01/27/2004 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2004
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Chair
Representative Jim Holm, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 350
"An Act relating to adding personal injury, death, and property
damage from arson in the first degree to the offenses
compensable by the Violent Crimes Compensation Board."
- MOVED CSHB 350(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 337
"An Act relating to anatomical donor registries, to an
anatomical gift awareness fund, to an anatomical gift awareness
program, and to motor vehicle licenses and registrations."
- MOVED CSHB 337(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 241
"An Act relating to optional exemptions from municipal property
taxes on residential property."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 350
SHORT TITLE: CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FOR ARSON
SPONSORS(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GATTO, GRUENBERG
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) STA, JUD
01/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/20/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 1/22>
01/22/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/22/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
01/27/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 337
SHORT TITLE: ANATOMICAL GIFTS REGISTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MCGUIRE
01/12/04 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/2/04
01/12/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/12/04 (H) STA, HES, FIN
01/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/20/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/20/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/27/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 241
SHORT TITLE: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
04/04/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/03 (H) CRA, STA
05/06/03 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/06/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
05/08/03 (H) CRA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/08/03 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/08/03 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
05/12/03 (H) CRA RPT 3DP 1NR
05/12/03 (H) DP: KOTT, WOLF, MORGAN; NR: CISSNA
01/13/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/13/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
01/20/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
01/20/04 (H) Heard & Held
01/20/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/27/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 350.
GERAD GODFREY, Chair
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Told the committee that the board has
chosen to support [HB 350] as a piece of legislation beneficial
particularly to victims of arson; answered questions from the
committee.
SUSAN BROWNE, Administrator
Violent Crimes Compensation Board
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions for the committee during
the hearing on HB 350.
KELLY NICOLELLO, Assistant State Fire Marshall
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered statistics regarding arson-related
deaths in Alaska; testified that the department is in agreement
with HB 350 "the way it's written."
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
to Representative Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of
Representative McGuire, sponsor of HB 337.
JILL STEINHAUS, Director of Development
LifeCenter Northwest
Bellevue, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on behalf of LifeCenter
Northwest during the hearing on HB 337.
DUANE BANNOCK, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
337.
RANDY HOFFBECK
Petroleum Property Assessor
Department of Revenue
State of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT:
STEVE PORTER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
State of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT:
SUE HECKS, Emergency Medical Services Chief
Seldovia Ambulance and Fire Department
City of Seldovia
Seldovia, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against the CS version of HB 241.
SHARALYN WRIGHT
Staff to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified to clarify why CSHB241 removed
language from the original bill.
STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor
Central Office
Division of Community Advocacy
Department of Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
241.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-07, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR BRUCE WEYHRAUCH called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Representatives Holm,
Coghill, Lynn, and Weyhrauch were present at the call to order.
Representatives Gruenberg, Seaton, and Berkowitz arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 350-CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FOR ARSON
Number 0060
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 350, "An Act relating to adding personal injury,
death, and property damage from arson in the first degree to the
offenses compensable by the Violent Crimes Compensation Board."
Number 0117
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 350, [Version 23-LS1324\Q, Luckhaupt, 1/21/04, as a
work draft. There being no objection, Version Q was before the
committee.
Number 0150
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 350, revealed that he spent 25 years in the fire
department in Anchorage and as a result has responded to a
countless number of small fires, fewer large fires, and many
medical runs. He said he has seen many of the difficulties that
people suffer as a result of fires. Representative Gatto,
depicting the viciousness of arson, recounted a personal
experience in his own community whereby a friend of his was
asleep at home and his wife awoke at 3 a.m. to noises and found
that the side of the house was on fire. The fire department
said that at that hour of the morning, the fire had clearly been
set by someone.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told the committee that when [fire fighters
respond to] a fire at 2 a.m. and find a car in the driveway and
no smoke alarm going off, they are fairly certain that people
are inside; therefore, a search and rescue must be done. The
situation [where his friends awoke to find the house on fire]
clearly was attempted murder, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that death is not the only devastating
result of fire, but sometimes more devastating are injuries
resulting from fires. That is why there are special facilities
that provide long-term care. He mentioned military personnel
coming back from war with burns. He continued as follows:
Because it is so ... devastating to people, and
because it was not included in the list of violent
crimes compensation, Representative Gruenberg and I
looked at it, and it just seemed apparent that it was
simply an error of omission. And it is our wish to
simply add this to the list of violent crimes that can
receive compensation through the board.
Number 0377
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked why the proposed legislation limits the
addition to [the crime of] arson in the first degree.
Number 0400
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the reason that he and
Representative Gatto chose arson in the first degree is: "It
requires that somebody be placed in immediate physical danger;
the other crimes don't." He noted that the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board compensates for physical injury or death. He
said he supposes it would be possible to have a "criminally
negligent burning with that result," and he said he doesn't
think that [the sponsors] would have any objection to amending
the bill to include "those."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there have been some recent
crimes, particularly in Anchorage, that brought this omission to
his attention. There didn't seem to be any reason not to have
arson in the first degree on the list. He remarked that to
prove the crime of murder, the intent to kill must be shown;
however, with arson in the first degree, all that needs to be
shown is that there is an intentional or reckless burning, and
that somebody was thereby endangered. He added, "You don't even
have to show that the person knew that the person was inside,
just that they negligently set the fire." He said, "If you had
the injury, then you'd have the [arson in the first degree]."
