Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/10/2003 10:07 AM House RLS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 10, 2003
10:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative John Coghill
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(JUD) am
"An Act amending the Regulation of Lobbying Act and the
definition of 'lobbyist' as it applies in the act setting
standards of conduct for legislators and legislative employees;
and amending the Regulation of Lobbying Act and the legislative
standards of conduct to allow a lobbyist to give and a person
covered by legislative standards of conduct to accept tickets to
a charity event during a legislative session."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 89(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 142
"An Act designating the Department of Natural Resources as lead
agency for resource development projects; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 142 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act increasing the fee for a state business license; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 162(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 271
"An Act levying and providing for the collection and
administration of an excise tax on passenger vehicle rentals;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 271(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 89
SHORT TITLE:LOBBYING/LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/28/03 0299 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/03 0299 (S) JUD
03/26/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/26/03 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/03 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/04/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/23/03 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BELTZ 211
04/23/03 (S) Moved CSSB 89(JUD) Out of
Committee
04/23/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/24/03 0945 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 2DNP 2NR NEW
TITLE
04/24/03 0946 (S) DP: SEEKINS; DNP: ELLIS,
FRENCH;
04/24/03 0946 (S) NR: THERRIAULT, OGAN
04/24/03 0946 (S) FN1: ZERO(ADM)
05/02/03 1102 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/2/03
05/02/03 1102 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/02/03 1103 (S) JUD CS ADOPTED Y17 N1 E1 A1
05/02/03 1103 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/3
CALENDAR
05/03/03 1130 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
89(JUD)
05/03/03 1130 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
05/03/03 1132 (S) AM NO 1 ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/03/03 1131 (S) ...CHANGES TITLE OF
LEGISLATION
05/03/03 1132 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD
READING
05/03/03 1133 (S) PASSED Y14 N1 E5
05/03/03 1133 (S) ELTON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/04/03 1147 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/04/03 1148 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/03 1148 (S) VERSION: CSSB 89(JUD) AM
05/05/03 1305 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/05/03 1305 (H) RLS
05/09/03 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
05/09/03 (H) <Meeting Postponed to Sat.
5/10/03>
05/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
BILL: SB 142
SHORT TITLE:DNR LEAD RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/03 0472 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/03 0472 (S) RES
03/12/03 0472 (S) FN1: (DNR)
03/12/03 0472 (S) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/04/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/04/03 (S) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
4/9/03>
04/09/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/09/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/09/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/11/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/03 (S) Moved CSSB 142(RES) Out of
Committee
04/11/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/11/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/14/03 0833 (S) RES RPT CS FORTHCOMING 4DP
1NR
04/14/03 0891 (S) DP: OGAN, STEVENS B, WAGONER,
04/14/03 0891 (S) DYSON; NR: ELTON
04/14/03 0834 (S) FN1: (DNR)
04/14/03 0834 (S) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
04/14/03 0834 (S) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
04/17/03 0891 (S) RES CS RECEIVED SAME TITLE
04/22/03 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE
FINANCE 532
04/22/03 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard --
Time Change --
04/30/03 1045 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR
04/30/03 1045 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, TAYLOR,
BUNDE,
04/30/03 1045 (S) STEVENS B; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/30/03 1045 (S) FN1: (DNR)
04/30/03 1045 (S) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
04/30/03 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/30/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
05/02/03 1103 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/2/03
05/02/03 1103 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/02/03 1104 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
05/02/03 1104 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 142
05/02/03 1104 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
05/02/03 1113 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/02/03 1113 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/02/03 1113 (S) VERSION: SB 142
05/05/03 1305 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/05/03 1305 (H) RLS
05/09/03 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
05/09/03 (H) <Meeting Postponed to Sat.
5/10/03>
05/10/03 1536 (H) RLS RPT 5DP 1AM
05/10/03 1536 (H) DP: MCGUIRE, KOTT, MORGAN,
COGHILL,
05/10/03 1536 (H) ROKEBERG; AM: BERKOWITZ
05/10/03 1537 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
05/10/03 1537 (H) FN2: ZERO(DEC)
05/10/03 1537 (H) RETURNED TO RLS COMMITTEE
05/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
BILL: HB 162
SHORT TITLE:FEES: BUSINESS LICENSE & RECORDING
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0432 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0432 (H) L&C, FIN
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN1: (CED)
03/05/03 0433 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/12/03 (H) L&C AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/12/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/28/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/28/03 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to
04/04/03
04/04/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/04/03 (H) Moved CSHB 162(L&C) Out of
Committee
04/04/03 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/08/03 0838 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 1DP 2DNP 3NR
04/08/03 0838 (H) DP: ANDERSON; DNP: CRAWFORD,
04/08/03 0838 (H) GUTTENBERG; NR: LYNN, GATTO,
DAHLSTROM
04/08/03 0839 (H) FN1: (CED)
04/25/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/25/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/05/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/05/03 (H) Moved CSHB 162(FIN) Out of
Committee
05/05/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/06/03 1347 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 3DP 1DNP
7NR
05/06/03 1347 (H) DP: WHITAKER, FOSTER,
WILLIAMS;
05/06/03 1347 (H) DNP: CROFT; NR: MEYER,
HAWKER, STOLTZE,
05/06/03 1347 (H) JOULE, MOSES, CHENAULT,
HARRIS
05/06/03 1347 (H) FN2: ZERO(DNR)
05/06/03 1347 (H) FN3: (CED)
05/09/03 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
05/09/03 (H) <Meeting Postponed to Sat.
