Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/19/1996 01:40 PM House FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 19, 1996 1:40 P.M. TAPE HFC 96 - 41, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 41, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 42, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 42, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 43, Side 1, #000 - #168. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:40 P.M. PRESENT Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder Representative Brown Representative Navarre Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell Representative Kelly Representative Therriault Representative Kohring ALSO PRESENT Representative David Finkelstein; Representative Cynthia Toohey; Chris Christensen, Staff Counsel, Alaska Court System; Amy Daugherty, Aid, Representative Alan Austerman; Marveen Coggins, Aid, Representative Cynthia Toohey; Bob Bartholomew, Assistant Director, Income & Excise Tax Division, Department of Revenue; Neil Slotnick, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Dennis Poshard, Director, Division of Charitable Gaming, Department of Revenue. SUMMARY HB 307 An Act prohibiting the sale of pull-tabs; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 307 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue. HB 397 An Act relating to the seafood marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date. HB 397 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. 1 HB 437 An Act establishing the Judicial Officers Compensation Commission; relating to the compensation of supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court, and district court judges; and providing for an effective date. HB 437 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL 397 "An Act relating to the seafood marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date." AMY DAUGHERTY, AID, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, testified that HB 397 was designed to more precisely align the current fisheries resource landing tax (AS 43.77) with the fisheries business tax (AS 43.75) and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) assessment provision (AS 16.51). The legislation is needed to avoid future legal questions and would add a measure of fairness to the tax. HB 397 clarifies that landing tax is an occupational tax and would equalize tax rates and credits with the fisheries business tax. Ms. Daugherty commented that within HB 397, the 3.3% landing tax would include .3% for ASMI and would established a 3% landing tax. The separate .3% would provide for a seafood marketing assessment application. This action would separate the marketing assessment in the landing tax statutes and would equalize the landing tax with the shore- based fisheries business tax. The legislation specifies that a person subject to the landing tax would be liable for the .3% seafood marketing assessment; all business which produces less than $50,000 in seafood products per calendar year would be exempt from the assessment. That would encourage the small operator, value added processing. Representative Brown asked if the tax would become eligible for an education tax credit through this legislation and if that action would create a greater loss of revenue for the State. NEIL SLOTNICK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, said the policy reason for extending the tax credit would be driven by the compensatory tax doctrine. The interstate commerce laws originate in the U.S. Constitution. A compensatory tax is legal when the two taxes balance out. 2 He added that under the compensatory tax doctrine, the taxes should be the same. The payers of the landing tax have raised an argument, indicating that they are not eligible for the same credits the fisheries business tax are eligible for. Those business have stated that this is "discrimination". BOB BARTHOLOMEW, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INCOME & EXCISE TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained the education credit. The current fiscal note that the Department of Revenue enclosed does not include an estimate of the revenue potentially lost due to the education credit. Representative Brown voiced her concern with the proposed credits. She recommended that the revenue loss be indicated on the fiscal note and requested further clarification on either eliminating or expanding the credit. Mr. Bartholomew noted that the Department does not have a strong position on elimination or expansion, and will thus follow the lead of the Legislature. He noted that the legislation does indicate a specific position. Mr. Slotnick explained that the legislation would create an equalization process and thus make the work of the Department of Law more simple. Representative Brown asked the total amount of taxes which would be collected from the education credit. Mr. Bartholomew replied that in FY95, there were five taxes eligible for the credit totaling $1.2 million dollars corporate income tax credit. Representative Martin echoed Representative Brown's concerns. He asked if the legislation would be expanding the authority. Mr. Bartholomew clarified how the tax would work. A small portion of the tax is self assessed. The landing tax is assessed by the Legislature. Currently, it is a 3.3% which includes an assessment for ASMI. The legislation will make it clearer, taking the .3% of the current assessment, and moving it into the ASMI statutes. The 3% State tax would stay in AS 43.77 Landing Tax Statutes. The decision to allow or not, the education credit will be a legislative policy call. Mr. Bartholomew added that the fishermen or the processor will pay the ASMI assessment to the Department of Revenue. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that it was a tax and would be accounted for as general fund dollars. Representative Martin questioned the specifics of the lawsuit. Mr. Slotnick explained in Superior Court, that the point was raised if the landing tax was discriminatory because it was assessed at a rate of 3.3%, whereas, the fisheries business tax was assessed at 3%. The extra .3% which was assessed 3 against the landers was for ASMI, but was not part of the ASMI assessment. This legislation would remedy that issue and make them members of ASMI. Representative Navarre questioned if the corporate income taxes could be used to fund the fiscal impact. Mr. Bartholomew explained that currently, the education credit works by creating a cap which should not be exceeded, and applying to all taxes. A corporation would not be able to give under two different tax categories and would be subject to the same cap. The total contribution under the education credit that can be contributed would be $200 thousand dollars, subject to $150 thousand dollar credit. Co-Chair Hanley asked if it was possible to add a section which could specify that if the case was lost in court, that section would then be repealed. Mr. Slotnick noted that if the Department of Law loses the current