02/10/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB10 | |
| HB102 | |
| HB57 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 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. 10
"An Act relating to the registration fee for noncommercial
trailers and to the motor vehicle tax for trailers."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 102
"An Act suspending the motor fuel tax; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act authorizing municipalities and nonprofit organizations
to sponsor a program to encourage the safe use of bicycles as a
mode of transportation, and amending the duties of the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to include
administration of state funds appropriated for that purpose."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
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
BILL: HB 102
SHORT TITLE: SUSPENDING MOTOR FUEL TAX
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
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
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: BICYCLE PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): SEATON
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
WITNESS REGISTER
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative Bill Stoltze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 10 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Bill Stoltze.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 10.
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 10.
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 102.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director
Tax Division, Anchorage Office
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 102.
BOB HAJDUKOVICH, Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
ERA Aviation
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 102.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 57 and
answered questions during the discussion of the bill.
JEFF OTTESEN, Director
Division of Program Development
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 57.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:07:23 PM
CHAIR PEGGY WILSON called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Representatives P.
Wilson, Feige, Gruenberg, and Petersen were present at the call
to order. Representatives Johnson, Munoz, and Pruitt arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 10-NONCOMMERCIAL TRAILER REGISTRATION FEE
1:08:07 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first only 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."
1:08:24 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor of HB 10,
Representative Bill Stoltze, explained that HB 10 relates to
registration fees for noncommercial trailers. During the 20th
Legislature the legislature passed a bill granting permanent
trailer registration for commercial trailer owners. This bill
would offer the same permanent registration to consumers and
owner of noncommercial trailers.
MR. BREESE offered one secondary effect should provide
additional efficiency and help streamline the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) processing of trailer registrations. He remarked
that another measure before the legislature would also offer
similar changes to motor vehicles. He pointed out that this
bill would still allow noncommercial trailer owners to opt to
use the biennial registration method to pay fees rather than the
permanent registration.
CHAIR P. WILSON, in response to Representative Gruenberg,
clarified that the bill heard by the House State Affairs
Standing Committee technically was not a companion bill since
that bill refers to motor vehicles.
1:11:15 PM
MR. BREESE, in response to Chair P. Wilson, agreed that the fees
would increase to $100 for the permanent registration of
noncommercial trailers. He explained the process to determine
the registration fee amount. The sponsor's goal attempts to
cover costs by projecting an estimated cost for someone who has
owned a trailer for 10 years. Thus, the fees included in this
bill would probably be close to $100. He further explained that
the DMV did not project the number of trailers that these fees
may apply to since people often register a trailer, park it, and
only re-register the trailer when the owner needs to use the
trailer again. This is unlike a car since people tend to keep
their vehicles currently registered. While using a 10 year
ownership seemed reasonable the fees in HB 10 are not based on
any statistical data. In response to Chair Wilson, he reported
that commercial vehicle registration fees currently are a one-
time $20 fee. He related his understanding that the intent of
the enabling legislation for commercial trailers are also based
on the owner paying increased taxes and higher fees for the
truck operation. However, noncommercial trailer fees were not
adjusted since no additional taxes are associated with the fees.
In further response to Chair Wilson, he answered that the fees
for commercial trailers are a flat $20 fee and are not based on
the number of axles.
1:14:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for DMV's costs to register one
trailer.
MR. BREESE said he was unsure.
CHAIR P. WILSON noted that someone from the DMV would be
testifying later who could answer that question.
1:14:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, line 18 of HB 10.
He asked which statutes are being repealed in this subsection.
MR. BREESE referred to page 3, lines 2-4 of HB 10. He said that
this language is being reinserted in another part of the
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for clarification on the fees.
He asked whether the fees for noncommercial vehicles on page 3,
line 1 of HB 10 would apply if the person decided to pay the
biennial fees. If the person decided to apply for permanent
registration fees, the fees listed on page 3, line 14 of HB 10
would apply. He offered his belief that the permanent one-time
fee would be $51 as opposed to $17 for an annual fee.
