Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/24/2015 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB146 | |
| SB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 146-MUNICIPAL TAX EXEMPTION
8:05:20 AM
CHAIR TILTON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 146, "An Act relating to a municipal tax
exemption for certain subdivided property."
8:05:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt CSHB 146, Version 29-
LS0048\W, Shutts, 3/20/15, as the working document.
CHAIR TILTON objected for discussion purposes.
8:06:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CATHY MUNOZ, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 146, explained that HB 146 allows
municipalities the option to defer a portion or all of the
increased tax assessment that occurs when a property is
subdivided. Currently, when a property is subdivided and the
owner certifies the plat, the assessment goes to a post-
subdivided assessment that is based on the fair market value as
per state law. For example, the assessment in Juneau of a lot
with a pre-subdivided value of $100,000 would be roughly 12
mills on the $100,000, which amounts to tax due of about $1,200.
Once the aforementioned lot is subdivided into 10 lots to create
affordable housing, if the assessment is $100,000 per lot, the
tax assessment increases from roughly $1,200 to $12,000. The
aforementioned increase is made prior to any of the lots being
sold or any work occurring on the land. Therefore, it's a great
disincentive and deterrent to creating affordable housing. She
reiterated that HB 146 provides a municipality the option to
exempt a portion or all of the increased assessed value of [the
subdivided] land until a lot sold, a building permit was
acquired, or a temporary structure was located on the property.
Version W includes language clarifying that any structure would
cause the increased evaluation.
8:09:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the assessment referenced in
HB 146 only deals with property tax. He recalled that recently
in Homer there was a per lot assessment for the natural gas
expansion and line construction. He related his understanding
that HB 146 only refers to a property tax assessment and doesn't
include individual lot assessments for other purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said the intent of the law is to create
more affordable housing. The legislation provides a local
option for municipalities, such that municipalities can create a
partial or full exemption on the number of lots that target
affordable housing. She clarified that this local option would
require assembly action.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed the need to clarify that it's a
property tax exemption to which the language refers.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ confirmed the legislation refers to
property tax exemptions.
8:11:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked whether the tax exemption is only
for low income housing.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ reiterated that the legislation would
create more housing in general, which would place more housing
on the market. The aforementioned benefits all valued housing.
In Juneau, because of the high carrying cost of the added
taxation, the actual sale price is much higher than it would be
were HB 146 in place. She further reiterated that the taxation
is so sharp when property is subdivided that the property has to
reflect that higher taxation when the lot is sold. Therefore,
HB 146 is a means to keep the prices down on the land sale.
Once the land sells, the city reassesses the property at the
fair market value and the full taxation would be due. In
further response to Representative Nageak, Representative Munoz
clarified that HB 146 would create housing opportunities across
the spectrum [of income levels], depending on the value of the
land. She then pointed out that HB 146 is beneficial in terms
of creating more affordable housing because it keeps the price
of the land down.
8:13:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted her appreciation for the intent of
the legislation. However, she expressed the need to be sure
that local governments are not selecting winners and losers in
terms of developers because the language seems to read as if it
speaks to a particular piece of property. She then inquired as
to whether the passage of a tax exemption ordinance, as proposed
in HB 146, would be an areawide ordinance.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ answered that the passage of such an
ordinance would be across the board. A city assembly would
adopt an ordinance structured as a partial of full exemption for
no more than five years, but once passed the ordinance would
apply to all residential subdivided properties.
8:14:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that the language of HB 146
refers to an exemption from property taxes, while letters of
support refer to abatement, deferral, defer, and exemption. She
then requested an example of what [HB 146] means because the
aforementioned terms mean something different. She then
inquired as to whether the legislation will exempt the property
until there is development on the property in the form of an
improvement. She then related her understanding that the
property tax increase wouldn't be collected or in effect until
the first improvement on the first lot in the subdivision.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that as soon as the land is
subdivided and the plat registered with the city and borough,
the value is reassessed. This legislation, she reiterated,
would allow a municipality the option to exempt that increased
value until the lot sold, a building permit was acquired, or a
structure was located on the parcel. When one of the
aforementioned occurs, the exemption would not be in effect and
the lot would be assessed at the full market value.
