Legislature(2009 - 2010)
02/18/2010 01:03 AM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Marine Transportation Advisory Board | |
| Amhs Update | |
| HB329 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 329-DEDICATED TRANSPORT FUND/PUB TRANSPORT
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 329, "An Act relating to the transportation
infrastructure fund, to local public transportation, to motor
fuel taxes, and to the motor vehicle registration fee; and
providing for an effective date."
2:18:20 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that a new committee substitute has
been prepared.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN made a motion to adopt a proposed
committee substitute, labeled 26-LS1207\N, Kane, 2/18/10, as the
working document.
2:19:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:19:38 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative P. Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative P. Wilson, stated that
explained changes contained in Version N. She explained that
the first change removed legislative intent. Another bill will
be vehicle for appropriation of the proposed $1 billion
endowment to the proposed Alaska Transportation Infrastructure
Fund (ATIF), she stated.
2:20:24 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 2, line 5 of Version N. She
reported that the committee previously discussed removing the
Watercraft Fuel Tax Account (WFTA) from the bill since it may
appear that the Fisheries Business Tax Account (FBTA) was the
only revenue source for the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Fund
(MHFGF). Thus, the WFTA was replaced with the ATIF. On page 2,
lines 19-22, the committee previously discussed the beginning as
July 1, 2011 instead of April 1, 2011, to coincide with the
start of fiscal year. She referred to page 3, to the allocation
of funds between modes, noting the committee previously
discussed the desire for more flexibility between the
transportation modes. She referred to page 3, line 13, which
was changed to read..."not to exceed" to allow the legislature
the ability to increase and decrease appropriations between the
transportation mode, which would allow additional funding for a
runway erosion issue or other issue that may require additional
funding to be addressed.
2:22:36 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 4, line 10, to the composition of
the Transportation Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council (ATIFAC)
which was increased to 10 members. Some committee members
suggested that the legislature's Transportation Committee Chairs
might have too large a role. Thus, paragraphs 4 and 5 added two
additional legislators to be appointed by the leadership instead
of the Chairs of the House and Senate Transportation Standing
Committees. The bill adds two legislators from urban and rural
districts to ensure the representation of expertise in different
modes. The DOT&PF commissioner's position was deleted, but
his/her three deputy commissioners were added since they are
responsible for surface transportation, aviation, and the AMHS.
2:24:10 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 4, lines 24-31, which is the bill
drafter's first attempt to capture legislators from urban and
rural districts.
CHAIR P. WILSON expressed her intention to hold HB 329 over
today.
2:26:21 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 5, line 7 of Version N. The date
was changed to October 15 to allow the report from the ATIFAC to
mesh with the DOT&PF's budget timeframe. Additionally, the
ATIFAC's report will be submitted to governor as well as the
legislature to help alleviate the issue of the separation of
powers. This disparity comes into play since having legislators
on the council basically gives the legislature both the power to
affect the suggested list of projects as well as choose the
actual projects that receive funding.
2:27:04 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 9, lines 22 and 29, and indicated
the dates were changed to reflect the beginning of the fiscal
year.
CHAIR P. WILSON referred to page 9, line 25 of proposed Section
15 of Version N, which read, "If, under sec. 13 of this Act, AS
44.42.020(a)(17), enacted by sec. 9 of this Act, takes effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)." This means that this bill
would take effect only if the results if the joint resolution
[HJR 42] passes and the voters pass the constitutional
amendment, she stated.
2:28:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related a series of concerns and
suggestions. He referred to page 4, of Version N, to the
composition of the ATIFAC, which would consist of four
legislators. He expressed concern that members would be
majority members and no provision was made for minority members.
He related that two legislators should represent communities
with small populations and two legislative members were not
described. He asked for consideration for urban areas and the
population that uses the public transit systems. He referred to
page 5, line 3, which refers to AS 39.20.180. He asked whether
that was the correct statute or if the travel and per diem
should correspond to a statute in Title 24. He also referred to
page 5, line page 7, to capital projects and suggested
flexibility to cover items such as higher fuel costs or
operating expenses instead of restricting the recommendations to
capital projects.
2:32:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that the sponsor specifically
consider an alternate plan for a statute in case the
constitutional amendment for the dedicated transportation fund
does not pass. If that happened, the committee would need to
start a new process to develop an alternate plan which would
take time. If an alternate plan were incorporated into the
bill, it would ensure that transportation issues could be
funded.
2:33:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 2, lines 1-9, of
Version N. He was unsure whether the Fisheries Business Tax
should be included.