MR. BREESE, referred to page 2, beginning on line 13 of the bill
to the chart, "Tax According to Age of Vehicle." He advised
that the chart calculates the taxes for the vehicle depending on
the vehicle's age. The fee for a vehicle, such as a motorcycle
[line 19] would be $17 in the first year but would drop to $4 in
the eighth year. He agreed that the biennial registration for
every year past the eighth year would be $4 for a motorcycle.
He also agreed that on page 3, line 14 of HB 10, the fee of $51
refers to the permanent one-time fee.
1:17:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked why the fee structure for commercial
fees is different than those for noncommercial vehicles.
MR. BREESE explained that owners of commercial vehicles
currently pay a higher tax registration and tax rate based on
the weight of the vehicle and the number of axles. He stated
that the flat fee for noncommercial vehicles is a structure that
was used in the enabling legislation. This bill is consistent
with the enabling legislation, which is to charge the bulk of
the fees for a commercial vehicle rather than to charge a fee
for the vehicle being towed. An owner is already paying
registration fees for his/her truck so an extra charge would not
be passed on for the vehicle registration in this bill.
1:18:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the analogy would also be the
same for noncommercial vehicles.
MR. BREESE agreed that some consistency would be achieved, but
to be perfectly consistent would require rewriting the whole
section for non-commercial vehicles and "that's a bigger pie
than we were trying to cut at this time," he said.
1:18:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the title, which is "An Act
relating to the registration fee for noncommercial trailers and
to the motor vehicle tax for trailers." He referred to page 1,
lines 12-14, to proposed Section 2 of HB 10, which applies only
to noncommercial trailers. He reiterated that subsection (j)
refers only to noncommercial vehicles.
MR. BREESE answered that subsection (j) reads, "When a person
registers a trailer not used or maintained for the
transportation of person or property for hire or for other
commercial use..." He explained that this subsection means that
if the purpose is not for commercial use that this provision
would apply.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed, noting the language is a double
negative, so he initially missed the intent.
1:20:24 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), addressed an earlier
question by Representative Feige. She responded that she did
not have a definitive answer to how much it costs the agency to
process a trailer renewal but she estimated the staff time for a
renewal transaction would be about three minutes. She thought
an initial registration transaction may take about seven minutes
to complete. She pointed out the clerks processing these
transactions fall in the payroll ranges of range 10-12. She
estimated the time needed to process noncommercial trailers
would be included as part of the scope of their regular job
duties. She explained that online transactions cost the state
about $1 per transaction and including the credit card fees
charged would amount to two percent of the total transaction.
Thus, transaction fees would cost about $2 on noncommercial
trailer registration fees of $30. In response to Chair P.
Wilson, she answered that the motor vehicle fees collected are
deposited to the general fund. In further response to Chair P.
Wilson, she agreed that the revenue collected would increase in
the first two years and then would decrease every year
thereafter.
1:23:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked how many trailer applications were
anticipated per year.
MS. BREWSTER answered that the DMV processes about 5,000 new
trailer applications per year. In further response to
Representative Feige, she responded that due to the small
numbers of registrations, the DMV does not anticipate a decrease
or reduction in staff levels.
1:24:37 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the DMV's costs of operation are
taken directly from the revenue it collects.
MS. BREWSTER responded that the DMV is a receipt-supported
services organization, which means that the DMV's funding is
based on the amount of revenue it generates. In response to
Chair P. Wilson, she explained that the DMV operates on an
annual amount of $16.5 million. The proposed bill would not
sufficiently impact the DMV to affect its operating funds. She
added that the DMV's receives approximately $68.5 million
annually in total revenue.
1:26:37 PM
MS. BREWSTER advised that this program would be a fairly simple
program to administer at the DMV. In response to Representative
Johnson, she answered that the DMV is neutral on HB 10.
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), stated the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) does not have a position on HB 10 at
this time.
1:28:00 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON after first determining no one else wished to
testify closed public testimony on HB 10. She explained that
the bill would be discussed at a subsequent hearing.
1:28:41 PM
HB 102-SUSPENDING MOTOR FUEL TAX
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 102, "An Act suspending the motor fuel tax;
and providing for an effective date."
