickly, he said. Thus, it would likely have
a little less effect on municipalities strapped for funding, he
said.
1:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to HB 64. He referred to page 1, line 12 of HB 64,
to change the applicable vehicle age from "eight" to 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related the committee spent considerable
time discussing how to best accommodate the municipalities, but
little time to discuss the convenience or cost savings to
consumers. The point of this bill has somewhat been missed,
which is to save money, time and convenience for consumers. He
said it might be inconvenient for municipalities. He pointed
out that any money municipalities lose is money that is saved by
consumers. He maintained his objection.
1:43:10 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Munoz, Gruenberg,
and Petersen voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1.
Representatives Johnson, Feige, Pruitt, and P. Wilson voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 failed by a vote
of 3-4.
1:43:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 64, labeled 27-LS0327\I, Luckhaupt,
3/14/11, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB
64(TRA) was reported from the House Transportation Standing
Committee.
HB 10-NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE
1:44:54 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 10, "An Act relating to the registration fee
for noncommercial trailers and to the motor vehicle tax for
trailers."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 10, labeled 27-LS00091\B, Luckhaupt,
3/14/11, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version B was before the committee.
1:45:12 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of one of the prime sponsors,
Representative Bill Stoltze, stated that the only change to the
bill contained in the proposed CS is the inclusion to allow
municipalities to adopt by ordinance the permanent vehicle
registration rate for noncommercial trailers.
1:46:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN made a motion to adopt a Conceptual
Amendment to change the effective date from 2012 to 2014. He
stated he misstated his amendment since the CS for HB 10 does
not have an effective date. He withdrew his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN made a motion to adopt a Conceptual
Amendment to create an effective date for bill as 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. He pointed out that 2014 is
not a date.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to the date in the previous bill the
committee just passed out, which was January 1, 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN made a motion to adopt a Conceptual
Amendment to create effective date for HB 10 of January 1, 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON raised a point of order. He said a
motion is before the committee and the motion must be withdrawn
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN withdrew his prior motion which did not
contain the date, January 1, 2014.
1:48:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN made a motion to adopt a Conceptual
Amendment to create an effective date in HB 10 of January 1,
2014.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. He asked to hear from sponsor.
MR. BREESE answered that the sponsor agrees with the inclusion
of the effective date of January 1, 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON withdrew his objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:49:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 10, labeled 27-LS00091\B, Luckhaupt,
3/14/11, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 10(TRA) was reported from the House
Transportation Standing Committee.
HB 131-COMMUNITY AND TRANSPORTATION ADV. BOARD
1:49:49 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 131, "An Act establishing the Alaska Community
and Public Transportation Advisory Board and relating to a long-
range community and public transportation plan; and providing
for an effective date."
1:50:24 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Cathy Munoz, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the bill would create an Alaska
Community and Public Transportation Advisory Board. This would
assist in the development and procedural recommendations made by
the Governor's Coordinated Transportation Task force in February
2010. Transportation is important to communities. This board
will continue efforts to address state, federal, and local
community-based transportation services. The board will
continue efforts to address public and community transportation
and help fill the gap in transportation for people who require
more specialized travel, including senior citizens, low income
individuals, persons with disabilities, and those who are
transit-dependent. The Community and Transportation Advisory
Board would consist of 13 members from departments within state
and local governments, the Denali Commission, the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority, nonprofits, senior citizens, persons
with disabilities, and transit-dependent individuals. This
broad range of membership could help facilities communication
and strategies that will benefit communities of all sizes. This
bill has support from the Alaska Mobility Coalition, the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education,
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Alaska
Commission on Aging, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, the
Alaska Brain Injury Network, Suicide Prevention Council and the
AARP.
MS. KLOSTER stated that the board's expenses will be similar to
the task force currently in place. The Federal Transit
Administration funding provides 90 percent of the $110,000. The
state will provide matching funds and an additional 10 percent
of the funding is provided by the Alaska Mental Health Trust.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he was glad this bill was
introduced.
