Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/15/2010 08:30 AM House FINANCE
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 312(FIN)
"An Act relating to the deposit of the proceeds of the
tax on gambling operations aboard certain commercial
passenger vessels into the general fund; providing for
a reduction in the excise tax to $34.50 for a
passenger for each voyage on a commercial passenger
vessel; describing the passengers that are subject to
the excise tax and liable for the payment of the tax;
providing for a reduction in the state excise tax
imposed on a passenger traveling on a commercial
passenger vessel by the amount of tax on a passenger
traveling on a commercial passenger vessel imposed by
a municipality under a law enacted before December 17,
2007; authorizing appropriations from the commercial
vessel passenger tax account to the first seven ports
of call in the state and for costs associated with
commercial passenger vessels and the passengers on
board; limiting the use of funds appropriated from the
commercial passenger vessel tax account to
expenditures related to port facilities, harbor
infrastructure, other services provided to the
commercial passenger vessels and the passengers on
board those vessels and certain other purposes;
repealing the regional cruise ship impact fund;
relating to the administration of the excise tax by
the Department of Revenue and regulations required to
be adopted; requiring a report from the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development relating
to safely and efficiently hosting passengers; defining
'voyage' for purposes of the excise tax; relating to
municipal levies on a passenger on a commercial
passenger vessel; and providing for an effective
date."
4:53:36 PM RECONVENED
MILES BAKER, STAFF, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, proposes to
reduce the commercial passenger vessel excise tax from $46
to $34.50 per passenger per voyage. Currently excise tax is
split with 25 percent in regional cruise ship impact fund
and 75 percent in the commercial passenger vessel tax
account. The bill proposes to reduce the current tax by 25
percent and repeal the regional cruise ship impact fund.
With SB 312, the $34.50 would go into the commercial
passenger vessel tax account.
Mr. Baker elaborated that the bill clarifies statute
regarding uses and purposes that the legislature may
appropriate the tax proceeds for. The first purpose is to
make payments to the ports of call; current statute makes
payments to first five ports of call. The CS changes the
number to seven to reflect larger voyages.
Mr. Baker second purpose for legislative appropriation is
found in Section 4(d). In addition to making the port of
call payments, the legislature may appropriate money from
from the account to projects that improve port and harbor
infrastructure, provide services to commercial passenger
vessels, and improve safety and efficiency of interstate
and foreign commerce activity in which the vessels are
engaged.
4:58:58 PM
Mr. Baker cited Page 3, Line 18, Section B addressing the
port of call payments. The language tightens up the
purposes for which local port of call payment proceeds can
be used.
Mr. Baker stated the intent of Senate Finance Committee was
to eliminate confusion in existing statute. The current
statute left open the question of appropriation for state
owned port and harbor facilities. He stated omission of the
language "other services to properly provide for vessel or
watercraft visits and enhance safety and efficiency of
interstate and foreign commerce and such other lawful
purposes as determined by the legislature" which has been
replaced with the before mentioned language.
Mr. Baker mentioned another substantial change, where a
local government in a port of call with a local tax levied
against passengers was given a choice either to rescind the
tax and accept or forfeit the state's $5 payment. The
communities that fell into the category were the City and
Borough of Juneau and the City of Ketchikan. Both Juneau
and Ketchikan had local levies that were greater than $5.
The bill proposes a credit against the $34.50 that the
state is paying. Those municipalities with a tax in place
would not require a greater payment of tax from the
passenger. The effect of the change is that the state will
collect less money. The $5 payment will work in the current
fashion. If the port is a unified city, then the $5 goes to
the unified city.
5:04:19 PM
Mr. Baker informed that Section 1 addressed the 33 percent
tax on gambling proceeds deposited into the commercial
passenger tax account. The funds were deposited into this
restricted account creating an accounting issue. The 2007
cruise season yielded $6.7 million in gambling tax which
was not appropriated, thereby lapsing into the general
fund. The 2008 season yielded $6.28 million that lapsed. A
reverse sweep placed it back into the restricted account.