1:28:46 PM
MARC LUIKEN, Commissioner, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), introduced Johanna Bales from the
Department of Revenue (DOR). He said that the proposed tax
suspension is one of many measures the governor is putting forth
to improve the economic health of Alaskans. Suspending the
motor fuel tax demonstrates a consistent tax policy, just as
modifying Alaska's Clear & Equitable Share (ACES) would
potentially lower the tax burden on oil companies. The governor
would like to lower the tax burden for individual Alaskans, as
well, he said. He related that suspending the motor fuel tax
would provide immediate tax relief for every citizen in every
community throughout the state. He explained that the amount
saved would vary depending on the type of fuel purchased but
most consumers should save up to $.08 per gallon when fueling
their vehicles or airplanes. Many Alaska communities deal with
the highest energy costs in the nation. This proposed bill
represents one step this administration is taking to improve
Alaskans' daily living expenses. This bill would provide a
temporary reduction in the cost of motor fuel while efforts
continue to find long-term solutions to higher energy costs.
Some people have speculated that suspending the motor fuel tax
may impact Alaska's federal funding for transportation.
However, the state's motor fuel tax has no relationship to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funds. Thus, suspending
the motor fuel tax will have no impact on Alaska's current
federal highway or airport funding levels. Additionally,
Alaskans also fund significantly more for transportation than is
collected in the state motor fuel tax revenues, he said.
1:31:04 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN explained that in the proposed FY 12 budget,
$328.5 million is set aside for the DOT&PF's operating budget
and another $117 million in general fund dollars will supplement
the capital budget. He concluded that figure represents almost
12 times more than is collected in the motor fuel tax. The
federal tax, which is also paid at the pump, contributes to the
Federal Highway Administration Trust Fund (FHWA). These funds
are redistributed back to the states via formulas set forth in
the federal bills related to highways and airport improvement.
He advised that these formulas have nothing to do with whether a
state collects a separate motor fuel tax since there is no
federal requirement for states to collect a gas tax to support
transportation. He asked whether the Congress would retaliate
for Alaska suspending this motor fuel tax and answered that
"it's unlikely." He pointed out that at least four states have
suspended their motor fuel taxes prior to the most recent
surface transportation bill, Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004 (Safetea Lu), which
went into effect in 2005. He remarked that those states saw an
increase in federal highway aid. He commented on a recent
Juneau Empire article, addressing this subject. The article
quoted as saying, "It's difficult to assert that Alaska needs
more money when it contributes little itself and is seeking to
reduce that." He referred to charts in member's packets.
1:32:49 PM
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN offered that this chart demonstrates that
Alaskans have consistently funded transportation out of the
state's general funds in lieu of funding other worthy state
interests. The chart shows that since Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU) went into effect in 2005, the state has
funded over $300 million for transportation in five of the six
years, peaking in FY 07 at $600 million. He related suspending
the motor fuel tax would affect the state's budget in that it
may equate to a decrement in the budget. He referred to the
capital budget, reporting that 76 percent is derived from
federal receipts. The remaining 24 percent is derived from the
state's general fund and other sources such as the International
Airport System (IAS) receipts, bonds, Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) dividend funds and
Highway Working Capital funds for the state equipment fleet.
The general fund and the state capital budget are derived from
the same source that funds 56 percent of the DOT&PF's operating
budget. He said that is what it is: a general fund. He
referred again to the newspaper article indicated that the state
would be forfeiting $40 million in state transportation funding.
However, he argued that since no direct link between the motor
fuel tax revenue and the DOT&PF's budget. He concluded that one
could not make a link between the motor fuel tax and the
DOT&PF's budget. He asserted that suspending the motor fuel tax
in 2008 did not impact the department's budget nor will it
impact the DOT&PF's budget now. In fact, suspending the motor
fuel tax would significantly impact Alaska's economy. It will
benefit many of our largest industries, including the largest
employer, the fishing industry. The United Fisherman of Alaska
(UFA) indicated suspending the motor fuel tax would benefit to
thousands of fishermen statewide. Trucking and aviation
industries and consumers will also profit, he said. The DOT&PF
received letters of support from the Alaska Air Carriers
Association, indicating the economic benefits this suspension of
the motor fuel tax would have on hundreds of Alaska's rural
commercial air carriers. Additionally, Alaska Airlines provided
a letter of support for this bill, as did the National
Federation of Independent Businesses. He said, "The bottom
line: right now there is no compelling need to collect a motor
fuel tax - at this time." Suspension of the tax benefit every
Alaskan in every community, while some will gain more than
others, but it will be meaningful to all since this money is
returned to Alaskans' pockets, he also said.
