Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/19/2002 08:09 AM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 358-EXEMPTION FROM PROPERTY TAX: TIMBER CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 358, "An Act relating to an optional exemption from municipal property taxes for certain land from which timber is harvested and for certain improvements used in or necessary to the harvest of timber." Number 1902 REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of HB 358. Representative Chenault informed the committee that the Kenai Peninsula Borough encompasses 9.9 million acres of which approximately 2.2 million acres is forested. Of those 2.2 million acres of forested land, 1.1 million acres is infested with the spruce bark beetle. [The infested areas] have been identified as a fire threat with limited accessibility for fire fighting resources as well as inadequate evacuation sites. Representative Chenault also informed the committee that in 1998 the Kenai Peninsula Borough was concerned for the people with property on the peninsula and thus the Spruce Bark Beetle Mediation Program was formed. The program is currently in the process of cutting trees that are dead and [pose] a high to moderate fire risk. He noted that the borough intends to work cooperatively with the private property owners, and therefore the borough has looked for incentives [to encourage] the property owners to remove the infested timber. One incentive is to exempt property taxes caused by the removal of the infested timber. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT continued by informing the committee that in 2001 the Kenai Peninsula Borough proposed an ordinance granting the aforementioned tax exemption. However, the borough's legal department determined that the borough didn't have such authority without amending Alaska statutes. The Alaska State Constitution provides that "all exemptions be provided by law". He explained that the phrase "by law" in the constitution is limited and refers to the legislature. On January 8, 2002, the Kenai Peninsula Borough asked, through a resolution, the legislature to enact legislation allowing boroughs to exempt from taxation land subject to timber salvage. Therefore, [HB 358] is before the committee today. REPRESENTATIVE GUESS stated for the record that she owns property in Kenai that is infested by the spruce bark beetle. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT pointed out that the committee packet should include a photo that illustrates the areas infested by the spruce bark beetle. Number 2131 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her interpretation that HB 358 seems to allow municipalities to totally exempt land from property taxes. Therefore, she asked whether Representative Chenault would consider changing the language to only refer to a partial exemption because there would seem to always be some property value left. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT agreed with Representative Kerttula that the gist of the HB 358 is to [exempt taxation relative to the improvements]. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA acknowledged that [the exemption] would still be up to the municipalities, which probably won't provide a total exemption. However, on page 1, line 6, the deletion of "or totally exempt" would be an easy change. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned whether that would also apply to page 1, line 11. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to page 1, line 11, and specified that the improvements could be totally exempt because those could all be new. Therefore, she suggested that line 11 could remain. Number 2247 CO-CHAIR MEYER referred to page 1, line 7, and inquired as to how a tree's risk of infestation is determined. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT answered that [the language] would provide the municipality the leeway to review infestation and grant the exemption if the municipality deems it appropriate. In further response to Co-Chair Meyer, Representative Chenault assumed [that the determination] is done through the borough. Number 2348 JEFF JAHNKE, State Forestor, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference in support of HB 358. Over the past ten years, the spruce bark beetle has infested almost 3 million acres of land on the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage bowl, and the Copper River Basin. This legislation removes a disincentive for harvesting spruce threatened and killed by this epidemic and others to come. Harvesting continues to be important following a spruce bark beetle infestation because [harvesting] reduces the wildfire hazard caused by dead and dying trees; encourages reforestation; and recovers the remaining value. Unfortunately, there is not much financial value left in these [infested spruce] trees. Therefore, [the department] supports HB 358 and any effort that might encourage the harvest of infested trees. CO-CHAIR MEYER reiterated his question regarding how one determines which trees are potentially at risk of being infected by insects. MR. JAHNKE explained that DNR, in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service state and private organizations, [have] entomologists [who] perform annual aerial surveys in order to identify emerging [infestations] and map current infestations. This information is used as a common database, and the spruce bark beetle database feeds into many efforts to determine what to do. Number 2504 ED OBERTS, Assistant to the Mayor, Kenai Peninsula Borough, testified via teleconference. He informed the committee that [the borough mayor's office] is in support of HB 358. One of the key issues [related to the spruce bark beetle infestation] is the fire risk. He noted that the [borough] has received approximately $11 million to address [the spruce bark beetle infestation] and thus there is a lot of satellite imagery and mapping that identifies where the [infested] trees have been removed. Additionally, [the borough] recently received a grant from NASA in order to specifically target satellite imagery and identify the areas in the process of being infected by the spruce bark beetle. Mr. Oberts encouraged the adoption of an exemption, especially in regard to larger tracts of land where a firebreak could be created. However, he announced that [the borough] would suggest an effective date of January 1, 2001, in order to allow retroactive tax exemptions for the 2001 tax year. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that no effective date is specified on HB 358 and thus it would be effective 90 days from the governor's signature. MR. OBERTS, in response to Representative Murkowski, confirmed that [the borough] is requesting that HB 358 be written such that it [the tax exemption] could be retroactive to January 1, 2001. Regardless of that request, [the borough] is supportive of the bill as written. Number 2640 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA inquired as to whether Mr. Oberts envisioned a total property tax exemption. MR. OBERTS related his understanding that the intent of HB 358 is to allow an exemption on the improvements to the property, which is probably sufficient. However, he acknowledged that there could be some exemption for the value of the property. He pointed out that these are salvage operations that are marginally profitable. Even the chip value of the spruce bark beetle infested tree may not be economical to sell. Therefore, [the borough] is looking for incentives for the landowners to clear their property. Number 2727 BLAINE GILMAN, Attorney, Gilman & Associates, testified via teleconference representing Salamatof Native Association, Inc. Mr. Gilman noted Salamatof Native Association's support of HB 358. He explained that the "total exemption" language is necessary because under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) if a Native corporation decides to take timber on its property, the property becomes developed property and thus becomes taxable. He related one of his clients' reluctance to remove [infested] timber because the property, which is thousands of acres, could become taxable. Mr. Gilman concluded by encouraging the committee to forward HB 358. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that under ANILCA the land isn't taxable under a municipal property tax. Therefore, if timber [is taken], the property would fall under the municipal property tax. MR. GILMAN agreed with Representative Kerttula's understanding. Number 2815 TIM NAVARRE, President, Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly, testified via teleconference. He pointed out that the committee packet should include a resolution in support of HB 358. He informed the committee that U.S. Senator Ted Stevens has provided funding for both reforestation and salvage along the rights-of-way as well as for large parcels. Mr. Navarre echoed Mr. Oberts' suggestion to make the effective date January 1, 2001. Some areas that have already been cleared will face a taxable situation if this legislation isn't retroactive to January 1, 2001. Mr. Navarre said he would hate to penalize those people who partnered with the borough early on in addressing the spruce bark beetle problem. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to how spruce bark beetles travel because the map in the packet illustrates that these beetles have managed to migrate across the inlet. Number 2957 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to an article in the March [2001] edition of the Alaska Magazine. The article discusses the belief that the spruce bark beetle [infestation] is due to a climate change. Before the spruce bark beetle can fly, the temperature must be 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Representative Kerttula seemed to believe that being next door to an infested lot would be a high risk. She noted that there are some other problems in Southeast Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to how the spruce bark beetles travel across the inlet. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she imagined that the beetles are there already and thus if the climate heats up, there will be problems. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT referred to a map included in the committee packet. The map illustrates that the infestation is across Cook Inlet, in the Copper Valley, as well as around Haines. Although Representative Chenault felt that the spruce bark beetle moves via flight, he did believe that the beetle moves in other ways such as salvage firewood sales. TAPE 02-6, SIDE B MR. JAHNKE agreed with Representative Kerttula's comments regarding how the spruce bark beetle moves. These beetles are very small and move with the wind. A significant number of beetles can be blown a fair distance. Additionally, the host has to be such that the spruce bark beetle can be effective in killing the trees and the beetle growing in numbers. Number 2988 CO-CHAIR MEYER noted that the spruce bark beetle is a problem in Anchorage as well. Therefore, he supported HB 358. He asked if there is any way to kill the spruce bark beetle before it spreads throughout the state. He also asked if the Kenai Peninsula is receiving any federal [funds] to spray and stop the migration or increase of the beetles. REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT answered that the Kenai Peninsula has received some federal funds. He related his belief that there are some chemicals that can be used if the infestation is caught early on. However, he said that the infestation on the Kenai Peninsula is such that spray won't help. CO-CHAIR MEYER noted his understanding that there is some concern regarding the chemical that is used. MR. JAHNKE pointed out that the spruce bark beetle lives most of its life underneath the bark of the tree or in the ground, and therefore it's difficult to spray and kill the beetle. He noted that there are some sprays that can be applied to the trunks of trees that haven't yet been infested and thus prevent the beetle from infesting the tree. "Spraying to kill the beetle itself and lower populations really isn't effective," he specified. Number 2897 CO-CHAIR MEYER inquired as to the best course of prevention against the spruce bark beetle. MR. JAHNKE said that most believe that maintaining a healthy forest, and not allowing forests to develop in stands that are susceptible to the beetle is the best prevention. Stands susceptible to the beetle are those that are overcrowded with large numbers of spruce and old [spruce]. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if a really long, cold, hard winter would kill the spruce bark beetle. MR. JAHNKE answered that he believes there are certain weather conditions that can cause the populations to decline. Mr. Jahnke explained that spruce bark beetles are an endemic insect, exist all the time. Therefore, the combination of the right place to live and the appropriate weather causes an explosion to the point of infestation. Although a really cold winter would have some impact, it would only be a limited impact because the beetles in the duff. Number 2807 CO-CHAIR MEYER noted that he some of these [spruce bark beetles] in his backyard. Co-Chair Meyer inquired as to whether Alaska is behind in regard to forest management practices that would attempt to beat the spread of the spruce bark beetle [infestation]. MR. JAHNKE remarked that Co-Chair Meyer's question is very complex. He informed the committee that the infestation is declining significantly, which he mainly attributed to the lack of host spruce in the stands necessary to maintain the infestation. He acknowledged that there are some natural reasons why spruce has developed the way it has in the Kenai Peninsula, the Anchorage bowl, and the Taku River. Personally, Mr. Jahnke said he felt it would've been difficult for a treatment to prevent the infestation. CO-CHAIR MORGAN, hearing no further public questions, closed the public testimony. Number 2701 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA [moved] that HB 358 be amended to be retroactive to January 1, 2001. She noted that it is a conceptual amendment. [There being no objection, the conceptual amendment [Amendment 1] was adopted]. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out that the language indicates that a municipality would've had to adopt an ordinance already in place by January 1, 2001, to take advantage of the proposed retroactive [effective date]. She asked if any municipality has [adopted such an ordinance]. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested [adding language] allowing municipalities to enact ordinances that would retroactively grant [the property tax exemption]. She moved the aforementioned as a conceptual amendment, although she commented that the committee might want to see this change [before reporting the bill out of committee]. Number 2563 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA moved to adopt the aforementioned amendment to conceptual Amendment 1. There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. CO-CHAIR MORGAN announced that HB 358 would be held in order to review the language after the amendments are incorporated.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|