Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/10/2000 01:05 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 10, 2000
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative Vic Kohring
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Albert Kookesh
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
creating a highway fund and a harbor fund.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE: DEDICATED HIGHWAY AND HARBOR FUNDS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 17 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
2/10/00 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 5.
ANNALEE McCONNEL, Director
Office of Management & Budget
Office of the Governor
PO Box 110020
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0020
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HJR 5.
LARRY E. MEYERS, Director
Central Office
Income & Excise Audit Division
Department of Revenue
PO Box 110420
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0420
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HJR 5.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5.
OLIVER HOLMES
PO Box 3865
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 5.
NICK SZABO
PO Box 1633
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5.
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director
Alaska Municipal League
217 2nd Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-8, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ANDREW HALCRO called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Halcro, Masek, Cowdery and
Kohring. Representative Kemplen arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HJR 5 - DEDICATED HIGHWAY AND HARBOR FUNDS
CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced the first order of business as House
Joint Resolution 5, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the
State of Alaska creating a highway fund and a harbor fund.
Number 0040
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, Alaska State Legislature, came
before the committee as sponsor of HJR 5. He introduced the
resolution last year hoping that the legislature would take a good
look at how to get enough funding to maintain the existing roads
and harbors in the state. According to surveys that he has
conducted in his district, people are willing to support an
increase in the motor fuel tax, if the revenues generated are
dedicated to maintenance. In addition, the majority of complaints
that senators and representatives get are related to road
maintenance. It is, therefore, very appropriate that this issue be
taken up along with the Governor's bill to increase the tax as a
point of discussion.
Number 0192
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked Representative Austerman what
would be the ripple effect in regards to other sources of funding.
He cited the tobacco tax as an example. He also asked
Representative Austerman whether he thinks that this would
circumvent the legislature's powers to appropriate funds.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied the resolution deals strictly with
the gas and harbor taxes; it does not deal with any other funding
source. In terms of giving up legislative power, it is an issue
that the members will have to debate.
Number 0333
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN asked Representative Austerman whether
he has analyzed how many other states dedicate their taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied, "No." The Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities is here today; they might have
that information.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Representative Austerman whether there
is a reason why the ferries are not included in the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied he personally feels that the
marine highway is part of the total road system, but at the time he
introduced the resolution, he didn't feel there was enough support
to include them. They are not treated as part of the road system,
even though they are an extension of it. In addition, the marine
highway is the only system where a passenger pays a toll. For
example, a person does not pay a toll to drive to Fairbanks, but a
person pays a toll to travel to Kodiak; the criteria is different.
Number 0495
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated, according to his understanding,
revenues from the federal gas tax go toward paying for ferry and
road improvements. There seems to be a recognition that they are
inextricably connected.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Representative Austerman why he did
not consider the public transportation systems as an appropriate
receiver of these funds.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied he has neither discussed nor
considered the public transportation systems; they were never
brought up in any of the discussions that he took part in. He
explained that while considering the resolution he was looking more
at the current condition of the road system in relation to
maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated a number of Alaskans who are disabled
or who do not have access to their own mode of transportation
depend upon the public transportation systems. In his opinion,
they have a legitimate claim to the revenues as well.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated, according to his understanding,
the public transportation systems are not part of the state; they
are part of the municipalities. He reiterated that while
considering the resolution he was looking at the state and its
responsibilities.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN further stated, after receiving
information from a member of his staff, that at least 23 states
dedicate revenues for transportation purposes from either fuel tax,
vehicle licensing [fees] and/or vehicle registration [fees].
Number 0695
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN said it would be interesting to know how
many of those 23 states take a narrow approach, and how many take
a broader approach in terms of the transportation needs for their
communities.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he would take a look at that.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated he believes that governments are exempt from
paying the motor fuel tax. For example, the People Mover, a public
transportation system in Anchorage, does not pay a tax for gas;
therefore, those who drive a car are basically subsidizing the
system.
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to information contained in
the bill packet and pointed out that just about every state has
some type of motor fuel tax that is dedicated, except Alaska. The
information also indicates that this is a complex issue because of
federal matching dollars, and because of the fluctuating use(s) of
gas.
