Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/15/2016 07:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB245 || HB249 || HB250 | |
| Public Testimony: Hb 245, Hb 249, Hb 250 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 249 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 250 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act relating to the Alaska permanent fund;
relating to appropriations to the dividend fund;
relating to income of the Alaska permanent fund;
relating to the earnings reserve account; relating to
the Alaska permanent fund dividend; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 249
"An Act requiring the electronic submission of a tax
return or report with the Department of Revenue;
relating to the motor fuel tax; and providing for an
effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 250
"An Act relating to the taxation of income of
individuals; repealing tax credits applied against the
tax on individuals under the Alaska Net Income Tax
Act; and providing for an effective date."
7:31:43 PM
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY: HB 245, HB 249, HB 250
7:32:35 PM
MATTHEW ALWARD, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), opposed
HB 249. He believed the state needed to have a
comprehensive broad-based solution. Taxing fisheries and
mining without dealing with oil tax credits, a Permanent
Fund (PF) solution, and a broad-based tax would make very
little difference in the budget gap but stood to harm
certain industries. He had not seen any economic analysis
on the fishing industry since raising the fisheries
business tax combined with a motor fuel tax. He thought it
was important to understand how the legislation would
affect the vitality of the industry before moving forward.
He continued that when the tax on the fishing industry was
proposed it was stated that the industry was not paying its
way and that the 1 percent increase would create balance.
Since then, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) budget
was cut. The department stated that it would adjust the ex-
vessel value of several species that would bring in over $2
million in additional revenue. The legislature was also
proposing to remove the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) fee cap which would potentially bring in
an additional $2 million. He thought funding government was
becoming more important than management costs. He did not
believe it was the intent of taxes on the renewable and
sustainable fishing industry that kept Alaskans and small
family businesses going. He recommended several changes to
the legislation before moving it out of committee including
doing further economic analysis before increasing the tax
on canned salmon. He also thought that raising the floating
processor tax would discourage processors from using
floaters. In turn, there would be less processing capacity,
less harvest, and less ex-vessel value to tax. The
developing fisheries tax was set low to encourage new
fisheries which benefited Alaskan residents and coastal
communities. Raising the tax from 1 percent to 4 percent
would discourage new development resulting in less
potential future taxable income. He encourage members to
consider the effects of the bill on hardworking Alaskans.
He thanked the committee.
7:35:04 PM
PADDY O'DONNELL, ALASKA WHITEFISH TRAWLERS ASSOCIATION,
KODIAK (via teleconference), spoke against HB 249. Members
of the association fished out of Kodiak, Sand Point, and
the Bering Sea. He spoke against removing the minimum and
maximum restrictions on the entry permit card. Most members
had 2 to 3 three hired skippers on their vessels. The
change would put an added burden on the skippers. It would
also make it more difficult for vessel owners to acquire
new skippers. He suggested that the state should review
increasing the cost of registering a vessel. He reported
that his vessel registration was $250 versus $3000 for a
permit card. He was not opposed to taxes but encouraged
committee members to involve the public more when making
decisions. He would prefer paying a higher vessel
registration fee than a high permit card fee. He believed
the higher permit card fee would discourage young fishermen
from stepping into the wheelhouse. He also suggested that
legislators should look at requiring only one permit card
per vessel to allow for flexibility rather than a permit
per person. He thanked the committee.
7:38:32 PM
SCOTT HOCKEMA, PACIFIC STORM FISHERIES, KODIAK (via
teleconference), relayed that his son had just purchased
his fishing permit card. He spoke of the poor fishing in
Kodiak in the current year. His son would have to make
three trips to pay for his permit card. He did not
understand why one permit card was not sufficient per
vessel. He relayed figures of additional costs. He
indicated that the additional fees would not work. He was
unsure if length determined the permit fee amount. He
indicated that his boat was about 100 feet long but there
were 58 foot vessels that had greater capacity than his
vessel. He was unclear about how the fee scale was
determined. He reiterated that the fee of $3000 for a
permit card was entirely too high.
7:41:08 PM
JOE MACINKO, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, KODIAK (via
teleconference), asked for consideration in the fees
proposed. He wanted equitable fees. He mentioned a
presentation in Kodiak by Gunnar Knapp in which Mr. Knapp
stated that fisheries did not pay the cost of management.