Number 0600
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated for the record, "This has to do with
impacts to individuals, not to property." If it was opened up
to impact to property in regard to compensation received from
[the Victims of Crime Compensation Board], then "you've got the
entire Title 11 to add in to the statute." He added that that
would be a policy decision that he is not sure the committee
wants to [make].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the original bill version
did include property damage from arson in the first degree,
because usually, if there is a fire sufficient to cause a
significant injury, there will also be significant property
damage. He noted that there had been immediate outcry from a
number of different people that "this would soon exhaust the
resources of that board."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked, "Why not have an immediate effective
date?"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that, as a policy matter,
whenever he introduces legislation he doesn't [include] an
immediate effective date, unless there is a reason to do so. He
said, "The statutes contemplate a 90-day period to give people
time to gear up." He stated that he would not have any
objection [to an immediate effective date]. He suggested asking
a representative of the previously mentioned board what the
impact on it would be.
Number 0846
GERAD GODFREY, Chair, Violent Crimes Compensation Board,
Department of Administration, told the committee that the board
has chosen to support [HB 350] as a piece of legislation
beneficial particularly to victims of arson. He stated his
personal belief that the bill stands on its own merit and sells
itself. He said, "The absence of arson from the inception of
the bill that created the parameters for this board was likely
an oversight. Perhaps arson, at the time, didn't fit the
traditional paradigm of the era for a violent crime."
Ironically, he noted, fire, in and of itself, may be the most
violent natural force on earth. Therefore, when an individual
sets a fire with or without intent, that person unleashes the
most violent, unpredictable, and often uncontrollable force.
Any personally adverse results from that fire should be
compensable by the Violent Crime Compensation Board, he opined.
He gave credit to both Representatives Gatto and Gruenberg for
addressing this long overdue and overlooked provision for
victims of arson.
MR. GODFREY mentioned current fiscal limitations and said he
would not normally look to increase the number of eligible
claimants. He indicated that that was probably his first
reservation upon looking at the initial draft of the bill.
However, regarding [Version Q], he stated his belief that it is
necessary to add Arson, which perhaps "epitomizes a violent
crime." He stated that the victims of arson have the potential
to suffer as much, or more than victims of gunshot wounds and
assaults with any other type of weapon. He encouraged the
committee members to support HB 350.
Number 1022
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what the average award is "from this
compensation front."
MR. GODFREY noted that the maximum allowable [award] is $40,000
and there is no minimum. He surmised that the average falls
around $2,000. That typically would include counseling for
victims. He offered more examples of how the money is awarded.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN stated, "I assume that this doesn't preclude
any civil liability for the ... arsonist; in other words, ...
you still sue for civil damages. Is that correct?" In response
to a request by Mr. Godfrey to clarify his question, he asked,
"They can still sue for civil damages in addition to the
compensation from the fund?"
MR. GODFREY answered that they can. He noted that the board has
a caveat in place that if that person should recuperate his/her
losses through avenues such as insurance, he/she does have an
obligation to reimburse the board. He noted that that
reimbursement does not go into the board's coffers, but rather
into the general fund. He said that it is the board's purpose
to help people as soon as possible, whereas he noted that civil
law doesn't work in an expeditious fashion. He said that,
occasionally, a person's attorney will contact the board and
request that the board waive the person's repayment obligation,
because, even after the settlement, that person is still in dire
straits.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked, "How much did we spend last year for
this?"
MR. GODFREY deferred that question to the board's administrator.
Number 1330
SUSAN BROWNE, Administrator, Violent Crimes Compensation Board,
Department of Administration, told the committee that the board
awarded approximately $1.3 million to fire victims in Alaska or
their service providers.
Number 1400
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mentioned reading about the board's binary
report in odd number years. He asked if that was the figure
given to the legislature last year.
MS. BROWNE said that she is talking about fiscal year (FY) 2003.
She noted that the report has not been completed yet, but is
almost available on line and will be delivered sometime within
the next month. In response to a question by Chair Weyhrauch,
she said that the $1.3 million was for one year. In response to
a follow-up questions by Chair Weyhrauch, she said that the
limit for awards is $40,000 per victim, per incident, except in
the case of homicide, where there are multiple dependents and
the limit is then $80,000. She added, "And that was raised,
effective two years ago." The $40,000 used to be $30,000, and
the $80,000 used to be $40,000. It is funded through PFD funds
that are not given to those convicted of felonies and multiple
misdemeanors. Also, she said, an application is made every year
for an office of victims of crime fund, which is a Department of
Justice fund where the federal convicts are fined and states can
apply for a grant. Before the permanent fund, the money came
from the general fund.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Godfrey if he has an opinion about an
immediate effective date.
MR. GODFREY replied that he doesn't have a problem with that at
all. He noted that there are not a large number of arson cases
throughout the state, and he said he doesn't "expect this to
really flood us with claims in [arson in the first degree]." He
stated that his expectation is that the few [claims] the board
will get will be from those in dire need.
Number 1553
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if adding another crime to the list of
what can be compensated would create a fiscal impact to the
state.
MR. GODFREY answered that the board's funding will not be
incrementally increased in any way by the addition of [arson in
the first degree] to [statute]. He explained that the increase
in applications will have the effect of ultimately reducing the
amount of funds available for further applications. At the end
of the fiscal year, he said, the board may be holding applicants
off or deferring them until it gets new funding. He said,
"That's unfortunate, but that's the way it is."
Number 1637
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked the following three questions: Is
there a priority list; have other states done this and what is
the type of payout that has gone out to the victim because of
arson-related crime; and has there been anything in Alaska that
has gone wanting because of this not being in statute?