5/10/03>
05/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
BILL: HB 271
SHORT TITLE:PASSENGER/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/15/03 0986 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/15/03 0986 (H) W&M, FIN
04/22/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/22/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(W&M)
04/23/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/23/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(W&M)
04/24/03 1092 (H) W&M RPT CS(W&M) NT 7DP 1DNP
04/24/03 1092 (H) DP: MOSES, HEINZE, WILSON,
WEYHRAUCH,
04/24/03 1092 (H) GRUENBERG, WHITAKER, HAWKER;
04/24/03 1092 (H) DNP: KOHRING
04/24/03 1092 (H) FN1: (REV)
04/24/03 (H) W&M AT 7:00 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/24/03 (H) Moved CSHB 271(W&M) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(W&M)
04/25/03 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE
519
04/25/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/07/03 1416 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 5DP 1DNP
3NR 1AM
05/07/03 1416 (H) DP: MEYER, HAWKER, STOLTZE,
HARRIS,
05/07/03 1416 (H) WILLIAMS; DNP: CROFT; NR:
CHENAULT,
05/07/03 1416 (H) WHITAKER, FOSTER; AM: MOSES
05/07/03 1417 (H) FN2: (REV)
05/07/03 (H) FIN AT 8:30 AM HOUSE FINANCE
519
05/07/03 (H) Moved CSHB 271(FIN) Out of
Committee
05/07/03 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
05/09/03 (H) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
05/09/03 (H) <Meeting Postponed to Sat.
5/10/03>
05/10/03 1533 (H) RLS RPT CS(FIN) NT 1DP 1DNP
2NR 2AM
05/10/03 1533 (H) DP: KOTT; DNP: BERKOWITZ; NR:
MORGAN,
05/10/03 1533 (H) COGHILL; AM: MCGUIRE,
ROKEBERG
05/10/03 1534 (H) FN2: (REV)
05/10/03 1534 (H) RETURNED TO RLS COMMITTEE
05/10/03 (H) RLS AT 10:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of SB 89.
PAM LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the discussion of SB 89, she
expressed the need for clear rules regarding lobbying
requirements.
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation;
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 142, on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.
RICK URION, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the division's
fiscal note for HB 162.
KRIS KNAUSS, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 271 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Kott.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Rules Standing Committee
meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. Representatives Rokeberg, Kott,
Coghill, Morgan, and Berkowitz were present at the call to
order. Representatives McGuire and Kerttula arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
SB 89-LOBBYING/LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 89(JUD) am, "An Act amending the
Regulation of Lobbying Act and the definition of 'lobbyist' as
it applies in the act setting standards of conduct for
legislators and legislative employees; and amending the
Regulation of Lobbying Act and the legislative standards of
conduct to allow a lobbyist to give and a person covered by
legislative standards of conduct to accept tickets to a charity
event during a legislative session."
Number 024
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt HCS CSSB 89, Version 23-
LS0396\Q, Craver, 5/8/03, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for discussion purposes.
Number 035
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, spoke as the
sponsor of SB 89. He pointed out that Version Q adds new
language on page 2, lines 25-26, which says, "except for tickets
to a charity event described in AS 24.60.080(c)(10)". That
language would allow anyone, including a lobbyist, to sponsor
the participation of a legislator when the money goes to a
charity.
CHAIR ROKEBERG interjected, except for those areas for which
approval from legislative council must be obtained.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed.
CHAIR ROKEBERG highlighted the success of the charity events
developed under the leadership of the legislature and the
citizens of Juneau.
SENATOR SEEKINS continued to review the changes encompassed in
Version Q. He directed attention to the language on page 3,
lines 4-16, which specify what an administrative action does not
include. Therefore, the language lists some activities that the
Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) now believes constitutes
lobbying under the current statute [and specifies that those
activites aren't considered an administrative action]. He
emphasized that the activities [listed] have to do with the
normal course of business with public officials. The language
added in Section 3 was part of the original legislation, he
noted.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ removed his objection.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that with no further objection, Version
Q was before the committee.
Number 100
SENATOR SEEKINS remarked that when he attended new member
orientation, he discovered that he had probably been breaking
the lobbying laws by being an active member of his local Chamber
of Commerce, the Alaska Automobile Dealers Association, as well
as many other associations. He emphasized that he was in
violation of the lobbying laws and didn't even know it. He said
that as a new member of the legislature he wasn't aware of the
four-hour limit because he didn't know all the regulations.
Furthermore, he said he didn't believe he was aware of all the
regulations under the current definition of lobbying. He
directed attention to a February 11, 2003, letter from APOC to
Brett Huber, Executive Director, Kenai River Sports Fishing
Association, which is included in the committee packet. The
letter says that an individual receiving a salary [from an
organization] while talking with public officials is receiving
payment to lobby. Senator Seekins characterized the
aforementioned as a "wide net" that indicates merely providing
public officials with information is one way of attempting to
influence a legislative or administrative action. Furthermore,
one doesn't have to be successful in an attempt to a influence
legislative or administrative action, the attempt merely has to
be made. Senator Seekins related his belief that the definition
of lobbying shouldn't make unknowing criminals and thus he felt
there was the need to be more clear. He pointed out that in AS
24.45.011, the legislative declaration of purpose specifies the
following:
The legislature finds and declares that the operation
of responsible representative democracy requires that
the fullest opportunity be afforded to the people to
petition their government for the redress of
grievances and to express freely to individual members
of the legislature, to its committees, and to
officials of the executive branch, their opinions on
pending legislation or administrative actions; and
that the people are entitled to know the identity,
income, expenditures, and activities of those persons
who pay, are paid or reimbursed for expenses, or who
make expenditures or other payments in an effort to
influence legislative or administrative action.