Number 0889
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Austerman, a member of
the House Finance Committee, whether the Administration has
requested money for highway and harbor maintenance.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied he does not sit on the Finance
subcommittee that handles the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities' budget. He does not know.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Austerman whether the
federal [matching] grants are 100 percent or whether they require
state participation.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied, according to his understanding,
the state is required to participate to get the majority of the
federal matching grants to rebuild roads. He's not sure, however,
if federal dollars are used for maintenance.
Number 0992
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Representative Austerman whether there is
anything that would prohibit a municipality from receiving a
percentage of the dedicated funds, so that they can maintain their
own roads.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied language to that effect would have
to be drafted into the resolution, which could make a difference in
the outcome of the vote. It certainly could not be changed after
the vote.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied, theoretically, a local municipality that
wants to receive a portion of the dedicated funds could be required
to adopt a local ordinance guaranteeing that the money goes into
their roads, which is similar to what is required under HB 243 that
already passed out of this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN stated there would have to be a
requirement for the use of those funds. He has seen legislation
for a state sales tax that would allow a portion of the revenues to
go back to municipalities. The issue, however, of dedicating a tax
and placing that dedication in the constitution needs to be well
laid out and thought through before it is engraved [in the
constitution].
Number 1160
ANNALEE McCONNEL, Director, Office of Management & Budget, Office
of the Governor, came before the committee to testify. The framers
of the constitution spent a lot of time on the issue of dedication.
They looked at the practices of other states, and decided that the
state would probably be better off by not splintering revenue
sources. However, at this point in time, many people are concerned
that an increase in the tax would not be feasible, if the people do
not see an improvement in the roads and harbors. The state is in
a situation now where the amount of revenue collected is
insufficient to cover all of its needs; therefore, a dedication
without an increase would not advance that situation, especially
since general funds would need to be used as well.
MS. McCONNEL further stated the issue of incorporating local
responsibility is worth discussing because municipalities are also
struggling with the need for capital improvements. In the case of
harbors, the trend has been for the state to transfer ownership,
and their ability to sustain them should be part of this
conversation, which may include a type of sharing proposal. The
same would be true for the transfer of roads. The state should be
careful, however, in expanding its responsibilities at this point
in time, but the topic is well worth pursuing this session; it can
be part of a long-range fiscal plan.
Number 1421
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. McConnel whether the
Administration has requested funds for highway and harbor
maintenance in next year's budget.
MS. McCONNEL replied the Administration requests funds for highway
and harbor maintenance every year. She further stated that what is
in the current budget is not adequate.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. McConnel whether it's a high
priority for the Administration to request funds.
MS. McCONNEL replied a dedication itself rather than an expansion
would not provide the wherewithal for additional revenues, which is
one of the reasons why the Administration chose to focus on tapping
into the federal revenue-stream for construction projects. That
can be found in the capital proposal for bonds.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether the federal grants always pay
100 percent or whether the state has to "participate" its general
fund dollars.
MS. McCONNEL replied the state, generally, has to follow the
requirements for matching funds. The rule of thumb for road
construction projects is 90-10 (90 percent federal and 10 percent
state). The rule of thumb for harbor projects is 50-50 (50 percent
federal and 50 percent non-federal). The Administration has taken
the approach of requiring 25 percent from local governments and 25
percent from the state. The rules can vary, however, for certain
types of federal projects.
Number 1624
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. McConnel whether the 90-10 [split]
refers to reconstruction.
MS. McCONNEL deferred the question to Dennis Poshard from the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. She further
stated the irony is, the federal government pays nothing for
maintenance, so if a state lets a road "go to pot," that road can
ultimately be rebuilt. She noted that the federal government has
made some changes, but those changes do not go as far as the state
would like them to.
Number 1680
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities,
came before the committee to answer questions. He explained that
a complete reconstruction of an intersection that has a lot of
ruts, for example, is eligible for a 90-10 [split]. An overlay to
extend the life of the pavement, for example, can also be eligible
for a 90-10 split. A small stop-gap measure to repair an
intersection, for example, usually falls under the department's
budget. As Ms. McConnel mentioned earlier, the federal rules have
changed. The state used to put zero federal dollars into
maintenance, but TEA-21 [Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century] and ISTEA [Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act] have loosened the purse strings so that the state is able to
put money into stripping, brush-cutting and overlaying; but the
state still cannot use that money for snow removal or patching
potholes - basic infrastructure maintenance.
Number 1753
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Poshard what are the annual revenues
generated from the existing gas tax?
MR. POSHARD deferred the question to Larry Meyers from the
Department of Revenue.