1:36:01 PM
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Anchorage Office,
Department of Revenue (DOR), stated that technically this bill
would suspend the motor fuel tax for two fiscal years beginning
with July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2013. She explained that
motor fuel dealers would still need to report their highway fuel
sales in order for the state to meet its reporting requirements
to the FHWA on fuel consumption in Alaska, or its FHWA funding
could be affected. This bill does ensure that the DOR would
continue to receive is reports. She noted that Alaska's current
motor fuel tax for highway use is set at $.08, $.05 for marine,
$.043 for jet fuel, and $.037 for aviation fuel. At $.08 cents
per gallon, the excise tax is the second lowest in nation, yet
the fuel pump costs are the second highest in the nation. She
remarked that it is only more expensive to purchase fuel in
Hawaii. She said "Obviously, it's not our tax that is making
Alaskans pay a lot, but this little amount of tax, if suspended,
would put about $40 million back into our economy to help
Alaskans." In response to Chair Wilson, she explained that 60
percent of the revenue collected from aviation fuel tax is
shared with municipal airports. She noted that the governor has
requested an appropriation to replace any revenue airports may
lose as a result of the tax suspension. In further response to
Chair Wilson, she said the anticipated loss in aviation fuel tax
to municipalities is not reflected in the fiscal note. She
related that request would be handled during the budget process.
She explained the DOR's fiscal note has a notation explaining
the special appropriation to municipalities.
1:38:24 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for an overall cost to the state to
suspend the motor fuel tax.
MS. BALES answered that in terms of loss of revenue and the
$140,000 in municipal sharing, that the overall cost to
implement HB 102 would be approximately $39,140,000, since the
state receives approximately $39 million in fuel taxes. In
further response to Chair Wilson, she responded that all of the
motor fuel tax goes directly to the general fund.
1:39:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that his packet does not show
any letters of support.
COMMISSIONER LUIKEN offered to submit them to the committee. In
further response to Representative Johnson, the commissioner
offered to contact the governor's office for any letters in
opposition to HB 102.
1:40:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related her understanding that airports
receive a portion of this tax, including Juneau and Ketchikan.
She asked whether the governor including funding to the
facilities during prior years when the aviation tax was
suspended.
MS. BALES related the governor has indicated his assurance that
an appropriation would be requested in the operating budget,
noting that in 2008, airports received an appropriation for the
period when the aviation tax was suspended.
1:41:00 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether funding for this proposal was
included in the Governor's FY 12 budget.
MS. BALES related her understanding that the appropriation is
not included in the FY12 operating budget. She also offered to
check whether the request is included in the amended budget.
1:41:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for ways the state would "make up"
for this lost revenue.
MS. BALES answered that the state current collects a significant
amount of oil taxes and the treasury is "fairly healthy." She
offered her belief that the governor feels that any losses would
be recovered by oil taxes received in the past several years due
to the high price of oil, which "incidentally" is one of the
reasons that Alaskans are paying higher prices at the pump.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked whether the current budget would
spend $25 million from savings.
MS. BALES said she was uncertain.
1:42:35 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that thus far the state plans
to use its savings account to fund a portion of the proposed FY
12 budget. She asked for the total amount of any costs to
proposals that are geared to help Alaska be considered a
business friendly state.
MS. BALES offered to put together some information for the
committee, but she did not have any figures at this time for
effects of proposed legislation.
