04/11/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB58 | |
| SJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2011
1:14 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to mining licenses, to the mining license tax,
and to production royalties on minerals and rents for property
involved in mining; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2(RES)
Commending and supporting actions taken by the Office of the
Governor and the attorney general to protect the state from
federal government incursion into the care and management of
state resources and to promote the economic prosperity of the
state; and urging the United States Congress and the President
of the United States to limit federal government overreach into
management of state resources.
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE: MINING PROD. & LICENSE TAXES/ROYALTIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
01/18/11 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/11
01/18/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/11 (H) RES, FIN
04/11/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SJR 2
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN STATE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DYSON
01/19/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/11 (S) RES
03/25/11 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/25/11 (S) Moved CSSJR 2(RES) Out of Committee
03/25/11 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/11 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP NEW TITLE
03/28/11 (S) DP: WAGONER, PASKVAN, FRENCH,
WIELECHOWSKI, STEDMAN, STEVENS
04/04/11 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/04/11 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 2(RES)
04/05/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/05/11 (H) RES
04/11/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KATIE KOESTER, Staff
Representative Paul Seaton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced the bill and answered questions
on behalf Representative Seaton, prime sponsor of HB 58.
WYN MENEFEE, Acting Director
Central Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 58.
KERWIN KRAUSE, Geologist
Central Office, Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 58.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director
Tax Division, Anchorage Office
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 58.
SENATOR FRED DYSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 2 as the prime sponsor of
the resolution.
CHARLES KOPP, Staff
Senator Fred Dyson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Senator Fred Dyson,
prime sponsor of SJR 2.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:14:11 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:14 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Feige, Munoz, Gardner, and Herron were present at the call to
order. Representatives Foster, Dick, Kawasaki, and P. Wilson
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 58-MINING PROD. & LICENSE TAXES/ROYALTIES
1:14:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to mining licenses, to
the mining license tax, and to production royalties on minerals
and rents for property involved in mining; and providing for an
effective date."
1:15:12 PM
KATIE KOESTER, Staff, Representative Paul Seaton, Alaska State
Legislature, related that HB 58 would reform mining taxes in the
State of Alaska. Mining taxes have been substantially unchanged
since statehood, although some royalty language was added during
the 1980s. She offered a section-by-section analysis of the
bill. She referred to a document in members' packets titled,
"HB 58 - Simplified Comparative Sectional v. A" which compares
the existing statutes with HB 58. Additionally, she referred
members to a legal services version dated February 7, 2011 in
members' packets.
1:16:20 PM
MS. KOESTER explained that changes to Section 1 pertain to coal
royalties and updates statute to reflect regulation. The
statutes that authorized coal royalties were created during the
territorial legislature and included a provision that allowed
the commissioner to update rates in regulation. This section
would formalize that process in statute.
MS. KOESTER related that proposed Section 2 was suggested by
Kerwin Krause, Geologist, Division of Mining, Land and Water to
allow coal lessees to pay royalty-in-kind rather than in cash.
This provision would be applicable for coal-fired power plants,
such as the one located at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
She characterized this as a means of cost savings and would be
advantageous to the UAF.
1:17:31 PM
MS. KOESTER stated that Sections 3, 4, and 5 pertain to mining
rentals of a holder of a mining claim, leasehold location or
mining lease. She explained that these statutes were antiquated
but were updated in regulation. The sponsor's intention is not
to substantially increase rental rates. She suggested the
committee consider whether to place current regulation(s) into
statute to clarify or if another approach would be preferable.
She pointed out the sponsor's intent is to clarify and update
the current language.
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that the statutes that pertain to the
coal production royalty regulations were based on territorial
and not state statutes.
MS. KOESTER further clarified that the coal production royalty
statutes are based on territorial statutes. She was unsure of
whether mining rentals were also based on territorial statutes.
1:19:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that the
regulations have already been updated and statute changes are
conforming statutes so the changes will be seamless to industry.
MS. KOESTER agreed that is her understanding.
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that relying on territorial statutes
to authorize regulations makes it nebulous as to where the state
is at with respect to coal production royalties but the
Department of Law could provide guidance on how this would
affect industry.
1:20:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the coal royalties are set at the
time that the mineral lease is granted or when the mine actually
begins production.
MS. KOESTER asked whether he was referring to coal or mineral
production royalty.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered coal production royalty.
MS. KOESTER offered her belief that it would begin on the date
production begins. She deferred to the Department of Natural
Resources for more information.
1:21:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to whether this would refer to coal
production royalty established at the time of the lease or first
coal.
1:21:57 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Acting Director, Division of Mining, Land and
Water, Department of Natural Resources (DRN), introduced
himself. He then asked Mr. Kerwin Krause to respond to the
question.
1:22:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE restated his question. He asked whether the coal
production royalty amount is determined at the time the mineral
lease is granted or at a later date.
1:22:31 PM
KERWIN KRAUSE, Geologist, Central Office, Division of Mining,
Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), answered
that is determined by regulation. He explained the coal
production royalty amount spans a 20-year term. Thus, every 20
years the royalty amount would be subject to change.
1:22:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the mining royalties are handled in
the same manner as other production royalties.
MR. KRAUSE answered no, noting that locatable minerals are not
subject to change and are currently set at 3 percent. He
offered that coal production royalty is currently set at 5
percent of adjusted gross value.
1:23:19 PM
MS. KOESTER related that Section 6 establishes a new production
royalty calculation. Currently, production royalty for mineral
mines on state land is set at 3 percent of net income. The
proposed change would set the production royalty at 3 percent of
net smelter return. She explained that would be 3 percent of
the gross value of the mineral at the point of production. She
characterized this change as significant since it would base the
royalty on the actual value of the mineral versus the income of
the mine.
MS. KOESTER stated that Section 7 would define net smelter
return to mean the value that the mining company receives from
the sale of ore after it has been smelted or refined. The value
would be based on the current price of the mineral less the cost
of processing and transporting it between the refinery and the
mine. This proposed section would also allow the department to
determine the calculation method in regulation.
1:24:16 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON explained that the net smelter return for
current production royalty is set at 3 percent of net profit. A
company that is inefficient or has substantially high expenses
may not pay a royalty. It could take years before the company
shows a net profit since all mining expenses are deducted
immediately. In those instances the state may not collect any
production royalty for many years. The net smelter return (NSR)
would be based on a value of the minerals after transportation
costs are subtracted, but this provision makes a big
distinction, he said.
1:26:35 PM
MS. KOESTER pointed out that landowners use net smelter return
(NSR) to calculate production royalty. She recalled the Mental
Health Trust and other places in the Lower 48 also use the NSR
method.
CO-CHAIR SEATON in the past there has not been a problem or
issue with production royalties since it only applies to state
land and almost all mines in Alaska are on Native lands or
Mental Health Trust lands and both use a NSR production royalty.
He was unsure why production royalty should be calculated
differently when the mine is on state lands. The general amount
for NSR returns has been between 3.5-5.5 percent, he said.
MS. KOESTER referred to proposed Section 8, which defines gross
value at the point of production. This is important since
production royalty is determined on the value of the minerals.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:28 p.m. to 1:29 p.m.
1:29:22 PM
MS. KOESTER elaborated on the gross value at the point of
production. She explained that this as an important value to
determine because the production royalty will be based on the
mineral value at the mine head, but that value is adjusted for
value added costs. Thus, the mineral value would be determined
by looking at where the mineral is sold and the transportation
to that location. The gross value may also be rejected by the
DNR if the department believes the value given by the company is
inaccurate or that the transportation cost is not a true
reflection. This provision helps ensure that the state receives
an accurate valuation.
CO-CHAIR SEATON related a scenario to illustrate this in which a
company may have a partner who is a transportation partner or a
smelter. The transportation costs or smelting costs could be
rejected by the department if they did not seem reasonable to a
third party.
1:31:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether it would be challenging to
the state to research whether a trucking company was part of the
mining company.
CO-CHAIR SEATON related these provisions are standard to avoid
profits from being shifted from one company to another. He said
if the charges are reasonable that he presumed the department
would accept them. He characterized the process as similar to
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) process. He related his
understanding that the department does not have to analyze all
costs, but the language would give the department the ability to
challenge unreasonable costs.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that a number of lawsuits
have been filed against the TAPS just for that reason. She
looked forward to the department's viewpoint.
1:33:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked how the department could verify how much
gold a placer mine removes from the gravel.
MS. KOESTER responded that the department would establish
regulations. She offered that it would depend on the market and
surmised some self-reporting would occur.
1:34:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the department depends on the
placer miner to accurately report the minerals extracted.
MS. KOESTER agreed, that is her understanding, just like the
state depends on a large mine to accurately report the minerals
it is extracting from the ground.
1:34:34 PM
MS. KOESTER referred to Section 9, which would require miners to
apply for a mining license and adhere to any regulations
pertaining to mines.
MS. KOESTER said that Section 10 relates to the mining tax
deferral. Currently, mining companies, excluding sand and
gravel companies, have an exemption for the first three and one-
half years. This would change the exemption to a 10 year
deferral, and would require the deferred tax to be paid over the
next 10 years without interest. She explained that Section 11
simplifies conforms the language to language in Section 10.
1:35:32 PM
MS. KOESTER referred to Section 12, which would increase the
mining license tax rates and would add an additional tax bracket
applicable to net income over $1,000,000. She explained that
the tax rates have not substantially changed since 1955. The
updates reflect today's dollar values and exempt mining
companies with net income under $100,000. It would increase the
tax rate by two percentage points. She referred to the
italicized table titled "current mining tax rates." Currently,
mining companies whose net income falls under $40,000 are
exempt. Additionally, current mining license tax rates top out
at $100,000 and 7 percent. The proposed mining license tax rate
would top out at $1,000,000. The also referred to charts in
members' packets that would explain the revenue effects of those
changes.
1:37:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that miners have an exemption for
the first $100,000, but this provision would also provide for 5
percent up to $250,000 whereas the current mining license tax is
an additional 5 percent up to $100,000. Thus, the change would
allow miners to more than double net income at the 5 percent
rate. The 7 percent rate would be assessed up to $500,000 in
net income. Therefore, as the mining operation becomes more
profitable the mining license tax rate increases. He pointed
out that currently miners whose net income is $40,000 would pay
3 percent on the entire amount. He referred to the proposed
increase, noting the first $100,000 is not taxed, from $100,001
to $250,000 is taxed at 5 percent, and from $250,001 up would
pay the base tax plus the percentage.
1:39:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether mining license taxes are
paid on all land or just on state land.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that the mining license tax is assessed
on all mining in the state, regardless of land ownership.
1:39:43 PM
MS. KOESTER referred to Section 13, which outlines the procedure
for taxing multiple mines and updates the language to conform
the current drafting style.
1:40:04 PM
MS. KOESTER characterized Section 14 as the third substantive
part of the bill. This would delete the existing depletion
statutes and allow for only cost depletion. Currently a mining
company can choose between percent depletion and cost depletion
in terms of deductions to the mining license tax. She explained
that percent depletion, based on a formula in statute, has been
more advantageous with respect to taxes. Taxes are based on
income so incentives exist for mining companies to reflect their
net income as low as possible. She reiterated that Section 14
would only allow for cost depletion, or the amount actually
spent on depletion.
CO-CHAIR SEATON added that cost depletion means writing off all
expenses. He offered his belief that cost depletion is not used
anywhere else in the world.
1:41:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for the definition of an arm's
length transaction.
CO-CHAIR SEATON characterized an arm's length transaction as one
that prevents accounting from the "right pocket to the left
pocket." He related his theory that if something is allowed in
the tax code that a company should not be "brow beaten" for
using the tax break. This provision assures that cost shifting
to avoid taxes won't occur.
1:44:02 PM
MS. KOESTER related that Sections 15-23 relate primarily to
definitions. She highlighted Section 17, which disallows the
deduction of state corporate income taxes from the mining
license taxes. Current statutes allow mining companies to
deduct their state corporate income tax. Section 20 would
define the date when production begins. Section 21 would repeal
a number of sections that are no longer needed because of
changes made in the bill. It repeals references to rentals,
renewing licenses, and the date when production begins as these
are covered in other sections of the bill.
MS. KOESTER related that Section 22 applies the bill to all
leases negotiated after December 31, 2011 and Section 23
provides the effective date of January 1, 2012.
1:45:43 PM
MS. KOESTER reviewed other items that she mentioned may be of
interest to members. She referred to a tab in members' packets
labeled, "Fraser Index and Polls." She explained that the
Fraser Institute surveys professionals and executives to get a
sense of industry. She pulled excerpts from the 2009 to 2010
Institute Survey of Mining Companies. She related that Figure 3
of the report on page 18 considers mineral potential assuming no
land uses in place and assuming industry "best practices" places
Alaska second after the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). She
referred to page 30 to Figure 8: Taxation regime, which lists
Alaska 19th of 72 countries. She turned to page 50, to Figure
18: Composite policy and mineral potential ranks Alaska as
ranked fifth. She referred to page 54 and to Table 11, titled,
"How do you rate the importance of mineral potential versus
policy factors?" She highlighted that Alaska's mineral
potential is rated at 60.35 percent and its policy factors at
39.5 percent. She surmised that mining companies will look to
the mineral potential first. She offered that Alaska definitely
has mineral potential.
1:48:15 PM
MS. KOESTER pointed out results of several surveys in members'
packets. The Hellenthal and Associates statewide public opinion
research survey taken between February 12 and February 20, 2007,
asked the Alaskan public questions on resource development. She
referred to "Question ten on page v" which asked if the public
would support or oppose a ballot initiative requiring mines to
pay a percentage of their gross profit to the state. The
results showed that those who strongly favored or somewhat
favored a 10 percent tax is 70 percent. While HB 58 would not
impose a 10 percent tax increase on gross profit, the survey has
helped provide a sense of the public's view. A follow-up survey
taken between March 5 and March 18, 2007 asked Alaskans whether
they would favor or oppose increasing taxes on the mining
industry and 51.3 percent of those surveyed favored increasing
mining taxes [question 23]. She reiterated the surveys simply
provide a "snapshot" of public opinion given at a point in time.
MS. KOESTER referred to the next tab, to an October 17, 2007
memo from the State Assessor's office that compares what the
State of Alaska is doing compared to other jurisdictions with
respect to mining taxation and recommends changes. The memo
references House Bill 156, which was pending during the 25th
Legislature. She indicated that HB 58 proposes the same changes
as the prior bill. She offered that the suggested changes in
the bill came out of a number of productive meetings in the
House Ways & Means Committee.
1:50:14 PM
MS. KOESTER pointed out the next tab contains charts prepared by
Johanna Bales of the Department of Revenue (DOR). The graphs
illustrated what the revenue would have been had the state been
operating under the changes proposed in HB 58 during the past
five years. She clarified that the graphs only pertain to the
mining license revenues and not royalties.
MS. KOESTER referred to a Legislative Research Report in
members' packets dated February 3, 2011. She said the real
"meat" of the report is on page 3. She offered the sponsor's
intent is to ensure that Alaskans are receiving fair value for
its non-renewable resources. She explained Table 1: Mineral
Extraction in Alaska: Government Revenue as a Percentage of
Resource Value, 2001-2009, takes the value of the resource and
assesses the percentage of state revenue derived from the
overall resource. Thus, it extrapolates a percentage of the
value the state has received for the value of the resource.
This table indicates that the revenue has been ranged between
less than 2 percent 7 percent between 2001 and 2009. The policy
call the legislature should consider is whether the state
receives adequate compensation for its resources being
extracted.
1:52:31 PM
MS. KOESTER referred to a letter from the Alaska Miners
Association, Inc. and related that additional public comment
would be placed under the tab as it is received.
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to the chart on Table 1. He related
his understanding that the government revenue includes all
municipal and state taxes and fees, including royalties.
MS. KOESTER concurred.
1:53:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to the DNR graphs, and the
colors depicted for 2007, which she said were different than the
other graphs. She inquired as to whether that was inadvertent
or significant.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Anchorage Office,
Department of Revenue (DOR), answered that it was a combination
of the two. She explained that the division updated the charts
from prior years, and during the 25th legislature, the chart was
depicted differently since in 2007 it represented a significant
increase in the amount of revenue over historical numbers. She
further explained while prices later fluctuated in 2007 that
mineral prices had increased significantly.
1:55:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER understood the color difference were
intentional. She further understood the graphs pertain to the
same relevant information and considered the same.
MS. BALES agreed.
1:55:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to the first chart titled, "Mining
License Tax Revenues - Effect of Cost Depletion Only." He asked
whether the DOR could provide the number or percentage of
taxpayers that did not use cost depletion, but used resource
depletion in those years.
MS. BALES responded that most taxpayers use percentage depletion
because there comes a point in the mine's life in which the cost
depletion has been completely utilized so what is left is
percentage depletion.
1:57:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that the differences seen on the
graphs from FY 2006 to FY 2011 are probably not due to companies
switching from cost depletion to revenue depletion. He related
his understanding most of the mines would write off the
percentage of the resource that has been extracted and would
lower their tax rates due to that factor instead of writing off
the costs.
MS. BALES agreed. She said that cost depletion basically goes
away once the actual costs are depleted and this happens very
quickly in states with "percentage depletion" in their statutes.
1:57:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for an explanation of how percent
depletion works.
1:58:07 PM
MS. BALES asked to first explain cost depletion to provide a
proper focus. She related that when a company develops a mine
certain costs expended are capitalized. These costs would not
be taken as a current year expense. Those costs that are
capitalized to develop the mine then become the cost basis for
depletion. Under cost depletion, which would be similar to
depreciation, a company would be allowed to depreciate or
deplete those costs until all of the costs the company has
incurred have been expended. She further stated that percentage
depletion would not be based on any costs incurred in the mine.
Instead, cost depletion represents a statutory percentage of the
gross income a company reports each year allowable as a
depletion expense. So even though a company would no longer
have any costs that it has not already depleted, it would still
allowed to take a deduction. That would define percentage
depletion, which is not based on any costs, she said. She
characterized percentage depletion as basically a subsidy.
1:59:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the subsidy equates to a
straight line. He related a scenario in which a mine has $50
million and after extraction of $25 million, the company would
pay half, which would not be available to them for future.
MS. BALES responded that the scenario described is more cost
depletion which is based on the amount of minerals extracted.
She explained that percentage depletion is based entirely on the
annual gross income from the sale of the product. A company
does not typically take into account how much of the resource
remains.
2:00:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether that was fixed or changes over
time.
MS. BALES answered that the cost depletion is fixed in statute.
In further response to Chair Seaton, she answered that it is
fixed in statute for the life of the mine.
2:01:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification, whether the larger the
mine the larger the percentage that could be written off or if
it is a single percentage.
MS. BALES answered that it would be a single percentage based on
the type of mineral being extracted but it does not pertain to
the size of the mine. She recalled the rate was 10 or 15
percent on gold extraction. She offered to provide those
figures to the committee.
2:02:04 PM
MS. KOESTER highlighted the amount. She stated that under the
mining license tax, Alaska Statutes (AS) 43.65.010 (c) outlines
the percent depletion for metal mines, which is primarily what
HB 58 addresses. This statute lists the allowance for depletion
at 15 percent for metal mines. She stated that AS 43.65.010 (f)
reads, "The allowance for depletion may not exceed 50 percent of
the net income of the taxpayer..." She added that the allowance
for depletion for coal is 10 percent and sulfur is 23 percent.
2:02:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the allowance for
depletion for metal mines is 15 percent, but it could not exceed
50 percent of the net income.
MS. KOESTER agreed.
2:02:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recapped that Alaska's mining license tax
is based on an allowable write-off of up to 50 percent of the
net income.
MS. BALES agreed that is basically correct. She said that the
percentage depletion for a gold mine would be 15 percent of the
gross income, but it cannot exceed 50 percent of the net income.
Thus, after the mine takes off the expenses from the gross
income, that 50 percent of the mine's net income cannot be
reduced.
2:03:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the tab, "Legislative
Research Reports", to page 3 of the Legislative Research
Services memo of February 3, 2011, to "Table 1." She also
directed members to the tab, "State Assessor Report" to page 8
of the memo dated October 17, 2007 titled "Mining Tax Laws
Across the United States."
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred members to the tabs mentioned.
2:05:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said in reviewing Table 1, it seems as
if those percentages are very low, but page 8 of the state
assessor's report lists Alaska's income rates as between 1
percent and 9.4 percent. Additionally, she noted that most
states do not have royalties but Alaska does. She asked whether
including royalties would make Alaska's overall tax rates
higher. She further asked for the royalties for mining.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that the state's current royalties are
3 percent of the net income. He referred to page 3, Table 1,
and indicated the right column lists the total government
percentage of revenue, which includes state and municipal taxes,
fees, royalties collected from the mining industry.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ offered her belief that the figure does not
include corporate taxes.
2:07:18 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to the "Legislative Research Reports"
tab, to page 3 of the Legislative Research Services memo of
February 3, 2011.
MS. BALES said she does not have the report in front of her.
2:08:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that Alaska has a
corporate net tax rate which is deductible from the net mining
license tax. He agreed that is a question that needs to be
answered.
MS. BALES offered to pull the documents from BASIS and get back
to the committee.
2:09:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that she is interested in
how Alaska compares overall to other states and countries.
CO-CHAIR SEATON understood and agreed that question needs to be
answered.
MS. KOESTER referred to notes on page 3, to Table 1 of the
Legislative Research Report. She read: "The Department of
Revenue cautions that because corporate income tax revenue
reflects parent corporation activity, the data provided may not
accurately reflect mining activities in Alaska." She agreed
clarity is needed.
2:10:08 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that Table 1 does
include corporate taxes but he was unsure that the corporate
taxes are exclusive since the figure may include other
deductions.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON thought it also indicated that
corporate income and mining license taxes were reported, but not
until the next year.
CO-CHAIR SEATON agreed. He thought it clarified that as the
succeeding fiscal year since it differentiates between fiscal
years and calendar years. He said he thought it meant that in
2005, some carryover from previous or post year would happen,
but would not be counted twice.
2:11:30 PM
MS. BALES clarified that the question is whether the corporate
tax is included in those numbers. She answered that she is
fairly certain it does include the corporate income tax. She
affirmed the percentage does include the corporate income tax.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for further clarification that these
figures represent a combination of all government "take"
including municipal and state taxes, licenses, and fees.
MS. BALES responded that is her understanding of this report.
2:12:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether Ms. Bales has any
information that would compare Alaska to other states and
countries.
MS. BALES offered her belief that the Fraser Institute Report
identifies how Alaska compares to other states and countries.
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referred to the Fraser Report to figure
3 on page 18. She related that the graph does not list numbers.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out the tax regime is listed separately
and only compares taxes, but does not include mineral
extraction.
MS. KOESTER added that comparing Alaska's taxes with other areas
gets very difficult becomes some jurisdictions have a severance
taxes, while some jurisdictions have property taxes and what can
be deducted can very much change. She indicated that the
discussion illustrates this. She offered to work to provide an
accurate picture for the committee.
2:14:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON added that the taxes highlight one thing, but if
companies can write off 50 percent of the taxes, as Alaska does,
that it looks another way but the total picture isn't visible in
the overall comparison.
MR. MENEFEE related that he did not have any further
clarification to the questions asked.
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that the regulations relied on the
territorial statutes. He inquired as to whether the division
could comment on the relevance since it is now 50 years past
statehood.
MR. MENEFEE answered that he does not have any statement from
the Department of Law on the relevance.
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested that he research and provide
information to the committee.
MR. MENEFEE agreed to do so.
2:17:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that it has been a long time since the
state has looked at the mining taxes since statehood and whether
the tax code and royalties are sufficiently robust to meet the
constitutional obligation to Alaska's citizens.
[HB 58 was held over.]
SJR 2-LIMIT FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN STATE
2:19:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2(RES), Commending and
supporting actions taken by the Office of the Governor and the
attorney general to protect the state from federal government
incursion into the care and management of state resources and to
promote the economic prosperity of the state; and urging the
United States Congress and the President of the United States to
limit federal government overreach into management of state
resources.
2:19:34 PM
SENATOR FRED DYSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the
sponsor of SJR 2, stated that he believed the State of Alaska
has an admirable record of doing a good job of managing its own
natural resources. He suspected that the committee has already
tracked the improvements in Alaska's fisheries since statehood.
He related that he has observed some very unfortunate
overstepping by the federal government, which hugely restrains
the state from being stewards of its resources and the ability
for the state to develop them consistent with Alaska's
constitution. He explained the purpose of SJR 2 is to let the
"powers that be" understand that the people of Alaska support
the state's administration and its actions with respect to the
management of its natural resources to promote the economic
prosperity of the state. He related that the resolution has
undergone considerable modification in the Senate Resources
Standing Committee and the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
and received unanimous support in the Senate.
SENATOR DYSON referred to a handout in members' packets titled,
"Alaska Native Corporation's Resource Development" dated March
24, 2011 that lists areas of federal overreach of concern to
Native Corporations.
2:21:41 PM
CHARLES KOPP, Staff, Senator Fred Dyson, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the concerns expressed in SJR 2 are
consistent with the ones raised by the Native Corporations.
2:22:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the document was
not presented as testimony, but that it corresponds closely to
the resolution, SJR 2.
SENATOR DYSON answered yes.
2:22:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, with respect to the management of state
resources mentioned throughout the resolution, inquired as to
whether the comments are made with respect to the entire state
and not just for state or federal land.
SENATOR DYSON responded that under current authority, the state
does not have much authority on federal lands or with respect to
fish and game resource management. He offered that SJR 2 is
specifically aimed at what he believes is an over step by
federal regulators on state lands.
2:24:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SJR 2.
2:25:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK stated he is in favor of the resolution. He
expressed an interest in making a stronger statement. He
inquired as to whether legislators are just relieving our
consciences or whether this really will have an impact.
SENATOR DYSON said he shared his concern and frustration. He
remarked that generally speaking, resolutions have little more
value than the paper they are written on. He recalled a recent
article on the topic and advised he tried to get SJR 2 passed to
support the article which was, he believed, in the New York
Times. The resolution did not pass in time to be in concert
with the article. However, he understood that the Wall Street
Journal also plans to publish a similar article. He also said
that to the degree that the legislature speaks on behalf of its
constituents resolutions have value. He suggested some hint in
court proceedings indicate that SJR 2 may be slightly helpful in
court, not legally, but to demonstrate widespread support for
Alaska's stewardship of its own resources.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER commented that the backup documents do
not seem to support the proposed resolution, but seem to speak
to resource development in general.
SENATOR DYSON concurred. He reiterated that the document was
not presented to endorse this resolution. One page of the
handout in which the corporations listed federal overreach,
which is applicable to SJR 2, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER acknowledged his answer. She said she
asked the question since SJR 2 pertains to federal overreach on
state lands.
2:28:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ moved to report CSSJR 2(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSJR 2(RES) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
2:29:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJR002B.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 2 |
| 01.HB0058A.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 02.HB 58 sponsor statment.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 04.Simple Comparative Sectional HB58.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 05.Legislative Legal Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 06.Excerpts from Fraser 2009 2010 report.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 07.Legislative Research Report 11.112.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 08-Hellenthal polls from 2007.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 09-MINING REPORT-1 from stassesor.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 58 |
| 2 - SJR 2 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 2 |
| SJR002-1-2-032811-RES-N.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 2 |
| PR - Dyson SJR 2 passes Senate.pdf |
HRES 4/11/2011 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 2 |