Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
02/15/2011 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR6 | |
| HJR4 | |
| HB30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 4-CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND
1:31:01 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the next 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.
1:32:36 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON provided the background for the new committee
members on previous work the House Transportation Standing
Committee conducted last year that provided members with the
breadth and depth of problems related to funding transportation
projects in Alaska. She explained that this work resulted in
the concept of reinstating the dedicated transportation
infrastructure. When Alaska became a state, the state
constitution specifically stated that dedicated funds are
prohibited. However, at the time three dedicated funds were
grandfathered in, two of which were dedicated transportation
funds: one for land and one for water, she said. She stated
and the committee considered suggestions and introduced three
bills.
1:34:02 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON reported that reinstating a dedicated
transportation fund has been attempted four times since the
original dedicated transportation fund was eliminated.
Currently, the state is significantly behind on its road,
facility and harbor maintenance while each year Alaska's oil
production is also diminishing. Last year oil production was
reduced by seven percent which means less oil revenue to the
state. Alaska's revenue sources are not diversified with over
90 percent of its revenue derived from oil, she stated. She
explained that the bills currently before the committee
represent an effort to plan for Alaska's future.
1:35:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 4, labeled 27-LS0197\I, Kane, 2/11/11,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version I
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He then removed his objection.
1:36:31 PM
REBECCA ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, on behalf of
the sponsor of HJR 4, the House Transportation Committee,
presented the changes to the original resolution. She first
explained that HJR 4 would place a constitutional amendment
before the voters to change Alaska's Constitution to allow for a
dedicated fund for capital transportation projects. The
proposed committee substitute (CS), Version I, would change the
revenue stream to reflect that the federal transportation grant
requires any revenue realized from airport leases to be directed
to the respective airport in which fees were collected. In FY
10, 87 percent of the state's transportation budget was derived
from the federal government. The federal reauthorization has
since expired and is current being extended month by month until
a new reauthorization is passed by the Congress. She predicted
the Federal Highway Trust Fund will be depleted by March 1. She
anticipated the new federal transportation funding will
emphasize mass transit and "green" transportation. These
changes would not favor small population states and overall
funding is also likely to be reduced. Alaska will need to
shoulder more of its transportation infrastructure, she said.
1:38:09 PM
MS. ROONEY explained that the proposed CS for HJR 4 is designed
to meet ever growing transportation needs in Alaska.
Transportation investment could create a competitive environment
designed to attract additional economic development. Last
legislature and during the legislative interim, the House
Transportation Standing Committee listened to the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), grass roots
organizations, and transportation companies identify challenges
to transportation in our geographically diverse state. The
committee flew to villages to view airports, and rode on
Alaska's urban highways to view needs for safety, congestion,
and deferred maintenance. The committee heard from the Alaska
Municipal League (AML), and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB)
also provided an independent study to help identify the fiscal
challenges to transportation in Alaska. She offered to provide
a copy of the MSB study to members. The National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL) reported measures other states are
taking to address transportation infrastructure budget gaps.
She referred to a report in members' packets by Larry Persily,
former legislative aide to House Finance Committee Co-Chair
Representative Mike Hawker, who prepared an analysis of funding
options for the committee's consideration.
1:39:21 PM
MS. ROONEY concluded that the proposed CS is a culmination of
the committee's work and research on transportation funding.
She explained that the initiative would allow the state to enjoy
cost savings and reduced project time frames by using a state
funded mechanism for funding. The proposed fund would move
projects from inception to completion more quickly since use of
the federal highway fund imposes highly prescriptive and lengthy
procedures that must be adhered to for projects. She offered an
example, noting state funds were used in building the Elmore
Road Extension in Anchorage. Using state funds allowed the
project to be completed in less than three years while it would
have taken seven to ten years to complete the project using the
federal process, she said. She cautioned members that the
proposed resolution is not intended to diminish the partnership
with the federal government but is designed to complement it.