MR. GODFREY, addressing the question regarding a hierarchy of
claims, said the board has a great deal of latitude and
discretion and does everything on a case-by-case basis. He also
noted that the board limits itself through approximately seven
policies. Regarding the question about other states, he said he
doesn't know. He noted that he has been seated on the board for
only about a year now. However, he said the former board
administrator stated that the disparity in the way states "do
this" is "nothing short of a chasm." He noted that there is a
person who serves as a director of a national violent crimes
compensation board who is a wealth of information regarding
other states.
Number 1890
MR. GODFREY said he would defer Representative Coghill's third
question to the administrator. He explained that if there have
been any applications [made by victims of arson], the office in
Juneau would know, but the applications would never have been
sent on to the board to consider in one of its meetings. He
added that if such an application had made it to the board, it
would have been denied as noncompensable. He surmised that [if
the board covered compensation for victims of arson], the
average claim awarded would be for personal injury and
psychological counseling. The financial burden for a burn
victim can be astronomical, he stated, because the victim may
need skin grafts for years to come. That person may come back
years later for reconsideration by the board after having their
first claim granted. The board would then have to set a policy
at that time to decide how long it would continue to cover that
person. He indicated that some claims may be awarded $15,000 to
$30,000 "a hit." He summarized that it's a choice of how many
get helped how much.
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, regarding Representative Coghill's
previously stated question whether there had been any interest
in getting awards from the board in the past [for arson],
returned to the subject of the recent events in the Mountain
View area [in Anchorage]. He noted that he had asked the
constituents involved if they had applied to the Violent Crimes
Compensation Board; however, he discovered that they were not
eligible for compensation [because arson is not one of the
crimes currently covered].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that one of the previous
examples offered by Mr. Godfrey regarding uses of the fund was
to sometimes relocate victims of stalking. He asked Ms. Browne
if Alaska has a witness relocation program similar to that run
by the federal government.
MS. BROWNE answered no.
MR. GODFREY interjected that he doesn't believe there is any
program like that at all. He remarked, "It's a small world in
Alaska and people know people, so I think ... if you're
relocating, it would have to be outside the state." He offered
his understanding that there are no states that run such a
program; the federal marshals are the only ones who [relocate
witnesses]. Mr. Godfrey indicated that in order for the board
to even consider awarding money to a person who wants to
relocate [to get away from a stalker, for example], that person
would have to show that he/she has an entire plan in order.
Number 2235
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG handed out a spreadsheet [showing
deaths as a result of arson, included in the committee packet].
He also read statistics regarding incidents of arson and the
resulting injuries, as follows: Four injuries in two incidents
in 2001; seven injuries in three incidents in 2002; and, in an
incomplete 2003 report, seven injuries in one incident.
Number 2280
KELLY NICOLELLO, Assistant State Fire Marshall, Division of Fire
Prevention, Department of Public Safety, told the committee that
he had supplied those statistics, as well as [the spread sheet].
He stated that [the State Fire Marshals] are the primary
investigators for the crime of arson in determining the origin
and cause. The criminal aspect is usually followed up by either
the Alaska State Troopers, or the police force in the
jurisdiction involved.
MR. NICOLELLO said the impact on family members, both those
injured and those dealing with the loss of loved ones, is
dramatic. He stated, "It's such a visible etching ... on their
mind, that to take the crime of arson in the first degree and
not give it the same weight as somebody who is injured or dies
by gunshot or stabbing is really a misnomer." He said, "We are
in agreement with this bill the way it's written, based on
injury and death versus the property rights issue, and we
believe it's a good bill."
Number 2380
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO, as a former fire fighter, said it's
certainly obvious that firemen are often injured and burned as a
result of arson fires; however, "they're compensated in other
ways." He added, "So, I'm going to take it that this is
generally a needs-based situation when you award?"
Number 2395
MR. GODFREY replied, "Truth be told, again, that is something
that this current seated board is operating by, or attempting
to." Statutorily, he added, "that is not a criteria."
Typically, he said, the board does give consideration regardless
of somebody's financial status. He noted that the board would
not double an award in the instance where a person had already
been given money by his/her insurance company.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that the existing list of things that
apply [towards consideration for compensation] includes murder
and sexual assault "in any degree." He asked Mr. Godfrey how he
feels about arson being considered only in the first degree.
MR. GODFREY responded that he is "at peace with" arson in the
first degree, because it is cut and dry regarding the crime
having taken place. He offered the example of the fire that was
out in the Big Lake area. If someone had started that fire as a
campfire that got out of control and it enveloped the whole area
to include "a house where people didn't get out in time," he
said he doesn't believe that that would be arson in the first
degree. He stated that although he personally thinks it's an
unfortunate incident that was a violent occurrence, he questions
whether the intent to violence was there. He said he would be
reluctant to "increase the degrees there on that."
MR. GODFREY noted that the board still has the option and the
discretion to consider compensation for [victims of arson in the
second degree]. He stated his reluctance has always been
getting people's hopes up and making them "jump through a bunch
of hoops, only to shoot 'em down," when it's a foregone
conclusion that there's nothing the board is going to be able to
do for them. He revealed that the board has some severe fiscal
restraints it has continually faced over the last year. He
added, "It's very difficult to see a scenario off the top of my
head, whereby something beyond [arson in the first degree] would
be compensated."
Number 2639
MS. BROWNE noted that a few states compensate both arson and hit
and run; therefore, there would be some precedence for
compensating arson. She told the committee that there are
currently a couple of claims involving arson that would be
affected when the committee decides upon an effective date. She
noted that Mr. Godfrey would not have known that, because the
board has not received those claims yet. She said [the
Department of Administration] receives two to three arson claims
each year that end up "getting closed" because arson is not
currently a crime that is compensated.
