Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/22/2018 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR30 | |
| HB264 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 264-SHOPPING BAG FEES & RECYCLING
8:14:16 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 264, "An Act relating to a fee for disposable
shopping bags; relating to the sale of reusable shopping bags;
relating to the recycling of disposable shopping bags; and
providing for an effective date."
8:15:01 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:15 a.m.
8:15:42 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS1178\J.1, Nauman, 2/21/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "and (c)"
Insert ", (c), and (i)"
Page 3, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(i) This section does not apply to a retail
seller in a municipality or an unincorporated
community if the municipality or unincorporated
community has a population of less than 5,500 people."
Reletter the following subsection accordingly.
Page 4, line 1:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following sub-subparagraph accordingly.
Page 4, line 5:
Delete "an"
Insert "a retail"
Delete "$100,000"
Insert "$250,000"
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected for discussion.
CO-CHAIR PARISH spoke to Amendment 1, which he indicated would
delete ["operates year-round" from the definition of "retail
seller"] and increase the amount of $100,000 to $250,000
pertaining to the gross sales of retail sellers. He explained
he proposed the deletion of "operates year-round" out of concern
for seasonal businesses.
8:17:45 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH referred to a response from Emily Nauman,
Legislative Legal and Research Services, to a question regarding
equal protection [memorandum included in the committee packet].
Ms. Nauman's response read as follows:
3. Equal Protection. Exempting retail sellers in
communities under a certain size from the retail bag
fee and recycling and reusable bag requirements of the
bill triggers an equal protection concern under the
state and federal constitutions. "The common question
in addressing equal protection cases is whether two
groups of people who are treated differently are
similarly situated and thus entitled to equal
treatment." In order for an exemption from tax to be
valid under the state's equal protection test, it must
be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must bear a fair and
substantial relation to a legitimate governmental
objective. To survive judicial scrutiny, at a
minimum, a legitimate governmental purpose must be
served. You will be responsible for building a
legislative record that demonstrates both the
governmental purpose in the exemption provided to
retain sellers in the amendment and how the exemption
fairly relates to the purpose. The outcome of a
challenge to the exempting may very well depend on the
record you build.
8:19:06 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:19 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
8:22:02 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH invited discussion on Amendment 1. He said the
question is whether it is helpful to include communities below a
certain population threshold.
8:23:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 264, imparted that he had taught
constitutional law for six years. He said the normal test that
is applied in any equal protection case is to consider whether
people in similarly situated classes are treated differently.
He said, "Here, I would think that because all communities under
5,500 would be treated the same, ... that wouldn't be a problem.
However, as noted by Ms. Nauman, he said there should be some
discussion as to why the distinction is being made. He said, "I
would leave it to the committee as to the purpose behind that
distinction." In response to Co-Chair Parish, he said there are
no other areas of objection in terms of Amendment 1, which he
said he thinks would improve HB 264. He said there are
"communities that are doing it anyway" and [Amendment 1] would
allow communities to "opt in" to ban or seek a fee for plastic
bags.
8:25:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed appreciation that in the
memorandum there are [definitions under various statutes] of the
word "community".
CO-CHAIR PARISH read the definitions and corresponding statutes
that are found in the aforementioned memorandum.
8:27:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN noted one of the features of HB 264 would
be that it would impose a 20-cent tax on plastic bags but
"municipalities would be able to impose their own tax up to that
point" and potentially capture the revenue from that tax for
local use. He pointed out that unincorporated villages do not
have that same opportunity, so he said the committee needs to
"figure out a way to work with unincorporated villages."
8:28:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO observed the committee had been provided
a list of communities that have a ban [included in the committee
packet], and most of those communities have a population of
below 5,500. He observed the bill identifies retail seller -
not boundaries - and Amendment 1 provides boundaries. He said
there are retail sellers that serve more than one community, and
he questioned whether that may become an issue.
8:30:53 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH directed attention to page 3, line 28, of HB 264
and read the definition of "retail seller". He concluded that
the location of a corporate office would be immaterial.
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted Doug Gardner, Legislative Legal and
Research Services, was available on line.