1:44:25 PM
BOB HAJDUKOVICH, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), ERA Aviation,
explained that Era Aviation represents four airlines in the
state: Era Aviation, Frontier Flying Service, Hagland Aviation
Services, and Arctic Circle Air Service. These airlines are
wholly owned by Alaskan investors and currently transport over
60 percent of rural passengers, transport 55 percent of the
bypass mail to rural communities in Alaska and consume 5.6
million gallons of jet fuel and 500,000 gallons of aviation
gasoline. This bill would have a direct impact on these
airlines of over $200,000 per year. He said, "At this point,
anything helps." He offered his belief that the direction is
right, that the governor hopes to save money for Alaskans and is
less concerned about the impact on Alaska's savings fund at the
moment. He recalled earlier comments on proposed legislation
that would affect new business in Alaska. He pointed out that
his business is a foundational service that is a necessity in
Alaska, in particular in rural communities. Currently, the
price per barrel is $.88 over last year, which directly affects
the airlines profits by $5 million based on 5.6 million gallons
of jet fuel. He equated this increase to translate to $8.21 per
passenger, per leg, based on the 600,000 passengers transported
annually.
1:47:11 PM
MR. HAJDUKOVICH remarked that the $202,000 seems like a drop in
the bucket compared to $5 million expense increase in fuel
costs, but it is significant since the offset is received in
higher oil prices the state receives. The direct benefit for
the proposed tax decrease is that it directly impacts Alaskans,
not to the state coffers, which is critical. He said he has not
seen oil prices driven by supply and demand for well over ten
years. He said if the industry was more elastic the increased
costs could be passed through to its customers. He also
remarked that the airlines would see ebbs and flows in oil
prices and prices would be changed to reflect the ebb and flow.
However, the airlines have seen a progressive increase and no
change in the supply or demand, or for rural communities to
adapt to oil prices. He recalled a catastrophic situation,
about a year and a half ago, in which oil prices peaked, noting
the villages are still trying to recover. He acknowledged that
the delegation wants the administration to "ante up" but he said
it is the consumer who bears the cost increases, not the state.
His company represents the consumers, the users of the fuel. He
remarked that the governor is trying to show that it is open for
business and pushing back some of the funding to the consumers
is critical, he stated. He predicted that the national
political scene is not going to change appreciably, that the
congressional delegation will have uphill battle trying to find
funding for Alaska. He offered that "we have to look after
ourselves to an extent..."
1:49:24 PM
MR. HAJDUKOVICH remarked that he visited Juneau last week and
was disturbed by a comment he overheard, which was that the
state is fortunate that while production is down, the price of
oil is high, with little to no recognition that as an end user
that the industry has a "break even" point. Further, the
industry could tip over since it is not possible to pass on $150
per barrel oil prices structure. He recalled oil prices were
$39 ten years ago, that the industry could handle $75 per barrel
prices. He reported a disturbing meeting he held with U.S.
Postal Service (USPS) earlier today over the future of the
bypass mail system. He reported that the USPS is losing $10
billion per year and spends $100 million in Alaska, and lose $70
million on that investment in Alaska. He suggested that Alaska
would find continuing pressure at the federal level to find ways
to be aggressive to cut funds considered to be earmarks or
subsidies to Alaska. He concluded that the state needs to keep
its economy moving in the right direction. He said, "Businesses
that are current need to stay in business so we can be there for
that uptick in the trend, so that hopefully when we're open for
business for drilling or resource development, we'll still be
here to take advantage of those opportunities."
1:51:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled for the past four years the delegation
members have reported that other states perceive that Alaska has
not paid its fair share of its transportation funds. The
delegation encouraged Alaska to show it was "stepping up to the
plate" to provide its share. She remarked that other states
view the state's share of funds, which are returned to the state
in FHWA funding. She further recalled that Alaska has been
receiving more per capita than any other state. Even though the
motor fuel tax has no correlation to the FHWA funds, other
states do not view it that way. She anticipates that Alaska
will be receiving less in federal funds than it has in the past.
1:53:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE recalled years ago, he traveled through
West Virginia, and it seemed every highway was named the Robert
C. Byrd Memorial Highway. He remarked that many of our federal
funds were as a result of the late U.S. Senator Ted Stevens,
just as the West Virginia highway was named after its senior
senator. He stated that the funding system has operated in this
way, and some states receive a disproportionate amount. He
agreed with the previous speaker, Mr. Hajdukovich, that
suspending the motor fuel tax would have a positive impact on
Alaskans, and while some income would be lost on that "side of
the pot" the state can recoup the revenues.
