HJR 42 - CONST. AM: TRANSPORTATION FUND  1:07:23 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska creating a transportation infrastructure fund. [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 42, Version 26-LS1411/S, Kane, 2/17/10, which had been adopted as the work draft on 2/17/10.] CHAIR RAMRAS mentioned that members' packets now include a memorandum from Representative Gatto dated March 1, 2010, indicating that he has no objections to reporting HJR 42 from committee; that memorandum in part read [original punctuation provided]: I respectfully withdraw my objection to moving Representative Wilson's HJR 42 of the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Wilson's office has coordinated with my staff to ensure that my concerns regarding the funding source for the proposed infrastructure fund were addressed. I have also concluded, upon further guidance from legal services, that there are no significant constitutional issues with HJR 42. 1:08:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as chair of the House Transportation Standing Committee, sponsor of HJR 42, mentioned that there is a forthcoming amendment which she would like to see adopted. 1:09:44 PM CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26- LS1411\S.3, Kane, 2/25/10, which read: Page 2, line 5, following "law": Insert "and for costs related to motor vehicle licensing and registration that are designated by law" REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected. 1:10:05 PM BECKY ROONEY, Staff, Representative Peggy Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor of HJR 42, the House Transportation Standing Committee, which is chaired by Representative P. Wilson, offered her understanding that Amendment 1 would "allow the costs for operating the [Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)] to be deducted from the vehicle registration fees before they are deposited into the fund." Historically, operating costs have been around $2 million to $3 million per year, and there is a difference between what the DMV has been granted and what it needs to operate, and this has been coming from vehicle registration fees. She added, "We are planning to define that amount and ... what the funds may be used for in statute in another bill that actually ... puts the boundaries on this fund and ... how it's going to be used." Amendment 1 merely allows for the use of those funds. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON removed his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. 1:11:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS1411\S.1, Kane, 2/22/10, which read: Page 2, line 4, following "capital": Insert "and preservation" REPRESENTATIVE HERRON objected. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the language on page 2, line 4, which currently says in part, "for capital projects", and said he wants to ensure that monies appropriated from the resolution's proposed transportation infrastructure fund could also be used for repairs. He questioned which types of repairs the sponsor is envisioning would be covered under the term, "capital projects". MS. ROONEY, after indicating that deferred maintenance would be addressed in statute via the aforementioned other piece of legislation currently going through the process, stated: It will be the major maintenance projects that are covered under our normal capital budget. So it would be resurfacing roads and ... upgrading airports. But it doesn't include things like snow removal and street sweeping and other activities that are considered maintenance. And that's the reason that we didn't put [the term] "maintenance" in here - because we didn't want to supplant the normal maintenance ... activities with ... these funds; we wanted [them] to actually be something that ... our constituents will see - ... when these funds are put in place - to be actual improvements to our transportation system. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out, however, that the words, "and preservation" - which would be added by Amendment 2 - were intended by him to include the repair of large potholes, for example, that could lead to road deterioration. He asked, therefore, whether those types of repairs would be provided for under HJR 42's existing language. MS. ROONEY offered her belief that they would be. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Representative P. Wilson whether such was her intention. REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said yes, but cautioned that it is not the intent for monies from the proposed transportation infrastructure fund to be used to supplant general fund (GF) monies. She added, "Many states have done that, and they've just stopped putting ... funding in the general budget, and then the fund was used for everything." It is necessary, therefore, for the legislature to be very careful about what items it includes in the resolution's language. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would accept that explanation as the intent of the sponsor with regard to the resolution's existing term, "capital projects for transportation and related facilities that are designated by law". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG then withdrew Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a query, remarked that he does not support dedicated funds - with the exception of the Alaska permanent fund - but would not be objecting to reporting the resolution from committee. 1:15:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HJR 42, Version 26-LS1411/S, Kane, 2/17/10, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 42(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.