SENATOR SEEKINS explained that this legislation tries to define
a true lobbyist versus a citizen trying to express his/her
opinion on legislation. Therefore, this legislation provides
more clear definitions of the activities of lobbyists and what
it entails. Rather than redefining "regular" and "substantial",
this legislation specifies that if one spends a little less than
25 percent of a 40-hour work week month talking to public
officials he/she would have to register as a lobbyist.
Therefore, the legislature through statute would set the bar
rather than APOC. Senator Seekins said he would appreciate the
committee's support in getting this legislation to the House
floor.
Number 161
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that he didn't believe
Senator Seekins' actions when he was a new member were criminal.
Furthermore, he didn't believe APOC believes so either.
Representative Berkowitz said that he has a letter from Tammy
Kempton, Regulation of Lobbying, APOC, Department of
Administration, who indicates that participating in a
legislative "fly-in" doesn't constitute a violation of current
APOC rules. [The letter] further indicates that volunteer
lobbyists and sole proprietors aren't breaking APOC rules.
Participating in public proceedings or answering questions from
a legislator directed to a nonlegislator aren't considered
lobbying.
SENATOR SEEKINS informed the committee that the letter he has
was signed by [Tammy Kempton] as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA interjected that [legislators] do have a
Fifth Amendment right.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed that participating in a [legislative]
"fly-in" doesn't [constitute a violation], but what the
individual does after arriving does [constitute a violation].
He explained that if an individual enters the capitol building
and talks to legislators in an attempt to influence legislative
or administrative action as a result of a "fly-in", then the
"clock is ticking." Therefore, this legislation attempts to
clarify the definition of a lobbyist in statute rather than
[continue] with the moving regulations of APOC.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the 40-hour rule in this
legislation seems excessive. He asked if there had been any
research performed regarding how many of those currently
registered as lobbyists would continue to be required as
lobbyists under the 40-hour rule.
SENATOR SEEKINS responded that he didn't know if anyone could
answer Representative Berkowitz's question. He opined that many
of those currently listed on the nonprofessional lobbyist list
would probably continue to register. In fact, he related his
belief that more individuals would be required to register as a
lobbyist. He pointed out that the current law specifies that an
individual who communicates personally or through an agent for
four hours, that individual has to be registered as a lobbyist.
Therefore, an individual who hires a lobbyist and communicates
through that lobbyist for four hours would be required to
register as a lobbyist. Senator Seekins said that this
legislation isn't attempting to allow anyone who truly tries to
influence public policy as part of his/her job to avoid
[registering as a lobbyist]. However, the legislation attempts
not to incidentally catch people who are trying to express their
opinions freely to the legislature and/or public officials.
Therefore, he didn't believe there would be a large reduction in
the number [of registered lobbyists].
Number 227
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ informed the committee that 112 people
have registered as part-time employee lobbyists and only two of
those are from small businesses in the state. He said that he
hasn't detected a real problem. Representative Berkowitz said
he would like to hear from professional lobbyists regarding
whether they actually engage in 40 hours a month of face-to-face
legislative contact to the legislator or his/her staff. He
characterized 40 hours of face-to-face time as a lot.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed and said those people engaging in 40
hours of face-to-face legislative contact should be registered.
Senator Seekins remarked that if the real desire is to serve the
public interest, then the legislators would report with whom
they have spoken. "Having someone on a list that no one can
find hardly does a good job in protecting the public interest in
who we're talking too," he said. He highlighted that
[lobbyists] don't have to report what legislation or public
policy he/she is discussing. [Lobbyists] have to pay $100,
appear on a list, and then not be able to participate fully in
the political process in the rest of the state. Therefore, the
barrier should be reasonably high enough to capture the
professional lobbyist not the individual with the occasional
interest that would amount to more than four hours in a 30-day
period.
Number 255
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to the definition of
"administrative action" on page 3 of Version Q. She asked if an
individual doing things that don't fit into the new definition,
even if the individual accumulated over 40 hours a week would
have to register as a lobbyist.
SENATOR SEEKINS related his understanding that an administrative
action wouldn't include those things specified on page 3 of
Version Q. He emphasized that the aforementioned only relates
to administrative actions not proposed legislation or existing
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to why the list related to
administrative actions is so broad. She questioned what would
remain to be considered an administrative action.
SENATOR SEEKINS directed attention to Section 2(B) of Version Q.
He related that a number of years ago he wanted to put a channel
in with a backwater slough and a pond at his home. This
required dealing with several state agencies in order to obtain
the permits necessary to do so. Under the current
interpretation of the regulations when an individual attempts to
influence an administrative action for more than four hours that
individual has to [register] as a lobbyist. However, Version Q
allows an individual to speak to someone regarding the issuance,
amendment, or revocation of a permit, license, or entitlement
for use and not require registering as a lobbyist. Therefore,
an individual who goes to APOC and requests a change in the
regulations regarding the definition of lobbyist wouldn't be
exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that she has never heard the above
interpretation. She agreed if the above interpretation occurs
it would be problematic. However, people have the right to
personally represent themselves in regard to permits. "The
broadness of this suggests that you could have a lawyer that you
hire to do these things ... in a broad way," she pointed out.
She expressed concern with that.
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that this particular [Section 2(B)]
was included in Version Q at the request of APOC.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented, "I understand the
constraints that APOC is operating under these days."
