Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 120
03/25/2011 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB171 | |
| HB23 | |
| HJR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 4 - CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
[Contains brief mention of HB 30 and HB 31, which address the
funding and other necessary statutory changes related to HJR 4's
proposed transportation infrastructure fund.]
2:13:25 PM
CHAIR GATTO announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska creating a transportation
infrastructure fund. [Before the committee was CSHJR 4(TRA).]
2:13:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as one of the joint prime sponsors, explained that [if passed by
the legislature,] HJR 4 would place before the voters a proposed
amendment to the Alaska State Constitution establishing a
dedicated fund - in the form of a transportation infrastructure
fund - that would be used to fund Alaska's transportation
projects. In fiscal year 2010 (FY 10), 87 percent of Alaska's
transportation budget came from the federal government, but the
current federal reauthorization legislation has already expired
and been extended many times, and so those federal funds are
only going to be available through September of 2011.
Furthermore, the new federal reauthorization is rumored to be
quite a bit smaller, and is considered to be unfavorable to
states with small populations due to its emphasis on mass
transit, high-speed rail, and "green" transportation.
Therefore, as federal funding continues to diminish, Alaska will
have to shoulder more financial responsibility for its
transportation infrastructure. Investment in the state's
transportation infrastructure creates a competitive environment
that attracts additional economic investments, which translate
into jobs for Alaskans. House Joint Resolution 4 is intended to
provide for Alaska's ever-growing transportation needs.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that over the last couple of
years, the House Transportation Standing Committee has been
seeking and receiving testimony from the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), "grassroots
organizations," and transportation companies regarding the
challenges of transportation in Alaska resulting from its
geographical diversity, and has visited rural and urban
communities across the state, learning about their airports and
basic transportation infrastructures, and the challenges they
face regarding safety, [traffic] congestion, and deferred
maintenance. Furthermore, the Alaska Municipal League (AML) and
the Matanuska-Susitna (MAT-SU) Borough arranged for an
independent study to be conducted regarding the fiscal
challenges of transportation; the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) provided information regarding what other
states are doing to address their transportation-infrastructure
budget gaps; and the federal coordinator for Alaska natural gas
transportation projects provided a list of all funding options
available to address the fiscal shortfalls that Alaska's long-
range transportation plan has outlined.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that HJR 4 is the culmination
of all that research, and is not intended to diminish Alaska's
relationship with the federal government. Instead, the
intention is to provide for a dedicated revenue stream that
would allow more transportation projects to be completed more
quickly and for less money. Alaska needs to take advantage of
both the cost- and time-savings afforded by state-funded
projects in order to address the state's growing transportation-
infrastructure needs. It is anticipated that the proposed
transportation infrastructure fund would move projects along
much faster, from conception to completion, because state-funded
projects do not have to follow the federal government's highly-
prescriptive and lengthy procedures - which are often expensive
and time consuming - thereby allowing constituents to enjoy the
benefits of such projects much sooner. For example, because
state funds were used for the Elmore Road extension, that
project was completed in less than three years rather than the
seven to ten years it would have taken had following federal
procedures been required.
2:17:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON explained that the proposed
transportation infrastructure fund, in addition to being seeded
with $1 billion and receiving yearly revenue from Alaska's motor
fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees, studded tire taxes, and
vehicle rental taxes, would continue to grow as its investment
returns are compounded. Under HJR 4, in any given year, the
legislature could appropriate up to 50 percent of its yearly
revenue, and up to 6 percent of its market value averaged over
the previous five fiscal years. According to a handout in
members' packets developed by the Department of Revenue (DOR),
the proposed transportation infrastructure fund is anticipated
to generate approximately $103 million the first year, and to
increase every year after that by between $3 million and $3.5
million. The legislature would use the same process to
appropriate money from the fund as it currently uses for the
capital budget.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON indicated that there are three pieces
of legislation that together would enable the establishment of
the proposed transportation infrastructure fund: [HJR 4 would
place the proposed change to the Alaska State Constitution
before the voters, HB 31 would provide for the appropriation of
the initial $1 billion to the fund, and HB 30 would provide the
other necessary statutory changes]. As currently outlined in
the legislation, appropriations from the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund could be used for any transportation-related
needs such as capital projects and large deferred-maintenance
projects. And should the legislature later choose to, it could
make further statutory changes such that appropriations from the
fund could also be used for DOT&PF operations, thereby ensuring
that the legislature has the flexibility to use the appropriated
funds as it sees fit.