1:53:14 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
deferred to Eric Taylor, who prepared the fiscal note.
ERIC TAYLOR, Statewide Plan & Transit, Division of Program
Development, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), stated that he prepared the fiscal note.
1:53:45 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked what portion of the funding is derived
from federal funds.
MR. TAYLOR estimated the Community and Transit Advisory Board
funding would be as follows: $90,000 from the Federal Transit
Administration for program planning, $10,000 in state matching
funds, and $10,000 from the Alaska Mental Health Trust Fund. In
response to Chair P. Wilson, Mr. Taylor explained that typically
the Federal Transit Authority requires a 20 percent match. The
DOT&PF generally uses planning funds. The state receives
approximately $6.8 million to support rural transit and
community transportation programs.
1:56:16 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked if the project would require additional
staff.
MR. TAYLOR answered that the DOT&PF foes not anticipate needing
any additional staff.
1:56:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked if $90,000 represents additional
funds from the federal government or if the funds would be
shifted towards this program.
MR. OTTESEN explained that part of the funds is deliberately set
aside for planning. This is funding that pays for the planning
task. For the past two years, the department has used the
planning funding to conduct the work of the Governor's Task
Force. This would create a permanent commission rather than a
temporary task force. This funding would not change the effort
but would carry forward the funding into future years. He
recalled the DOT&PF has a difficult time spending all of the
spending funding and typically returns some to the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the DOT&PF anticipates the
same level of planning funding.
MR. OTTESEN answered yes. He said if anything the federal
transit funding appears to be on a growth curve. In response to
Chair P. Wilson, Mr. Ottesen explained that the Governor's
Coordinated Transportation Task Force has operated for a little
more than one year. The previous task force was in place for
about 15 months, with a gap in between. He currently chairs the
existing Governor's Coordinated Transportation Task Force. He
stressed that additional work needs to be done. He elaborated
that coordinated transportation is about spending dollars more
wisely. He stated that about 60 categories of federal funding
provide transportation for injured veterans, senior citizens,
persons with disabilities or who are low-income. He said it
does not make sense to have all those vehicles running around,
each carrying a fraction of the population, without any
coordination in dispatch or motor pool. The federal government
has been pushing coordinated transportation to try to reduce the
spending from so many sources.
1:59:34 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on the federal funding
in Alaska, whether it is provided in a lump sum or is parceled
out to various agencies.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the state receives Federal Transit
funding in different categories, with different eligibility
requirements. The DOT&PF is the only recipient of transit
funds. The rest of the funding is distributed through other
agencies, such as the Department of Health and Social Services
(DHSS) or the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA).
He said other separate agencies are working to ensure that
coordination since everyone benefit. He said thus far the
effort cuts across the silos of state government local
government since they provide services for nonprofits.
"Organizations tend to stay in their silos," he said.
2:00:28 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether Governor's Coordinated
Transportation Task Force will be consolidated into one area,
such as DOT&PF, and bill other agencies or if the service will
still be in individual agencies.
MR. OTTESEN provided a "rose colored vision" such that a client
from one program would use a smart card to access the
coordinated vehicle the card would be read and billed back to
the respective agency, including that the Department of Military
& Veterans' Affairs for a disabled veteran. He anticipated that
the service would be seamless and transparent, with a computer
system handling the details of the charges.
2:02:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2 of the DOT&PF's
fiscal note. He said that the bill establishes the board, but
then it says the bill increases the size of the board.
MR. OTTESEN related that the new board is functionally the
equivalent of the Governor's Coordinated Transportation Task
Force, which was established by administrative order.
2:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 19-20 of HB
131, which identifies one board member shall be a member who
represents municipalities that operate modes of public
transportation. He suggested that it may be advisable to have
two members since the needs of small and large communities vary.
He reiterated his support to add an additional member so the
board would be a 14 member board. He asked whether six
communities operate transportation.