LARRY E. MEYERS, Director, Central Office, Income & Excise Audit
Division, Department of Revenue, came before the committee to
answer questions. The revenues generated from the motor fuel tax
for FY [fiscal year] 1999 were $17.6 million.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Poshard what is the annual maintenance
budget for all regions of the state?
MR. POSHARD replied $74.5 million. Of that figure, about $19.5
million is for aviation, which equates to about $55 million per
year for road maintenance.
MS. McCONNEL suggested that Mr. Meyers clarify the revenues
generated from the fuel tax in total.
MR. MEYERS stated the diesel portion is $7.1 million, which equates
to about $24.7 million in total.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Ms. McConnel whether it's true that the
Founding Fathers grandfathered a few taxes for dedication [in the
constitution].
MS. McCONNEL replied yes. However, from a transportation
perspective, unless there is an offset, a dedication can create a
bind because of the changes in the use(s) of fuel.
Number 1926
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Ms. McConnel whether there is concern about
the public's perception, since the gas tax only generates a
fraction of the total maintenance budget. In other words: Is
there concern that the public may wonder where the money is going
since there would need to be additional appropriations?
MS. McCONNEL replied that is part of the concern. The public
doesn't spend much time looking at the ins and outs of the budget,
but there is no question that at the current level there wouldn't
be enough revenues generated to cover the needs in full; additional
general funds would have to be appropriated.
Number 1965
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked, What part of the state do the
revenues from the gas tax come from? Is it broken down
geographically?
MR. MEYERS answered the tax is collected at the wholesale level,
and it varies. The Department of Revenue does not track it by
location.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked, How much of the $55 million for road
maintenance is spent in the Anchorage area?
MR. POSHARD answered he doesn't have that figure with him. He
would provide it later.
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Poshard whether it's correct to
say that most of the Anchorage roads are supported by the
municipality.
MR. POSHARD replied yes. He pointed out that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities supports the following roads and
highways in the Anchorage area:
International Airport, Tudor, O'Malley, Minnesota, Northern
Lights, Benson, the Glenn and Seward Highways.
MS. McCONNEL stated, even though the [above] quantity is not a lot,
it is substantial in terms of snow removal and maintenance.
Number 2091
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated, in reference to the comments made
earlier on public perception, the state needs to get a better
handle on how much the people in different areas pay and how much
they benefit [from the tax].
MS. McCONNEL stated it's always very difficult to come to a fair
representation. For example, a person may buy gas in the Mat-Su
Valley and drive to and on roads in another unified borough. There
are also differences in expenditures from one part of the state to
another in relation to the amount of snow and location. It is
going to be nearly impossible to precisely allocate funds so that
everybody agrees with that allocation. In terms of a tax increase,
the public will have to feel that there is an improvement in how
well the roads are maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN commented he wonders how Anchorage residents
would feel if their tax dollars were being spent on maintenance for
roads in the Interior, for example.
Number 2201
CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that issue creates a divisive attitude. In
addition, it's almost impossible to allocate what's generated and
to give a commensurate return. The road system has to be looked at
in its entirety.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN commented the state of Washington is similar
to Alaska in that they have both ferries and roads. He asked
whether they have a dedicated fuel tax.
MR. POSHARD answered, according to his understanding, the state of
Washington dedicates their tax, as well as their vehicle licensing
and other types of fees. He's not sure about revenues going into
their ferry system; he would look into that.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered whether the state of Washington's
constitution is similar to Alaska's in terms of dedicating funds.
He suspects the states that dedicate funds are not prohibited by
their constitution.
MS. McCONNEL stated there are ways to clearly associate an increase
in the motor fuel tax with improved services without going to a
dedication. There are funds now that are used in a particular way,
but they are not technically dedicated in relation to the
constitution; there is a general understanding of how they are to
be used. It's not an issue of skirting the constitution; it's an
issue of establishing clear legislative policy. The Administration
has suggested that an increase in the motor fuel tax go to match
federal funds, thereby creating a clear correlation in the minds of
the people.
Number 2354
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Ms. McConnel whether the fees generated from
DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] go back to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities' budget or whether they stay
within the Department of Administration's budget.
MS. McCONNEL replied they are part of the general fund. They are
part of the general purpose revenues that are part of the
unrestricted general fund category.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Ms. McConnel, What does DMV generate on a
yearly basis?