The projection from DOR is another $5.7 million.
Mr. Baker communicated that Section 10 retains the
governor's recommended periodic report. He pointed out that
Section 13 states an effective date of October 31st; the
reduced head tax will take effect next year.
Representative Doogan reviewed his understanding of the
legislation. He understood that the bill lowered the head
tax per passenger to $34.50. He proposed hypothetically
that a passenger would stop in Ketchikan, Juneau, and
Skagway. When the money is allocated, he understood that
each port would receive $5 and the ports already receiving
taxes would also get theirs. He understood that Ketchikan
and Juneau would receive $12.
Mr. Baker explained that the passenger would pay $34.50,
but when they arrive in Ketchikan, the vessel would pay the
$7 and the $26.50 balance would go to the state. If the
legislature appropriates the $5 port of call payments, they
would go to all three ports.
5:10:33 PM
Representative Doogan understood the mechanism. He wondered
where the remaining money goes. Mr. Baker responded that
excess money not paid out would stay in the account
available to the legislature for appropriation.
Representative Doogan asked what would happen when a
passenger stops at four ports. Mr. Baker directed attention
to handout, "Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax;
Effects of CS SB 321(FIN) Per P on State Cash Flow,
4/15/2010 10:00 am," (copy on file). The handout lists the
five itineraries that are currently sold.
Mr. Baker surmised that if $5 is the port of call payment,
and the DOR forecast is correct at 850 thousand passengers,
$2.3 million will be available for appropriation after the
port of call payments are made.
5:15:13 PM
Representative Austerman asked about the $2.3 million
available for appropriation. He wondered if the amount was
available as a result of Ketchikan and Juneau "double
dipping" the municipal tax plus the $5. Mr. Baker replied
that the analysis was correct. He pointed out that each
provided scenario presents an excise tax of $19.50 because
the $15 has been backed out for Ketchikan and Juneau.
Representative Austerman summarized that the negative
figures seen are the result of increased ports of call.
Mr. Baker pointed to second spread sheet "CS SB 312(FIN)
Port of Call Payment Scenarios, April 13, 2010" (copy on
file). He analyzed the handout which details the revenue
projections using both $4 and $5 as examples. The addition
of Ketchikan and Juneau in the $5 port call bumps the
payment by the state up by $6.1 million based on the
projected traffic for the season.
Mr. Baker noted that the principal loss to the account
would not be caused by the increased ports of call, but
because the tax is decreased to $34.50. He reminded the
committee that the regional portion would be discontinued.
The regional cruise ship fund used to go to the treasury
and equaled 15 percent.
5:20:28 PM
Mr. Baker explained that the last few appropriation cycles
led to port of call payments of $9.9 million and an
additional $17 million was appropriated. In FY10, port of
call payments of $10 million were made with an additional
$54 million appropriated in capital projects. The capital
budget before the House Finance Committee includes the
language necessary to make the port of call payments for
2010, which are estimated at $10 million. If SB 312 passes
the estimation will increase to $15 million.
Mr. Baker stated that in the current fiscal year, the
May/June travelers will lose $3.1 million with the proposed
reduction. The next fiscal year, encompassing July, August,
September, October, May and June will equal $22 million per
year in loss of revenue.
Representative Fairclough asked if Juneau's port fee was
$12. Mr. Baker responded that Juneau has $5 marine
passenger fee and a $3 port development fee for a total of
$8. Ketchikan has a passenger wharfage fee of $7.
Representative Fairclough asked how communities would
respond to the proposed model of tax implementation. She
wondered if other municipalities might try to emulate the
Ketchikan and Juneau model. Mr. Baker responded that SB 312
proposed capping the tax at $34.50 per passenger. A
community that has raised taxes prior to the passage of SB
312 is grandfathered in. Ketchikan's wharfage fee was
initially $6 and was raised to $7 in January of 2007 with a
sunset date of January 2010 for review.