Number 2685
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he hadn't realized that hit and
run is not compensated. He suggested that the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, the next committee of referral, consider
adding that to the bill. He said there are a lot of hit and
runs around, which may "bust the bank," and he remarked that he
is very protective of the board and doesn't want to see it get
too many claims that it cannot respond to.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said, "I'm with you on that."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that he doesn't want to add
that in the House State Affairs Standing Committee, because that
would be "quite a step."
MR. GODFREY said he appreciates that.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there is any opposition to an immediate
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that this is an issue that
he has not contemplated, but it seems like it might "help some
people" [to add an immediate effective date].
MS. BROWNE agreed that it would.
Number 2776
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if there was any objection to adding an
immediate effective date to HB 350. There being none, it was so
ordered.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony.
NUMBER 2793
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report CSHB 350, Version 23-
LS1324\Q, Luckhaupt, 1/21/04, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 350(STA) was moved out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 337-ANATOMICAL GIFTS REGISTRY
Number 2833
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 337, "An Act relating to anatomical donor
registries, to an anatomical gift awareness fund, to an
anatomical gift awareness program, and to motor vehicle licenses
and registrations."
Number 2846
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 337, Version 23-LS1257\S, as a work draft. There being
no objection, Version S was before the committee.
TAPE 04-07, SIDE B
Number 2955
[The committee aide, in response to a question from
Representative Gruenberg, said that Version S is the formal
committee substitute.]
Number 2909
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ turned to page 2, line 19, of Version
S, which read as follows:
(b) A registry must include only residents of
this state.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if it is correct that
nonresidents can get driver's licenses [currently].
HEATH HILYARD, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, Alaska
State Legislature, answering questions on behalf of
Representative McGuire, sponsor, offered his understanding that
Representative Berkowitz is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "So, if a nonresident were to
fill out the donor registration card, what happens then?"
MR. HILYARD replied that when the Department of Revenue's
Permanent Fund Division looks at qualifications for residency,
obtaining a driver's license is "one measure"; therefore, he
stated his understanding that [applying for] a driver's license
is a declaration of residency.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said his question is not in regard to
residents, but rather to nonresidents. He stated his
understanding that not only can nonresidents get licenses in
[Alaska], but also in some circumstances they are required to do
so, if they are working here for some period of time, for
example. He asked what the protocol [for issuing an] organ
[donor] card would be when a nonresident gets a driver's
license.
Number 2847
JILL STEINHAUS, Director of Development, LifeCenter Northwest,
responded that people who go through the driver's license
application can make their decision about donations at that time
and will be included in the Alaska registry. If anything were
to happen to them while they were in Alaska, that information
would be used for indicating their decision to donate. If those
people were to move outside of the state and have a driver's
license issued in a different state, then that newer license
would "trump" the previous one, as far as an indication of organ
donation.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that his concern is that the
registry must include only residents of the state. He asked how
a nonresident who wants to register [as an organ donor] would be
accommodated.
MS. STEINHAUS answered that typically, procurement organizations
have contacted a nonresident's state of residency and "ensured
that they're able to register through their state's registration
system," and then have made note of that in their own system.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that there are, unfortunately,
many nonresidents who perish while on the road, and he wants to
make certain that their organs are available for donation;
otherwise they're lost to everybody.
MS. STEINHAUS responded yes. She noted that what would happen
when someone dies while "on the road" is [the procurement
organizations] would revert to following the statute of the
state that person is from, based on the card that he/she is
carrying.
Number 2747
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "Yes and no." He said he
understands what would happen in the instance where someone is
[in Alaska] carrying a Minnesota driver's license; however, when
a Minnesota resident has acquired an Alaska driver's license,
and the statute specifically precludes them from being
registered [as an organ donor in Alaska], they may fall through
the cracks.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH asked if Representative Berkowitz is referring
to temporary driver's licenses that the state issues.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows:
I know if people come up here and work for more than
30 ... or 45 days - ... I don't recall the exact time
period - they're required to get an Alaskan operator's
license. ... Truckers who come up here, [for
example]. I just want to make sure that someone who
wants to make a contribution, whether they're an
Alaska resident or not, ... [doesn't] just fall
through the cracks because our paperwork precludes
them from being involved.
Number 2690
MS. STEINHAUS responded that that would not preclude them from
donating. She said, essentially, HB 337 is setting up a
database system for information specifically [regarding] the
residents of Alaska. She stated her understanding that
Representative Berkowitz is concerned about those people who are
nonresidents of Alaska who have documents identifying them as
being in Alaska for "at least a period of time." She said,
"What we would do is work with them on an individual basis,
identify their decision about donation, and ensure that no
individual who may perish here in the state of Alaska would be
exempt from donating." She said that, in a sense, that would be
a separate process than "what we're establishing here." She
mentioned federal guidelines enacted in 1998, which require that
every individual who passes away be considered a potential donor
at the time of death.
Number 2661
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his interpretation that the only
people who can be in the registry are Alaskan residents.
Therefore, a student who maintains his/her voting registry in
another state, but gets an Alaska driver's license, could get
the [donor sticker] on that [license], but would not be included
in the registry. He asked if that is the intent of the bill.
Number 2626
MS. STEINHAUS responded that that is not the intent of the bill.