8:16:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK inquired as to how this legislation would
work in rural Alaska where land is owned by Alaska Native
corporations. In response to Representative Munoz,
Representative Nageak clarified that land owned by Alaska
corporations is within a city and taxable.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ said that if there is planning and zoning
authority and a city assembly/council that could consider the
exemption, then HB 146 would apply. In further response to
Representative Nageak, Representative Munoz related her
understanding that the Fairbanks North Star Borough does have
planning and zoning authority. She further related that HB 146
requires an action of a city/borough assembly.
8:17:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the language on page 1,
lines 5-7, related that in the Kenai Peninsula Borough
subdivisions have to include roads, access, and rights-of-way.
Therefore, the lots would have road values. He asked if HB 146
would mean that the roads and the other aspects that would
increase the value of the subdivision wouldn't be taxable. Or,
does the language "or a portion of the increase" mean a
municipality could determine whether the portion is going to be
the value of lots exclusive of roads. He questioned what the
language "a portion of" could encompass.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that state law requires fair
market value assessments, such that the road and improvements
would be included in the fair market value assessment. The
language "all or a portion" in HB 146 refers to the increased
value of that land. The individual lots of a subdivided large
parcel have increased value. When an improvement is made on a
specific lot, the higher assessment comes into play.
8:19:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the following language on page
1, "any improvements made to the property necessitated by its
subdivision." He posed a scenario in which there is a
requirement for utilities or other such things to be put into
the lots and asked whether those would be included or excluded
by the municipality. He reiterated that he was trying to
determine the meaning "of a portion." He asked if the language
means 50 percent of the increase or portions as required
improvements by the subdivision.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ specified that the language means the
increased value of the specific lot. The improvements, she
stated, will be part of the value because as a property and its
surroundings are improved, the values increase. The
aforementioned is based on state law, she pointed out.
8:20:43 AM
CHAIR TILTON opened public testimony.
8:21:01 AM
MERRILL SANFORD, Mayor, City & Borough of Juneau; Treasurer,
Board of Directors, Southeast Conference, highlighted the
shortage of housing in Juneau and suggested that there is likely
a shortage of housing in other communities in the state as well.
Although the City & Borough of Juneau helps legislators and
staff with housing to make it easier for them to come and go,
there are still many who can't find housing. He characterized
HB 146 as a tool for the local [governments]. Once the
legislation is passed, the local governments can adopt what they
desire in accordance with the act. Mayor Sanford acknowledged
that HB 146 won't solve all the problems, but it's one option to
address housing problems. Mayor Sanford concluded by relating
the City & Borough of Juneau's support for HB 146 and urged its
passage.
8:22:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he supports the concept of HB 146,
but is trying to fully understand whether it's all or a portion
of the increase. He asked if Mayor Sanford understands the
language "a portion of" to mean that under HB 146 the City &
Borough of Juneau could, for up to five years, exempt 50 percent
of the increased valuation.
MAYOR SANFORD replied yes.
8:23:40 AM
CHUCK HOMAN, President, Alaska State Home Building Association,
related support for HB 146, and noted that the committee packet
should include a letter of support from the Alaska State Home
Building Association. He concurred with earlier remarks that in
many communities there is a shortage of developed lots.
Furthermore, Alaska has some of the highest land and development
costs as well as some of the highest property taxes in the
nation. Furthermore, once a property is developed, it can take
years to absorb the lots that are developed. This legislation,
he opined, is an opportunity for local communities to
participate with the developer and stimulate a piece of raw land
that may otherwise go undeveloped. He pointed out that new
housing provides new jobs for the local community during
construction as well as the ongoing effect of the new
construction. Moreover, raw land improved to a developed piece
of property with a homeowner expands the tax base of the
community and improves the quality of life of the community.
8:25:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to whether the Alaska State
Home Building Association was in unanimous support of HB 146.
MR. HOMAN replied yes. In further response to Representative
Reinbold, Mr. Homan said the Alaska State Home Building
Association has no concerns.
8:26:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the Alaska State Home
Building Association understands that the exemption is a one-
time exemption on the subdivision.
MR. HOMAN answered yes, adding that he believes an end to the
exemption is reasonable.