5:26:30 PM
Mr. Baker commented that Juneau's $5 fee currently has no
sunset date, but the $3 fee has a January, 2011 sunset
date. He guessed that if Juneau received an additional $5,
the $3 port development fee might not be necessary.
Representative Fairclough clarified that the legislation
seeks to place a cap on maximum collections for the state.
The first seven ports of call will be covered by the state
at $5 per port. If cities already have a fee intact, they
receive the fee in addition to the $5. Mr. Baker responded
correct.
Representative Fairclough continued that the industry would
be subject to an increase by those particular ports of
which they could not visit if the added fees were not paid.
Mr. Baker agreed, if a port wished to raise a fee, the
industry's reaction would be considered.
Mr. Baker directed attention to a third spreadsheet,
"Distribution of head tax revenue relative to passenger
visits FY07-FY10, April 15, 2010" (copy on file). He
explained that Juneau passed their $5 marine passenger fee
in 1999 and the port development fee in 2002. Ketchikan
originally passed their fee in 2005. Both communities
worked with the industry communicating their needs for port
infrastructure and they proposed their fee. A voter's
initiative also passed, adding a state tax of $46, which
increased the cost of traveling to Juneau and Ketchikan.
The spreadsheet illustrates the reflection of the traffic
patterns and the funding. The principal reason that
Ketchikan is only at 18 percent of the funding with 27
percent of the passengers and Juneau at 14 percent of the
funding with 29 percent of the passengers is because the
numbers are skewed. The additional money received by Juneau
and Ketchikan is used to pay debt service.
5:32:25 PM
Representative Fairclough asked if the state is prohibiting
communities in local areas to provide taxes for the others
that are unaffected. Mr. Baker stressed that is not the
intent of the bill.
Representative Doogan understood that a current passenger
visiting Juneau and Ketchikan would pay $61. Mr. Baker
concurred.
Representative Doogan continued that in the new model the
passenger pays $34.50 and the state deducts the $7 and $8
for Juneau and Ketchikan. Mr. Baker agreed.
5:34:15 PM
Representative Austerman asked about other communities
implementing their own tax. He asked if the bill prohibits
the implementation of a community tax. Mr. Baker responded
no.
Representative Austerman asked about the $7 collected in
Ketchikan. He wondered if the implementation was prior to
the state's $46 tax. Mr. Baker responded yes, the wharfage
fee was passed in 2005 and the citizen's initiative went
into effect in 2007.
Representative Austerman asked if Ketchikan used the $7
bonds for improvements, what will the additional money
accomplish.
Mr. Baker elaborated that the additional $2.50 would be
used for additional improvements in services to the
passenger and the vessel.
Representative Austerman asked if Juneau's plan was
similar. He expressed concern for the other ports since
Juneau and Ketchikan would be double dipping.
5:36:58 PM
Co-Chair Hawker opened public testimony.
5:37:35 PM
ROBERT DINDINGER, ALASKA ALLIANCE FOR CRUISE TRAVEL, ALASKA
ACT explained that while the bulk of his membership comes
from Southeast Alaska, the community with the second most
members is Fairbanks. According to a study by the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) the state can anticipate 5000 fewer tourism
industry employees in the beginning of the season. He noted
that 2500 were lost last year. He believed that the
national economy had a significant impact on revenues
because cruise passengers spent less money. The situation
in 2010 is unique as the carrying capacity of the cruise
industry will be down by 140,000 berths. The decrease in
cruise travel to Sitka is projected at 40 percent. He
commented that with a loss of 40 percent, the bottom line
becomes hard to maintain. He opined that the bill provided
the only hope for improvement of cruise travel to Alaska.
If the bill passes, then a message to financial
institutions is provided signaling that Alaska is doing its
part to improve the potential economic climate for its
citizens. He urged the committee to support the
legislation.