Number 2613
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks Representatives
Berkowitz and Seaton share his concern, which is the use of word
"must" on page 2, line 19. That can be read two ways: as a
term of direction - you must do it, or as a term of exclusion -
you can only do it. He asked what the sponsor's intent is.
MR. HILYARD indicated the original bill version and said, "That
was a particularly sticky phrase." He pointed to [page 2,
beginning on line 19] of the original bill version, which read:
(b) A registry must include all residents of this
state, regardless of their residence within the
service area designated by the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the language deleted had
been the word "all" and the phrase following the comma; however,
the term "must" was there and was equally ambiguous. He asked
Mr. Hilyard what he wants to do in order to be clearer in the
drafting.
MR. HILYARD responded by asking at what point residency is
declared or someone is considered to have become a resident. He
suggested that someone from the Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) [may better answer that question].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Hilyard to put aside the DMV
and asked him if he wants to "limit it to only residents of the
state."
MR. HILYARD answered, "Generally, no."
Number 2523
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked what would happen if that line
were just deleted.
MR. HILYARD answered, "Nothing, to my understanding." He
mentioned that [the sponsor] had held a discussion with
[Legislative Legal and Research Services] debating the use of
the word "only" versus "all".
Number 2490
DUANE BANNOCK, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration, stated that when a person comes to
the DMV who is not a resident and he/she applies for a driver's
license, the DMV will collect [donor registry] data, even if
that person is a resident of Washington state, for example. He
said that if Life Alaska gets that information, it will
disseminate it to, presumably, the Washington state registry.
He stated that the DMV tends to ask 100 percent of its customers
to become an organ donor.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Bannock if he would have any
heartburn if the committee were to remove [line 19, on page 2 of
Version S].
MR. BANNOCK answered no. He noted, "Section 13.50 isn't
necessarily the DMV section."
MS. STEINHAUS, in response to the same question posed this time
by Chair Weyhrauch, replied that her only concern is that "what
we're addressing here is a registry that is for the purposes of
use in Alaska." She said that, providing [the committee
members] are okay with striking that language, it would be in
the best interest of the bill.
Number 2375
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked how the change being discussed might
affect the size of the registry, and if [that decision] would
run the risk of making [the registry] so complex that it cannot
be accessed easily.
MS. STEINHAUS explained that essentially it would open up the
registry to be utilized by individuals from other states. The
downfall to that, she said, is that other states' statutes may
be different from the statutes in Alaska, regarding anatomical
gifts. She said, "In Alaska we're able to use an anatomical
gift as consent for donation, so this system allows us to access
that individual's decision." She noted that that may not be the
case for somebody in another state, where other state statutes
would apply. It would be the responsibility of the procurement
organization to be aware of those statutes and to facilitate
that donation appropriately. She concluded, "It won't limit the
ability to recover organs and tissues from individuals and to
allocate them to the people most in need."
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON turned to the language in the original
bill version regarding this issue [previously provided] and said
it appears there may be some legal parameters of residency
within "this federal service area." He suggested that the word
"must" could be replaced by the word "may". He said that
Legislative Legal and Research Services may be defining the
federal service area. He said that, at this point, he is
uncomfortable "expanding or contracting too much."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH summarized that if the committee chooses to
delete the language [on page 2, line 19 of Version S], it would
be indicating its intent to broaden the effect of the registry.
In regard to Representative Seaton's concern regarding the legal
issue related to removing the language as it may relate "to some
federal area," he noted that some of the members on this
committee sit on the bill's next committee of referral. He
suggested that they prepare a legal analysis for the benefit of
that next committee of referral.
Number 2181
MR. HILYARD clarified that the federal service [area] to which
the language in the original bill version referred, is a service
area recognized by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services for organ procurement organizations. He offered his
understanding - regarding the drafting of Legislative Legal and
Research Services and whether or not the language in question
"can remain in or be removed" - that the Alaska DMV [is]
responsible for collecting and distributing the information
collected from "it's residents." He stated that he thinks the
committee is getting stuck on the definition of resident and
what is residency.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH offered that the word [being questioned] is
"must".
Number 2147
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved to delete line 19 on page 2 of
Version S. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2100
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH closed public testimony.
Number 2087
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that he would like the sponsor to
get a legal analysis of the removal that was just made by the
committee, before the bill is taken up by the next committee of
referral.
Number 2069
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report CSHB 337, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
337(STA) was moved out of the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
Number 2043
The committee took an at-ease from 9:06 a.m. to 9:07 a.m.
HB 241-MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 241, "An Act relating to optional exemptions from
municipal property taxes on residential property."
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 241, Version 23-LS0851\D, Cook, 1\22\04,
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version D was before
the committee.
Number 1947
RANDALL HOFFBECK, Petroleum Property Assessor, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue, testified regarding the ramifications
this bill will have on the "43-56" properties if residential
properties are exempted. If the municipalities choose to
increase the mill to compensate for the exemptions, it could
effect the amount of revenue the state would collect on 43-56
oil and gas properties. Mr. Hoffbeck said the calculation that
the Department of Revenue made was based on a projection that if
all municipalities raise the mill rate to offset the exemption,
it could have the effect of up to $1.6 million on the revenue
collected on oil and gas properties.
Number 1888
STEVE PORTER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, addressed the fiscal note on behalf of
the Department of Revenue.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the fiscal note was dated
1/27/2004 and was prepared by Dan Dickinson.
MR. PORTER referred the committee to the worksheet found on page
3 of the fiscal note. The Department of Revenue examined this
legislation to determine its effects. The maximum effect, based
on the current information, was about $1.6 million to the State
of Alaska. Mr. Porter said that if the exemption for $50,000 is
included, "we're assuming that the boroughs have three choices":
to reduce their budgets, to increase their sales tax, or to
increase the mill rate. He said, "So there [are] a number of
possibilities that the boroughs have before them as tools to
manage their budgets. This is just one tool with a maximum
impact being $1.6 million." Mr. Porter emphasized that the key
here is to understand that it's $1.6 million to the state, but
for them to capture that $1.6 million, the borough itself is
paying $12.1 million ... to its own businesses. He said, "It's
really seen as a tool for management."
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH mentioned a concern that by adopting [HB 241]
and giving the option to local municipalities to adjust their
property taxes for residential property in this way, local
residents may be benefiting, but the burden to replace the
revenues lost will shift to the state legislature. He continued
as follows:
And they'll say, "Well, we have these exemptions, now
... you pay us what we're giving up from these
exemptions." ... It shifts the burden to ..., well I
guess the oil companies who are financing state
government.
MR. PORTER responded that the burden is shifted to the
commercial property owners, not the 43-56 properties, but to all
the properties. He continued:
In fact, the residential properties in excess of
$150,000 - in this environment, ... anything above
$50,000 exemption - that property too (indisc.)
increase the mill rate. Each individual property pays
their proportion of part of the mill rate. That's why
the numbers show up as $12.1 million and 1.6. So, ...
there is a slight shift, but the majority shift really
is to the local residents and their businesses.
Number 1665
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked if "we're" really just shifting the
burden from one side to the other side, not changing the
methodology on a statewide basis.
MR. PORTER responded that if this bill passes there will be a
certain amount of shift in the 43-56 properties - the oil and
gas properties. He indicated that there is "about a $1.6
million shift." He explained, "The reason for that is the oil
and gas property values versus the residential and commercial
property values in any particular borough." He deferred to
Randy Hoffbeck for further explanation.
Number 1457
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked why this bill is needed.
MR. PORTER explained that the impact of this bill would be to
shift from residential property to nonresidential property. He
explained that residential property is the exemption, so
everything else picks up that exemption, assuming that the same
revenue is maintained. He noted that a portion of that
nonresidential property is 43-56 property and "the state would
pick up their proportionate share on that shift; that's where
the million dollars comes from."
MR. HOFFBECK explained that the state, by statute, collects a
20-mill levy on all oil and gas property. He continued as
follows:
The local municipalities are allowed to collect that
portion of the 20 mills that they tax everybody else.
The companies take it as a credit against the 20 mills
that they pay the state. So, for instance, if a
jurisdiction ... had a mill rate of 15 mills, they
would collect 15 mills of the 20 mills and the state
would get 5 mills. If ... they increase their levy to
16 mills, the local jurisdiction would collect 16
mills of the tax and the state would only collect 4.
And so, if the local jurisdictions raise their mill
rate to offset this exemption, effectively, they will
take a greater proportion of that 20-mill tax levy
that the state has on oil and gas property.
Number 1344
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM asked Mr. Porter if there is no limit as to
how much a borough can collect within the 20 mills on 43-56
property.
MR. PORTER replied that if the borough increased its mill rate
to 20 mills, the oil companies could basically take that as a
credit against the state's 20-mill tax.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he understands that several boroughs
and cities already do that and this practice isn't something
that is created by this bill. He asked for clarification
regarding the city of Valdez and the entry on the chart [page 3
of the fiscal note].
MR. PORTER clarified that the city of Valdez would have to
exceed the 20 mills in order to pick up the extra amount. He
noted there is an argument that they could pick up that
additional amount and the oil companies would take that full
amount as a credit, up to a total statewide credit of 20 mills.
He added, "That's an evaluative process." He said that none of
the boroughs have exceeded the 20 mills at the present time, so
there's a high likelihood that the City of Valdez would not
raise its mill rate above 20 mills. He referred to a letter in
the file from the mayor that states there would be no impact to
the City of Valdez.
Number 1072
MR. PORTER, in response to a follow-up question by
Representative Seaton regarding the fiscal note, explained as
follows:
This is the absolute, maximum, possible ... exposure
that the state could receive. There's a high
likelihood that the City of Valdez will not pick up
any of that. And in the Fairbanks, Kenai, and the
Northslope Borough[s] the question is, "How much are
their businesses willing to accept that additional
mill rate?"
MR. PORTER, in response to a concern voiced by Representative
Seaton, offered the following explanation:
The boroughs have the right to tax up to 30 mills.
... None of them have gone beyond 20. If Valdez ...
went above 20 mills and picked up that additional
amount, so long as the total amount of the entire
state of 43-56 property doesn't exceed 20 mills to the
oil companies -- in other words, ... if you look at
the state, three boroughs cover a lot of the pipeline,
a lot of the 43-56 properties. There's a piece of the
state that is not organized into boroughs. We get
that full 20 mill. So there's a margin that ... the
state actually picks up in revenue. If Valdez exceeds
it's proportionate part of the 20 mills, that
proportionate part - as long as it doesn't exceed that
extra amount - the oil companies can claim it as a
credit against the state, even though ... the amount
that Valdez is asking for exceeds the 20 mill.
MR. PORTER indicated that that is hypothetical, because it has
never been tested.
Number 0985
MR. HOFFBECK said Mr. Porter is correct that the regulations, as
they are currently structured, state that there is a 20-mill
levy against all properties within the state. Theoretically, he
said, the companies could reach out into an area where they are
not paying 20 mills and take that additional credit against
those properties. He offered the following example:
For instance, they could reach out into the pipeline
corridor that's in the unorganized borough and
actually take that excess credit that they're paying
in Valdez against that property in the unorganized
borough.
