Legislature(2015 - 2016)
2016-04-06 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2016-04-06 House Journal Page 2079 HB 370 The following was read the second time: HOUSE BILL NO. 370 "An Act relating to municipal tax exemptions." with the: Journal Page CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 5DP 1NR 2013 FN1: ZERO(CED) 2014 Representative Millett moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 370(CRA) "An Act relating to a municipal tax exemption or deferral for economic development property." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Thompson: Page 1, line 1, following "Act" (title amendment): Insert "relating to military facility zones; and" Page 1, following line 3: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. AS 26.30.020(c) is amended to read: (c) The adjutant general shall consider the following factors before designating an area as a military facility zone: (1) whether the proposed military facility zone designation is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the 2016-04-06 House Journal Page 2080 municipality or local zoning ordinances; (2) whether it is feasible to develop sites within the proposed zone for purposes of industrial or economic development, residential use, and workforce training or education beneficial to the facility; (3) whether the municipality has targeted the area for revitalization in a plan or ordinance; (4) the relationship between the area and a military facility subject to realignment or closure under 10 U.S.C. 2687, as amended, or a successor statute or the effect of the realignment or closure on the area; (5) the availability, cost, and condition of existing business and educational facilities to support the military facility or facility of a civilian agency; (6) the difference between the median annual income of residents of the area and the median annual income of residents of the state and region, and the number of residents who receive public assistance; (7) the number of residents of the area who receive unemployment, and the ability of the municipality to improve social and economic conditions of the area; (8) the need for financing for small businesses that would improve social and economic conditions in the area; (9) any plans or financial commitments of municipalities to improve the area; (10) any plans or financial commitments of private entities to improve the area; (11) the municipality's participation in economic development activities, including proposals for public or private development; (12) support from community or business organizations in the area; (13) the availability of workforce readiness programs, including workforce recruiting and training support or educational research and curriculum support in the area; (14) the availability or plans for the creation of workforce housing options for residents of the area; and (15) the fiscal effect on the state if the area were to be designated a military facility zone." 2016-04-06 House Journal Page 2081 Page 1, line 4: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" Representative Thompson moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Millett objected and withdrew the objection. There being no further objection, Amendment No. 1 was adopted, and the new title follows: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 370(CRA) am "An Act relating to military facility zones; and relating to a municipal tax exemption or deferral for economic development property." Amendment No. 2 was offered by Representative Colver: Page 1, line 14, following "period": Insert ". An exemption or deferral authorized by this subsection may not be applied with respect to taxes levied in a service area to fund the special services" Representative Colver moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be adopted. Representative Wilson objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 370(CRA) am Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 19 NAYS: 19 EXCUSED: 2 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Colver, Edgmon, Foster, Josephson, Kawasaki, Keller, Kito, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Lynn, Munoz, Nageak, Ortiz, Reinbold, Seaton, Stutes, Tarr, Tuck, Wool Nays: Chenault, Claman, Drummond, Gara, Gattis, Guttenberg, Hughes, Johnson, Millett, Neuman, Olson, Pruitt, Saddler, Spohnholz, Talerico, Thompson, Tilton, Vazquez, Wilson 2016-04-06 House Journal Page 2082 Excused: Hawker, Herron And so, Amendment No. 2 was not adopted. Amendment No. 3 was not offered Amendment No. 4 was offered by Representative Colver: Page 1, lines 6 - 7: Delete "a designated time period [UP TO FIVE YEARS. THE" Insert "up to 10 [FIVE] years. [THE" Page 1, line 12: Delete "DISTRICT]." Insert "DISTRICT.]" Page 1, line 14: Delete "a designated time period [UP TO FIVE YEARS. THE" Insert "up to 10 [FIVE] years. [THE" Page 2, line 2: Delete "ORDINANCE]." Insert "ORDINANCE.]" Representative Colver moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 4 be adopted. There was objection. Representative Colver moved and asked unanimous consent to withdraw Amendment No. 4. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Representative Millett moved and asked unanimous consent that Representative Munoz be excused from a call of the House today. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 5 was offered by Representative Colver: Page 1, lines 6 - 7: Delete "a designated time period [UP TO FIVE YEARS. THE" Insert "up to 20 [FIVE] years. [THE" 2016-04-06 House Journal Page 2083 Page 1, line 12: Delete "DISTRICT]." Insert "DISTRICT.]" Page 1, line 14: Delete "a designated time period [UP TO FIVE YEARS. THE" Insert "up to 20 [FIVE] years. [THE" Page 2, line 2: Delete "ORDINANCE]." Insert "ORDINANCE.]" Representative Colver moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 5 be adopted. Representative Tilton objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 5 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 370(CRA) am Second Reading Amendment No. 5 YEAS: 20 NAYS: 17 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Claman, Colver, Drummond, Edgmon, Foster, Gara, Guttenberg, Josephson, Kawasaki, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Nageak, Ortiz, Reinbold, Seaton, Spohnholz, Stutes, Tarr, Tuck, Wool Nays: Chenault, Gattis, Hughes, Johnson, Keller, Kito, Lynn, Millett, Neuman, Olson, Pruitt, Saddler, Talerico, Thompson, Tilton, Vazquez, Wilson Excused: Hawker, Herron, Munoz And so, Amendment No. 5 was adopted. Representative Colver moved and asked unanimous consent to rescind previous action in failing to adopt Amendment No. 2 (page 2081). There being no objection, it was so ordered. 2016-04-06 House Journal Page 2084 Amendment No. 2 (page 2081) was before the House. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 370(CRA) am Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 19 NAYS: 18 EXCUSED: 3 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Claman, Colver, Drummond, Edgmon, Foster, Guttenberg, Josephson, Kawasaki, Kito, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Ortiz, Reinbold, Seaton, Spohnholz, Stutes, Tarr, Tuck, Wool Nays: Chenault, Gara, Gattis, Hughes, Johnson, Keller, Lynn, Millett, Nageak, Neuman, Olson, Pruitt, Saddler, Talerico, Thompson, Tilton, Vazquez, Wilson Excused: Hawker, Herron, Munoz And so, Amendment No. 2 was adopted. Representative Millett moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 370(CRA) am be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There was objection. CSHB 370(CRA) am will advance to third reading on tomorrow's calendar.