5:42:29 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if Mr. Dindinger was married to the
bill. Mr. Dindinger replied that he spoke in support of
this bill.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if he would support any bill. Mr.
Dindinger replied that he might support another bill that
would accomplish the same task.
Vice-Chair Thomas commented on the loss of construction
funds. He asked if Skagway should be treated differently
than Ketchikan. Mr. Dindinger communicated that he has
businesses in Skagway, Juneau, Sitka, and Ketchikan but he
was not prepared to provide an opinion about the amount of
money provided to each community. He wished only for
continued cruise ship business in Alaska.
5:44:14 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas stressed that each legislator is
concerned about the survival of the communities. He sought
equal treatment for all communities. He commented that half
of the year's cruise ship tax is waived because of the
established effective date.
Representative Doogan asked about the 140,000 berth number.
Mr. Dindinger responded that four less cruise ships will
visit leading to the 140,000 number.
Representative Doogan asked why Sitka would experience a 40
percent loss. Mr. Dindinger replied that the prediction is
based on the deployment of the ship taken out of the
market. Some ships redeployed with a different itinerary.
5:47:05 PM
Representative Salmon asked how long Mr. Dindinger was in
business. Mr. Dindinger replied that he started his own
business in 1980.
Representative Salmon asked how many cruise ships companies
visit Alaska. Mr. Dindinger replied six or seven.
Representative Salmon asked how many cruise ships filed the
lawsuit. Mr. Dindinger admitted that he did not know.
5:48:37 PM
JOHN BINKLEY, ALASKA CRUISE ASSOCIATION responded that nine
member lines represented by the Alaska Cruise Association
initiated the lawsuit.
Representative Gara opined that the legislature was
unfairly put in bad place by the industry. He stated
concern that the state is asked to provide substantial tax
relief without promise that ships will return to the state.
Mr. Binkley replied that the legislation was introduced by
the governor and the Senate Finance Committee. The
legislation was not created by the cruise industry. He
noted that signing the settlement agreement is not in the
best interest of the Alaska Cruise Association, but if the
legislation is passed, the litigation will be dropped.
Representative Gara asked for commitment from the cruise
ship industry to bring ships back to the state. Mr. Binkley
stated that the change in the head tax is specific to the
litigation.
Representative Gara asked if ships will return to Alaska if
the legislation is passed. Mr. Binkley simply based on
change of head tax does not provide quid pro quo to bring
back the ships. Marketing is an issue; Alaska lost market
share. The reduction in the state's marketing led to a
reduction in demand. He mentioned the regulatory issue as
some ships cannot operate in Alaska. The time required to
set itineraries is also a consideration.
Representative Gara elucidated that the industry wants a
tax reduction, regulatory changes, and additional money for
marketing. Mr. Binkley agreed that those elements often
deter ships to other destinations.
Representative Gara suggested that if marketing important
that is another frustration. Cruise lines stopped
contributing to marketing of Alaska by the state.
Mr. Binkley explained that cruise lines are able to get a
better return on their money elsewhere. Driving demand and
reducing costs can change the situation.
5:54:45 PM
Representative Salmon commented that his flight business
calculates costs of operation with the majority going to
the customer. He wondered how the cruise ship industry
operates. He expressed confusion and opposed the bill.
Mr. Binkley admitted that he did not understand the
question. He believed that the cruise ship industry
operates in a manner similar to that of Representative
Salmon's flight business by reducing some flights if the
customer interest wanes.
Representative Austerman referenced reducing the tax to
$34.50. He understood that the original tax is a $46 head
tax, and if a passenger chooses Ketchikan and Juneau they
pay $61, but this bill drops the amount to $19.50. Mr.
Binkley clarified that the amount does not drop from $61 to
$19.50.
Representative Austerman opined that the bill is not
written that way. Mr. Binkley stated that any tax
adjustment will be good for the industry. The industry was
willing to drop the litigation in response to a change.