MR. TAYLOR answered that nine communities operate transportation
systems in the state.
2:04:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the population of the
communities since it seems that smaller communities' needs are
different than those of Anchorage. He then referred to page 3,
line 7 of HB 131, noting that the board could petition the
governor to remove a member if the member misses two or more
meetings in a calendar year. He suggested adding "or is
otherwise unable to serve."
MR. OTTESEN related the DOT&PF is neutral on bill. He
understood the logic.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said that would be okay.
2:05:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON appreciated the suggested change, but he
pointed out that the member serves at the pleasure of the
governor so he was unsure that the clarification was needed. He
explained that extenuating circumstances may require a person to
miss meetings. He said he is comfortable giving the governor
the authority.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that Representative Gruenberg work
with the sponsor.
2:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how the proposed board composition
correlates to the task force.
MR. TAYLOR related some differences exist in terms of the state
agency representation. The current task force includes a
representative from the Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development and the Department of Education and Early
Development (DOEED) but does not include the Denali Commission.
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that she could understand adding the
Denali Commission.
MR. OTTESEN related the members include a representative from
the nonprofit provide services and from a scheduled transit
service, a smaller nonprofit in Kenai, a tribal run transit
system in Sitka. He expressed some people attend but are not
specifically members of the task force.
2:08:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the DOEED also has any
funding sources.
MR. OTTESEN answered that the idea of the Department of
Education and Early Development is largely due to their funding
for school buses. In some systems, the school buses are
incorporated into the idea of coordinated transportation. He
stated that raises some practical issues since school buses
transport children, school buses typically are not equipped with
seatbelts. Some states have used school buses successfully.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed that school buses are not used for
portions of the day so it may offer a way to better utilize the
asset.
2:10:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that 90 percent of
the funding for the proposed board is federally funded. The
state cannot expect the same level of federal funding to
continue. He recalled that the legislature sometimes requires a
report from the department to the legislature in the event that
funding changes are significant. He asked for the department's
view on adding a fiscal note to require the department to notify
the legislature if federal funding changes.
MR. OTTESEN answered that he could not imagine adding a fiscal
note to provide that type of information. He agreed that
federal funding is chaotic and difficult to predict.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled whether seatbelts in school
buses is an emerging issue.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that is a different topic.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that if funding
changed the DOT&PF would bring it up during budget
deliberations.
MR. OTTESEN agreed.
2:13:41 PM
DAVID LEVY, Executive Director, Alaska Mobility Coalition (AMC),
stated he currently is attending a National Transit Conference
in Washington, D.C. He offered the AMC is a private nonprofit
membership organization that advocates for statewide public and
community transportation. He related that the AMC's membership
includes members from Bethel, Prince of Wales Island and
"everything in between." He explained that its 97 members
provide Alaskans over 7,000,000 rides to work, school, medical
appointments, shopping, and for recreational opportunities. He
offered the AMC's support for HB 131. The AMC has worked
closely with the DOT&PF and the governor the current Coordinated
Transportation Task Force. Transportation in Alaska is unique
and the state needs a long-term committee to coordinate with
many silos that offer transportation. He characterized HB 131
as a good first step. He expressed excitement for a permanent
board to oversee statewide public and community transportation.
2:16:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether any federal monies are
available to individual municipalities.
MR. LEVY related that four municipally run transit systems:
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, and Juneau. A number of local
nonprofits, tribal governments, and everything in between
provide transportation services. A local community could apply
and Mr. Taylor could provide information on that process. He
offered his belief that local communities and local governments
have to make that investment. He recognized the cost associated
in doing so. Communities all over the state are realizing they
need to figure out how to move people. Many nonprofits and
tribal entities have stepped up to provide services, including
the senior center in Kodiak and combined tribal and nonprofit
service in Sitka, he said.
2:18:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked how many state transportation systems
are profitable self-supporting or if the systems require
continued funding.