litigation, there will be no tax. Mr. Bartholomew added, there has been one tax year filed for 1994 and collected in FY95. Over $7 million dollars has been collected, of which 50% was shared with the local governments. Mr. Slotnick noted that amount would be retroactive to 1994. Mr. Bartholomew responded to Representative Brown's question regarding companies that are eligible under the landing tax credit, who do not currently pay one of the other taxes. He stated that the difference would be the type of business organization paying the tax. The status selected by a corporation for tax purposes is confidential information. Representative Brown spoke to the expansion of the tax credit within the legislation. She asked if in Section #21, the tax was being lowered for developing commercial fish species. Mr. Bartholomew explained that under the fishery business tax, there exists a provision for developing commercial fish species as defined by the Department of Fish and Game and having a different tax rate. The fiscal note reflects that .2 of 1% which would amount to $8 thousand dollars, be used for developing species. Representative Brown requested a current list of "developing species". Mr. Bartholomew offered to provide that information. Co-Chair Hanley inquired the amount of anticipated revenue. Mr. Bartholomew informed members that the potential would be $8 thousand dollars, which would switch the 3% to 1% for classification and development purposes. Co-Chair Hanley summarized the three items used: 1. To equalize, which would include the education tax; 4 2. The ASMI assessment; 3. Separating the rate from 3% to 1%. Co-Chair Hanley noted the net impact would be zero. HB 397 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL 437 "An Act establishing the Judicial Officers Compensation Commission; relating to the compensation of supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court, and district court judges; and providing for an effective date." CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, testified in support of HB 437. He stated that the bill would establish a Judicial Officers Compensation Commission. The bill was introduced by the Judiciary Committee at the request of the Alaska Supreme Court. He added that the bill would create a new Judicial Officers Compensation Commission to assume the judicial salary functions of the existing State Officers Compensation Commission. The existing commission recommends compensation levels for judges and other state officers to the legislature; those proposals frequently go unheeded for reasons unrelated to their merits. In contrast, the commission created by HB 437 would have the authority to actually establish compensation levels for supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court and district court judges. The commission, appointed by the governor, could submit proposed salary and per diem for those officers to the Legislature every two years. These compensation levels would take effect on the date of the first appropriation to fund the increase, unless disapproved by another bill enacted into law within 60 days of submission. Mr. Christensen summarized: * Eight states and the federal government operate a compensation commission which sets the salary of certain public officials; * The existing State Officers Compensation Commission does not have the power to establish salaries, only to make recommendations to the legislature. 5 * The commission created by HB 437 is modeled closely on the existing commission. Two differences are that the new commission will have the power to establish compensation for justices and judges, not make recommendations, and will have a list of specific factors used in consideration of fair compensation for justices and judges. * The commission would have five members appointed by the Governor to four year terms. Among those members must be a business executive, a person with experience in personnel management, a representative or a nonpartisan voters' organization, an economist, and a lawyer. * The commission meets every other year. * The commission may consider the compensation of justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court and district court judges. * The legislature has 60 days in which to reject the order by enacting a law. (Tape Change, HFC 96-41, Side 2). Representative Parnell asked why judges should be removed from the State Officers Compensation Preview. Mr. Christensen noted that judges get caught up in many battles over salaries. With passage of the legislation, the salaries would still be subject to appropriation. In response to Representative Parnell, Mr. Christensen explained that a judge's salary could not be changed by appropriation but instead by a change to the statute. The State Constitution specifies that a judges salary can not be diminished during a term in office. That understanding is repeated in the proposed legislation, although, would not apply to magistrates. A magistrates salary is set by the Supreme Court. Discussion followed referencing material on Page 4, Line 21, "opportunity for other earned income". Representative Brown referenced Page 3, Line 30, noting that 60 days was not enough time to pass a bill through the legislature. Mr. Christensen replied that 60 days was chosen as it appeared also in the Boundary Commission recommendations. He elaborated that in order for the proposed legislation to be in statute, it must be a bill, not a resolution. 6 Representative Parnell questioned why the fiscal notes do not reflect any increases for personnel. Mr. Christensen replied, until the compensation commission actually meets and orders a change in salary, there would be no fiscal impact showing. It would be speculative at this time. Representative Mulder asked if it was a problem attracting competent people to serve as judges. Mr. Christensen pointed out that there are fewer private applicants applying for judgeships and more people from the attorney general's and public defender's office. He commented that the less you pay people, the less qualified people will apply. Mr. Christensen continued, the legislative intent was initiated during the Hickel Administration through a salaries commission but then died in the Senate Rules Committee. The legislation was again introduced last year, and after a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee, legislators agreed that they would not support the legislation if "legislators" remained in it. It was reintroduced this year with only judges included. Co-Chair Hanley asked what would happen if the Legislature did not take action the first 60 days and there was not a specific appropriation for judges salaries. Mr. Christensen explained that issue has not yet been discussed. Representative Parnell recommended changing the language on Page 3, Line 30, "within 60 days" to "when enacted in law, within 120 legislative days". That way it could be taken up at any period of time during the legislative session and then the appropriate language could be inserted. Mr. Christensen indicated that an order would have to be submitted within the first 10 days of the session by the commission. The 60 day period was chosen because other items in statute use that time frame. Mr. Christensen informed Committee members that this issue has been considered in federal courts on several occasions. In order for the delegation to set constitutional salaries, the courts have held that there must be a disapproval mechanism as well as an appropriation mechanism. Representative Brown questioned the decision making process and structure within the court system. Mr. Christensen responded that under the Constitution, the supreme court is vested with ultimate administrative authority over the judicial branch. He concluded that judges salaries total less that 25% of the court systems budget. Representative Brown questioned if the list of recommended commission members needed to include lawyers and economists. 