8:26:57 AM
SHIRLEY MARQUARDT, Mayor, City of Unalaska, related her support
for HB 146. She informed the committee that Unalaska has
struggled with a housing shortage and how to address it from the
municipality side for years. With the high cost of building and
transporting materials, both of which are not under the control
of the municipality, the City of Unalaska has really struggled
to get two of the city's largest property owners to subdivide
their properties to plan utilities and place them for sale. She
related that last fall Unalaska held a town hall discussion
regarding what the city can do to address housing issues and
bring down the cost. During that meeting the idea of a property
tax exemption for newly subdivided properties for a period of up
to five years was mentioned. The city then discovered it
couldn't create the aforementioned exemption, but could defer
the property tax for up to five years. However, at the end of
the five years whomever purchased the property or the developer
would owe a large amount, which defeated the purpose. Mayor
Marquardt related her understanding that HB 146 would work for
Unalaska. She remarked that the legislation is very flexible as
it provides local assemblies or councils along with their
planning and zoning boards, through the public process, the
ability to decide whether to have a partial or full exemption as
well as the length of the exemption. She then noted that she
likes that the exemption ends when the lot is sold or a building
permit is issued. She noted that some of the larger land owners
don't want to sell their land, but may be willing to develop it.
The aforementioned is a win all the way around.
8:30:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the language on page 1, line
5, "all or portion of increase in assessed value", asked whether
a municipality could take a percentage or a flat amount per lot
exemption.
8:31:27 AM
RON BROWN, State Assessor, Division of Community & Regional
Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, pointed out that the legislation speaks to the
increase in value caused by the subdivision or any
infrastructure installed in the process. He posed an example in
which a larger parcel with a value of $2.50 per square foot is
subdivided into 10 lots that become worth $5.00 per square foot
after the subdivision and installation of roads, sewer, and
water. As HB 146 is currently written, the value eligible for
the exemption would be the difference between the original
assessment and the increased value. Therefore, the exemption
amount would be dependent upon the local market, the increase in
the value, and what caused the increase in value.
8:33:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that in Mr. Brown's example,
the $3 per square foot exemption could be structured as a
percentage of the increase in value or as a flat amount of the
increase in value at the local option.
MR. BROWN responded yes, the increase in value caused by the
subdivision installation of the infrastructure is what the
municipality could exempt if HB 146 was adopted by the local
governing body. He said the local governing body would have
considerable freedom in terms of the structure of the optional
exemption.
8:34:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a per lot assessment for placing
a utility throughout an area, would come into play with HB 146
or does it just deal with property taxes.
MR. BROWN answered that HB 146 only refers to property taxes.
8:35:42 AM
DAVE HANNA related that he has been involved in working on
subdivisions and subdividing land most of his adult life. He
said he didn't believe there are any bad points to HB 146.
First, he highlighted that HB 146 is enabling legislation, not a
mandate. Municipalities are left entirely in control of what
they want to do with HB 146. With regard to how HB 146 impacts
the cost of providing a subdivision, Mr. Hanna pointed out that
the larger the subdivision, the larger the numbers are. He
posed a situation in which a small developer has a block of land
that he/she wants to subdivide into 10 lots and leave the rest
untouched. Since subdividing rules may change over time, for
most [developers] it makes sense to subdivide the entire piece
of property [to 40 lots]. However, once the plat is recorded
all the lots are taxed and the developer could suddenly face
taxes that total $60,000 and a shovel of dirt hasn't been
turned. Therefore, it's a disincentive for developers,
especially when one realizes how cyclical the market is. With
regard to those who believe this legislation could cause
municipalities to lose revenue, Mr. Hanna opined that it's the
exact opposite. He explained that the cost of a lot is roughly
a fourth of the value of a finished house. Therefore, if a
house is constructed within three to four years of the time the
lot was subdivided, the municipality has already recouped any
money they might have made by taxing those vacant lots.
Bringing houses online sooner, the revenue stream to the
municipality is a lot larger than it would've been. Mr. Hanna
then related his belief that the proposal in HB 146 would
actually lower the sale price of the lots as it will encourage
more lots to come online. When more lots are available, the
lots won't be sold at inflated prices. He opined that the
aforementioned would be good for everyone and lead to more
affordable housing.