The proposed resolution would provide a dedicated revenue stream
to allow for completion of more projects in a shorter time
frame. Under the resolution, the Alaska Transportation
Infrastructure Fund (ATIF) would grow as the investment returns
compounded. The endowment would initially be seeded with $1
billion dollars. In addition to the investment returns of the
endowment, taxes, including the motor fuel tax, vehicle
regulation fees, studded tire tax, and vehicle rental tax would
be deposited into the proposed ATIF. She predicted that the
ATIF would initially generate approximately $103 million in the
first year and thereafter would increase by $3 million to 3.5
million annually. She referred to a spreadsheet in members'
packets, which was developed by the Department of Revenue (DOR)
to estimate the potential fund balance that would be available
each year for transportation infrastructure. She stated
historians previously reported Alaska's constitutional drafters
were concerned that dedicated funds could impair future
legislatures from responding to evolving public needs. The
public need for dependable and efficient transportation hasn't
changed since Alaska's Constitution was drafted but the need has
grown, she said.
1:41:54 PM
MS. ROONEY read an excerpt from a speech Governor Wally Hickel
gave nearly 20 years ago, in reference to a dedicated
transportation fund:
This is not as radical a proposal as it might sound.
Over half the states already have the same type of
financing arrangement. In fact, Alaska's founding
fathers supported this exact mechanism and provided
for it at statehood. With a dedicated fund Alaskans
will receive more stable service levels. And if new
revenues are needed to preserve or improve service,
Alaskans will be assured that any new fee will go
directly into their transportation system.
MS. ROONEY remarked that this excerpt could be presented today
just as it was 20 years ago. She read:
Alaska needs to take action now. The future of the
economic and social well being of Alaska's citizens is
critically dependent on a reliable transportation
system. This change to the constitution, allowing a
dedicated transportation fund is needed to create and
maintain a modern reliable transportation system for
Alaska.
1:43:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to Representative Johnson,
indicated that he previously removed his objection to adopting
the proposed committee substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the legal question of
whether a dedicated fund could be reinstated once repealed. He
recalled an attorney general's opinion addressed that issue by
stating it could not be resurrected. He asked whether the
attorney general's opinion could be made available.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed to provide the attorney general's
opinion.
1:45:29 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, in response to Representative Johnson, noted a
disagreement at the time the state increased the motor fuel tax
to $.08. She related her understanding the issue at the time
the motor fuel tax was increased, that the discussion surrounded
whether the dedicated fund could stay in place if the motor fuel
tax was increased and subsequently the state deleted the fund.
1:46:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the proposed annual state
contribution that could be used for state DOT&PF projects.
MS. ROONEY answered that while she did not have a specific
figure the state contributed 13 percent in FY 10.
1:47:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for the rationale for the "up to 50
percent" of the state taxes that would supply the revenue
stream.
MS. ROONEY responded that the sponsor wanted to grow the fund
and allow for expending funds immediately on projects. This
mechanism also allows the state to inflation proof the fund.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said it would be helpful to know if 50
percent is sufficient to reach the state's goal.
CHAIR P. WILSON commented that the proposed resolution is not
designed to replace current transportation funding, but rather
to put in place transportation infrastructure to use for
deferred maintenance and other projects. She reiterated the
proposed ATIF is not meant to replace the state's transportation
funding but to recognize that the state is not currently doing
enough.
[HJR 4 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ATIF Fact Sheet 2011.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 -ATIF Sponsor Stmt ver B.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 ver B.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Persily Report.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 statutes.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 support documents.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Support Miners 1-2011.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HJR4 -Constitutional Change Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 HJR $ |
| HJR004-OOG-DOE-2-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HJR 4 Ver B.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| CS HJR 4 Ver I.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 4 |
| HB 30 support Harbormasters.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| CS SJR6 Ver I.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 - sponsor statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| SJR 6 Alaska Aviation Support.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 6 |
| HB030-DOA-DMV-02-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB030-DOT-CO-2-11-11.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| HB30 appropriations spreadsheet (2).pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 30 |
| SJR 6 letters of support.pdf |
HTRA 2/15/2011 1:00:00 PM |