HJR 10 - CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND  2:36:58 PM CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska creating a transportation infrastructure fund. 2:37:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, remarking on existing and anticipated losses of federal transportation funding and on Alaska's backlog of transportation projects and associated deferred maintenance projects, explained that [if passed by the legislature,] HJR 10 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 could then be used to fund such projects. Alaska must reduce its dependence on federal funds for its transportation projects, particularly given that federal funds overall are diminishing. [Legislative passage and voter approval of] HJR 10 would provide a means of meeting Alaska's ever-growing transportation needs. Research of those needs has been conducted, and members' packets contain resulting information, she noted. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON proffered that in order to adequately meet Alaska's transportation funding needs, in addition to establishing a dedicated transportation infrastructure fund - as HJR 10 would do if passed by the legislature and approved by the voters - the State must also maintain existing funding levels, and provide 100 percent of the funding for more projects, thereby reducing overall costs. She assured members that HJR 10 is not intended to diminish Alaska's partnership with the federal government. Instead, the intention is to provide for a dedicated revenue stream that would allow more of Alaska's transportation projects to be completed in a more-timely and less-expensive fashion. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her understanding that HJR 10's proposed transportation infrastructure fund would first have $2 billion appropriated to it [via other pending legislation], and could then receive yearly legislative appropriations derived from transportation-related taxes and fees; the amount then held in the proposed fund could also increase as returns on any investments compound. She noted that members' packets contain a spreadsheet produced by Legislative Finance Division estimating the yearly balance and the yearly amount that would then be available for appropriation. Offering her understanding that former Governor Hickel was in favor of a dedicated transportation infrastructure fund, Representative P. Wilson opined, "Alaska needs to take action now; the future of the economic and social wellbeing of Alaskan citizens is critical, and ... critically dependent on a reliable transportation system." The changes proposed by HJR 10 are needed in order to create and maintain a modern, reliable transportation system in Alaska, in turn attracting additional economic investment in the state and thereby also increasing the state's general fund (GF). 2:45:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, noting that past iterations of HJR 10 have been heard by the committee, mentioned that members' packets include letters of support, as well as a list of supporters, and that other pending legislation would address how the proposed transportation infrastructure fund would be managed and how and to whom the funds could then be distributed In conclusion, she asked that HJR 10 - placing before the voters a proposed amendment to the Alaska State Constitution establishing a dedicated transportation infrastructure fund - be moved from committee. REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER remarked that Alaska's airports and the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) are also part of the state's transportation system. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to questions, opined that regardless of what's occurring with the economy, Alaska's transportation infrastructure must be maintained, and thus a dedicated transportation infrastructure fund is needed. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed concern with altering the Alaska State Constitution in order to provide for a dedicated fund, particularly given that providing for such via statute instead would ensure that the legislature itself could then make any necessary future changes. Also, providing for one dedicated fund pertaining to spending in the Alaska State Constitution could lead to other such funds being proposed as well. He relayed that he didn't think HJR 10's proposal was appropriate, and he would therefore be voting against it. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to questions and comments, offered her understanding that under the proposed legislation, the aforementioned initial $2 billion would never be available for appropriation; pointed out that all of Alaska's citizens would benefit from the state having and appropriating from such a fund; confirmed that appropriations from the proposed dedicated transportation infrastructure fund would be discretionary rather than mandatory; and again remarked on existing and anticipated losses of federal transportation funding, upon which the state currently relies heavily. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT expressed her support for HJR 10. 2:58:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-LS0133\U.1, Martin, 3/29/13, which read: Page 2, line 2: Delete "studded" Page 2, line 7: Delete "studded" CHAIR KELLER objected. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, in response to a question, explained that adoption of Amendment 1 would ensure that all tire taxes are included. 2:59:42 PM CHAIR KELLER removed his objection, observed that there were no further objections, and announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIR KELLER offered his understanding of what ballot question the voters would be addressing should HJR 10 be adopted by the legislature: "to not only take money out of a savings account and to build the fund, but whether or not they want to tax themselves and use those taxes in a dedicated fashion." REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON clarified, "Actually, there won't be any increased taxes to the voters." CHAIR KELLER countered, "We're asking the people of Alaska if they want to direct that money, in their taxes - and it is taxes ... even if it's in savings because it's the people of Alaska's money; so that is the question that we are proposing putting before the people of Alaska." [HJR 10, as amended, was held over.]