Representative Austerman proposed $34.50 with the add-ons
for Juneau and Ketchikan. He asked if that would constitute
a deal breaker. Mr. Binkley replied yes.
6:00:04 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked how much dock fees cost. Mr.
Binkley responded approximately $30 million a year for
private dock fees.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked what the total cost would be for
the passenger. Mr. Binkley replied $91 million.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked if the bill was no longer perceived
as the governor's bill. Mr. Binkley clarified his
statement. He stated that the bill is similar in net
outcome for the passenger.
Vice-Chair Thomas commented that Ketchikan averaged
$900,000 a year. He recalled that the committee asked the
fiscal policy group about the problem with the cruise ship
industry. The response was saturation, correction, economy,
and cessation of turmoil in the Mediterranean. The head tax
was never mentioned as a potential problem.
6:02:53 PM
Representative Doogan how many passengers are expected this
year. Mr. Binkley replied approximately 850,000 from the
large cruise ships that are charged the head tax.
Representative Doogan asked if some percentage of those
would be paying $61, while others pay $46. The current
proposal charges a flat $34.50. He asked for an estimate of
the total savings to the passengers if the proposal was in
place. Mr. Binkley approximated $22 million in annual
savings to the passengers.
6:04:15 PM
Representative Gara asked about the average cruise cost.
Mr. Binkley responded that the cost was lower last year.
The goal for the cruise ship companies is always to fill
the ship. A cruise might cost $499 to $2500 for a seven
night tour. The time of year also dictates the cost.
Representative Gara requested statistics of average
passenger spending in Alaska. Mr. Binkley responded
approximately $900 per visitor.
Representative Gara asked if most passengers cruise one way
then fly back home. Mr. Binkley answered yes, but some
cruises are round trip.
Representative Gara realized that Alaska wants more
travelers. He discussed the various costs incurred by
cruise ship travelers.
Mr. Binkley agreed. He stated that 142,000 less people will
visit Alaska as a result of the head tax. The ships must
reduce the price to in order to fill the ship, leading to
less revenue. If the costs are fixed, they make less money.
If the ships return, the volumes will too.
6:09:13 PM
Representative Austerman thought that the passengers would
come back whether the tax is reduced or not following the
global recession. He asked if cruise association discusses
saturation point.
Mr. Binkley stated that the cruise industry was growing by
6.5 percent. Other destination points are experiencing
growth, while Alaska is not. He mentioned the baby boomers
and their penetration into the cruise market over next 10-
20 years. The anticipation is for continued growth for the
cruise industry.
Representative Austerman chose not to debate the issue.
6:11:57 PM
Representative Kelly believed that a series of events
including taxes and regulations have impacted the cruise
ship situation. He asked to know other concerns the cruise
industry might have.
Mr. Binkley noted that the cruise industry is not bothered
or concerned, the economics are simply the bottom line. The
industry works their asset for the best return on their
investment as publicly held corporations. Alaska is a high
cost environment as the only state that has a corporate
income tax, gaming tax, ocean ranger tax, regional impact
fund tax, in addition to the head tax.
Representative Kelly asked about the issue of separating
the marketing assistance from state. He understood that the
association sought funding in the $20 million range. Mr.
Binkley agreed that the additional funding will help as a
50 percent increase in the state's marketing budget.
6:15:11 PM
Representative Foster wished the tax could be tied to the
number of visitors coming back to Alaska. The cruise ship
industry affects the entire state. He wondered how many
passengers travel beyond Southeast Alaska and Anchorage.
Mr. Binkley responded that DCCED has statistics. He stated
that the impacts of the cruise ship industry are
ubiquitous. Cruising is often an initial way to see Alaska,
and cruisers sometimes return as independent travelers. He
spoke of his family business in the visitor industry. Many
businesses are struggling. The cruise ship industry will be
fine because they can take their assets and go to where
they can make the most money, but when they go Alaskans are
affected.