8:39:21 AM
NORTON GREGORY, Executive Team, Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing
Authority, informed the committee that although he is also a
member of the Juneau Affordable Housing Commission, which
reports to the City & Borough of Juneau Assembly on housing
matters that impact the community, he isn't speaking on their
behalf today. He then informed the committee that Tlingit-Haida
Regional Housing Authority is the largest provider of affordable
housing in Southeast Alaska. He echoed earlier testimony that
HB 146 would provide an incentive for property owners to develop
their currently undeveloped properties. In speaking with
property owners in Juneau, [the discussion] turns to the
shortage of buildable land. Some of the available land is being
held because the owner doesn't want to subdivide it due to the
increased property taxes. He informed the committee that
[Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority] was happy to see the
2012 change in which the state allowed property tax deferment.
However, since the aforementioned change didn't spark
subdivision and development of properties, he expressed support
for the change from a property tax deferment to property tax
abatement as embodied in HB 146. Mr. Gregory encouraged support
for HB 146, which he opined would create an incentive for
property owners to subdivide their property without
penalization.
8:41:39 AM
RUSS MCDOUGAL informed the committee that he is a former
president of the Alaska State Homebuilder's Association and was
involved in the tax deferral legislation. Mr. McDougal related
that the Alaska State Homebuilder's Association has always
supported tax abatement. He then noted that he is a member of a
code review committee of the Juneau Affordable Housing
Commission, has been a builder for the past 20 years, and a
carpenter for 35 years.
8:43:02 AM
CHAIR TILTON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:43:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his appreciation for HB 146,
including clarifications that the legislation offers a single-
time exemption that can't be renewed; allows the community the
option as to the amount of the [exemption]; and only relates to
property taxes.
8:44:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired as to why the proposal in HB 146
isn't already in place.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that state law requires property
to be assessed at fair market value, and thus once a property is
subdivided the market value increases as do the taxes on those
parcels.
8:45:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether the ability of a local
municipality to partially abate taxes would allow the
municipality the ability to pick and choose winners.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ explained that if a municipality chooses to
participate in the [exemption proposed in HB 146], it would have
to pass an ordinance to establish the parameters of the program
and it would apply to all housing subdivisions.
8:46:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that the 100 percent of full
market value is necessary so that taxations across the state are
equivalent and then municipalities set the mill rate for 10
percent of fair market value. Municipalities, he pointed out,
[currently] have the flexibility to change their mill rate, but
not to decide how much of the fair market value is assessed.
The proposed exemption in HB 146 is for a limited period of time
and doesn't extend beyond the subdivision. The aforementioned
is important but necessary to ensure that valuations across the
state are 100 percent of the fair market value so that there is
equality.
8:47:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether this legislation would apply
to a commercial or business property that is subdivided.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ replied yes.
MR. BROWN confirmed that although subdivision is typically
associated with residential properties, this [legislation] would
also apply to commercial properties as well.
8:48:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that use of the term "established"
[on page 1, line 12] in Version W is important because use of
the term "constructed" could result in commercial properties
being used as storage lots fitting into the proposed exemption.
He noted his appreciation for the sponsor addressing the
aforementioned.
8:49:40 AM
CHAIR TILTON withdrew her objection. There being no further
objection, CSHB 146, Version 29-LS0048\W, Shutts, 3/20/15, was
adopted.
8:49:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to report Version 29-LS0048\W,
Shutts, 3/20/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 146(CRA) was reported from the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB 19, Version H.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |
| Fiscal Note, CSSB 19.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |
| Sponsor Statement, CSSB 19.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |
| Sponsor Supporting Documents, CSSB 19.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
SB 19 |
| HB 146 AK Homebuilder Support.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 McDougal Support Letter.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Juneau Affordable Housing Commission.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 SE Alaska Building Industry Association.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Sectional.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Supporting, CBJ.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Unalaska Support.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| CSHB 146 (CRA), VersionW.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146-DCCED-DCRA-03-20-15.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |
| HB 146 Leg Research.pdf |
HCRA 3/24/2015 8:00:00 AM |
HB 146 |