He supposed Mr. Knapp's statement could be true for some
fisheries but he did not believe it was true for the
halibut fishery. He reported that the state did not have a
commercial halibut biologist. Commercial halibut fishermen
paid the same tax as everyone else paid plus a 3 percent
tax to National Marine Fisheries to take care of all of the
related paperwork. He noted that the International Halibut
Commission which managed the fishery conducted a survey
fishery amounting to about a 3 percent tax on the halibut
fisheries each year. The amount of fish they caught came
out of the following year's quota. He thought there were
discrepancies. He requested that the legislature try to
develop some equity in the state's tax.
7:43:19 PM
WILLIAM T. HAWLEY, MINES TRUST CO., ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition of HB 249. He
suggested that the proposed tax increases were not sensible
considering there were other options that could be
exercised such as using the PF, making additional cuts, and
implementing other broad-based taxes. He also suggested
that the idea of implementing a mining tax before doing an
analysis to evaluate the effect of the tax sent a scary
message to potential investors in the mining industry. He
thought that Alaska needed to figure out its cuts prior to
increasing taxes. He relayed that the exemption from mining
tax payments should remain at 3.5 years. The idea behind
the exemption was to encourage the development of new mines
in Alaska. Increased mining meant increased royalty
payments and the overall tax feed into Alaska's revenue.
7:45:55 PM
DONALD L. STEVENS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke against HB 249. He relayed his professional
experience as a geologist. He thought a "yes" vote was
destructive for an industry that could help the State of
Alaska out of its financial problems. He encouraged members
to vote against raising the mining license tax. He believed
that when the legislature signaled an anti-mining attitude
by raising taxes the global mining business noticed
immediately. He relayed that the major mining companies
carefully monitored and measured the political risks of
numerous jurisdictions such as Alaska. Alaska had an
enormous potential for the development of new mines. He
suggested that the reason there were not more mines in
Alaska was due to the apparent anti-mining sentiment
prevalent with the political and business leaders of the
state. Conversely, when a jurisdiction decisively reduced
the size and cost of government the industry noticed. He
cited that one new mine would produce more revenue to the
state than raising the mining license tax. He also spoke
against the idea of a legislative working group. He
compared a legislative working group to driving a fast car
blindly down the road with no notice of the lights at the
intersections. He suggested that to review the mining tax
structure after implementation did not make sense and
signaled poor government. He encouraged members to keep the
exemption from mining license tax payments for new mines at
3.5 years or raise it to 4 years. It would help the state
send a pro-mining message. He asked members to vote against
HB 249.
7:48:49 PM
MICHAEL JESPERSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke against HB 249. He thought targeting industry
specific taxes prior to cutting the budget was crazy. He
concluded that targeting industries drove them away from
the state. He suggested that the legislature had succeeded
in unifying the mining and fishing industries against the
bill. He pleaded for spending cuts and analysis prior to
implementing taxes. He wanted to feel confident that the
legislature knew what was going on and how to run the
government. He thanked the committee for its time.
7:50:20 PM
KAREN MATTHIAS, COUNCIL OF ALASKA PRODUCERS, JUNEAU, spoke
against HB 249. Members of the council were businesses that
had had to make tough decisions over the previous 4 years
of declining mineral prices. She listed a number of actions
taken including cutting budgets, freezing salaries, and
cutting benefits. She relayed that the industry supported
strategic reductions, the use of the PF earnings, and
broad-based revenue measures to deal with the state's
fiscal problems. She expressed that the goal of Alaska's
mineral tax policy should be a balance of a reasonable
share for the state and a competitive rate for industry.
The mining industry provided thousands of good jobs,
procurement and contract opportunities for local
businesses, and state and local government revenue. There
were only 5 large operating metal mines. It was very
expensive and took a long time to develop mines in Alaska
in part because of a lack of infrastructure. She suggested
that the state could help the industry by providing fiscal
stability. HB 249 increased the mining tax rate without
substantive analysis of its impact and decreased investment
incentives. She reported that the Alaska Minerals
Commission had recommended that the legislature address
municipalities specifically targeting the mining industry
for special severance taxes. She read a statement from the
commission from 2005 that talked about the mining industry
expecting to pay its share of municipal governments in the
form of a broad-based tax. She read another statement made
by the commission in 2013 that addressed severance taxes
shifting control of development decisions away from the
state. The council encouraged the House Finance Committee
to amend the legislation to protect state sovereignty by
making the legislature the responsible body for decisions
about special mining taxes. She suggested that an amendment
should eliminate the ability for a municipality to levy or
collect a targeted tax on metal mines, and it should
implement revenue sharing of the Alaska mining license tax
with the municipalities that host metal mines. She posed a
number of questions legislators should consider when voting
on the legislation. She thanked the committee for the
opportunity to testify.
7:55:23 PM
AT EASE
8:04:48 PM
Reconvened
8:05:11 PM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION, adamantly
opposed an increase in the mining tax in HB 249. She spoke
to a lack of review of the fiscal impact of the
legislation. She read a statement from the Alaska Miners
Association (AMA) Board of Directors. The statement
recommended implementing a comprehensive long-term fiscal
plan that included budget reductions, the use of PF
earnings, a reduction in the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD),
and new revenue from broad-based taxes. She conveyed that
the combination of a motor fuel tax, a fishing tax, and a
mining tax was not a broad-based solution. The Alaska
Miners Association opposed a legislative working group
after the imposition of an additional tax because it sent a
terrible message of uncertainty to mining investors. She
addressed the industry's concern about the new changes
prohibiting the mining exploration tax credit to be taken
against royalty payments. It would add no financial gain to
the State of Alaska. It was important to the placer miners
to be able to recover their investments in the short-term.
She stated that it was imperative to remember that one new
mine in operation would result in significantly higher
revenues to the state than the proposed increase. She asked
for a "No" vote on HB 249.
8:09:24 PM
NORMAN LENON, F/V NUKA ISLAND, KODIAK (via teleconference),
spoke against the proposed tax in HB 249. He relayed that
any increased costs would cut into his bottom line. He was
the captain and owner of his vessel. He explained that he
was bringing his sons up in the fishery. They wanted to be
captains but he thought the legislation might deter them.
He believed that the legislation would hurt residents of
Alaska. He urged members to oppose HB 249. He thanked
committee members for their time.
8:11:20 PM
JEFF BENTZ, SUNDANCE MINING GROUP, WASILLA (via
teleconference), opposed HB 249. He was a lifelong Alaskan
and represented a mining company. He thought the bill was
very detrimental to the mining industry in Alaska. He
thought it was truly unfair to attack the other remaining
industries because of a major revenue source [oil]
declining for Alaska. He opined that until all of the
expenses were cut at the state government level and the
expense side of the budget was carefully looked at, it was
unfair to tax industry. He relayed that the State of Alaska
was all about jobs. His company was invested in increasing
the number of jobs for Alaskans. He reported that the
mining industry had been under radical environmental
pressures. He discouraged support of the legislation.
8:13:49 PM
CHRIS WOODLEY, GROUNDFISH FORUM, SEATTLE (via
teleconference), spoke against HB 249. He provided some
information about the Groundfish Forum. He reported that
his organization opposed the proposed increased fees. He
claimed that it would have an impact on the valuation of
key Bering Sea species which would quadruple their
taxation. He also spoke against the proposed increase of a
landing tax. He suggested that such increases made for a
hostile business environment for commercial fishermen. He
urged members not to support HB 249.
8:16:00 PM
DAVE HANSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), strongly
opposed the oil production tax credit program. He relayed
that he had been involved in both the fishing and mining
industries. He spoke in favor of HB 249 given the state's
financial crisis. He thought the gasoline tax was
reasonable. Alaska had one of the lowest gas taxes in the
nation at 8 cents per gallon. He suggested increasing the
fuel tax to 24 cents which was the average gas tax in the
nation. He also recommended a different set of prices for
certain types of commercial users. He relayed that in some
states gasoline tax was 49 cents per gallon. He commented
that the tax was easy to implement and more palatable
because of the vast variation in the price of gas in
Alaska. People were already used to the fluctuation in the
price of gas. He also supported the increases to taxes and
fees for fishing. He indicated that the majority of
fishermen were not from Alaska but from other parts of the
country. He supported the bill increasing taxes on fishing
especially the section that specified charging a non-
resident surcharge. He opined that the mining industry's
future had more to do with the price of and demand for
minerals worldwide rather than taxes. He thanked the
chairman.
8:20:17 PM
DAVID HARRIS, CAPTAIN, F/V ARCTIC MARINER, WASHINGTON (via
teleconference), testified against HB 249. He spoke to the
rate hike and relayed that it would be equal to 10 percent
of his income. He stated that it was difficult to find good
crew members and the increase would make it more difficult
to attract workers. He thanked the committee for its time.
8:22:12 PM
MARK PALMER, PRESIDENT, OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS, SEATTLE (via
teleconference), testified in opposition of HB 249. He
opposed the increase in production tax for canned salmon.
He relayed that Ocean Beauty Seafoods had 6 processing
plants in Alaska and employed approximately 2000 seasonal
employees as well as full time employees in Kodiak. He
relayed that in 2013 and 2015 the company had had 2 of its
largest pink salmon production years. He spoke to the large
salmon runs in Bristol Bay. Typically, canned salmon
inventory was sold immediately. However, the company had
carried its inventory for 2 years which helped stabilize
the market. He spoke about the importance of a stable
canned salmon market. He also mentioned additional revenue
sources within the industry. He continued that interest
rates had increased and would continue to increase and
storage rates were high. He did not think it made any sense
to compound the troubles in the market by increasing the
tax on canned salmon. The frozen markets were very fluid.
The company had the ability to push products in and out of
the markets. However, canned salmon had 4 retail markets.
Those markets had to be as stable and predictable as
possible. Therefore, the company had to finance the
inventories. He commented that there were other sources of
revenue in the seafood industry including the offshore
processing that had not really paid the full value of the
revenue that had been generated from some of the offshore
fisheries. The other source of revenue would be from
companies that produced products and paid their fishermen
based off of a profit share rather than a fish tax.
Fishermen were paid based on the amount of fish they
harvested. Everyone else in the industry paid a landing tax
and fishermen were paid bonuses at the end of the season
based on production. He mentioned one company that was
paying as a cooperative. He suggested that prior to
targeting canned salmon the state should ensure that
everyone was paying a fair share. He did not think the
global market could handle the additional tax. He thanked
the committee for its time and for the opportunity to
testify.
8:26:39 PM
SIRI DAMMARELL, SELF, LAKE STEVENS, WASHINGTON (via
teleconference), opposed HB 249. She succinctly stated that
her family business would be negatively impacted by the
increase in permit fees. She thanked the committee.
8:27:44 PM
TIM MUSGROVE, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AND ALASKA
MINERS ASSOCIATION, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), opposed
HB 249 because it was not a broad-based tax. He opposed
raising the mining license tax 7 percent to 8 percent. He
also opposed the legislative working group along with
opposing new changes prohibiting exploration tax credits to
be taken against royalties. He recommended that the
exemption from mining license tax payments for new mining
remain at 3.5 years. It would demonstrate stability to new
companies interested in coming to Alaska. He mentioned
shutdowns in the oil industry such as Caelus Energy. He did
not want to see shutdowns to operating mines. He listed
several Alaska mines. He thought it was great to see mining
and fishing industries united in opposing HB 249. He
suggested cutting the budget more and in the right places.
He strongly opposed the motor fuel tax as well. He thanked
members for their time.
8:29:09 PM
MARK HORNE, SUNDANCE MINING GROUP, WASILLA (via
teleconference), strongly opposed HB 249. He reported that
the Sundance Mining Group was weeks away from permitting
approval of an underground hard rock gold project in
Southeast Alaska. It was a small company that, because of
the incentive of the exploration tax credit taken against
the royalty and mining license tax, decided to proceed with
permitting of a new mine. The mine would provide 25 high
paying jobs in a depressed region. He reported that without
the state's incentives he was unsure that the company would
have moved forward with the project. Investors favored a
3.5 year exploration credit exemption. He opined that the
clear message HB 249 sent was that new mine development was
not welcome in Alaska. He suggested that if the incentives
went away the project could cease because of potential
risks. He emphasized that the 3.5 year exploration credit
exemption was what was bringing mines into production. He
strongly opposed any increase in a mining license tax,
changes to the exploration credit, and a legislative
working group. He thanked the committee.
8:32:17 PM
PAUL METZ, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to HB 249 as drafted.
8:33:08 PM
LORNA SHAW, POGO MINE, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified against HB 249. She provided information about
the mine and relayed that it spent significant money in the
state's economy. The bill did not work for Alaska. The
state needed to look at reducing spending, using the
Permanent Fund, and implementing a broad-based tax. She
asked members to oppose the legislation.