CHAIR P. WILSON answered the Fisheries Business Tax is an
existing tax. She explained that she wanted the flexibility to
use the tax for the proposed ATIF.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred again to proposed Section 2 and
to the appropriations to the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant
Fund. This proposed section allows the legislature to
appropriate to the proposed ATIF, deletes the reference to the
Watercraft Fuel Tax Account, and "out of the blue" states, "and
from Fisheries Business Tax collected under AS 43.75.015 after
payments to municipalities are made..." He suggested that any
of a hundred funds from the general fund could be deposited to
the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Fund. He asked why the
Fisheries Business Tax is singled out since the legislature may
make other appropriations to the fund. He also remarked that
this tax is collected under AS 43.75.150, but payments are made
to municipalities under AS 43.75.130.
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that the state is in the process of
fixing harbors and allowing local municipalities to take over
ownership. She commented that municipalities will not take over
harbors until the repairs are made. She recalled that about 29
harbors have not yet been transferred or fixed and this
mechanism may provide a method to repair the state's harbors.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN agreed but maintained his concern.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered to flag areas of concern that members
have on the bill.
2:37:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 3, lines 6-8 of Version
N, and read, "An appropriation from the fund may not be made to
a project for which federal money has been allocated..." He
referred to page 3, line 13, which read, "...shall be
distributed..." He asked for clarification since one is "may"
and the other is "shall."
CHAIR P. WILSON explained that she sought flexibility. State
funded projects can move more quickly through the process, yet
there might be times the legislature may wish to use federal
funds. She expressed her intent to limit the amount of the fund
that could be used for capital projects.
2:38:47 PM
BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency,
explained that "may not" and "shall not" basically mean the same
thing. He referred to page 3, line 6, and explained that the
state is limited to making an appropriation for matching funds
for a federally funding project. Additionally, federal matching
funds cannot exceed 10 percent of the appropriations for any
given year.
2:40:29 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON stated she did not know if federal projects
always require matching funds. She asked whether it would be
clearer if it read that an appropriation from the fund "cannot
or shall not" be made instead of "may not."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed that "cannot" is a clearer term.
He suggested the sponsor consider discussing this further with
the bill drafter. He stated that "may not" is likely the normal
term in the drafting manual but in this instance is confusing.
2:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 3, lines 12-13, which
read, "Appropriations made from the fund for capital projects
for transportation and related facilities shall be distributed
based on amounts not to exceed the following percentages..." He
asked whether the dedicated fund, which sets specific parameters
for allocation of funds between transportation modes, would
challenge the decision-making process of the legislature.
MR. KANE responded that he did not believe the program would
challenge the appropriation process. He stated the
determination was the resolution would place into the
constitution a provision for a dedicated fund for transportation
and related facilities. The proposed language in HB 329 sets
the allocation to ensure money is spread out for transportation
needs such as roads, ferries, and transit. However, in any
given year the entirety of the fund would not be appropriated
for only one project. The legislature could still appropriate
80 percent of the available funding for road and surface
transportation funding and not appropriate any funds to other
types of transportation projects.
2:43:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 3, lines 12-15 of
Version N and asked what would happen if the legislature chose
to appropriate 85 percent instead of 80 percent for roads and
surface transportation.
MR. KANE answered that based on the language that the statute
would not allow the legislature to spend beyond these
percentages from the proposed Transportation Infrastructure Fund
(ATIF), but the legislature could appropriate additional funds
from another fund such as the general fund (GF).
2:44:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that this is an
authorization bill and the legislature cannot appropriate beyond
the manner authorized. He referred to page 3, line 25, of
Version N. He expressed discomfort with the current percentages
of allocation from the dedicated transportation fund. However,
he suggested that the 20 percent referred to in this paragraph
is intended for "public" transportation. He further suggested
that it should read, "...projects related to local community
public transportation and transit..." to be certain the intent
is crystal clear. He referred to page 3, line 7, and offered
that it may be appropriate to refer to capital projects in this
instance.
2:45:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to page 3, lines 17-18, of Version
N and asked whether municipal airports are eligible for up to 25
percent for aviation projects.
MS. ROONEY responded that she believed that all airports could
apply for the funds.
2:46:20 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the Juneau International Airport
is owned by the City and Borough of Juneau and that Juneau
receives a portion of the aviation fuel tax.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ agreed that the Juneau International
Airport receives 60 percent of the aviation fuel tax. She
referred to page 3, to paragraph 5, which allows for the
inclusion of other community transportation projects, and asked
why municipal airports would be excluded under paragraph 2.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that public transportation
could include airports.
2:47:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the 25 percent allocation for
aviation could include municipal airports.
MR. KANE answered he was not aware of another provision in
statute that would prohibit municipal airports from receiving
any type of appropriations so he assumed airports would be
eligible for appropriations under this paragraph as well as
under the public transportation provision.
2:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to page 3, paragraph 4, and asked
whether the 20 percent allocation for harbor projects would be
deposited into Municipal Harbor Facility Fund.
MR. KANE related that these are ceiling percentages for
allocation from the proposed fund, but no specific percent is
required to be deposited into the Municipal Harbor Facility
Grant Fund. There is also another option for projects related
to harbor facilities and state-owned marine facilities as well
as the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant Fund. As much as 20
percent can be deposited directly into the grant fund, but the
allocation cannot exceed the 20 percent, he stated.
2:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the composition and make-up of
the ATIFAC. She asked how the creation of another DOT&PF review
team would impact the department and whether this council would
create a duplication of effort. She also expressed concern
about inclusion of legislators on that team since this is a
statewide project fund. She suggested that legislators would
naturally focus on own areas. She asked the committee to
consider an amendment to the composition of the ATIFAC. She
indicated she would also like the DOT&PF to comment.
CHAIR P. WILSON clarified that this would not represent a
duplication of efforts since the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) relates to federally funded projects.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ maintained she would like to hear from the
DOT&PF on this matter of creating another panel.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that some constituents do not believe
the public's concerns are addressed in the current process.
This option would have someone directly representing the
constituency in the process.
2:52:21 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT/PF),
stated that the DOT&PF provided a packet for members to identify
the project evaluation boards that the DOT&PF currently has in
place for surface transportation highway, aviation, and harbors
projects. The process for each of the boards is similar,
although the criterion differs slightly. He related that the
DOT&PF would welcome another board to address state projects.
The inclusion of public members or legislators would also be
welcome for their viewpoint and perspective. The DOT&PF
welcomes this participation to ensure that the process is an
open and transparent process.
2:53:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN recalled prior committee discussion. He
further recalled that the committee thought having the Chair of
the House and Senate Transportation Committees might have too
much influence in the process. He was not certain if that issue
has been addressed.
CHAIR P. WILSON recalled that the Chairs of the Transportation
Standing Committees initially would appoint legislators to serve
on the advisory committee, but a provision has been expanded in
Version N to allow the leadership of each body to appoint
legislative members.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he thought the DOT&PF process
worked well, but he expressed concern that having the
legislative members on the advisory committee might be creating
another "committee of committees." He said he also thought
another layer of bureaucracy might slow down the process.
2:55:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN referred to page 4, line 18, of Version
N, and asked whether the commissioner's designee is another
DOT&PF employee or if the commissioner can appoint anyone to
serve.
MR. RICHARDS responded that the commissioner's designee has
always has been a DOT&PF person.
MR. KANE offered his belief that in each instance a DOT&PF
designee has been filling in for the commissioner the designee
has been a DOT&PF employee. He offered to research this
further.
2:57:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN remarked that an appointed legislator
could be a minority member of the legislature.
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that it could be transportation chair.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that it would be unlikely
legislature leadership would appoint a minority legislative
member to serve.
MR. KANE, in response to Chair P. Wilson, stated that the
appointment process to decide which legislators will serve on
boards and commissions has usually been left to the discretion
of the leadership of the legislature. He offered to check into
this further.
3:00:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, to paragraphs 1
through 5, and asked whether surface transportation includes
public transportation. He thought that surface transportation
would relate to rolling stock, which would be public and real
property in the sense of roads. He also thought it might allow
for projects such as a bus barn. He wanted to be certain that
the language in paragraph 1 indicates that the dedicated
transportation fund could be used for bus barn or a roundhouse
for the railroad. He asked for clarification and to flag the
issue for the sponsor to contemplate.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked that all of the state projects are for
the public.
MR. KANE suggested that the legislature could define that the
allocation for distribution from the proposed ATIF could be
defined as specific or in broad terms.
3:03:16 PM
MS. ROONEY related that the discussions for the allocations were
limited to roads and the means of conveying vehicles. The
reason for the inclusion of paragraphs specified for local
community public transportation and transit is because these
items were specifically separate from roads and surface
transportation category.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that he could envision at
some point the need for a bus barn.
CHAIR P. WILSON offered her belief that a bus barn project would
be covered under the allocation in paragraph 5, which allows
funds to be used for projects related to local community public
transportation and transit. In further response to
Representative Gruenberg, she explained that the Alaska Railroad
Corporation is specifically not listed since it is a separate
entity. This fund is not for Alaska Railroad Corporation
projects, she stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG strongly suggested that this "be put in
black and white" as it is not clear in the specific language.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN suggested that the sponsor should also
consider how the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Solutions (AMATS) and the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area
Transportation Solutions (FMATS) process fits together.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed. He remarked that as
Southcentral grows a rail commuter system may be needed and he
would like the dedicated transportation fund to be used for that
purpose.
[HB 329 was held over.]
3:11:39 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|