7 Mr. Christensen replied that the supreme court does not care what type of people are included on the commission as long as they are "public spirited" and have some knowledge of the concerns. Representative Parnell thought attorneys should be included on the commission as they are better informed of the time and skill required for that type commitment. HB 437 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. (Tape Change, HFC 96-42, Side 1). HOUSE BILL 307 "An Act prohibiting the sale of pull-tabs; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, testified in support of HB 307 noting that the bill would simply prohibit politicians and other political entities from receiving charitable gaming proceeds. She said that no one should consider politicians, or their attempts to influence the electoral process, a legitimate use of charity money. Representative Therriault MOVED that 9-LS1070\K, Luckhaupt, 2/7/96, be the version before the Committee. Representative Brown OBJECTED for purposes of understanding how that version differs from the prior versions of the bill. Co- Chair Hanley explained that the original bill prohibited pull tabs; the Judiciary version prohibited charitable gaming except for raffles for political parties and candidates; the Finance committee substitute prohibits all charitable gaming including raffles. Representative Toohey emphasized that politicians and political parties should be removed from receiving any kind of charitable money. Representative Brown asked Representative Toohey if she continued to support the original version of the legislation which excluded pull tabs. Representative Toohey disagreed that was her intent. Representative Brown removed her OBJECTION to adopting the committee substitute. There being no further objection, CS HB 307 (FIN) was adopted as the version before the Committee. DENNIS POSHARD, DIRECTOR, CHARITABLE GAMING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, commented that the Department has not taken a position on HB 307. He indicated that the Legislature will need to make the policy calls regarding that bill. He pointed out Departmental concerns of the legislation. 1. The bill deals with campaign finance reform. 8 Would the Department of Revenue be in charge of policing campaign contributions. Could the problem be better addressed through Title 15, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) statutes. 2. Will the legislation accomplish the intent. He stressed that the contributions will not be audited through the Department. 3. What would happen assuming a violation occurred. The only recourse the Division would have, would be to take action against the charity's permit. There is no action or recourse that the Division can take against the campaign or candidate that receives that money. Mr. Poshard reiterated that when a violation occurs, the Division will take action against the charity's permit. There will be no means of recourse against the candidate that receive the money. Mr. Poshard spoke to the advantages of placing the concern under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC). APOC has the expertise to deal with campaign financing law. The Division does not have that expertise, and it is not the focus of their program. Co- Chair Hanley advised that the intent would be to prohibit the contribution. Mr. Poshard reminded Committee members that most of the groups included also report to APOC. Representative Brown recommended that these concerns be considered in the campaign finance reform and a rewrite of the statutes. Mr. Poshard explained that the Department has done extensive research in how other organizations establish minimum returns to the charity and minimum returns to the State. The Administration is looking at ways to change how the State initiates this action. Currently, there is a bill being drafted which would increase the amount of revenue received by the State and the charity and would streamline the auditing procedures. Representative Brown questioned the fundamental problem with a political candidate receiving money from charitable gaming, agreeing that it should be well regulated. Representative Therriault asked if groups gathering money for a political system are legitimate charities. Mr. Poshard noted that a prohibition exists in using net proceeds to pay a lobbyist. There is no prohibition against a charitable organization to hire a lobbyist, but it is illegal for them to pay the lobbyist from the net proceeds. 9 Representative Toohey noted for the record that she has received gaming contributions from pull tabs charities. Representative Navarre elaborated on comments made by Representative Martin pointing out that corruption in politics goes far beyond contributions received from charitable gaming. He voiced support for the original bill over the committee substitute. Representative Kohring mentioned that Alaska is the only State which allows gaming proceeds to be used for political contributions, and voiced concern for proceeds being used for political purposes. Representative Toohey corrected that few states do allow it. Representative Brown inquired why the bill was drafted in such a way that the sanction would affect only the "charity" and not the candidate receiving the funding. Co-Chair Hanley indicated that concern was addressed in the bill. Representative Toohey pointed out that on Page 75, under the Section "Elections", the statutes clarifies this issue. Mr. Poshard stated that he did not know if the APOC statutes contain a corresponding prohibition. MARVEEN COGGINS, AID, REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, agreed that Alaska Legal Services specified that the candidate will not be responsible but rather the contributor would be. She suggested that language could be included stating that the "candidate can not knowingly accept contributions that constitute in whole or part the net proceeds of a charitable gaming organization". Terry Cramer, Legal Services attorney, recommended if that language was adopted, that it be a new subsection to A.S. 15:17:070, labeled number (I). (Tape Change, HFC 96-42, Side 2). Co-Chair Hanley noted that he would oppose all the amendments. They are not part of a comprehensive campaign reform. Philosophically, he voiced a concern with gambling money being used in politics. Representative Brown countered that the likelihood of campaign reform is evident. Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #1. [Attachment their money was going. Mr. Poshard stated that it should not be a problem for any business to comply with the amendment. It would be easy to announce who would receive the net proceeds from each evenings session. 10 Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Therriault. OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Hanley, Foster. The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Attachment #2]. She noted that the amendment would identify where the pull tab money would be going. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kelly, Navarre, Brown. OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Foster, Hanley. The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 which would adjust upward by 10%, the amount of adjusted gross income that goes to charities from pull tab activity. [Attachment comparison to other states in the percentage being donated to charities. He stressed that only 8.7% is returned on each dollar to the charity. Currently, some states contribute up to 34% on bingo and pull tab dollars. Co- Chair Hanley OBJECTED to adoption of Amendment #3. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Kohring, Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf. OPPOSED: Kelly, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Hanley, Foster. The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Representative Brown spoke to Amendments 4, 5 & 6, [Attachments 4,5 & 6], which address increasing the operators license fee, the distributors license and the pull tab manufactures license. Mr. Poshard commented that the fees established have not been changed in a few years. Gaming regulations are lower than other jurisdictions. Representative Mulder questioned if the fees collected off- set operations within the Department of Revenue. Mr. Poshard replied, not entirely. A 3% pull tab tax and a 1% 11 fee on the ideal net proceeds are also collected. Those taxes, in addition to the fees, are double the annual budget. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #4. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf. OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Foster, Hanley. The MOTION FAILED (3-8). Representative Brown WITHDREW Amendments #5 & #6. She spoke to Amendment #7. [Attachment #7]. The amendment would close a loop-hole in gaming activity. Mr. Poshard added that there is a limit on bingo activity. More than $1000 dollars can not be given away on one activity or $5000 dollar per session. There is no statutory limitation on pull tab prize pay-out. Mr. Poshard recommended limiting it to $500 dollars. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #7. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf. OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley, Foster. The MOTION FAILED (3-8). Representative Brown explained Amendment #8. [Attachment of charities which could participate. Currently, there are more charities than operators available. Mr. Poshard elaborated that a charity's maximum contract would be $500 thousand dollars annually. There are a number of charities seeking to have the permit paid by an operator. Reducing the amount would then force an operator to contract with a greater number of charities to conduct activity. Co-Chair Hanley questioned how many permits would be taken off the market. Mr. Poshard responded that there are 24 political groups who have permits. Representative Navarre spoke against the amendment. He thought that it would force more people moving to Multi Benefit Permitees (MBP), thus reducing the number of slots available. MBP's have a greater cap from which to operate. 12 Mr. Poshard agreed with Representative Navarre. Representative Brown asked if charities would be better off with an operator or with a MBP. Mr. Poshard noted that the rate of return would be higher with an MBP, although, they would then be capable of contracting with only six. As an operator, they would be able to contract with twelve. The charity could make twice as much money under the MBP, although only half the charities would receive benefit. Representative Brown withdrew Amendment #8 as it was her intention that the amendment benefit the charities. Representative Brown explained Amendment #9 which would increase the tax from 3% to 5% on the gross receipts plus prizes awarded from the pull tabs. [Attachment #9]. She noted that this would generate $800 thousand dollars in program receipts annually to the general fund. Mr. Poshard advised that increasing the tax would create new funds for the State, a tax collected by the distributors and remitted on a quarterly basis. Following comments by Representative Martin, Representative Brown suggested a change to delete the language in the amendment "less prizes awarded". Mr. Poshard pointed out with removal of that language, the tax would become much more substantial. He voiced concern that the proposed percentage would change the gross without also changing the return to the permitees. That would dramatically decrease their net proceeds. Mr. Poshard added, that he would prefer a 5% tax on the gross, changing how the charities receive their payment. Currently, those conducting activity would be expending the tax to the permitees. (Tape Change, HFC 96-43, Side 1). Representative Brown asked to replace the deleted language with the language as originally written. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #9. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown. OPPOSED: Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Foster, Hanley. Representative Grussendorf was not present for the vote. 13 The MOTION FAILED (2-8). Representative Navarre MOVED to adopt Amendment #10. [Attachment #10]. Representative Martin OBJECTED. Representative Navarre pointed out that the amendment was a portion of the bill which passed from Committee last year. Currently, a municipal exemption has not been applied for, resulting in MBP's doing the same thing as operators and competing against small organizations, driving them out of business. The amendment is an attempt to allow those municipalities, if they choose, to regulate the level of gaming in their communities. A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #10. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown. OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Hanley, Foster. Representative Grussendorf was not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-8). Representative Martin MOVED to report CS HB 307 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 307 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M. HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 19, 1996 1:40 P.M. TAPE HFC 96 - 41, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 41, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 42, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 42, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 96 - 43, Side 1, #000 - #168. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Mark Hanley called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 1:40 P.M. PRESENT 14 Co-Chair Hanley Representative Martin Co-Chair Foster Representative Mulder Representative Brown Representative Navarre Representative Grussendorf Representative Parnell Representative Kelly Representative Therriault Representative Kohring ALSO PRESENT Representative David Finkelstein; Representative Cynthia Toohey; Chris Christensen, Staff Counsel, Alaska Court System; Amy Daugherty, Aid, Representative Alan Austerman; Marveen Coggins, Aid, Representative Cynthia Toohey; Bob Bartholomew, Assistant Director, Income & Excise Tax Division, Department of Revenue; Neil Slotnick, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Dennis Poshard, Director, Division of Charitable Gaming, Department of Revenue. SUMMARY HB 307 An Act prohibiting the sale of pull-tabs; and providing for an effective date. CS HB 307 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue. HB 397 An Act relating to the seafood marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date. HB 397 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HB 437 An Act establishing the Judicial Officers Compensation Commission; relating to the compensation of supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court, and district court judges; and providing for an effective date. HB 437 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL 397 "An Act relating to the seafood marketing assessment; and providing for an effective date." AMY DAUGHERTY, AID, REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN, testified that HB 397 was designed to more precisely align the current fisheries resource landing tax (AS 43.77) with the fisheries 15 business tax (AS 43.75) and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) assessment provision (AS 16.51). The legislation is needed to avoid future legal questions and would add a measure of fairness to the tax. HB 397 clarifies that landing tax is an occupational tax and would equalize tax rates and credits with the fisheries business tax. Ms. Daugherty commented that within HB 397, the 3.3% landing tax would include .3% for ASMI and would established a 3% landing tax. The separate .3% would provide for a seafood marketing assessment application. This action would separate the marketing assessment in the landing tax statutes and would equalize the landing tax with the shore- based fisheries business tax. The legislation specifies that a person subject to the landing tax would be liable for the .3% seafood marketing assessment; all business which produces less than $50,000 in seafood products per calendar year would be exempt from the assessment. That would encourage the small operator, value added processing. Representative Brown asked if the tax would become eligible for an education tax credit through this legislation and if that action would create a greater loss of revenue for the State. NEIL SLOTNICK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, said the policy reason for extending the tax credit would be driven by the compensatory tax doctrine. The interstate commerce laws originate in the U.S. Constitution. A compensatory tax is legal when the two taxes balance out. He added that under the compensatory tax doctrine, the taxes should be the same. The payers of the landing tax have raised an argument, indicating that they are not eligible for the same credits the fisheries business tax are eligible for. Those business have stated that this is "discrimination". BOB BARTHOLOMEW, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INCOME & EXCISE TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained the education credit. The current fiscal note that the Department of Revenue enclosed does not include an estimate of the revenue potentially lost due to the education credit. Representative Brown voiced her concern with the proposed credits. She recommended that the revenue loss be indicated on the fiscal note and requested further clarification on either eliminating or expanding the credit. Mr. Bartholomew noted that the Department does not have a strong position on 16 elimination or expansion, and will thus follow the lead of the Legislature. He noted that the legislation does indicate a specific position. Mr. Slotnick explained that the legislation would create an equalization process and thus make the work of the Department of Law more simple. Representative Brown asked the total amount of taxes which would be collected from the education credit. Mr. Bartholomew replied that in FY95, there were five taxes eligible for the credit totaling $1.2 million dollars corporate income tax credit. Representative Martin echoed Representative Brown's concerns. He asked if the legislation would be expanding the authority. Mr. Bartholomew clarified how the tax would work. A small portion of the tax is self assessed. The landing tax is assessed by the Legislature. Currently, it is a 3.3% which includes an assessment for ASMI. The legislation will make it clearer, taking the .3% of the current assessment, and moving it into the ASMI statutes. The 3% State tax would stay in AS 43.77 Landing Tax Statutes. The decision to allow or not, the education credit will be a legislative policy call. Mr. Bartholomew added that the fishermen or the processor will pay the ASMI assessment to the Department of Revenue. Co-Chair Hanley pointed out that it was a tax and would be accounted for as general fund dollars. Representative Martin questioned the specifics of the lawsuit. Mr. Slotnick explained in Superior Court, that the point was raised if the landing tax was discriminatory because it was assessed at a rate of 3.3%, whereas, the fisheries business tax was assessed at 3%. The extra .3% which was assessed against the landers was for ASMI, but was not part of the ASMI assessment. This legislation would remedy that issue and make them members of ASMI. Representative Navarre questioned if the corporate income taxes could be used to fund the fiscal impact. Mr. Bartholomew explained that currently, the education credit works by creating a cap which should not be exceeded, and applying to all taxes. A corporation would not be able to give under two different tax categories and would be subject to the same cap. The total contribution under the education credit that can be contributed would be $200 thousand dollars, subject to $150 thousand dollar credit. Co-Chair Hanley asked if it was possible to add a section which could specify that if the case was lost in court, that section would then be repealed. Mr. Slotnick noted that if the Department of Law loses the current litigation, there will be no tax. Mr. Bartholomew added, there has been one 17 tax year filed for 1994 and collected in FY95. Over $7 million dollars has been collected, of which 50% was shared with the local governments. Mr. Slotnick noted that amount would be retroactive to 1994. Mr. Bartholomew responded to Representative Brown's question regarding companies that are eligible under the landing tax credit, who do not currently pay one of the other taxes. He stated that the difference would be the type of business organization paying the tax. The status selected by a corporation for tax purposes is confidential information. Representative Brown spoke to the expansion of the tax credit within the legislation. She asked if in Section #21, the tax was being lowered for developing commercial fish species. Mr. Bartholomew explained that under the fishery business tax, there exists a provision for developing commercial fish species as defined by the Department of Fish and Game and having a different tax rate. The fiscal note reflects that .2 of 1% which would amount to $8 thousand dollars, be used for developing species. Representative Brown requested a current list of "developing species". Mr. Bartholomew offered to provide that information. Co-Chair Hanley inquired the amount of anticipated revenue. Mr. Bartholomew informed members that the potential would be $8 thousand dollars, which would switch the 3% to 1% for classification and development purposes. Co-Chair Hanley summarized the three items used: 1. To equalize, which would include the education tax; 2. The ASMI assessment; 3. Separating the rate from 3% to 1%. Co-Chair Hanley noted the net impact would be zero. HB 397 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL 437 "An Act establishing the Judicial Officers Compensation Commission; relating to the compensation of supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court, and district court judges; and providing for an effective date." CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, STAFF COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, testified in support of HB 437. He stated that the bill would establish a Judicial Officers Compensation Commission. 18 The bill was introduced by the Judiciary Committee at the request of the Alaska Supreme Court. He added that the bill would create a new Judicial Officers Compensation Commission to assume the judicial salary functions of the existing State Officers Compensation Commission. The existing commission recommends compensation levels for judges and other state officers to the legislature; those proposals frequently go unheeded for reasons unrelated to their merits. In contrast, the commission created by HB 437 would have the authority to actually establish compensation levels for supreme court justices, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court and district court judges. The commission, appointed by the governor, could submit proposed salary and per diem for those officers to the Legislature every two years. These compensation levels would take effect on the date of the first appropriation to fund the increase, unless disapproved by another bill enacted into law within 60 days of submission. Mr. Christensen summarized: * Eight states and the federal government operate a compensation commission which sets the salary of certain public officials; * The existing State Officers Compensation Commission does not have the power to establish salaries, only to make recommendations to the legislature. * The commission created by HB 437 is modeled closely on the existing commission. Two differences are that the new commission will have the power to establish compensation for justices and judges, not make recommendations, and will have a list of specific factors used in consideration of fair compensation for justices and judges. * The commission would have five members appointed by the Governor to four year terms. Among those members must be a business executive, a person with experience in personnel management, a representative or a nonpartisan voters' organization, an economist, and a lawyer. * The commission meets every other year. * The commission may consider the compensation of 19 justices of the supreme court, judges of the court of appeals, judges of the superior court and district court judges. * The legislature has 60 days in which to reject the order by enacting a law. (Tape Change, HFC 96-41, Side 2). Representative Parnell asked why judges should be removed from the State Officers Compensation Preview. Mr. Christensen noted that judges get caught up in many battles over salaries. With passage of the legislation, the salaries would still be subject to appropriation. In response to Representative Parnell, Mr. Christensen explained that a judge's salary could not be changed by appropriation but instead by a change to the statute. The State Constitution specifies that a judges salary can not be diminished during a term in office. That understanding is repeated in the proposed legislation, although, would not apply to magistrates. A magistrates salary is set by the Supreme Court. Discussion followed referencing material on Page 4, Line 21, "opportunity for other earned income". Representative Brown referenced Page 3, Line 30, noting that 60 days was not enough time to pass a bill through the legislature. Mr. Christensen replied that 60 days was chosen as it appeared also in the Boundary Commission recommendations. He elaborated that in order for the proposed legislation to be in statute, it must be a bill, not a resolution. Representative Parnell questioned why the fiscal notes do not reflect any increases for personnel. Mr. Christensen replied, until the compensation commission actually meets and orders a change in salary, there would be no fiscal impact showing. It would be speculative at this time. Representative Mulder asked if it was a problem attracting competent people to serve as judges. Mr. Christensen pointed out that there are fewer private applicants applying for judgeships and more people from the attorney general's and public defender's office. He commented that the less you pay people, the less qualified people will apply. Mr. Christensen continued, the legislative intent was initiated during the Hickel Administration through a salaries commission but then died in the Senate Rules Committee. The legislation was again introduced last year, and after a hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee, legislators agreed that they would not support the 20 legislation if "legislators" remained in it. It was reintroduced this year with only judges included. Co-Chair Hanley asked what would happen if the Legislature did not take action the first 60 days and there was not a specific appropriation for judges salaries. Mr. Christensen explained that issue has not yet been discussed. Representative Parnell recommended changing the language on Page 3, Line 30, "within 60 days" to "when enacted in law, within 120 legislative days". That way it could be taken up at any period of time during the legislative session and then the appropriate language could be inserted. Mr. Christensen indicated that an order would have to be submitted within the first 10 days of the session by the commission. The 60 day period was chosen because other items in statute use that time frame. Mr. Christensen informed Committee members that this issue has been considered in federal courts on several occasions. In order for the delegation to set constitutional salaries, the courts have held that there must be a disapproval mechanism as well as an appropriation mechanism. Representative Brown questioned the decision making process and structure within the court system. Mr. Christensen responded that under the Constitution, the supreme court is vested with ultimate administrative authority over the judicial branch. He concluded that judges salaries total less that 25% of the court systems budget. Representative Brown questioned if the list of recommended commission members needed to include lawyers and economists. Mr. Christensen replied that the supreme court does not care what type of people are included on the commission as long as they are "public spirited" and have some knowledge of the concerns. Representative Parnell thought attorneys should be included on the commission as they are better informed of the time and skill required for that type commitment. HB 437 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. (Tape Change, HFC 96-42, Side 1). HOUSE BILL 307 "An Act prohibiting the sale of pull-tabs; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, testified in support of HB 307 noting that the bill would simply prohibit politicians and other political entities from receiving charitable 21 gaming proceeds. She said that no one should consider politicians, or their attempts to influence the electoral process, a legitimate use of charity money. Representative Therriault MOVED that 9-LS1070\K, Luckhaupt, 2/7/96, be the version before the Committee. Representative Brown OBJECTED for purposes of understanding how that version differs from the prior versions of the bill. Co- Chair Hanley explained that the original bill prohibited pull tabs; the Judiciary version prohibited charitable gaming except for raffles for political parties and candidates; the Finance committee substitute prohibits all charitable gaming including raffles. Representative Toohey emphasized that politicians and political parties should be removed from receiving any kind of charitable money. Representative Brown asked Representative Toohey if she continued to support the original version of the legislation which excluded pull tabs. Representative Toohey disagreed that was her intent. Representative Brown removed her OBJECTION to adopting the committee substitute. There being no further objection, CS HB 307 (FIN) was adopted as the version before the Committee. DENNIS POSHARD, DIRECTOR, CHARITABLE GAMING DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, commented that the Department has not taken a position on HB 307. He indicated that the Legislature will need to make the policy calls regarding that bill. He pointed out Departmental concerns of the legislation. 1. The bill deals with campaign finance reform. Would the Department of Revenue be in charge of policing campaign contributions. Could the problem be better addressed through Title 15, Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) statutes. 2. Will the legislation accomplish the intent. He stressed that the contributions will not be audited through the Department. 3. What would happen assuming a violation occurred. The only recourse the Division would have, would be to take action against the charity's permit. There is no action or recourse that the Division can take against the campaign or candidate that receives that money. Mr. Poshard reiterated that when a violation occurs, the Division will take action against the charity's permit. There will be no means of recourse against the candidate 22 that receive the money. Mr. Poshard spoke to the advantages of placing the concern under the jurisdiction of the Alaska Public Office Commission (APOC). APOC has the expertise to deal with campaign financing law. The Division does not have that expertise, and it is not the focus of their program. Co- Chair Hanley advised that the intent would be to prohibit the contribution. Mr. Poshard reminded Committee members that most of the groups included also report to APOC. Representative Brown recommended that these concerns be considered in the campaign finance reform and a rewrite of the statutes. Mr. Poshard explained that the Department has done extensive research in how other organizations establish minimum returns to the charity and minimum returns to the State. The Administration is looking at ways to change how the State initiates this action. Currently, there is a bill being drafted which would increase the amount of revenue received by the State and the charity and would streamline the auditing procedures. Representative Brown questioned the fundamental problem with a political candidate receiving money from charitable gaming, agreeing that it should be well regulated. Representative Therriault asked if groups gathering money for a political system are legitimate charities. Mr. Poshard noted that a prohibition exists in using net proceeds to pay a lobbyist. There is no prohibition against a charitable organization to hire a lobbyist, but it is illegal for them to pay the lobbyist from the net proceeds. Representative Toohey noted for the record that she has received gaming contributions from pull tabs charities. Representative Navarre elaborated on comments made by Representative Martin pointing out that corruption in politics goes far beyond contributions received from charitable gaming. He voiced support for the original bill over the committee substitute. Representative Kohring mentioned that Alaska is the only State which allows gaming proceeds to be used for political contributions, and voiced concern for proceeds being used for political purposes. Representative Toohey corrected that few states do allow it. Representative Brown inquired why the bill was drafted in such a way that the sanction would affect only the "charity" 23 and not the candidate receiving the funding. Co-Chair Hanley indicated that concern was addressed in the bill. Representative Toohey pointed out that on Page 75, under the Section "Elections", the statutes clarifies this issue. Mr. Poshard stated that he did not know if the APOC statutes contain a corresponding prohibition. MARVEEN COGGINS, AID, REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY, agreed that Alaska Legal Services specified that the candidate will not be responsible but rather the contributor would be. She suggested that language could be included stating that the "candidate can not knowingly accept contributions that constitute in whole or part the net proceeds of a charitable gaming organization". Terry Cramer, Legal Services attorney, recommended if that language was adopted, that it be a new subsection to A.S. 15:17:070, labeled number (I). (Tape Change, HFC 96-42, Side 2). Co-Chair Hanley noted that he would oppose all the amendments. They are not part of a comprehensive campaign reform. Philosophically, he voiced a concern with gambling money being used in politics. Representative Brown countered that the likelihood of campaign reform is evident. Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #1. [Attachment their money was going. Mr. Poshard stated that it should not be a problem for any business to comply with the amendment. It would be easy to announce who would receive the net proceeds from each evenings session. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf, Navarre, Therriault. OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Hanley, Foster. The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Attachment #2]. She noted that the amendment would identify where the pull tab money would be going. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kelly, Navarre, Brown. 24 OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Foster, Hanley. The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 which would adjust upward by 10%, the amount of adjusted gross income that goes to charities from pull tab activity. [Attachment comparison to other states in the percentage being donated to charities. He stressed that only 8.7% is returned on each dollar to the charity. Currently, some states contribute up to 34% on bingo and pull tab dollars. Co- Chair Hanley OBJECTED to adoption of Amendment #3. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Kohring, Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf. OPPOSED: Kelly, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Hanley, Foster. The MOTION FAILED (4-7). Representative Brown spoke to Amendments 4, 5 & 6, [Attachments 4,5 & 6], which address increasing the operators license fee, the distributors license and the pull tab manufactures license. Mr. Poshard commented that the fees established have not been changed in a few years. Gaming regulations are lower than other jurisdictions. Representative Mulder questioned if the fees collected off- set operations within the Department of Revenue. Mr. Poshard replied, not entirely. A 3% pull tab tax and a 1% fee on the ideal net proceeds are also collected. Those taxes, in addition to the fees, are double the annual budget. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #4. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf. OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Foster, Hanley. The MOTION FAILED (3-8). Representative Brown WITHDREW Amendments #5 & #6. She spoke to Amendment #7. [Attachment #7]. The amendment would close a loop-hole in gaming activity. Mr. Poshard added that there is a limit on bingo activity. More than $1000 25 dollars can not be given away on one activity or $5000 dollar per session. There is no statutory limitation on pull tab prize pay-out. Mr. Poshard recommended limiting it to $500 dollars. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #7. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown, Grussendorf. OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley, Foster. The MOTION FAILED (3-8). Representative Brown explained Amendment #8. [Attachment of charities which could participate. Currently, there are more charities than operators available. Mr. Poshard elaborated that a charity's maximum contract would be $500 thousand dollars annually. There are a number of charities seeking to have the permit paid by an operator. Reducing the amount would then force an operator to contract with a greater number of charities to conduct activity. Co-Chair Hanley questioned how many permits would be taken off the market. Mr. Poshard responded that there are 24 political groups who have permits. Representative Navarre spoke against the amendment. He thought that it would force more people moving to Multi Benefit Permitees (MBP), thus reducing the number of slots available. MBP's have a greater cap from which to operate. Mr. Poshard agreed with Representative Navarre. Representative Brown asked if charities would be better off with an operator or with a MBP. Mr. Poshard noted that the rate of return would be higher with an MBP, although, they would then be capable of contracting with only six. As an operator, they would be able to contract with twelve. The charity could make twice as much money under the MBP, although only half the charities would receive benefit. Representative Brown withdrew Amendment #8 as it was her intention that the amendment benefit the charities. Representative Brown explained Amendment #9 which would increase the tax from 3% to 5% on the gross receipts plus prizes awarded from the pull tabs. [Attachment #9]. She noted that this would generate $800 thousand dollars in program receipts annually to the general fund. Mr. Poshard advised that increasing the tax would create new funds for the State, a tax collected by the distributors and remitted 26 on a quarterly basis. Following comments by Representative Martin, Representative Brown suggested a change to delete the language in the amendment "less prizes awarded". Mr. Poshard pointed out with removal of that language, the tax would become much more substantial. He voiced concern that the proposed percentage would change the gross without also changing the return to the permitees. That would dramatically decrease their net proceeds. Mr. Poshard added, that he would prefer a 5% tax on the gross, changing how the charities receive their payment. Currently, those conducting activity would be expending the tax to the permitees. (Tape Change, HFC 96-43, Side 1). Representative Brown asked to replace the deleted language with the language as originally written. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #9. Co-Chair Hanley OBJECTED. A roll call was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown. OPPOSED: Mulder, Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Foster, Hanley. Representative Grussendorf was not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-8). Representative Navarre MOVED to adopt Amendment #10. [Attachment #10]. Representative Martin OBJECTED. Representative Navarre pointed out that the amendment was a portion of the bill which passed from Committee last year. Currently, a municipal exemption has not been applied for, resulting in MBP's doing the same thing as operators and competing against small organizations, driving them out of business. The amendment is an attempt to allow those municipalities, if they choose, to regulate the level of gaming in their communities. A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment #10. IN FAVOR: Navarre, Brown. OPPOSED: Parnell, Therriault, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Hanley, Foster. 27 Representative Grussendorf was not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-8). Representative Martin MOVED to report CS HB 307 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 307 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M. 28
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|