Representative Austerman referenced the settlement
conditions as presented to the committee. The agreement
discusses the $34.50 tax and further reducing the excise
tax on any passenger by the total amount of taxes imposed
on the passenger by municipalities that did not elect to
receive funds. He wondered if he perceived the agreement
correctly regarding Juneau and Ketchikan. Mr. Binkley
answered that he believed that the agreement included
Juneau and Ketchikan.
6:20:27 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas recalled that the bill was initiated as
an initiative to repeal the cruise ship head tax. He
wondered why Juneau and Ketchikan were coupled with the
initiative. Mr. Binkley responded that the association
never proposed that the head tax be repealed. The governor
proposed the reduction of the head tax. He added that the
Alaska Cruise Association does not have contracts with
Juneau or Ketchikan.
Vice-Chair Thomas contended that agreements with Ketchikan
and Juneau exist regarding head tax and port fees. Mr.
Binkley argued that the head tax is elected by people of
Juneau and Ketchikan.
6:22:42 PM
Representative Fairclough understood that a lawsuit was
filed against the state. A settlement has been reached with
the Attorney General to resolve the lawsuit if this bill
passes. She expressed interest in the resolution of the
litigation issue. She opined that the bill encompassed
greater issues than the reduction of the head tax.
6:24:23 PM
Representative Salmon commented that the bill has the
public's support.
Representative Gara added that if the case is settled in
exchange for reduction of the cruise ship tax, the state
might still be sued. He opined that passing the bill might
lead to a one way settlement.
Mr. Binkley agreed with Representative Gara. The risk of a
class action suit exists despite the passage of the bill.
He speculated that if the legal ground is plowed by the
cruise lines through the litigation, there could be a class
of people who may want to sue. The legislation may reduce
that risk.
6:27:20 PM
JENNIFER GIBBINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRINCE WILLIAM
SOUNDKEEPER CORDOVA (via teleconference) opposed SB 312.
She observed that the legislators' points were good. She
understood the importance of the cruise industry to
Alaska's economy. She opined that the bill served the
cruise industry. The cruise ship's decisions regarding ship
deployment happen years in advance. Alaskan citizens voted
to approve the voter initiative initiating the head tax.
The voter initiative was passed to protect and preserve the
environment of Alaska in partnership with the cruise ship
industry.
STEVE HITES, SKAGWAY, STREETCAR COMPANY (via
teleconference), discussed his company and the loss of
revenue because of the head tax. He stressed that the loss
of revenue and jobs was not the intent of the cruise ship
initiative. He commended Governor Parnell for carrying a
message to the cruise ship industry that Alaska is open for
business. He urged the committee to follow the governor's
lead and pass the legislation out of committee.
KARL AMYLON, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference) offered
to respond to questions.
6:36:46 PM
TANJA CADIGAN, OWNER, CARIBOU CROSSINGS, spoke in support
of the legislation. She spoke of the many employment
opportunities available as a result of the cruise industry.
She expressed frustration about the pressure placed on
small businesses as a result of the head tax.
6:41:45 PM
GREG PILCHER, OWNER, WHALE TALES, testified in support of
the legislation. He stressed the impact that industry has
on his business.
6:43:40 PM
CHRIS WILSON, JUNEAU (via teleconference), suggested
dividing the head tax into a port fee similar to the
management of the airport tax. He wondered about the impact
that the cruise ships have on Alaska's waters. The impact
is tied to the fishermen. He suggested a new avenue of 1
percent tax appropriated to the state for the improvement
of water and sanitation issues.
Representative Fairclough asked Mr. Wilson if he supported
or opposed the bill.
Mr. Wilson stated that he did not support the bill.
