Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/16/2012 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB264 | |
| Presentation: Yk Village Cluster Consolidated Services Model Plan | |
| HB219 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 264-MUNI PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL: SUBDIVISIONS
8:05:59 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 264, "An Act allowing a deferral of municipal
property taxes on the increase in the value of real property
attributable to subdivision of that property; and providing for
an effective date."
8:06:40 AM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League,
acknowledged that after speaking with some municipalities, she
had written a letter to the committee regarding HB 264. Since
that time she has spoken with Dave Hanna, who is involved with
the legislation, and agreed to work with those in support of the
legislation. For now, she said to ignore the letter she
submitted to the committee.
8:08:01 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that public testimony was closed.
8:08:34 AM
CHRISTOPHER CLARK, Staff, Alaska State Legislature, presented
[Amendment 1] labeled 27-LS1090\B.1, Bullard, 2/13/12, with the
attached explanation, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 8, following "to":
Insert "(1)"
Page 1, line 9, following "parcels":
Insert "; and
(2) any improvements made to the property
necessitated by its subdivision"
Explanation of Amendment B.1
Prepared by Christopher Clark, Aide, Rep. Cathy Munoz
The current language in HB 264 may limit a property
tax deferral to only those costs that are directly
attributable to subdividing a parcel such as surveying
and platting.
Some municipalities such as Juneau require subdivision
developers to make improvements for things like access
roads, drainage ditches, and utility corridors.
Adding the words "any improvements made to the
property necessitated by its subdivision" will allow
improvement costs to be part of a property tax
deferral.
8:09:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if [Amendment 1] allows holding off
on the full extent of development and giving protections so that
the property owner isn't taxed. She expressed concern with
creating a situation in which the land is cleared and sits
vacant for 10 years, conceivably ready for development.
MR. CLARK reminded the committee that HB 264, as written, would
limit the tax deferral to up to five years or end when the
permit is issued. The idea is to wait for a building to be
constructed on the property and then the tax deferral would end.
CHAIR MUNOZ also reminded the committee that the proposed tax
deferral is optional.
8:11:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled that in Anchorage in 1967 there
was property with partial development that was ready to sell and
build upon, but which sat empty and cleared for 30 years. She
asked if HB 264 allows the aforementioned.
MR. CLARK clarified that's not the intent, rather the intent is
to speed up development and avoid vacant fields. The idea is to
receive the tax deferral for five years, such that developers
have time to construct a building to sell.
8:13:06 AM
DAVE HANNA emphasized that HB 264 is a valuable tool to ensure
that Representative Cissna's concerns don't happen. The
language in HB 264 is broad enough to allow municipalities to
apply the deferral in any manner they see fit. These incentives
could be used in various ways to encourage the type of
development the municipalities want, such as wider green belts
or larger play grounds.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA surmised then that HB 264 provides
municipalities choices and it's optional.
MR. HANNA replied yes.
8:14:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the language "any
improvements" that would be inserted per [Amendment 1] is
defined or needs to be defined.
MR. HANNA said that it would be left to the municipalities to
define. However, he informed the committee that most
municipalities allow phased development of a subdivision. He
surmised that municipalities would use [the language] as a tool
to specify that a certain amount of development occurs by a
certain point. He related that currently in Juneau, one can
apply for a plat and make improvements without recording the
plat or completing the improvements.
8:16:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if it's the sponsor's intent that
the proposed property tax referral is not renewable.
MR. CLARK answered that since the legislation doesn't make a
provision for it to be renewable he presumed that it's not.
Therefore, the proposed property tax referral would be a one-
time allowance. Again, the legislation provides flexibility to
municipalities to implement the proposed property tax deferral
as they see fit.
8:17:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to adopt Amendment 1, 27-
LS1090\B.1, Bullard, 2/13/12, [text provided previously]. There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:18:07 AM
MR. CLARK moved on to [Amendment 2] labeled 27-LS1090\B.2,
Bullard, 2/13/12, with the attached explanation, which read as
follows:
Page 2, line 1:
Delete "the municipality grants a building permit
for all or a portion of"
Insert "a residential or commercial building is
constructed on"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "the municipality grants a building permit
for a portion of"
Insert "a residential or commercial building is
constructed on"
Explanation of Amendment B.2
Prepared by Christopher Clark, Aide, Rep. Cathy Munoz
This amendment is aided at fulfilling the intent of
the bill to end a property tax deferral when a
property is improved and a building is constructed on
it - so long as that happens within five years.
The current language ends a deferral when a
municipality grants a building permit for all or a
portion of a subdivided parcel. There are two
concerns with this:
1. Some municipalities don't issue building
permits; and,
2. No improvements may have been done at the time
a permit is issued.
This amendment would end the deferral when a building
is constructed on the property.
8:19:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that there is a dangling
modifier in the language being inserted by [Amendment 2].
8:20:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, 27-
LS1090\B.2, Bullard, 2/13/12, [text provided previously].
8:20:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then moved to adopt an amendment to
Amendment 2 such that the language being inserted by Amendment
2: "a residential or commercial building is constructed on",
would be replaced with the following language: "on which a
residential or commercial building is constructed". There being
no objection, the amendment to Amendment 2 was adopted.
[The committee then treated Amendment 2, as amended, as
adopted.]
8:20:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN moved to report HB 264, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
264(CRA) was reported from the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 219 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 2/16/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Div of Insurance.pdf |
HCRA 2/16/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| HB219 Tri Valley Support News miner.pdf |
HCRA 2/16/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |
| HB219-DCCED-INS-02-10-12.pdf |
HCRA 2/16/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 219 |