2:20:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON relayed that those who've testified
before the House Transportation Standing Committee on this issue
agree that the state needs a reliable revenue stream that won't
fluctuate from year to year, and proffered that HJR 4 would
provide just that; with such a reliable revenue stream in place,
the state would be able to implement a transportation plan that
would be independent from the federal government. Historians,
she proffered, write that the drafters of the Alaska State
Constitution were concerned that providing for dedicated funds
would impair future legislatures from responding to evolving
public needs. However, 24 states have constitutionally-required
dedicated funds, and the public need for dependable and
efficient transportation has only grown since the Alaska State
Constitution was written. She offered her understanding that in
one of his speeches, former Governor Hickel indicated support
for the Alaska State Constitution being changed to provide for a
dedicated transportation fund.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON went on to explain that under a change
made by the prior committee, the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund would no longer include revenues from
[airport leases] due to a federal requirement that such revenues
be returned to the airports they were collected from.
[Chair Gatto turned the gavel over to Representative Keller.]
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON mentioned that members' packets include
a list of those who support HJR 4 and would be seeking its
passage in the November 2012 general election. In conclusion,
she opined that Alaska must provide for and maintain a modern,
reliable transportation system in order to ensure the economic
and social wellbeing of its citizens, and that the
constitutional change provided for via HJR 4 - establishing a
dedicated transportation fund - would allow the state to do just
that.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES - referring to language on page 1, lines
14-15, of HJR 4 regarding aviation fuel taxes, and to a
memorandum by Legislative Legal and Research Services dated
February 25, 2011, [commenting on federal law as it pertains to
such taxes] - questioned whether, if HJR 4's proposed
constitutional change is approved by the voters, any future
changes to Alaska's aviation fuel taxes would require an
additional constitutional change.
[Representative Keller returned the gavel to Chair Gatto.]
2:25:24 PM
BECKY ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative P. Wilson, one of
HJR 4's joint prime sponsors, offered her belief that any
changes the legislature wishes to make in the future regarding
the appropriation of aviation fuel taxes could be addressed via
a statutory change rather than via another change to the Alaska
State Constitution, and mentioned that under current law,
60 percent of aviation-fuel tax revenue must be refunded to the
municipality responsible for the airport from which the tax
revenue came, and that [the aforementioned HB 30 would
additionally allow] a portion of the appropriations from the
proposed transportation infrastructure fund to be used for
aviation-related projects. In response to another question, she
indicated that use of the phrase, "other transportation-related
fees and funds designated by the legislature" on page 2,
lines 2-3, is meant to provide the legislature with the
[constitutional] flexibility to address such fees and funds
should any be established in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES surmised, then, that use of the phrase,
"transportation and related facilities that are designated by
law" on page 2, lines 9-10, is meant to provide the legislature
with similar [constitutional] flexibility regarding what
appropriations from the proposed transportation infrastructure
fund could be used for.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON concurred. In response to another
question, she ventured that allowing for up to 6 percent of the
market value of the proposed transportation infrastructure fund
averaged over the previous five fiscal years to be additionally
appropriated would provide the legislature with sufficient
flexibility, and pointed out that the legislature could choose
to appropriate less than 6 percent. In response to a question,
she offered her understanding that currently the fees referenced
in HJR 4 are deposited into the general fund (GF).
MS. ROONEY added that under HJR 4, appropriations from the
proposed transportation infrastructure fund could be used for
costs related to motor vehicle licensing and registration that
are designated by law. In response to another question, she
offered her understanding that under [HB 30,] certain specialty-
license-plate fees would be exempt from inclusion in the
proposed transportation infrastructure fund.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to further questions,
offered her understanding that the federal funding of Alaska's
FY 10 transportation budget totaled approximately $400 million,
and explained that under [HB 30, a 19-member Transportation
Infrastructure Fund Advisory Council] would be established that
would prioritize eligible transportation-related projects and
then submit a report to the governor and the legislature making
recommendations regarding which projects should receive funding
from the proposed transportation infrastructure fund.