6:48:03 PM
STAN STEVENS, WILDLIFE TOURS BUSINESS, chair of Alaska
Travel Industry Association (ATIA) informed that 70 percent
of ATIA's members are small businesses. He commented on the
downturn for these small businesses credited to lack of
marketing, poor economy, and the head tax. The loss of
140,000 people by the industry will affect small businesses
in the interior, Anchorage, and Southeast. He stressed the
value of the cruise industry to the whole economic system.
Representative Gara relayed a message to the members of
ATIA. He pointed out that Alaska levies no income or
business tax on the members.
Mr. Stevens mentioned that ATIA brought forth a proposal to
tax the industry in 2004. The members have suggested taxes
as a method of generating additional marketing dollars. He
shared stories about his experience as a business owner.
6:54:56 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony.
Representative Austerman requested opinion about the
settlement agreement from Department of Law (DOL).
CHRISS POAG, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained that when the
initiative went into effect, those communities had to
choose whether to keep their tax in effect and elect not to
receive port of call revenue sharing or their tax expired
as a matter of law. The presented offset provision for
Juneau and Ketchikan shows that the communities chose not
to receive port of call funds.
Representative Austerman asked if the communities received
the $5 prior to the law going into effect.
Mr. Poag replied that the communities can apply to the
legislature for appropriations but they do not receive
revenue sharing.
Representative Austerman asked if the communities would
receive revenue sharing under the new law. Mr. Poag replied
yes.
Representative Fairclough wanted to assure that her office
was not flooded with cruise ship lobbyists.
6:57:56 PM
Representative Doogan commented that his office received
many emails regarding the bill.
Vice-Chair Thomas commented that Juneau and Ketchikan
received $80 million in regional funds in addition to the
collection of port fees.
Representative Austerman announced that he planned to
submit an amendment during the next hearing of the bill.
Representative Gara spoke to the passion generated by the
bill.
SB 312 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
7:01:03 PM AT EASE
7:11:55 PM RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| K version CE Workdraft.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
CS WORKDRAFT Kversion SB 305 SB 305 |
| Summary of Changes to SC workdraft K SB 305.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| sb13_2009 summary 3-9-09[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| SB 13 - Sponsor Statement 2-10-09 (H)FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| SB 13 Sectional Summary 26-LS0076A (H)FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| CS SB 83 (L&C) section analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83 Gov Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| Explanation of Changes between SB 83 and CSSB 83.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB139 Sponsor Statement Revised.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 139 |
| SB 139 Data Health Care Professions Loan Repayment Program Concept Proposal.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 139 |
| SB 159 Sponsor Statement H FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 159 |
| SB172 Sectional.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 172 |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 174 |
| Changes to SB 220 in SB 220 FIN[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| Sectional on SB 220, version Y.doc |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| Sponsor Statement for SB 220.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| HCS CSSB 234 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 234 |
| Summary of Changes to HCS CSSB 234.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 234 |
| Sponsor Statement[1] SB 258.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 258 |
| Support Documents[1] SB258.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 258 |
| Sponsor Statement - SB 266.doc |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 266 |
| HCS for CS for SB 279_LC_ Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 279 |
| SB 279 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 279 |
| SB 279 Back-Up.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 279 |
| 2010 04 12 SB312 Port of Call Payments.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/14/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| SB 312 Sectional Analysis.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/5/2010 10:00:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| SB 312 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/5/2010 10:00:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| SB 305 SECTIONAL for CS.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB305 sponsor statement.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| HCS CSSB305(RES)(title am)-REV-TAX-04-13-10 decoupling.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| 2010 04 15 Historical Rev Distribution 3Yrs.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| 2010 03 02 D Wood Calculations FY2008_09.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
|
| SB 13 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| SB 220 Amendments #2 3 4.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| SB 305 Amendment Hawker.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB 172 Amendment #1 Hawker.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 172 |
| Sponsor Statement 243.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
|
| Corrected Sectional Analysis Sb 243 version P.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 243 |
| H FIN Comments on SB 305 4-15-10 FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| Qualifying For the AGIA Tax Inducement - H FIN 4-15-10.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |