Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/26/2009 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB10 | |
HB106 | |
HJR15 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 10-MUNICIPAL TAXES: COSTS/EXEMPTIONS 8:03:46 AM CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 10, "An Act authorizing a borough to charge a city for costs of collecting certain taxes; relating to a mandatory exemption from municipal property taxes for residences of certain widows or widowers, and to optional exemptions from municipal property taxes for property of certain fraternal organizations, for certain college property, and for certain residential property; and providing for an effective date." 8:04:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as one of the joint prime sponsors of HB 10, began by informing the committee that HB 10 is similar to legislation that passed th the House in the 25 Alaska State Legislature. This legislation has a variety of municipal tax exemptions. He reminded the committee that an amendment to Title 29 is required in order to allow a municipality to have a property tax. Section 1 is a new section, which was suggested by Representative Chenault at the request of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Section 1 allows a borough that collects taxes on behalf of a municipality in the borough to charge the city a fee for the cost of collection. Section 2 was added by Representative Harris to the legislation th of the 25 Alaska State Legislature; it extends the real property municipal tax exemption for seniors, disabled veterans, and widows/widowers of a senior or disabled veteran. According to the state assessor, widows/widowers would cease to be eligible if they remarry. Section 3, which was added in the th Senate during the 25 Alaska State Legislature, raises the optional municipal tax exemption for residential property from $20,000 to $40,000. Representative Gruenberg related his understanding that Section 3 will be removed. Section 4, which th was added in the House Finance Committee during the 25 Alaska State Legislature, would allow property of a private nonprofit accredited college/university not subject to the mandatory tax exemption to receive a tax exemption. He related that Section 4 addresses a specific piece of property owned by the Alaska Pacific University, a medical building on the campus. Section 5, which was added by Representatives Olson and Stoltze during the last legislature, would provide a new optional tax exemption for an ordinance ratified by the voters that would exempt or partially exempt property of a fraternal organization used for a public purpose. He explained that the reasoning behind Section 5 was that in many communities such properties are used as the community meeting hall. Section 6, the original legislation, allows an exemption for the primary residence of police officers who move into an area designated as high crime. The exemption would be in the amount of up to $150,000. Section 7 specifies an effective date of the beginning of the calendar year next year. 8:10:52 AM VERNON MARSHALL, Lobbyist, Public Safety Employees Association (PSEA), related that the committee should have a statement from the PSEA in support of HB 10. Mr. Marshall opined that Section 6 of HB 10 is a means to attract officers to areas of high crime as it provides a sliding incentive in the form of tax relief. He characterized Section 10 as a tool that could be utilized at the local level. 8:12:27 AM DOUGLAS NORTH, President, Alaska Pacific University (APU), pointed out that the committee packet should include two letters and one resolution all in favor of a tax exemption of this sort for the Alaska Pacific University (APU). When the Municipality of Anchorage Assembly passed its resolution, it took into consideration APU's 50 years of public service and economic contributions to Alaska and Anchorage. Since 1995, APU has spent $200 million locally; these funds are from personal contributors and tuition dollars. He emphasized that APU receives no funds from the State of Alaska or from any other institution on a regular basis. Furthermore, APU offers a large amount of public service in the form of a 175-acre park, a sports center, a ski training center, and other facilities. Most importantly, APU places $1.2-$1.5 million annually into scholarships for Alaska students. Dr. North highlighted that APU is the only remaining accredited private university/college in the state. The aforementioned is accomplished, he explained, because 60 percent of APU is funded from net tuition and the other 40 percent is from contributions and the foundation as well as the endowment lands. The endowment lands total currently about 25 acres, which are developed to produce income streams into the academic budget of the university itself, which accounts for about 12 percent of APU's income. Until three years ago, all the endowment lands and the developments on them were untaxed. In fact, APU hadn't been taxed since its origins in 1959. However, the Municipality of Anchorage did impose a tax on one APU building, which HB 10 would address. He related that APU was a land grant university and thus was encouraged to use its lands to support itself. Dr. North highlighted that the important part of the Municipality of Anchorage's resolution is that it encouraged the legislature to enact legislation that would level the playing field for APU such that it would fall under the same categories of tax exemption as the state's public university does. 8:17:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA remarked that she is struck by the enormous amount of service APU does for the community in terms of the use of its lands as well as the artistic and intellectual contributions. 8:18:57 AM CO-CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to APU's tax liability for the past three years. She further inquired as to whether APU is in negotiations regarding this tax liability. DR. NORTH confirmed that APU has challenged the taxation locally; however, it will take the legislature to achieve the goal. He explained that APU has escrowed the taxes in a separate account. The taxes on the building being taxed amount to about $250,000, and the penalties are beginning to pile up as well. This legislation is the best path to resolve the situation. CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if HB 10 would provide retroactivity for the tax liability that has already accrued. DR. NORTH responded that although that's not in current legislation, it would be preferable. 8:20:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that he just became aware of the retroactivity issue, requested that the retroactivity issue be addressed in a future committee if the committee is prepared to forward HB 10. DR. NORTH clarified that the only value in tax exemption would accrue to APU and its academic programs. 8:22:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked if the $20,000 residential exemption in Section 3 is commonly used. He also inquired as to under what circumstances the residential exemption is used. CO-CHAIR MUNOZ, speaking as a former finance chair for the City & Borough of Juneau, explained that the $20,000 residential exemption is a tool that isn't used often. The exemption provides the municipality or the governing body to provide relief in certain special circumstances. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that the aforementioned exemption is used in Fairbanks. 8:23:32 AM STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor, Division of Community & Regional Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), informed the committee that the residential exemption is used in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Valdez, Bristol Bay, and the North Slope Borough. All municipalities, save the Kenai Peninsula Borough, provide the residential exemption based on a percentage up to the $20,000. The Kenai Peninsula Borough provides a flat $20,000. In response to Co- Chair Munoz, Mr. Van Sant clarified that in the jurisdictions that utilize the residential exemption, all the residential property owner-occupied individuals receive the exemption. 8:24:36 AM REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA related her understanding that voter approval is required before the implementation of the exemption. MR. VAN SANT confirmed that to be correct. 8:25:17 AM CO-CHAIR MUNOZ, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. 8:25:43 AM CO-CHAIR HERRON moved Amendment 1, as follows: Page 2, lines 17-23; Delete Section 3 There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 8:26:08 AM CO-CHAIR HERRON moved to report HB 10, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 10(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB 10 - Sectional.pdf |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
CSHB106- 26-LS0402E.PDF |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
HB 10 -- SCS CSHB67(CRA).pdf |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 HB 67 |
HB 10 -- CSHB67(FIN)am.pdf |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 HB 67 |
HB10.pdf |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
HB106 Sectional.doc |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
HB106 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
HB 10 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
HB 10 letters of support.PDF |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
HB 10 Ltrs of Support II.PDF |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
HB10-Fiscal Note-COM-CRA-2-20-09.pdf |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
HB106-Fiscal Note-DPS-DET-02-23-09.pdf |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
HJR 15 AMENDMENT 1.doc |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 15 |
HJR 15 Sponsor Statement.doc |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 15 |
HJR15 AMENDMENT 2.doc |
HCRA 2/26/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 15 |