Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
04/06/2006 01:30 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB304 | |
| HB397 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 397 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 304-AIRPORT PARKING SHUTTLES/AIRPORT CHARGES CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be SENATE BILL NO. 304, "An Act relating to the privileges of airport parking shuttles and to fees or charges imposed on a person who is not a lessee or holder of a privilege to use the property or a facility of an airport." CO-CHAIR ELKINS moved Amendment 1, labeled 24-LS1678\F.2, Kane, 4/6/06, as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, lines 2-3: Delete "holder of a privilege to use the property or a facility" Insert "concessionaire" Page 2, lines 8-9: Delete "person holding a privilege to use the property or facility" Insert "concessionaire of the airport" Page 2, line 10, following "person": Insert "as a condition of on-site access to customers who use the airport facility, unless the charge, rental, or fee was in existence before January 1, 2006, and this exception is not affected if the department amends, increases, or decreases a charge, rental, or fee that was in effect before January 1, 2006" RYAN MAKINSTER, Staff to Senator John Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, said, "The bill removes the ability to charge percent-of-gross revenue for off-airport establishments," and on-airport services are exempt. It was brought to his attention that the bill would affect other ratepayers, and he explained that off-airport rental facilities already pay 8 percent of gross revenue. So without the amendment, the bill will affect that group of business people, he stated. Amendment 1 keeps the intent of the bill while excluding all users that already pay such a fee. He said those companies have "obviously been comfortable" with those fees. But the amendment says that the off-airport parking company or any new facility cannot be charged the same way for access to the airport. CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if [the fee system] would default to another system, or if that would be negotiated. MR. MAKINSTER said, "Right now it's kind of defaulting to what system they're working on; right now they have a fee schedule. We're not dictating, necessarily, the fee schedule or system that the airport has. We're just saying, unless you're a small group, you're on-air, or you're currently being charged by gross revenue, you won't be charged by that computational method. We're not putting a limit on prices, what the fees are, what they may be. That's been up to the discretion of the department before, and we're not changing that. We're just saying that you cannot go into a private entity's books to fulfill the obligation to decide fees." 1:39:25 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if any system that pertains to gross revenue would have to be across the board for concessions, parking, taxis, or anything else. MR. MAKINSTER said no, only for similar services. "They're receiving a different privilege depending on the different service groups, so a rental car agency would, in fact, be different than a shuttle agency," he said. It is defined by similarity of business, he explained. 1:40:21 PM DAN COFFE, Attorney, Diamond Parking, said he once owned a rental car company and fought paying this fee then, but he doesn't care if the car rental companies remain in the bill or not. He said rental car companies won't "flee the airport" if "we stop charging a $250 or small percentage fee to off-airport operators." He said they are "trying to blow smoke at you." He stated, "What we are trying to accomplish here, is have a reasonable and appropriate fee for using the curb service applicable to those of us who are operators of shuttle companies." There are a variety of shuttles, including hotel operators and Diamond Parking, he said, and the airport wants to charge Diamond Parking a fee of 8 percent of its gross receipts. Eight percent of their receipts would be $108,000 per year, and he believes it is contradictory to existing law, which requires reasonable fees. He said he was told his company was using the entire airport because the parking lot would not be there unless the airport existed. That is a disingenuous argument, he opined. He said he told the airport to charge per trip, by permit, or per head for all shuttle companies, "but don't be seeking to tax us with a percentage of the gross revenue." 1:43:24 PM MR. COFFE, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said Diamond Parking is not on airport property. CO-CHAIR GATTO said the airport makes a good argument of "no airport, no clients." MR. COFFE said you could extend that to a lot of other businesses that depend on travelers coming to Alaska. CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if the airport gets part of the bed tax. 1:44:09 PM MR. COFFE said no; "we keep all the bed tax for the citizens of Anchorage." The problem is compounded by the fact that Diamond Parking provides very good service, and the airport should have a competitive advantage on the airport property. "Instead they've sought to impose this, we call it a tax, gross receipts tax on an off-airport enterprise, and, frankly, Diamond Parking is the only one that they've addressed this to." It is like getting the money from the private sector instead of making their airport parking a better service, he stated. He said Diamond Parking had offered to install an automatic counting mechanism, and it was turned down. 1:45:52 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that there is an airport facility being built for rental cars and asked Mr. Coffe if he foresees a better competitor. MR. COFFE said he was previously involved with the on-airport parking garage, and the airport was very receptive to that. The car rental companies were willing to impose a fee on themselves to pay for it. The notion of the major car companies fleeing the airport if the off-airport companies are not taxed mystifies him. The small companies have a 1 percent market share. The statute shows that fees are meant to be commensurate with the amount of the airport that is used, he said. 1:47:37 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that the car companies took on that expense, but actually, when he rents a car it is listed as a separate expense. "They're not picking up any part of it." It went up to 10 percent in no time, he said. MR. COFFE said that is true, and he said "we" were the impetus behind the project and willing to take the risks of what it might do to business. He listed the taxes that are added to the cost of renting a car and asked how many people would go elsewhere to rent a car. 1:49:07 PM JOHN TORGERSON, Deputy Commissioner of Aviation, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, said he hasn't had time to look at the amendment. The airport is reaching out and charging fees for an off-airport business, and this bill does not preclude it from doing that but only prohibits it from using the gross revenue as a way of collecting fees, he said. He added that it is not true that the bill is not telling the airport what to collect. He told the committee to read page 2, line 22, where it puts airport parking shuttles in with courtesy cars. "There is a regulation and fee structure already set for that, which is one of the lowest at the airport." CO-CHAIR GATTO asked what the courtesy car fee is. JOHN BARSALOU, Property Director, Anchorage International Airport, said it is $250 or $500 per vehicle per year. CO-CHAIR GATTO asked about the size of the shuttle. MR. BARSALOU said it depends on the class of business, and there are six different classes of ground transportation. CO-CHAIR GATTO said he wants to confirm that it is $500 for the first vehicle and $50 for each vehicle thereafter, per year. He asked if that is for any size shuttle, from a car to a bus. 1:53:20 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that the total cost for the year for Diamond Parking is probably $750 per year, and the airport plan would raise it to $108,000, and that is why the bill is in front of the committee, as well as amendment 1. Hearing no objections, Amendment 1 carried. CO-CHAIR ELKINS moved to report SB 304, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, HCS SB 304(TRA) passed out of the House Transportation Standing Committee. 1:55:13 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|