Representative Berkowitz said although Senator Seekins'
interpretation seems to be strained, it is problematic.
Therefore, he suggested that it could be remedied if, on page 3,
line 8, before "use", the word "personal" could be inserted.
SENATOR SEEKINS explained that when he represents some of the
corporations he does and tries to get permits or licenses
issued, amended, or revoked that isn't personal use. As a
business owner, regardless of the structure of his business,
Senator Seekins said he believes that other forms of businesses
in the state shouldn't be restrained from operating under this
exception.
Number 322
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested that Senator Seekins provide
some specific examples in which businesses have gotten into
trouble due to the absence of the proposed provision.
SENATOR SEEKINS answered that he couldn't provide specific
examples. "I didn't think, Mr. Chairman, that it was important
... that we be able to point to examples where the law ensnared
someone if the law or the regulations was improper on its face,"
he remarked. Merely because something may not be enforced,
isn't a reason to have the regulation or law in place, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the normal legislative
response is that when things are changed that aren't broken,
unintended consequences are created.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed, but related his desire not to have a law
on the books that could allow selective enforcement.
Number 337
CHAIR ROKEBERG related his understanding that one of the
problems is APOC's regulations not the statute. Chair Rokeberg
turned attention to a memo dated May 7, 2003, from Brooke Miles,
Executive Director, APOC. This memo specifies that accompanying
the governor on a trade mission; playing golf with a public
official; and participating in a legislative "fly-in" are
excluded. However, he understood that not to be the case, in
terms of APOC's past activities.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed. He said he was aware of at least one
instance in which an individual playing golf with a legislator
was told that his time "had expired" and thus he should register
as a lobbyist.
CHAIR ROKEBERG said that was of concern to him. Chair Rokeberg
remarked that the current law makes it virtually impossible for
a legislator to have any friends.
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ interpreted Senator Seekins to think
that there shouldn't be any lobbying requirements at all. If
that's not the case, he inquired as to where Senator Seekins
would draw the line.
SENATOR SEEKINS said, "There's lots of places I would draw the
line. And that isn't what I said." He specified that what he
said was that the net is too large today because it
inadvertently draws people into it who are merely trying to
exercise their free opportunity to communicate with the
legislature and the administration. Although Senator Seekins
said he wasn't sure where the line is, the current barrier is
too low, he specified. [The proposal in Version Q] is a
reasonable bar that keeps people from inadvertently stepping
over the line while providing legislators guidance as well.
Senator Seekins said that he sees people in the Capitol who he
believes may be breaking the regulations now, although these
individuals are merely trying to relate their feelings about
legislation. He stated that it's part of his job to defend
their right to freely communicate with legislators. This
legislation provides the balance to do so, without letting the
professionals and those employed to lobby to escape [from the
rules].
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that the committee has received
written testimony from Ms. Kempton, APOC. Ms. Kempton's written
testimony specifies that APOC supports the definition of
"administrative action" and "communicate directly" in SB 89.
Furthermore, APOC supports how SB 89 changes the definition of
lobbyist to more clearly define a professional lobbyist as well
as changing the definition of part-time or employee lobbyist to
eliminate the phrase "substantial or regular". However, Ms.
Kempton's written testimony specifies that APOC opposes changing
the amount of time an employee can lobby to 40 hours in a 30-day
period and proposes changing that to 16 hours. Per Ms.
Kempton's written testimony, "At 16 hours, employee lobbyists
would be allowed 62 15-minute meetings per month; that's a total
of 64 hours per legislative session; 248 15-minute meetings per
session." Chair Rokeberg asked if the aforementioned testimony
means that anyone coming in through the doors would have to be
issued a time card in order to track the time spent with
legislators and staff. He suggested that this almost makes the
case that the [current regulations] are constrained.
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that Chair Rokeberg made a good point.
He highlighted that Ms. Kempton's example is based on evenly
spacing every meeting in each 30-day period, which is a rolling
30-day period. He said that he didn't know anyone who can plan
his/her time in such a way.
CHAIR ROKEBERG surmised that when [a legislator] has a
conversation with someone who is clearly lobbying on
legislation, would that individual have to keep track of the
time spent on the specific issue versus personal matters. If
so, it becomes a matter of how one calculates the time, he
supposed.
SENATOR SEEKINS agreed and clarified that the [time limit] was
made a bit more liberal so that one really has to be a lobbyist
to reach the bar established.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he didn't have a copy of the
earlier referenced February letter from Ms. Kempton.
SENATOR SEEKINS provided the chair with an extra copy of the
February letter from Ms. Kempton.
Number 431
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA directed attention to page 4, Section 6,
and although she said clarifying the law is good, she was
concerned that the charity tickets may entitle the bearer "to
other gifts or services involved in the charity event." This is
of concern because sometimes the gifts are large. She asked if
gifts from a charity event that are over a certain amount would
have to be reported to the Select Committee on Legislative
Ethics (Ethics).
SENATOR SEEKINS said he would report such a gift in order not to
run afoul of the Ethics rules.
CHAIR ROKEBERG agreed that a gift [from a charity event] should
be reported. However, he understood the question to be with
regard to whether the reporting of [a gift from a charity event]
should be mandatory.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her belief that legislators
can't take a gift [from a charity event] if the gift's value
amounts to over $250.
SENATOR SEEKINS pointed out that without the language
"Notwithstanding other law" at the beginning of this paragraph,
one would have to comply with the existing Ethics law.