MR. LEVY related that most transit systems in Alaska, as
elsewhere, require some type of subsidy. In most instances
local or nonprofit organizations raise funds and partner with
federal, local, or tribal partnerships to survive.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether the organizations can survive
without subsidies.
MR. LEVY pointed out this is one of the challenges, that all
forms of transportation ranging from ferries to public road
systems need some type of subsidy. He offered his belief that
many nonprofits and communities have been creative in addressing
funding. In response to Representative Johnson, Mr. Levy
indicated the statewide transportation system provides 7,000,000
trips per year or almost 10,000 trips per day.
2:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many people that represents.
MR. LEVY offered to provide the committee with a breakdown by
community based on figures from an annual statewide survey.
2:20:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that nine
communities have public transit. She asked for a list of the
combined nonprofit and tribal entities.
MR. LEVY answered yes. He said he has a list of state
recognized transit systems in Alaska that receive pass through
federal funds awarded through the competitive bid process.
2:21:44 PM
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force,
referred to a letter of support from the AARP in members'
packets. She related her understanding that this recommendation
comes from the Governor's Coordinated Transportation Task Force.
She reported that she has heard at Alaska Commission on Aging
meetings about the work the task force has accomplished. The
Alaska Commission on Aging conducted a survey to plan how senior
services would be addressed. One of the biggest statewide
issues raised was the need for transportation and the need for
coordination of transportation services, particularly in rural
areas. Alaska is one of the few states without a community
transportation task force such as the one HB 131 would create.
She emphasized that was the point the survey identified, which
is the need more coordination in our communities.
MS. DARLIN commented that transportation funding is derived from
many sources, such as the funding from the Older Americans Act
funding is directed to the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS). The DHSS provides grants to various nonprofit
to provide transportation services. She stressed the necessity
of providing coordination of transportation services. She
commended the work of the Governor's Coordinated Transportation
Task Force. She expressed her hope the work will continue by a
commission who could consider the broader perspective and
actively coordinate the activities and the funding. She
emphasized that the board should also promote public
participation from consumers, including senior citizens,
disabled persons, and low income individuals. She said the
overall plan will serve all of the groups and communities. She
supported the concept of community transportation with
substantial community input to identify the needs.
2:26:30 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out her own experience traveling to
Bethel and smaller surrounding communities. She said she did
not understand how disabled people could get around without
cars, on boardwalks, or in muddy conditions.
MS. DARLIN remarked that each community is different. She
recalled that the Commission on Aging made the same observations
in Bethel. She commented that some people could not get to
meals at the senior center. Although the community is working
on this, the issues are problematic, she said.
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), introduced herself.
2:28:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 2, lines 19-20 of HB
131 to the membership of board. He asked for her input on
whether the composition was adequate.
MS. WASSERMAN offered that when the AML is invited to serve on
task force or group, the AML meets and collectively decides who
could best serve on a particular board. She stated that her
members have the ability to represent communities of varying
sizes. She did not think it was necessary to fill the proposed
task force with additional members.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern that but seems like
one could perform.
MS. WASSERMAN answered yes. She stated that at times a specific
municipality expresses interest in serving. She related that
the AML also meets telephonically to discuss individual
communities' concerns.
CHAIR P. WILSON left public testimony open on HB 131.
[HB 131 was held over.]
2:31:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:31
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 131.Community & Transportation Board.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131 Sectional Analysis.2.2.11.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131.Sponsor Statement.2.14.11.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131.Alaska Mobility Coalition support ltr.2.15.11.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131.Trust transportation priorities.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131.Gov Task Force Recommendation Report.2.11.10.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131.Gov Coordinated Transportation Task Force.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB0131A.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| HB131-DOT-PD-3-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 131 |
| CSHB64- sub committee version I.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB64 Vehicle Counts Statewide.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64 CS Section Changes.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| HB 64cs Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 64 |
| CSHB10 Ver B.pdf |
HTRA 3/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |