Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 17
02/25/2010 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB329 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 322 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 329 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
1:10:07 PM
HB 329-DEDICATED TRANSPORT FUND/PUB TRANSPORT
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the only 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."
1:10:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON made a motion to adopt a proposed
Committee Substitute for HB 329, labeled 26-LS1307\K, Kane,
2/25/10 as the working document.
There being no objection, Version K was before the committee.
1:12:17 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative P. Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the prime sponsor, explained the
changes contained in Version K. She referred to page 2, lines
4-8, which is a change made to address a concern that the
Fisheries Business Tax had been singled out as a source to fund
the Municipal Harbor Facilities Grant Fund (MHFGF). She offered
that since the MHFGF can receive appropriations from other
sources of funds, references to the Fisheries Business Tax were
deleted. Thus, the specific source of funding for the MHFGF is
not listed in the bill.
1:14:08 PM
MS. ROONEY referred to page 3, line 8, and explained that the
committee held discussions on the previous bill language, which
read, "An appropriation from the fund may not be made to a
project..." Thus, the sponsor changed the language "may not" to
"shall not" to clarify that the appropriations would not be made
to projects covered by this subsection for which federal money
has been allocated unless certain conditions were met. She
commented that the change conflicts with the drafting manual,
but "shall" was preferred by the bill sponsor. She referred to
page 3, lines 15-31, and page 4, lines 1-8. The goal for this
change is provide descriptions that identify specific modes of
transportation, but also keep the descriptions flexible so
future legislatures have adequate discretion for appropriation.
One additional change was to add "major maintenance" to each
mode since considerable committee concern was expressed that
"major maintenance" was not included in this proposed Section.
1:15:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON asked whether the percentages the
DOT&PF currently expends for each mode were considered or if
perhaps expenditures over a five-year period between modes were
considered.
MS. ROONEY referred to the 2030 Transportation Plan, which was
reviewed and considered. However, the decision to limit the
allocation to current expenditures seemed too constrictive.
Thus, to provide more flexibility for allocation between modes,
the total allocation adds up to more than 100 percent.
Basically, this means the allocation may not exceed the
percentage, but does not need to reach the specific percentage
assigned to each mode.
MS. ROONEY referred to page 5, lines 2-7, to the issue of
defining "rural" versus "urban" districts in order to allow for
diverse representation on the proposed Transportation
Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council (TIFAC). Version K
provides diversification by identifying legislators to serve on
the TIFAC into two groups: those legislators who represent an
election district with a city with population of more than
35,000, and those legislators who represent an election district
with a city less than 35,000. Thus, the more densely populated
and less densely populated districts would have two legislative
representatives to serve on the proposed TIFAC.
1:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to whether any structure exists
that is similar to this one in terms of legislators having the
ability to provide input on capital appropriations.
MS. ROONEY said she did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thought there may be current examples,
such as the Mental Health Trust Board, in which legislators
serve and make decisions on capital projects.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered that the purpose for the
legislative participation on the TIFAC is to ensure the DOT&PF
would not solely make its decisions. She pointed out that many
constituents complained the DOT&PF came to the community and
held meetings but ultimately did not listen to community
comments and instead the capital projects were prioritized
internally by the DOT&PF.
1:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the proposed plan would be
approved by the governor.
MS. ROONEY agreed. She stated that the plan would be similar to
the capital budget process.
1:18:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled a court case in Anchorage which
was related to legislators participating in the AMATS. He
recalled that legislators were ultimately not allowed to
participate. He asked whether this court case would apply to
the proposed legislative participation on the ATIFAC.
FRANK RICHARDS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
stated that Jim Cantor, Assistant Attorney General is available
to address the issue.
1:20:26 PM
JIM CANTOR, Chief Assistant Attorney General; General -
Statewide Section Supervisor, Department of Law, stated that
over time the attorney general has issued opinions to cover the
issue of legislators serving on boards. The line is somewhat
unclear, but it is all right for legislators to serve on an
advisory board which is "purely advisory" in nature. However,
in reviewing some boards, such as the Land Use Advisory Board,
or the Amateur Sports Authority which seemed to be advisory in
nature, it was found that the legislators in these instances
would carry more weight than purely advisory, and having the
legislators participate may be unconstitutional. He did not
know where the line would be drawn between a legislator
performing substantive executive branch work and performing
advisory work. He said, "I think you phrased it in terms of
risk and it does create risk."
1:21:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked which party would come forward and
challenge the ATIFAC composition.
MR. CANTOR said he was not aware of any present controversy. He
thought dissent could come from someone disappointed with future
ranking of a project or a future dispute between the governor
and the legislature.
CHAIR P. WILSON related that she has "flagged" this item for
further review.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered his support to have legislative
participation since legislators could provide a conduit and
communication between the proposed ATIFAC and the public. He
suggested that the issue would be a separation of powers issue.
MR. CANTOR agreed that it is a separation of powers issue.
1:23:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there would be a difference
between an ex-officio member and an appointed member serving on
the proposed ATIFAC.
MR. CANTOR recalled that one legal opinion previously issued
related to an ex-officio arrangement in which members considered
capitol development in Juneau, which was considered fine. He
stated the Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority has non-voting
legislative members and the attorney general's office did not
issue an opinion, but thus far no one has challenged the matter.
CHAIR P. WILSON speculated that more controversy would likely
result over a specific project or town.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for an "off the cuff" legal opinion
to gain a sense of the matter.
MR. CANTOR responded that he is not prepared to answer, but the
factors the Department of Law would review would be whether the
legislator would "carry more weight" in the executive function.
The Department of Law would look at the composition and duties
of the proposed advisory council, and whether the legislators
would "carry more weight" on the proposed advisory council than
they currently do in the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ commented that this is an area of the bill
that troubles her.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for a formal legal opinion based on
the discussion and to consider if the legislators serving on the
proposed ATIFAC were ex-officio members, what effect that might
have on the legal opinion. He said he thought that may be a
solution to provide input to the legislature without "running
afoul" of the constitutional issues.
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that she is not planning on moving HB
329 today.
MS. ROONEY related that the drafters raised the issue, but the
bill drafters were comfortable since the report was reviewed by
the governor. She agreed that the formal opinion would be
useful.
1:29:22 PM
TOM GEORGE, Alaska Representative, Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association, offered his support for the concept of the proposed
dedicated transportation fund. He expressed concern with the
allocation between modes and the current proposed composition of
the council. He stated that his organization prefers not to
have legislators serve on the proposed advisory council
(ATIFAC). He said he would also like to probe whether the
proposed ATIFAC is comprised of too many state employee members.
He suggested the sponsor hold HB 329 in committee. He further
suggested that the committee conduct a series of stakeholder
meetings during the legislative interim to work through some of
the issues. He thought that the process would result in a plan
that could be used to get the proposed constitutional amendment
passed.
1:31:49 PM
WHITNEY BREWSTER, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that conceptually the
Division of Motor Vehicles does not oppose HB 329 in any way.
She pointed out that almost all of the DOT&PF appropriations are
funded through receipts supported services, which means the DMV
is supported by its fees, and any additional funds are deposited
to the General Fund (GF). She cautioned if all of revenues
collected from vehicle registration fees were transferred to the
proposed dedicated transportation fund that the DMV could not
operate. She said the DMV does not want to inhibit the DMV's
revenue collection or jeopardize its ability to carry out the
DMV's statutory obligations. She suggested the committee
consider funding the DMV's costs first, and deposit the
remainder of the funds to the proposed dedicated transportation
fund.
CHAIR P. WILSON related she has held some conversations with the
Department of Revenue and expressed her willingness to amend the
bill to address the concern raised by the DMV.
1:34:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the DMV uses the same
process for capital budget items that everyone else uses.
MS. BREWSTER responded yes, that the DMV uses the typical
capital budget process for capital expenditures.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the DMV's capital
expenditures would entail software and hardware, but not
typically buildings.
MS. BREWSTER answered yes. She stated that the DMV's projects
are primarily requests for hardware and software and similar
types of products.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related that the department has
requested $13 million in the CIB to upgrade computers.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated his desire to have the request
clarified for the record since he serves on the finance
subcommittee.
1:35:56 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON stated she would hold public testimony open on
HB 329.
1:36:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN referred to Section 3, and asked whether
vehicle registration fees would be appropriated to the DMV or
how that would be handled.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her intention to amend the bill to
provide for the DMV operating funds to be extracted from the
fees.
MR. RICHARDS said he did not have any comments at this time.
[HB 329 was held over.]
1:38:21 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 329 Ver K.pdf |
HTRA 2/25/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 329 |