CHAIR ROKEBERG opined that under the current language, a
legislator would be able to accept the gift.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out the language "may entitle",
which he interpreted to mean that the other [Ethics]
requirements supercede these.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL highlighted that the ticket to the
charity event may only cost $1 while the prize could amount to a
$400 flight. Therefore, the question becomes whether the $400
flight is a gift or a prize and whether [the legislator] could
take it or not. Under the Ethics rules, the prize would have to
be reported at least. However, he wasn't sure that it was a
direct gift.
Number 479
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce (ASCC),
informed the committee that ASCC has worked very hard to get SB
89 going because the lack of a clear set of rules defining a
lobbyist has been problematic for members of ASCC. She said
that most of the members of ASCC don't want to be a lobbyist and
have never intended to be such. However, ASCC members, as
frontline business people, know that they are the ones who
should provide the information upon which legislators and
administrators make decisions. Ms. LaBolle related that ASCC
didn't have any problems with the existing law rather the
problem was with APOC's interpretation of the law, specifically
saying that 2.3 percent of one's job is a substantial portion of
an individual's job. Furthermore, ASCC doesn't concur APOC's
proposal of with 16 hours, 9 percent of a person's job, being
considered a substantial portion of an individual's job.
MS. LaBOLLE commented on the differences in what APOC says. For
instance, ASCC's position paper dated January 15, 2003, quotes a
letter from APOC to one of ASCC's members regarding a golf
tournament. She related that APOC said:
Note that the regulations do not require that the
activities influence legislative or administrative
action .... It may have been a social event, but it
was certainly directed towards influencing legislative
action. By spending time with legislators and their
staffers, lobbyists hope to establish a rapport with
them that will help the lobbyists when they later meet
with legislators and/or staffers to influence action
on legislation of interest to the lobbyists' clients.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested that Ms. LaBolle distribute
the letter if she is going to continue to quote from it.
Representative Berkowitz said he read the letter in another
committee and he came to a vastly different conclusion than what
Ms. LaBolle is inferring.
MS. LaBOLLE turned to the February 11, 2003, letter from APOC to
the executive director of the Kenai River Sport Fishing
Association. She pointed out that the letter says, "To be
considered a volunteer lobbyist and exempt from the registration
requirement, you would need to be on leave from your job and pay
all your own expenses." The letter also says, "In other words,
lobbying is not confined to working towards the passage or
defeat of any specific piece of legislation or regulation.
Lobbying can be educating public officials so that when they
consider a particular issue or legislative item, they include in
that consideration the information you have provided." She also
highlighted the sentence in the letter that says, "If, as part
of your job, you encourage other people to contact legislators
or other public officials, that is also lobbying." In regard to
this latter statement, Ms. LaBolle asked if that would mean that
teachers who have students contact legislators would be
considered lobbyists. Perhaps that isn't what APOC meant.
Therefore, Ms. LaBolle said the specifics should be put in law
so that no one is guessing.
Number 528
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ returned to Ms. LaBolle's testimony
[regarding a golf tournament] and said that he heard testimony
on that matter in the [House State Affairs Standing Committee].
He recalled that the letter referred to a trip to Las Vegas that
was paid for by an individual. This had to do with VECO
Corporation and Mr. Rick Smith being required to register as a
lobbyist. Representative Berkowitz related his understanding
that APOC said [in the letter] that lobbying has to be viewed
not only on the event, but on the duration and the extent of the
contact. Given the circumstances surrounding the trip and Mr.
Smith's other contact with legislators, he would be required to
register. Therefore, Representative Berkowitz said unless Ms.
LaBolle is referring to a different incident, he didn't believe
Ms. LaBolle is fully disclosing all the facts of the case.
MS. LaBOLLE said that she recalled testifying in the House State
Affairs Standing Committee, but she didn't recall speaking to
this matter in that committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to how many of ASCC's
members have been in trouble with APOC. He also inquired as to
who those individuals are.
MS. LaBOLLE answered that although she didn't know how many
people have gotten into trouble with APOC, she didn't believe
there have been many because APOC works on complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ related his understanding, from APOC's
testimony in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, that
APOC has only taken actions against Frank Prewitt and Bill
Allen.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that if there is already a public
record on this testimony, then it isn't necessary to rehash the
topic.
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ highlighted that this is the only House
committee of referral for SB 89. Representative Berkowitz
turned to ASCC's position paper, included in the committee
packet, and ascertained that ASCC doesn't feel that 2.3 percent
is a substantial portion of an individual's job.
MS. LaBOLLE agreed. In further response to Representative
Berkowitz, Ms. LaBolle said that she didn't feel that 2.3
percent is a substantial portion of an individual's income.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that a 2.3 percent income
tax would be acceptable to Ms. LaBolle.
MS. LaBOLLE replied, "Personally, it would be."
CHAIR ROKEBERG, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ informed the committee that during a
House State Affairs Standing Committee hearing the 16-hour rule
was of concern for some, including members of the Majority
Caucus. Representative Berkowitz announced that he objects to
this legislation. He related that he comes from a profession in
which one avoids the appearance of impropriety. Although he
appreciated the First Amendment arguments that people are
wrapping themselves in, that isn't the issue. The issue is
public trust and the need to preserve that public trust. When
the rules are "cracked open" as they are [in SB 89], the
perception of impropriety is violated. Therefore, this would be
a disservice to the legislature's public role. Representative
Berkowitz said, "I think this is a retreat from the high ethical
standards of this house and from the legislature. And I think
if there are particular problems related to the agency question,
we should address those narrowly, but, in essence, gutting the
lobbying requirements, which is the consequence of going to 40
hours, is a step in the wrong direction."