MR. HOFFBECK noted that there is an attorney general's opinion
that says that that is an appropriate interpretation.
Number 0935
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there would be anything to
preclude the legislature acting as the assembly for the non-
organized boroughs and imposing a 20-mill tax on industry
property. After a brief response by Mr. Porter, Representative
Berkowitz said, "You're telling me right now that there is un-
tapped tax revenue from the pipeline in the unorganized borough.
Is that correct?"
MR. PORTER responded no. He explained that that tax revenue
already comes to the state; there is a statewide 20-mill tax on
the oil and gas industry. In response to a follow-up question
by Representative Berkowitz, he said, "I would define it as --
that it is a net zero to the industry, and the contest is really
a proportionate part. And that's where the $12 million and the
$1 million go." He stated there are three players: the state,
local government, and local businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to the current amount of
municipal assistance and revenue sharing that the state
provides, that is projected in the upcoming budget.
MR. PORTER said he did not have this information.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated his understanding that the
amount was going to be zero. He said he thinks that if the
legislature is going to push the responsibility down to local
government to provide services, because the state is no longer
doing it, it should give [the local government] the maximum
amount of flexibility. He stated that the local governments are
now able to determine if their residents get a tax break if it
is running a surplus, for example. He indicated that this bill
is a tool for providing increased flexibility to local
government and has no impact on the industry. He said he sees
it as a way for local government to secure what is due them
because the state has ceased its obligation with municipal
assistance and revenue sharing.
Number 0710
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted the difference between municipal and
borough taxing jurisdictions. He explained that some
municipalities and boroughs have instituted sales tax;
therefore, they are taxing their 43-56 properties at a lower
rate than other boroughs that have opted to have a high mill
rate and no sales tax. He pointed out that there is a
differential between the monies that are being received from
boroughs that have a sales tax versus only a property tax.
Number 0567
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned again the letter from the
City of Valdez and the potential $1.7 million loss to the state.
He suggested a "hold harmless" amendment be considered. He
proffered, "If a municipality wants to shift this around
internally, it's up to them." He stated that he does not want
to see the current fiscal gap increased by this bill. He asked
Mr. Porter what he thinks [about the suggestion to add a hold
harmless provision in the bill].
MR. PORTER replied, "That is the legislature's prerogative."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the CS before the committee
shows that "lines 6-8" and Section 2 of the original bill had
been deleted. He stated that he would like to know what the
impact of those deletions will be before the bill is moved out
of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG mentioned the possible introduction of
a bill that would allow the Alaska School Boards and the Alaska
Municipal League to prepare a fiscal note, at their expense,
which would "travel along with the bill." He remarked that the
Alaska Municipal League and a number of municipalities have
supported the idea. He added, "Frankly, we are seeing in this
day and age that a lot of legislation does have a fiscal impact
on municipalities." He said he didn't know if there would be
any interest in putting forth that idea as an amendment into [HB
214], or not.
Number 0278
MR. PORTER commented that the Department of Revenue and other
departments are "responsible to define the impact to the state."
He added, "And that's why we are very thorough in our analysis,
so that you understand the total exposure that you're dealing
with on ... any particular bill. He noted that the Alaska
Municipal League and many [other] organizations are impacted
directly by any piece of legislation. Furthermore, any one of
them has the opportunity to draft "anything they want to draft
and provide the legislature with that information." He
clarified that it's important to maintain the distinction
between fiscal notes that are the responsibility of the State of
Alaska and comments or communications explaining impacts from
any individual or group that is not a representative of the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated that [he] "certainly wouldn't
want to impinge on that."
Number 0170
SUE HECKS told the committee that she is the Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) Chief, Seldovia Ambulance and Fire Department,
City of Seldovia, as well as the EMS coordinator for the Kenai
area and the statewide chair for the EMS regional directors
coordinators' group. She stated that she was particularly
interested in Section 2 that had been removed from the bill.
She expressed curiosity as to the committee's rationale for
dropping lines 6-8 and Section 2.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH stated his understanding that those deletions
were made at the request of the sponsor and suggested Ms. Hecks
contact the sponsor for further clarification.
The committee took an at-ease from 9:35 a.m. to 9:36 a.m.
TAPE 04-8, SIDE A
Number 090
MS. HECKS testified that the rationale behind adding fire and
emergency medical services to statute for a $10,000 property tax
exemption began in 1998. She stated that she had worked hard on
Senate Bill 4 in 2002 to get this language in for certified Fire
and EMS personnel. She noted that statewide there is a
recruitment and retention issue regarding fire and EMS personnel
in volunteer departments. She said, "It was documented in the
EMS and Crisis document in 1997 and 1998." She said the
committee may be familiar with the Code Blue Project - a
partnership between Federal, State, Denali Commission, Rasmussen
Foundation funding, and some local dollars, to replace the aging
infrastructure of the equipment and vehicles for EMS services
throughout the state. She noted that that did not address the
recruitment and retention issues. She continued as follows:
Back in 1998, the Kenai Peninsula EMS Council
identified a property tax exemption as a high priority
for volunteer departments within the Kenai Peninsula,
and we began to work with the borough to make this
occur. Unfortunately, that language is not allowed in
state statutes for municipalities or boroughs to be
able to provide that option. So, SB 4 ... was passed
that did add that language to statute for certified
EMS and firefighters. ... That could be an optional
exemption at the municipal or borough levels, if they
so chose, ... to recognize those personnel, to assist
with the recruitment and retention issues for staffing
in the volunteer departments statewide. It's not a
huge sum of money ..., but it is a way to say thank
you for these folks' commitment to their community and
their departments.
An EMT I class is a minimum of 120 hours, plus, you
add to that continuing education, recertification
requirements, and responses within their areas, that's
a huge time commitment for a volunteer to face. [The]
same with firefighters - they have a 160-hour course
to become a Firefighter I, and then you add on
training and responses on top of that. So, for these
particular individuals there is a huge time commitment
from their lives and their families in order to
provide these services within their communities, and
we were looking for a way that we could reward ... and
recognize them for their commitment to service in
their communities.
Fairbanks Northstar Borough [the] City of Ketchikan,
and the Kenai Peninsula Borough have taken advantage
of this, and within the Kenai Peninsula Borough, three
of the six municipalities, plus the borough, have
taken advantage of this as well. The City of Kenai
has no volunteers, so this does not impact them.
That's a little bit of the background as to how this
did come about and why that was included in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, who represents Mountain View in
Anchorage, said there are real problems in his district because
it is a high crime area and there are very few police who choose
to live there. He said he has made efforts to attract police to
live there because this would reduce crime. He thinks that [a
property tax exemption] is a great idea; he would like to see
municipalities be able to permit an exemption when police move
into designated high-crime areas.
Number 0499
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that the CS that eliminated the
exclusion does not apply to taxes for service areas. He asked
Ms. Hecks, "If this exclusion would go in, and also ... bump the
property tax exemption to $50,000 on those service areas, do you
see a major impact on the service area funding?"
MS. HICKS replied that if the $50,000 exemption did go through,
depending upon where people may be receiving this exemption, she
sees a potential impact to service area budgets. She stated her
belief that that's why "that language went into this statute."
If the funding for the special service areas is reduced then
they won't be able to provide those services within those
specified boundaries. She added that she has not been educated
on the issue to be able to fully address that question.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that he would like to hold HB
241 until the committee can get further analysis of the impacts
and gather comments from boroughs and service districts.
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska
State Legislature, testified that the language that created
questions - including the service area issue, which is a borough
issue and can be discussed and decided by the boroughs and
municipalities - was removed. The last section was removed
because of a concern that property tax credits would be given to
groups that should not qualify. She gave an example of a
possible question that could arise regarding a person who does
volunteer work once a year: "Would you be qualified or are you
being discriminated against because you are not a volunteer fire
fighter or an EMT?" She said this concern caused removal of
that section of the bill. She opined that decisions affecting
fire service areas should be made by municipalities, not [by the
legislature] in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked Ms. Wright if her reading of the
current bill is "The borough could adopt a $50,000 tax exemption
and then exclude that exemption from particular service areas so
that if they didn't want this exemption to apply to a library
service area, the borough has the authority to say we're getting
a tax exemption but we're not going to apply that tax exemption
to service areas. Is that your understanding?"
Number 0930
MS. WRIGHT replied that boroughs could exempt in part, for
example, only the exemption that would affect that fire service
area. She feels that it is better that boroughs make decisions
about exemptions and how to apply them within their
municipalities; it is better left on the local level.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied that he wanted to make sure that
the committee is clear about their intention in CSHB 241, "That
the borough still has the ability to exempt this property tax
from service areas, otherwise we are impacting not only the
boroughs tax base but every service area within the borough."
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that it is his understanding that the
CS for HB 241 does not impact service areas. He stated that
service areas, in addition, could choose to tax themselves for
particular services that they want to provide for themselves.
STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor, Central Office, Division of
Community Advocacy, Department of Community & Economic
Development, offered the following explanation:
The statute actually says, "You may exempt or
partially exempt," and knowing what the intent of the
committee is on this bill, certainly wouldn't give us
any heartbreak on it and it would certainly exclude it
from any major error decisions on that. So, I don't
see any problem with it from our perspective on
municipality exempting the $50,000 from part of the
mill rate there.
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH brought two conceptual issues to Ms. Wright's
attention: One is in regard to the previously stated
indications of Mr. Porter that "this would potentially affect
business, transferring taxes onto businesses from residences.
He said he doesn't know what the response may be from the
business community. The second issue is in regard to whether
there is going to be a later impact to the state treasury, with
municipalities coming to the state for fiscal salvation, if
there is a fiscal impact locally. He said the state treasury
really can't stand an additional impact or request for funds
without some other plan in place.
Number 1350
MS. WRIGHT stated that the key word in the chair's statement was
"potential" and went on to say:
As far as the municipalities coming back to us after
they made a decision to enact the $50,000 exemption, I
would assume that - since this was a municipal-based
request and they would have the authority to either
enact or not enact this $50,000 exemption - ... they
would take the time to think this through. The only
thing that this bill does, at this point in time, is
give the municipality the authority. It doesn't say
they have to do it [and] it doesn't say how they have
to do it, as long as they remain within Title 29 and
other statutes that may apply. The only thing we are
doing now is giving them the authority to do it.
Whatever decision they make, they have to live with.
MS. WRIGHT opined that the potentials cannot be anticipated here
in this meeting, "with any variable that's going to come down
the line for the next five years." She stated that it's a local
issue that needs to be addressed on the local level.
MR. VAN SANT noted that there already exist several optional
exemptions that many municipalities have taken advantage of. He
offered examples. He added, "This is just another tool that
gives [municipalities] an option to shift their burdens around."
Number 1538
CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that HB 241 would be held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:57
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|