8:34:40 PM
CODY HOCKEMA, PACIFIC STORM, KODIAK (via teleconference),
was a deckhand on the Kodiak trawler, F/V Pacific Storm.
His life's dream was to become captain of the vessel. He
had just purchased his 2016 delivery permit for $3000,
which was more than he would make on his next trip as
captain. He spoke to his work as a commercial fisherman and
conveyed the burden he carried in paying the increased
permit price. He stated that there had been a perfect storm
of hits towards the fishing industry with season closures,
low prices, and adolescent fish. Fishermen were simply not
making enough to cover current permit costs let alone an
increase. He currently paid the highest taxes out of
anyone. He lived paycheck-to-paycheck and took out a loan
to get his current captain's license. He opined that
government fees were a ridiculous reason to prevent a
deckhand from advancing to the position of captain.
8:36:36 PM
COLE HOCKEMA, PACIFIC STORM, KODIAK (via teleconference),
shared that he was a deckhand on the fishing vessel,
Pacific Storm, in Kodiak. He opposed HB 249. Due to the
high cost of a captain's license it would not be worth it
financially for him to become a skipper. The cost of the
license was stopping him from furthering his fishing
career. Raising the cost would make it even more difficult
for new captains in the future. He urged members not to
support the bill.
8:37:35 PM
TIM MOORE, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), spoke against
HB 249. He understood the state's fiscal situation and
realized that the legislature was faced with a difficult
job. As a fisherman he was concerned that broad-based taxes
would not be approved but that certain industries would be
singled out. The fishing industry was currently faced with
low fish prices and its profitability was in question. He
shared that fishermen in Prince William Sound were ready to
respond to the DFG budget. The Department of Fish and Game
was starting to plan for test fish authority, which would
add another tax to the salmon industry in certain areas. He
thanked the committee.
8:39:48 PM
MIKE SATRE, HECLA GREENS CREEK MINE, JUNEAU, opposed HB
249. He stated that it was truly unfortunate that the
notice of the hearing stated that HB 249 was a compromise
bill. He indicated that no negotiations with industry had
taken place. He thought the only thing that had been
compromised was industry's faith in the legislative
process. There had been no analysis that had indicated how
the bill might impact the mining industry. He stated that
there was a significant lack of knowledge by the
legislature on mining taxes. The current tax increase
proposal had nothing to do with developing a comprehensive
tax policy but an exercise in political cover. The
methodology for the selection of taxes seemed flawed. He
stated that Alaska had a world-class silver and zinc mine.
Implementing a tax increase would hurt the mine and the
industry. He shared that he had taken students out to the
mine earlier in the day and had worried about the tax bill.
He asked the committee to hold the bill. He asked the
committee to address the policy points addressed by the
Council of Alaska Producers and the Alaska Miners
Association including the prohibition on municipal
severance taxes to ensure financial certainty for the
mining industry.
8:43:17 PM
FRANK BERGSTROM, SELF, JUNEAU (via teleconference), opposed
HB 249. He shared that he was a miner. He had not seen an
analysis of the potential economic impacts or effects of
the legislation and thought the proposed tax seemed
arbitrary. He added that appointing a committee to consider
the mining license after passing the bill seemed out of
order. He opined that miners paid more than their share. He
wondered what else the legislature wanted the mining
industry to pay for. HB 249 created a disincentive to
develop new mines. New mines would grow state revenue.
8:45:17 PM
VINCE O'SHEA, VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, testified against HB 249. Pacific
Seafood Processors Association (PSPA) had 9 member
companies operating 27 fishery processing plants in Alaska
and 3 motherships. The companies employed more than 15
thousand employees. All of the member companies would be
impacted by HB 249. The association had previously
testified regarding the need for a broad-based plan to
address the state's fiscal crisis. The seafood industry
already paid millions in state and federal taxes.
Additionally, the industry provided tens of thousands of
jobs to Alaskans. The administration's approach to the
fisheries tax was to add 1 percent to the current rate
which punished the industry and Alaska fishermen; it raised
taxes on canned salmon when most companies were sitting on
a 2 year supply. The industry had stepped up with a plan to
be included in a comprehensive fiscal plan approach. The
association's plan raised nearly the same level of revenue
from fisheries but in way that reflected the global and
economic realities of the fishing industry. He listed a
number of items included in their approach. Unfortunately,
the plan had been rejected by the first committee of
referral. He expressed concern that HB 249 had had little
or no analysis of the impacts on the industry. It was his
understanding that the goal of the increase was to close
the gap between revenues received from fisheries and the
cost associated with the Commercial Fisheries Division
within DFG. The association was concerned that the industry
was being asked to pay more with no assurance from the
state that the Commercial Fisheries Division would be
provided the resources necessary to continue the management
of Alaska's commercial fisheries. He asked the committee to
look carefully at their proposal. He thanked the committee
for the extra time given for industry testimony.