CHAIR ROKEBERG pointed out that the committee packet includes a
letter from Andree McLeod.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL contrasted Representative Berkowitz's
remarks by highlighting the danger of gutting the rights of
people to freely talk with legislators.
TAPE 03-4, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that [the rules should be such
that] when a person is a paid lobbyist, there is the opportunity
to make sure that is clearly what is being done. Obviously,
there have been some gray areas and thus Representative Coghill
applauded this effort. Representative Coghill related his
belief that this is merely drawing a brighter line.
Number 590
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HCS CSSB 89, Version 23-
LS0396\Q, Craver, 5/8/03, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her belief that four hours [of
contact with a legislator] is a minimal amount. She said that
[this current law] doesn't stop anyone from coming in and
speaking with legislators on their own behalf when that
individual isn't paid to do so. By going to 40 hours, things
will be greatly confused and [the requirement] will eliminate
the need for 111 people to register as a lobbyist. Therefore,
Representative Kerttula said she feels this legislation is a
step in the wrong direction.
CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the current four-hour regulation is
an imposition on the freedom of speech of all people in the
state. The paramount issue to keep in mind is to allow people
to be able to communicate with their representatives without
feeling the constraint of any possible action against them, he
related.
Number 569
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE highlighted that under current law a
public employee isn't required to register. However, a public
employee in this state has unfettered access to the legislature
and the administration and isn't required to report that
activity under any circumstance. Representative McGuire opined
that what's critical about this legislation is that one is being
required to report to a government agency regarding who the
individual is talking to and with regard to the subject. The
aforementioned is where the First Amendment issue enters.
Without ASCC members testifying on issues, she wondered how the
legislation would actually end up. She mentioned that everyone
has seen legislation in committee and hasn't thought about how
the legislation would impact real people. Representative
McGuire emphasized, "It's about your government keeping tabs on
your speech. ... and at the same time stacking the deck against
you, allowing their [departmental staff] agents to speak as
often as they want ... about whatever topic they want."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that public individuals can
only address public issues/interests; it isn't an open slate.
Private interests are separate. With regard to the First
Amendment argument, Representative Berkowitz pointed out that
it's subject to reasonable, time, place, and manner
restrictions. The aforementioned is the heart of this debate,
he said. Letting people know who is addressing government - who
has financial stakes in government - is a critical point. With
the state's current fiscal gap there will be the need for people
to contribute to the cost of government. In this transitional
period it's particularly important for the public to know who is
talking to the legislators. The only way [for the public] to
know who is talking to legislators is if those individuals are
required to register as lobbyists. Most who are required to
register as lobbyists are people who are willing to stand up for
their causes and subject themselves to some public scrutiny.
Representative Berkowitz emphasized that he didn't see requiring
lobbyists to register as such as an onerous burden. "I think
it's in the best interest of the public as part of transparent
government, and I think that's what all of this is about. How
transparent do we want our government to be," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she didn't disagree with the points
made by Representative Berkowitz. However, she informed the
committee that she has spent time in her office with public
employees during which other items have been discussed, not just
those related to the public interest. On that point,
Representative McGuire disagreed with Representative Berkowitz.
Representative McGuire opined that the real goal is to be able
to use this as a weapon against people. She said if she had any
confidence that this regulation was being acted on in a fair,
responsible, efficient manner and was working, then perhaps
there wouldn't be a need for this legislation. However, the
four-hour regulation isn't working and is being enforced
arbitrarily. She related that the executive director of APOC
agrees that the four-hour regulation doesn't work.
Number 507
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL restated his motion to report HCS CSSB
89, Version 23-LS0396\Q, Craver, 5/8/03, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Coghill,
McGuire, Morgan, and Rokeberg voted in favor of reporting HCS
CSSB 89, Version Q, from committee. Representatives Kerttula
and Berkowitz voted against it. Therefore, HCS CSSB 89(RLS) was
reported out of the House Rules Standing Committee by a vote of
5-2.
SB 142-DNR LEAD RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 142, "An Act designating the Department of
Natural Resources as lead agency for resource development
projects; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 494
MARY SIROKY, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC); Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), noted that Commissioner Thomas Irwin's
testimony should be included in the committee packet. Ms.
Siroky explained that SB 142 establishes the Office of Project
Management and Permitting. This office will coordinate with DNR
to build upon the state mine permit team concept that's
currently in statute. This is where DNR coordinates the
activities of the permitting agencies. Ms. Siroky said that [he
state mine permit team concept] has been a very successful way
of doing business, in terms of Fort Knox. This [concept] has
been used at Alpine and Fort Thompson as well as other large
mine projects. Ms. Siroky clarified that this [legislation]
wouldn't change DEC's statutory or regulatory requirements or
authorities. Section 4 repeals the Environmental Coordination
Act, which hasn't been used by the administration since it was
put into place. Sections 2 and 3 maintain DEC's appeal process.
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that SB 142, Version 23-GS1070\A, is
the version that passed the Senate and is before the committee.
MS. SIROKY explained that the Senate Resources Standing
Committee had added a sunset provision, which included all of
the Environmental Coordination Act language.
Number 469
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether DNR really needed this
statutory change. She asked if a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) could be utilized. Also, she understood DNR to be the
lead agency for mining permits.
MS. SIROKY noted that the mining statute responsibility is
currently in statute. This legislation would put in statute the
process that has been working very well for 10-plus years.