1:55:10 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 102.
[HB 102 was held over.]
HB 57-BICYCLE PROGRAM
1:55:33 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act authorizing municipalities and
nonprofit organizations to sponsor a program to encourage the
safe use of bicycles as a mode of transportation, and amending
the duties of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to include administration of state funds appropriated
for that purpose."
1:56:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON, Alaska State Legislature, testifying
as prime sponsor of HB 57, explained that this bill would create
a safe bicycle ridership program in DOT&PF. This bill would
allow municipalities and not-for-profit organizations the
opportunity to apply for grant funding for the purpose of
promoting bicycle use, distribution and maintenance of bicycles,
bicycle helmets, bicycle facilities, and bicycle trailers. He
commented that he would request an amendment to change the
dates.
1:57:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that affordable transportation
has been an issue in Alaska. This bill is designed not for
recreational transportation, but to promote transportation
alternatives, which is why some additional things such as
helmets and trailers are included. He offered that it is great
to encourage people to use a bicycle to and from the grocery
store, but people need to have a means to carry their groceries
home. Under this program, communities would apply for funds to
meet specific community needs such as a bike share program, for
hubs, training programs, voucher programs, or outreach.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that Anchorage and Juneau have
bike programs. Juneau's "Bikes, Bikes, Bikes" program acquires
abandoned bikes through the police department and donations from
the community. A local youth center paints them one color and
loans them out. He pointed to letters of support in members'
packets.
1:59:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, line 8 of HB 57,
noting the date would be changed from 2012 to 2014. He referred
to page 3, line 4, of the bill, noting the date would be changed
from 2011 to 2012. He asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with the date changes.
2:00:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that the original bill [from a
prior year] contained a bike trail program, which is not in this
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed that the bike trail program became
problematic so the bill defers to the individual community to
figure out what will work best for them.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on the individual grant
amounts. She recalled that bicycle trailers range from very
simple to elaborate.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he envisioned that the applicants
would apply through the DOT&PF for a competitive grant to
institute their community program, likely ranging from $15,000
to 20,000. He remarked that some communities would need covered
shelters or bicycle racks. The program promotes safe bicycle
practices so individual communities would decide the scope of
their programs. In further response to Chair Wilson,
Representative Seaton agreed that Anchorage might need $100,000
for its proposal whereas a smaller community like Wrangell would
need considerably less.
2:02:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether community could request
funding to put racks on municipal buses to enable people to use
bicycles in conjunction with public transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that it would be up to the
community to decide.
2:03:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked whether most communities would have
the ability to pay for programs without using grants.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered, "Not necessarily." He offered
that many villages do not have taxing authority and some
bicycles are made for gravel and dirt roads. He related the
purpose is to provide an alternative stimulus for using a mode
of transportation other than four wheelers and pickup trucks.
This bill was not meant as solely an urban solution, but to aid
transportation and to assist in diminishing Alaskan's reliance
on gas and diesel fuels.
2:04:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out an administrator would be
appointed by the commissioner. He asked for clarification on
the funding source for the grants.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the funding source would be
through the legislature and from federal matching. He commented
that current trends attempt to foster pedestrian and non fuel
consuming methods of transportation instead of using fuel
operated vehicles. He stated that part of administrator's job
would be to apply for grants, depending on the level of
applicants from rural and urban communities.
2:05:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON clarified that this bill would add person
a person to work to obtain federal funding and request general
funds for the program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed. He said the request for funding
would be for matching funds or for state funding. This bill
does not allocate funds. The program would be funded using the
normal budget request process.
2:06:48 PM
JEFF OTTESEN, Director, Division of Program Development,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
provided the background on bicycling in Alaska. He said that
clearly safety is the biggest issue, in the past ten years the
DOT&PF statistics indicate an average of two fatalities per year
and 19 major injuries. He said two fatalities does not sound
significant, but represents twice as many fatalities as road
rage causes in Alaska. He reported that no one cause is
paramount with many reasons for fatalities.
MR. OTTOSEN also reported that Alaska is sixth in nation as a
means of using bicycles for transportation to and from work. He
concluded that bicycling is important in Alaska, noting the
statistics have held up over the past several census cycles.
