Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/09/2010 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB10 | |
HB98 | |
HB292 | |
HB334 | |
SB222 | |
SB225 | |
SB292 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | SB 292 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 10(FIN) "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." 9:08:46 AM Co-Chair Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute, work draft #26-LS0063\Z, Cook, 4/8/10. Co-Chair Stedman OBJECTED. DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, CO-CHAIR STEDMAN, delivered his sectional analysis. He explained that Version Z includes four tax exemptions. The first two are found in Section 1, which includes the mandatory tax exemptions in state statute. The initial change is listed on Page 1, Line 14 and refers to the DeLong Mountain Transportation System. The section exempts from assessment the determination of the Northwest Arctic Borough and applies it retroactively to November 30, 2009 when the current exemption expired. A sunset provision for November 2012 is shown at the end of the bill. The second mandatory tax exemption is found on Page 3, Line 10 which includes the Alaska Pacific University (APU). The municipality of Anchorage began assessing property taxes on APU property in January 2006, which was the first time the University was taxed in 47 years of tax free history in Alaska. Prior to the assessment the municipality treated APU similar to the University of Alaska. The properties in question include the Marriott Hotel which pays all municipal property and bed taxes. The University has a ground lease with the hotel that requires the hotel to pay the taxes. The controversial property is the Alaska Spine Institute (ASI) which has been billed by the municipality for property taxes that since remain unpaid. The University entered into a lease with ASI and while university grounds were tax exempt the tax costs were not calculated into the lease. The municipality is now assessing taxes on ASI, but they are not required to pay because of the terms of the lease so the tax bills are the responsibility of the University. He informed that ASI's lease terminates in 2035. He referred to Page 8, Line 9, Section 9 which exhibits the sunset clause for the tax exemption which will be repealed in 2035. The University will then calculate all property tax cost into future leases. Mr. Peterson referred to Section 2 of the bill which includes the sunset provision for the DeLong Mountain Transportation System on November 30, 2012. Section 3 removes the private land from the University meaning that private land will be taxable as of December 31, 2035. Section 4 notes a tax exemption that allows widows and widowers of disabled veterans to qualify for and retain their municipal property tax exemption regardless of their age. This tax exemption is optional and must be ratified by the voters of the municipality. Section 5 refers to the tax exemption for law enforcement officers to purchase homes in high crime areas and allows the municipality to pass an ordinance depending on exemption up to $150 thousand on the assessed value. Co-Chair Stedman removed his OBJECTION. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG agreed with the sectional analysis presented by Mr. Peterson. 9:16:24 AM Senator Olson commented on the critical nature of the bill for the Red Dog mine and school funding. The sponsor has been gracious enough to allow an extension of the exemption following the assessment in 1999. He expressed support for the exemption. Senator Huggins echoed Senator Olson's comments. Representative Gruenberg expressed appreciation to the committee. Senator Thomas asked about the fiscal note. He commented on the zero nature of the fiscal note when past property exemptions led to large figures on the fiscal note. He asked if he was missing a fiscal note. Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one zero fiscal note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. He requested an updated fiscal note for the Committee Substitute (CS). He pointed out a memorandum from the assistant state assessor in the committee packet that identifies a potential fiscal impact to the municipalities. 9:18:48 AM MARTY MCGEE, ASSESSOR, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE (via teleconference) stated that the municipality's primary interest refers to the University property and the provisions for the exemption of the property. He noted that the municipality has never regarded APU as having the same status as the University of Alaska. The University of Alaska is exempt because it is a subdivision of the state and therefore owned by the government. He noted that APU is exempt because its property was acquired from the federal government in a land grant dedicating it to an educational purpose for a mandatory statutory exemption. The Supreme Court of Alaska has defined educational purpose in a narrow fashion. A building built with the purpose of renting for income is not subject to the educational exemption. The hospital and the medical office building both fall into that category. He expressed concern with the provision for the effective date of the bill as shown in Section 9. He understood that the interest of the tenants in the spine clinic would not be taxable until 2035. If the bill were to pass, the tax revenue from the hospital and the medical office building would be significantly less than today when taxed at the full value. He stated no intention of taxing any portion of APU which is used exclusively for educational purpose. 9:21:53 AM RICK ECKERT, PRESIDENT, ALASKA STATE ELK'S ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the CS. His original intention was to testify in support of the municipal exemption for property tax on fraternal organizations. He noted that the issue was removed from the current CS. He commented that the 17 Elks organizations have contributed $2.2 million a year. The advantage of the old exemption is that a municipality could review the value provided for the community by the fraternal organization. MICHAEL LUHR, PRESIDENT, PETERSBURG, ALASKA STATE ELKS ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), echoed the comments of the Mr. Eckert. He hoped that the committee would see the wisdom of reinserting the section. The goal of the Elks Lodge is to provide community service. 9:27:25 AM Senator Olson asked if the other fraternal organizations receive the same tax exemption proposed in the earlier version of the bill. Mr. Luhr responded that he is familiar with other fraternal organizations. He stressed that only upstanding fraternal organizations should be recognized for the exemption. 9:28:52 AM KATHIE WASSERMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (AML), reminded the committee that property tax exemption should be local. She reminded that AML is opposed to mandatory property tax exemptions. She stated that AML believes that property tax is a local authority led by local decisions. Representative Gruenberg thanked the committee for the support. HB 10 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
Letters of support.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
Westlake statutes.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
hb 292 statute history.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 292 |
hb 292 staff contact.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 292 |
hb 292 gov letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 292 |
HB292-DMVA-HS&EM-3-24-10.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 292 |
Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
New Courts FN CSHB 98 (FIN) am.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
HB0292A.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 292 |
statutes.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
SB 222- CSSB 222 Sectional.PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 222 |
CSSB222(JUD)-DPS-RI-04-07-10.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 222 |
2010 SB 255 sponsor statemnt.PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 255 |
2010 SB 255 sectional analysis.PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 255 |
2010 SB 255 Letter of Intent.PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 255 |
2010 SB 255 five support letters.PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 255 |
2010 SB 255 CFEC support letter.PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 255 |
Sponsor Statement SB292 Pawnbrokers.doc |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 292 |
Sectional CSSB 292(JUD).PDF |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 292 |
Cash America Statement AlaskaSB292.doc |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 292 |
e6-HB 334 Dept. of Defense support letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 |
e1-HB 334 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 |
e2-HB 334 Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 |
e3-HB 334 Resolution 106.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 |
e4-HB 334 Vermont Legislation.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 |
06 HB334 Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/8/2010 1:30:00 PM SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 |
HB 10 CCED Sectional 040910.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
Changes btn SB 210 and HB 334.docx |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 334 SB 210 |
HB 10 Proposed SCS FIN Version Z .pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |
HB 98 Proposed SCS FIN Version E.pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 98 |
HB 10 2010 04 09 Eckert Testimony SFIN .pdf |
SFIN 4/9/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 10 |