8:32:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she was not sure Amendment 1 would
accomplish the intent of the sponsor, which she offered her
understanding is to encourage communities to protect their
environments. She opined that seasonal businesses should not be
exempted and asked for confirmation that they would be under HB
264.
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered yes, they would be under HB 264, unless
they have annual gross sales of over $100,000. Conversely,
under Amendment 1 they would no longer be exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that under
Amendment 1, "they will be required to tax the distribution of
plastic bags like this to their costumers and encourage ... them
to bring their own, but the tax continues to apply in a seasonal
business."
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that is correct, unless the sales of
that business were less than $250,000 in the previous calendar
year.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND removed her objection to the motion to
adopt Amendment 1.
8:35:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER concluded that essentially under
Amendment 1 a seasonal operations threshold would be replaced
with a retail sales threshold.
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered not exactly. He explained the retail
sales threshold already existed, on page 4, line 5,
[subparagraph](b), which read as follows:
(B) an establishment that has
annual gross sales of $100,000 or more in the previous
calendar year and that provides disposable shopping
bags;
CO-CHAIR PARISH said that threshold struck him as low. He said
he did not want to "capture businesses that are just starting
out." Amendment 1 would raise the threshold to make things
easier for new businesses transitioning into the economy.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his understanding that whether
$100,000 or $250,000 a year retail, that becomes the threshold.
He said, "By the amendment's illumination of page 4, line 1, you
eliminate the seasonality and leave yourself with the test of
the retail sales threshold, unless I'm misunderstanding it."
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that is correct. He made a distinction
between [subparagraphs] (A) and (B) as being (A) or (B) - two
markers of a retail seller - and indicated that under Amendment
1, (B) would state "annual gross sales of $250,000" instead
"$100,000".
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER [objected] to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1.
8:37:25 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Kreiss-
Tomkins (alternate), Lincoln, and Parish voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representatives Talerico and Saddler voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
8:38:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed appreciation to the sponsor
for the intent of HB 264. He referred again to the list of
those communities that have established [bans on plastic bags],
and he noted that for some the process took up to ten years. He
applauded their efforts. He said he thinks municipalities can
"do this" and are "probably moving towards that," and he said he
has a lot of confidence in municipal and tribal governments. He
stated, "For that particular reason, I won't be supporting the
bill." He expressed concern about the 20-cent fee and the
inventory and accounting measures that would be needed.
8:40:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he would object to passage of HB
264, [as amended]. He recalled the sponsor had said that his
ultimate goal was a statewide ban on plastic bags but that he
thought a statewide [fee imposed on plastic bags] as being more
achievable. He said setting up the apparatus for a statewide
tax when the next step could be a total ban is "onerous on
business and confusing and costly to the public." He said
having spoken with people on both sides of the issue, it seems
there are other remedies that could be at least as effective.
8:41:41 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted there is one fiscal note from the
Department of Revenue for a $222,000 expenditure and $3.3
million in revenue starting 2020. He said the next committee of
referral would be the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
8:42:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for confirmation that under HB
264, [as amended], the 20-cent fee would be part of the purchase
price rather than a tax.
CO-CHAIR PARISH confirmed the fee would be per bag.
8:43:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER proffered that the answer to
Representative Drummond's question was in [Section 1, subsection
(d)], beginning on page 2, line 20. He noted that [subsection
(e)] states that [the retail seller] will report to the state
[the fees collected].
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that 25 percent would
be maintained by the retail seller to offset the cost of
administrating the program and for the recycling. He said as
Representative Talerico mentioned earlier, a municipality would
have the option of supplanting the state fee with one of its
own.
8:44:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN moved to report HB 264, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
8:45:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected.
8:45:14 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lincoln, Drummond,
Kreiss-Tomkins (alternate), and Parish voted in favor of the
motion to report HB 264, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
Representatives Talerico and Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 264(CRA) was reported out of the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB264 Draft Proposed Amendment ver J-1.pdf |
HCRA 2/22/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 264 |
| HB264 Draft Proposed Amendment ver j-1 Leg Legal Memo.pdf |
HCRA 2/22/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 264 |