Although she agreed that the administration doesn't need for
this process to be in statute for coordination to happen,
placing it in statute does ensure that this good idea continues
in perpetuity.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned attention to page 2, lines 23-24,
which says, "lead and coordinate all matters relating to the
state's review and authorization of resource development
projects." "That's literally everything," she said. She said
she understood that could be more than just DEC or [Alaska
Department of Fish & Game] matters.
MS. SIROKY related her understanding that people will come to
this new office in DNR and ask for these services. Therefore,
it will be an applicant's choice to participate in this process.
The applicants, she believes, will pay through reimbursable
services agreements (RSAs) for the services that the agency
provides. The assumption is that [this process] will be used
for larger projects.
Number 447
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the permissive "may"
language indicates that [this process] would have to be dealt
with in an agreement.
MS. SIROKY agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed the need to be sure that
because it's relating to the state's review and authorization of
resource development projects it wouldn't be inconsistent with
allowing court review.
MS. SIROKY replied that there has been no such indication from
any of the attorneys general that have reviewed this.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to the repealers, specifically
AS 46.35 regarding permit coordination and extension and
inquired as to why that was being eliminated if DNR has already
been designated as the lead agency.
MS. SIROKY explained that it's a statute that the department
never used. That statute directs DEC to coordinate and
establish a permit information office. The aforementioned
office was followed by the Alaska Coastal Management Program and
the establishment of the [Division of] Governmental
Coordination, which ended up doing all of the coordination
functions. Therefore, [AS 46.35] was never really used by the
agency in any type of coordination fashion and thus it's a relic
for which there is no use.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that AS 46.35.010 is a
legislative determination that says permits and related
documents are undesirable and should be [eliminated]. He asked
if the desire is to make permitting more difficult.
MS. SIROKY replied no. The legislation eliminates the entire
chapter, AS 46.35, because it hasn't been used. Although some
of the language speaks to how the agencies should behave, the
language isn't necessary to continue with the regulatory reform.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that AS 46.35.020 is the
purpose, AS 46.35.030 is the master applications, and AS
46.35.040 deals with public hearings.
CHAIR ROKEBERG reiterated that the entire chapter is being
deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ acknowledged that and pointed out that
there is no replacement for it.
MS. SIROKY clarified that the chapter has been replaced by the
Alaska Coastal Management Act.
Number 398
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed, but highlighted that other
legislation in the system will leave a void in terms of
coordination. Therefore, there is some confusion with regard to
how the lead agency [concept] will work. She said she
understood that some [of the lead agency concept] will be picked
up in regulations, which is cause for some concern because the
legislature doesn't draft those. Representative Kerttula
specified that this master application was used only once and
was unsuccessful.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the public hearing portion of
the chapter being eliminated is being maintained elsewhere.
MS. SIROKY replied yes. All of the public hearing requirements
are available in other statutes for both agencies. The
department saved and moved two sections regarding an appeal
process that the department developed in regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ drew attention to AS 41.17.085,
regarding permit applications under the Forest Resources and
Practices [Act] ("Forest Practices Act").
MS. SIROKY related her belief that is being addressed in the
Forest Practices Act and thus is likely why it's being deleted
here.
Number 370
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report SB 142 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
HB 162-FEES: BUSINESS LICENSE & RECORDING
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 162, "An Act increasing the fee for a state
business license; and providing for an effective date."
Number 358
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1,
which reads as follows:
Page 2, lines 7-14:
Delete all material and insert:
"(a) The [LICENSE] fee for each business
license is $100 [$25] per year, except that the fee is
$50 if
(1) the business is a sole
proprietorship; and
(2) the sole proprietor is 65 years of
age or older when the sole proprietor applies for the
license or will reach 64 years of age at any time
during the year for which the license is issued.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that Amendment 1 would lower the
proposed fee for a business license from $300 a year to $100 a
year. Therefore, this increase would be equitable because
business license fees would be increased for both sole
proprietors and any other partnerships or corporations that
would be licensed under the chapter. Furthermore, increasing
the business license from the existing $25 to $300 a year is too
much of an increase. Amendment 1 also provides a provision that
those 65 years of age or older would pay $50 for the business
license.
Number 338
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE inquired as to the difference Amendment 1
will make regarding the revenues captured.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT acknowledged that under Amendment 1 a
smaller amount of revenue would be generated than under the
current legislation. He indicated that a document, included in
the committee packet, specified the difference in the amount of
revenue generated by a $100 business license fee versus a $300
fee.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that she believes the senior
business owner provision is a good idea. However, she inquired
as to why there isn't an exemption for younger business owners.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that such an idea could be
entertained. He explained that he had included the senior
business owner exemption due to the possible disadvantage
seniors face in various areas. He related his belief that the
younger business owners would have a greater earning opportunity
than those 65 or over.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said she didn't disagree. However, she
said she believes the current $25 business license, albeit low,
has encouraged people to take risks.
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that Amendment 1 would change the $300
business license fee in HB 162 to $100 for everyone and provide
seniors with an additional break in that their business license
fee would be $50. Chair Rokeberg noted that he will request a
new fiscal note if Amendment 1 passes.
Number 288
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), explained
that a new fiscal note from the division would show a change in
revenue of about $4.2 million. He clarified that the $4.2
million includes a drop-out rate. A $100 business license fee,
with no drop-outs would result in a change in revenue of about
$5.2 million.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his understanding then that Mr.
Urion's original analysis for a business license fee of $300
considered drop-outs.