2:34:51 PM
TOM BRICE, Alaska District Council of Laborers, relayed that the
Alaska District Council of Laborers supports HJR 4, and is
always interested in ensuring long-term, stable funding sources
for Alaska's transportation projects, viewing HJR 4 as one of
the instruments that would help accommodate such. He concluded
by saying that the Alaska District Council of Laborers
encourages the committee to move forward with the resolution,
and looks forward to [promoting] the adoption of the proposed
constitutional change.
2:36:17 PM
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist, Alaska American Federation of Laborers
- Congress of Industrial Organizations (Alaska AFL-CIO), relayed
that both the Alaska AFL-CIO and the Teamsters Local 959 support
HJR 4, and look forward to [promoting] the adoption of the
proposed constitutional change, adding that he, himself - as a
seasonal maritime captain - supports HJR 4, and is looking
forward to having something like [the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund in place] to help out with the state's
harbor needs, particularly given the atrocious state of
disrepair some of the harbors are in, and given the current
limitations of the "municipal grant fund."
2:37:45 PM
RON AXTELL, Vice President, Laborers' Local 341, said that as
someone who's worked in the "heavy highway sector" for many
years, he strongly supports [HJR 4's] proposed change to the
Alaska State Constitution establishing a transportation
infrastructure fund. Regardless that the state does its best to
maintain its roads and highways, Alaska will always be lagging
behind unless it can find a way to fund maintenance and
development, and the recent receipt of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) monies illustrates the effect of
not having such a funding plan in place, he ventured. Alaska's
major highways are in terrible shape, with rutting from studded
tires. How long will Alaskans have to wait before their
highways are repaired? This, he opined, is just one example of
the many problems with Alaska's existing transportation
infrastructure. As a young Alaska moves forward, it will be
forced to pick up the funding burden as the federal deficit
grows and federal monies to states decrease. With financial
uncertainty looming on Alaska's horizon, not moving forward with
[HJR 4's] proposed constitutional amendment could very well
produce a greater strain on future state budgets.
MR. AXTELL offered his belief that the proposed transportation
infrastructure fund would help the state resist the influence of
outside organizations that would prefer Alaska to remain
undeveloped, and predicted that with the establishment of such a
fund, Alaska would have more control over which projects to
proceed with. With many jobs and businesses reliant upon
transportation projects, completing such projects in a timely
and efficient manner would be a win-win for everyone, and it
would be a large disappointment for the state to have to tell
its citizens that it would like to do more development and
improvement but it just can't seem to find the money. In
conclusion, he asked the committee to support HJR 4 and bring
the proposed constitutional amendment before the voters.
2:40:24 PM
KEVIN POMEROY, Laborers Local 942, said he supports HJR 4 and
agrees with the sponsor that Alaska isn't going to be able to
continue relying upon federal funding, and characterized
[HB 31's $1 billion in seed money] as a wonderful investment at
a time when the state has a little bit of money to spend -
unlike some states in the Lower 48. Alaska is going to have to
become more accountable with regard to where it obtains funding,
particularly given that because Alaska has such a small
population, other states are more likely to receive any
available federal funding. For the state to invest in its own
development is a great idea, he opined. Consider, for example,
that many discussions often revolve around ways to
enhance/promote tourism and bring development to the state, and
yet one of the first things visitors to the state see when they
arrive is the condition of the state's airports, ferry
terminals, and roadways - Alaska's transportation infrastructure
- and so it's important for the state to be able to illustrate
that it's capable of taking care of its own infrastructure,
which, in addition to promoting development, is used daily by
Alaskans for a variety of reasons. In conclusion, he reiterated
his support for HJR 4.
CHAIR GATTO, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify on the resolution, closed public testimony, and relayed
that HJR 4 would be held over.