Bicycling ranges above the national average. In 2007, the
DOT&PF provided a strategy in its highway safety plan to reduce
crashes involving bicycles by using public education and
outreach. The DOT&PF has found the federal training programs
designed to teach how to train bicyclists to be safe highway
users are excellent, but the means to get training out to people
is necessary.
2:09:23 PM
MR. OTTOSEN referred to HB 57, noting that the bill does not
mention training or education. He offered his belief that would
be an important addition to the grant program. He reported that
the DOT&PF has a parallel program, Safe Routes to School, which
is a federally funded program limited to an area no more than
two miles from the school focused on grades K-8. The program
does not reach the entire population in the state. The Safe
Routes to School has been successful and many communities
encouraged bicycle use. He referred to a reflector distributed
to members that the department hopes to place in the hands of
every school age child. Every school wants these reflectors, he
said. He reiterated that its program does not address high
school or adults. He advised that the FHWA recommends programs
focus on the five "E" aspects including engineering, education,
encouragement, evaluation, and enforcement. He pointed out that
HB 57 focuses on education, encouragement, and evaluation
practices.
2:11:30 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the department could absorb this
program into its current program to avoid any additional general
fund expenditures.
MR. OTTESEN advised that the DOT&PF programs are federally
funded, so DOT&PF's staff must spend time on the eligible
functions in the program. Thus, it is difficult to add in other
elements to its program since staff must certify their time
spent on the eligible criteria for the federally funded program.
2:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the DOT&PF appoints an
administrator.
MR. OTTOSEN envisioned that after the first couple of years this
program would require about ten percent of one staff person's
time, which would represent a small fraction of existing staff
time. He introduced his two staff members who are involved with
bicycle programs: Steve Soenksen a Safe Routes to School Program
coordinator, and Bob Laurie, a Bicycle and Pedestrian
Coordinator. Both positions are federally funded and one of
these two staff would be assigned the job as a ten percent duty,
which would be funded by general fund monies, he said. In
further response to Representative Johnson, he explained the
$40,000 in personal services. The first two years would
represent 25 percent of a staff person's time to set up the
program set up, perform outreach, and develop regulations. He
advised that the DOT&PF has several other grant programs and
recognizes the importance of elevating public awareness. It is
necessary to attend meetings and conferences to help educate
people on the program, which is the reason for the extra two-
year effort followed by the 10 percent staff time commitment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification on the
contractual amount.
MR. OTTOSEN answered that the contractual amounts are focused on
conducting surveys, discovering how people use the program,
basically to obtain feedback for the DOT&PF on how well the
program is working.
2:14:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked for clarification on the contractual
amount, which is for $10,000, but increases to $35,000 in FY 16.
MR. OTTOSEN mentioned that the DOT&PF works with the Department
of Law (DOL) on its regulations so at the start of a program and
every five years thereafter, the department incurs costs to
prepare regulations and updating regulations. In response to
Representative Gruenberg, Mr. Ottesen agreed the department
would like an educational component to the program.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that the Safe Routes to School
Program provides for a training program. He related that the
Department of Law has advised the bill title is for safe
ridership, which would include education and training, but if
the committee would prefer the title to be more specific, he
would not object to amending the bill to include it.
2:16:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled testimony on a version of this
program last year. He offered to assist in developing similar
language for HB 57.
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that she would leave public testimony
open on HB 57.
[HB 57 was held over.]
2:17:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:17
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 10 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Support Information.doc |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 10 Support Other States.docx |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB0010A.PDF |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 57 backup DOT.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB010-TRA-DOA-DMV-02-04-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 10 |
| HB 57 Burnett letter of support.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Kennedy Letter of support.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Bikes Program Description.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB057-DOT-AS-2-4-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| Anchorate Palmer Wasilla Plan.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Paperman support.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Lindholm support.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB57 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB57 text (2).pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 102 fiscal Note DOA.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/15/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 fiscal Note DOR.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/15/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 Governors Sponsor.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 Sectional.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/15/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |
| HB 102 text.pdf |
HTRA 2/10/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/22/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 102 |