8:49:02 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, testified
against HB 249. She stated that increasing taxes on the
natural resource industry would not encourage the
development of new mines, boost investment in the fishing
industry, attract more tourists, or increase throughput in
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). She purported that
higher taxes would likely deter investment and lead to
lower state revenues and a weaker private sector. One of
the council's concerns was that a risk analysis had not
been conducted on the impact of the bill. She reviewed the
negative impacts of removing needed incentives. She urged
members to reject the legislation and thanked the committee
for the opportunity to testify.
8:51:44 PM
MARK VINSEL, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA, JUNEAU, opposed HB
249. He reported that United Fishermen of Alaska held the
longstanding position that any new taxes on the fishing
industry should be part of a comprehensive fiscal solution.
Combining the fisheries and mining taxes together was a
small step in that direction. His organization opposed the
CFEC fee cap elimination in the current version of the
bill, as it would affect families and outside fishing
operations. United Fishermen of Alaska also opposed the
canned salmon tax increase and wanted it to remain at 4.5
percent. The organization opposed the proposed tax increase
to 4 percent for new fisheries. He disagreed with the
concept of fisheries taxes going into the general fund
rather than being directed to the Commercial Fisheries
Division. He reviewed the revenue formula: the tax rate
times the volume times the price. He relayed that both
price and volume were highly variable, although the tax
rate could be controlled. He opined that DFG needed to be
funded in order to have weir counts, stock assessments, and
proper management of Alaska's fisheries.
8:55:18 PM
CURTIS THAYER, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
ANCHORAGE, provided some background about the chamber. He
spoke about the legislature focusing on new tax revenue
which was getting in the way of looking at government
spending. He spoke about labor contracts giving state
employees raises of 3.5 percent to 10 percent over the
following 3 years to the tune of over $70 million. The
chamber believed the State of Alaska could not afford such
pay increases. He relayed that companies were laying off
employees, furloughing employees, and cautiously avoiding
new hires and new investment. He claimed that it was
inappropriate to place the burden on private industry. The
Alaska Chamber emphasized the need to reduce the size and
spending of government before turning to industry to pay
additional taxes. The chamber had laid out a very clear
plan which included a reduction in state government, a
decrease in spending, a cap on the PFD, and the use of the
PF earnings. Taxes should only be considered after such
measures were taken. He urged members to consider a
balanced approach. He thanked the committee.
8:58:55 PM
KRIS NOROSZ, ICICLE SEAFOODS, JUNEAU, spoke against HB 249.
The company understood the fiscal issues the state was
facing and had been supportive of a comprehensive approach
that included a combination of actions. The actions
included budget cuts, broad-based revenue generating
measures, and a closure of loopholes in fisheries tax
collection. The company offered a tax plan for the fishing
sector that would generate revenues very close to the
amount targeted by the administration. The seafood industry
harvested and processed a sustainable and renewable
resource that had been an economic engine for Alaska for
over a century. Good fisheries management was critical to
the company's operations and the industry. She agreed with
previous testifiers that canned salmon could not handle
additional taxes. She spoke of the need for equity for
inshore floating processors and provided some examples. She
mentioned the implications of some of the proposed rate
increases. Icicle Seafoods was willing to be part of the
solution as long as it was a well thought out and rational
plan that took into consideration the collective impacts of
the proposed actions on the fishing industry. She relayed
additional sideboards. She thanked the committee for its
time.
9:03:07 PM
Representative Wilson was uncertain about the plan Ms.
Norosz was referring to.
Co-Chair Thompson asked that Ms. Norosz to leave her
written statement with his staff so that they could follow
up with her.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
HB 245 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 249 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 250 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson reviewed the agenda for the following
day.
Co-Chair Thompson recessed the meeting to the call of the
chair [Note: The meeting never reconvened].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 245 Public Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 7:00:00 PM |
HB 245 |
| HB 250 Public Testimony.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2016 7:00:00 PM |
HB 250 |