MS. McCONNEL replied about $30 million.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO wondered - thinking aloud - whether moving DMV to
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities would help
with the costs associated with maintaining the highways. He
specifically asked, Why isn't DMV under the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities?
MS. McCONNEL answered it's important to factor in the cost to
administer DMV, which is about $6 to $8 million. She explained
that about three years ago DMV was moved from the Department of
Public Safety to the Department of Administration in recognition of
the fact that its processing functions are similar to other
administrative functions. In other words, a primary function of
public safety is not to process licenses. Nevertheless, the
revenues associated with DMV could be looked at without moving the
division. She thinks it is well placed right now from the
standpoint of their operations; it's in a place that is oriented
towards technology, which has really paid off in terms of speed and
ease of service.
Number 2453
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY commented it seems that the government is in
the profit-making business, since DMV takes in around $30 million
and it costs $8 million to administer. That could give a person
"heartburn," especially since it took so much time [out of one's
life] to deal with the old DMV.
TAPE 00-8, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY continued. He's not sure that this piece of
legislation will get through, given the lateness of this session,
but it's important to open the debate.
Number 0032
MS. McCONNEL replied it depends on how the needed services are
defined. For instance, the costs associated with driving in the
state would obviously be broader than the costs of processing the
renewal of a license, yet when people think about a fee they don't
think about the overall picture. She's pretty sure that nobody
would be willing to set a toll for any of the roads to cover the
true costs, including the public transportation systems and the
Marine Highway System. The public really doesn't have a good
appreciation of how expensive these systems are. She also noted
that Alaska has lower rates than virtually every other state in the
country; the public is getting off pretty well.
Number 0082
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. McConnel whether the operation
costs have declined appropriately, since the workload for DMV has
been cut due to out-sourcing.
MS. McCONNEL replied there are two ways to look at what happens
when there is a significant improvement. One is the ability to do
a much better job with the same dollars, which is the case now with
DMV. The other is to not do a good job with fewer dollars. At
this point, the Administration has not seen a reduction in the
overall cost of the program, but they have absorbed a lot of the
increases. They have internally financed a lot of those
improvements, as well as caught up with the backlog. She called it
a productivity improvement using the same dollars.
Number 0163
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated he had hoped that streamlining the
division would also significantly reduce the costs.
MS. McCONNEL replied that could have been possible, if the number
of vehicles and drivers had not increased phenomenally. She could
provide that information to him.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO opened the meeting to public testimony.
Number 0248
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President, Alaska Trucking
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. The
association looks at the motor fuel tax as a motor vehicle user
fee. Right now, truckers pay about 32 cents per gallon for diesel
for both state and federal taxes. The idea of a dedicated fund has
a great deal of merit, and the association has supported it for the
last decade. The association also feels that the people need to be
educated in terms of the real costs for the state's
infrastructures; they would be willing to help the legislature and
Administration educate them. He cited that the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities spends in excess of $4 million.
That figure, divided by the number of vehicles and gallons of gas
used in the state, would equate to a tax of 75 cents per gallon.
MR. DILLON further commented that the state gets a break because
the federal government gives a lot back; however, they don't give
that money back without strings attached. It's the inability to
dedicate those funds that causes many of the problems in
maintaining the state's infrastructures. If that money was simply
given back to the state, there would be enough to maintain and
improve the roads commensurate with the increase in traffic. The
association believes that the resolution has a great deal of merit,
and would encourage the committee members to pass it along in order
to let the people in the state vote on it. Before ending his
testimony, he pointed out that there are more than 40 states who
have a dedicated fuel tax fund. They come in a variety of
different ways and uses, but they are primarily dedicated as a type
of user fund.
Number 0351
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY referred to the 40 states Mr. Dillon
mentioned, and asked him whether a dedication violates their
constitutions.
MR. DILLON replied most states do not have a constitutional
prohibition against dedicated funds.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Dillon whether he knows how much the
truckers in the state contribute.
MR. DILLON replied, of the $7 million, truckers contribute about $6
million. They contribute in excess of $30 million when including
the 24 cents per gallon that goes to the federal government.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Dillon whether the association would have
a problem with including the Alaska Marine Highway System.
MR. DILLON replied the association has struggled with that question
before in the past. He said,
If you're talking about maintaining the channels they
operate in, that's one question. If you're talking about
the docking facilities where there's an interface between
highway use and the ferry, that's another question. If
you're talking strictly about vehicle maintenance, the
vehicle being the ferry, I don't think that we would
support it coming out of the highway fund.
MR. DILLON further stated the marine highway has the viability to
set fees in order to cover their costs right now, and there's no
question that the state has to recognize the entire transportation
system. The association would be willing to discuss ways to
distribute the money for its best use, but even if there is an
increase in the motor fuel tax and the revenues are dedicated, it
is not a panacea for the state's maintenance problems. He is
hoping that the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
moves away from the term "deferred maintenance" and moves toward
the term "roadway preservation" as a guiding principle.
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Dillon whether he correctly heard
him say that the association supports the concept of a user fee.
MR. DILLON replied the association not only supports the concept
but pays about $6,500 per year for each tractor-trailer to run on
the highways. The association is by far the largest contributor to
the highway system based on registrations.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN asked Mr. Dillon whether the association
would support a user fee for roads predominately used by the
trucking industry. He cited the Dalton Highway as an example.
MR. DILLON replied no. The association believes in collecting fees
to support the system [as a whole].
Number 0548
OLIVER HOLMES testified via teleconference from Kodiak in support
of HJR 5. He is representing himself as a driver and as a vessel
operator/owner. The marine fuel tax was originally a dedicated
fund. It was only taken out of that classification when an
attorney general determined that raising the rate would not keep it
as a pre-statehood dedicated fund. He supports users paying for
services in general, and it's reasonable to think that targeted
taxes might be siphoned off by the legislature to delay imposing
general fund taxes that are needed. He would not support raising
the fuel taxes - both marine and motor - unless there is some
guarantee that the [revenues] would go into a dedicated fund.
Number 0612
NICK SZABO testified via teleconference from Kodiak. He supports
the concept of users paying for infrastructure that they utilize,
but it doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of a
constitutional amendment. Most people would be receptive to a
system that gives local governments the ability to use the revenues
from the taxes that are generated locally. It's not necessary to
nit-pick about whether revenues generated in Wasilla were used in
Anchorage; it evens out in the end.
Number 0712
KEVIN RITCHIE, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League, came
before the committee to testify. It's nice to see the
Administration and legislature working together on this issue
because solving a lot of small problems essentially leads to
solving big problems. The municipalities would like to be part of
the discussion, the system, and the solution as well. As
Representative Austerman stated earlier, many people would not
support an increase in the tax for general purposes, but many would
support an increase for specific uses - the maintenance of roads.
The people want to know how the government is going to spend the
money that they provide. He cited the Municipality of Anchorage
just passed a bond issue to build schools because the public wanted
to use the money for that particular purpose. He also cited the
City of Wrangell changed their charter to increase their property
tax from 10 mill to 12 mill for the specific purpose of that money
going to schools. In conclusion, he stated the league would be
happy to work with the legislature and Administration on this
issue. They are able to speak to their communities in relation to
an appropriate rate, once there is an agreement in how it would be
used.
Number 0841
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Ritchie whether the issue of sharing the
fuel tax has been an ongoing discussion with his communities.
MR. RITCHIE replied yes. It's part of the league's policy
statement. He also noted that the incentive for municipalities to
accept more road maintenance should probably be part of the
discussion. A number of years ago the state shared $2,500 per mile
of road, if a municipality accepted maintenance for it. That
figure is now between $200 and $300, which is not very much of an
incentive.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that part of his mill rate goes to a
road service area. He asked Mr. Ritchie whether any of his
communities have expressed a willingness to take over some of the
state maintained roads.
MR. RITCHIE replied yes. The league's policy statement indicates
that the members support a negotiated transfer of responsibility
between the state and municipalities, which has been the case for
a few harbors.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO closed the meeting to public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE KEMPLEN stated it appears there are commutative
related questions that need to be resolved. The committee ought to
address those questions as a matter of public policy.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated there definitely is concern. The resolution
doesn't specify provisions for the Marine Highway System, which
might cause problems of support in Southeast Alaska. At the same
time, he's not sure there would be support in Southcentral Alaska
because they view the Marine Highway System as something that
should be self-supporting. He suggested sitting down with the
sponsor to consider some of the issues discussed today. Otherwise,
there would be major hurdles to overcome, if the resolution does
not benefit and apply to everybody.
[HJR 5 WAS HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman
Halcro adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee
meeting at 2:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|