MR. URION answered that a 25 percent drop-out rate was
considered at the $100 level for sole proprietorships.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the fees in other
states.
MR. URION responded that most business license fees in other
states are higher than Alaska.
Number 267
REPRESENTATIVES KOTT, BERKOWITZ, and ROKEBERG all noted a
conflict of interest due to owning various types of businesses.
CHAIR ROKEBERG reminded the committee that the motion to adopt
Amendment 1 was before the committee. There being no objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report CSHB 162(FIN) as amended
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying and forthcoming fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Coghill,
McGuire, Morgan, and Rokeberg voted in favor of reporting CSHB
162(RLS) from committee. Representative Berkowitz voted against
it. Therefore, CSHB 162(RLS) was reported out of the House
Rules Standing Committee by a vote of 5-1.
HB 271-PASSENGER/RECREATIONAL VEHICLE RENTAL TAX
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 271, "An Act levying and providing for the
collection and administration of an excise tax on passenger
vehicle rentals; and providing for an effective date."
Number 223
KRIS KNAUSS, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that HB 271 implements a 10 percent tax
on passenger vehicle rentals and a 3 percent sales tax on
recreational vehicles (RVs). The legislation exempts any
government employees who are on local, state, or federal
business. He noted that the committee packet should include a
state-by-state comparison of the rental car tax.
Number 212
CHAIR ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1, which
reads as follows:
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "The"
Insert "Except in a municipality that imposes a
specific vehicle rental tax on passenger vehicle
rentals under AS 29.45, the"
Page 1, line 13, following "passenger vehicle.":
Insert "In a municipality that imposed a specific
vehicle rental tax on passenger vehicle rentals under
AS 29.45 in effect on January 1, 2003, the rate of the
state passenger vehicle rental tax levied under
AS 43.52.020 is 10 percent less the amount of the
municipal tax. If the municipal tax is greater than
10 percent, then the rate of the state tax is zero."
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "The"
Insert "Except in a municipality that imposes a
specific vehicle rental tax on recreational vehicle
rentals under AS 29.45, the"
Page 2, line 6, following "recreational vehicle.":
Insert "In a municipality that imposed a specific
vehicle rental tax on recreational vehicle rentals
under AS 29.45 in effect on January 1, 2003, the rate
of the state recreational vehicle rental tax levied
under AS 43.52.030 is three percent less the amount of
the municipal tax. If the municipal tax is greater
than three percent, then the rate of the state tax is
zero."
Page 2, lines 17 - 19:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 20:
Delete "Sec. 43.52.080"
Insert "Sec. 43.52.070"
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "Sec. 43.52.090"
Insert "Sec. 43.52.080"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected.
CHAIR ROKEBERG explained that Amendment 1 places a cap on the
total amount of any sales type taxes or specific rental vehicle
tax at 10 percent on the passenger vehicles and 3 percent on the
recreational vehicles. He mentioned former Representative
Andrew Halcro's letter, which is included in the committee
packet. Chair Rokeberg informed the committee that this
amendment was discussed in the House Finance Committee.
However, at that time it didn't include the January 1, 2003,
effective date to disallow any new municipal taxes. There was a
belief that all of the municipalities would have a retrospective
date.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT acknowledged that this amendment was offered
and rejected in the House Finance Committee. Representative
Kott highlighted that the intent of HB 271 is to provide revenue
to the state. However, [Amendment 1 would] encourage
municipalities to increase their tax base so that the
municipality would receive the maximum amount while the state
would receive zero revenue. Therefore, Representative Kott
opposed Amendment 1.
CHAIR ROKEBERG clarified that [under Amendment 1] unless there
is a tax in effect on January 1, 2003, the municipality wouldn't
be able to [increase its tax base]. Chair Rokeberg said
[Amendment 1] is similar to the shock absorber transition tax
that has been discussed [in relation to] the statewide sales
tax.
Number 147
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE noted her support of the amendment. She
highlighted the importance of recognizing that tourism is a
valuable industry to the state. She related her belief that HB
271 is fair, but the amendment makes it better legislation.
CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that there was objection to Amendment
1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Berkowitz, McGuire,
and Rokeberg voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives
Morgan, Kott, and Coghill voted against it. Therefore,
Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to why there is a
differential tax rate between [the passenger vehicles and RVs].
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT answered that there was an overall goal that
would create parity between passenger vehicles and RVs. He
informed the committee that the average passenger vehicle in
Anchorage rents for $49.95 and thus the 10 percent [tax] would
generate $5. The average RV rents for $175 in Anchorage and
[the tax] would generate approximately $5. He explained that he
didn't want to establish a 10 percent tax on a "vehicle" that
would rent for $175, which could potentially push [the total
rental charge] over $200 because some studies have indicated
that there is a [rental charge] at which people choose not to
[rent].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ surmised then that there are elasticity
studies regarding an increase of 10 percent on RVs.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that its not a percentage rather
there seems to be a reduced level of rentals when the rental
charges reach $200.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to who rents the RVs.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT estimated that tourists would primarily rent
RVs, although he was sure that Alaskans do as well.
CHAIR ROKEBERG, upon determining there was no further discussion
on the legislation, inquired as to the will of the committee.
Number 094
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report CSHB 271(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coghill, McGuire,
Morgan, and Kott voted in favor of reporting CSHB 271(FIN) out
of committee. Representatives Berkowitz and Rokeberg voted
against it. Therefore, CSHB 271(FIN) was reported out of the
House Rules Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Rules Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|