Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/21/2006 03:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB236 | |
| HB150 | |
| HB334 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| SB 236 | |||
| = | HB 150 | ||
| = | HB 334 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 334
An Act relating to an exemption from and deferral of
municipal property taxes for certain types of
deteriorated property.
Representative Holm MOVED to RESCIND previous action taken
on adopting Amendment #1, #24-LS1353\A.3, Cook, 2/14/06.
There being NO OBJECTION, action was rescinded.
Representative Holm MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-
LS1353\A.4, Cook, 2/15/04. Vice Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
JIM POUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, spoke to the
amendment. He explained that following discussions with the
municipalities and other governmental members, the language
of #1 was simplified. Essentially, it would accomplish
giving control to the municipality for what and how to
accomplish the deferrals, Page 1, Line 12, deleting language
and inserting a new section. The new language will provide
finality to developers trying to restore the buildings
through the application process.
4:35:56 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze asked if the Fairbanks local government
was in support of the legislation. Mr. Pound thought they
were.
4:36:12 PM
Representative Hawker acknowledged that with the proposed
amendment, the bill could accomplish "something" but
questioned if it would accomplish what was intended. He
explained that the amendment clarifies in Statute a
requirement regarding when a municipality authorizes one of
the tax deferral activities that they must establish a
schedule of dates certain to trigger a tax payment.
Mr. Pound said that was correct.
4:37:21 PM
Representative Hawker advised that this Legislature would be
proscribing future legislatures criteria that might not be
appropriate when approaching the municipality. He worried
about forcing a date limiting the criteria to a date
certain, which would compromise the abilities of the
municipalities to pursue that type transaction. He thought
the legislation was appropriate for only one specific
transaction and not sufficiently broad. Mr. Pound said they
attempted to keep the language as simple as possible, but
agreed some cases could change that.
4:39:07 PM
Representative Hawker stated that the amendment would
prohibit such latitude, wondering if that was truly the
intent. Mr. Pound noted the developers want a date certain.
He added the latitude would be available to the developer
and the municipality.
4:40:02 PM
Representative Hawker voiced opposition with the Legislature
dictating criteria to all municipalities throughout the
State.
4:40:21 PM
Representative Kerttula agreed with Representative Hawker.
She recommended adding language to the Amendment on Line 5,
inserting something like "unless otherwise agreed to by both
parties". She thought that language could provide the
option to negotiate out. Mr. Pound agreed.
4:41:07 PM
Representative Hawker asked if it would accomplish the
sponsor's goal and provide latitude preserved for the
municipalities, by amending Line 5 to read, "deferred tax
payments due as specific by the municipality". With that
language, the date would not always be the trigger point.
Other criteria could be appropriate.
4:42:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, SPONSOR, noted appreciation for
that perspective. He asked an example for a practical
application.
4:43:39 PM
Representative Hawker stressed that he was not offering
advise as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA).
Representative Ramras noted he would support the language
offered by Representative Hawker.
Co-Chair Meyer requested that Ms. Cunningham testify
regarding the proposed changes.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER,
commented on the concern. The primary reason for
introduction of the bill was that there was vagueness in the
statute regarding when the deferrals and taxes would have to
be paid to the municipality. Amendment #2 does accomplish
the intent of making certain and putting language into
statute that the tax payments become due on the date set by
the municipality at the time of the deferral. The
municipalities, ultimately, are the ones that chose to enact
the ordinance under the authority of the statute, so there
is flexibility defining when the taxes are do.
4:45:33 PM
Representative Hawker requested that the sponsor and Ms.
Cunningham discuss the proposed language amending Amendment
#2.
Co-Chair Meyer advised that Amendment #2 would be set aside
and that the Committee move onto Amendment #3.
4:45:54 PM
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #3. Vice Chair
Stoltze OBJECTED.
Ms. Cunningham explained that the amendment would delete the
language: "An exemption or deferral may not be granted
under this subsection after July 1, 2010", Page 2, Lines 12-
13.
4:48:01 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment #3 was adopted.
AT EASE: 4:48:27 PM
RECONVENE: 4:54:10 PM
4:54:28 PM
Representative Hawker MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual language
change to Amendment #2, deleting on Page 1, Line 5, "one the
date set" and inserting, "as specified"; Page 1 Line 12, and
deleting "include a proposed date that" and insert, "specify
when". There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was amended.
Representative Kerttula pointed out that now there is no
escape clause for the municipality and the party to decide
anything different, other than the date of the tax payment.
She maintained that there are other mechanisms to enter into
some kind of an agreement over the properties. She voiced
concern and asked the sponsor if that was what he wanted.
Representative Hawker thought that concern was addressed in
the conceptual amendment. In the amendment, the local
authority is specifying what the payment triggers will be.
He stressed it does not mean time or date certain. When the
local authority provides the "when" clause, it would be up
to them to determine it and leave the decision making power
with the municipality.
4:58:26 PM
Representative Ramras agreed.
Representative Kerttula argued that it does not really mean,
"When something happens" and is not necessarily a specific
time. Additionally, she was concerned about locking the
municipalities into those conditions.
4:59:38 PM
Mr. Pound suggested language, Page 1, Line 5, inserting "or
on a date established by an occurrence of the events".
Representative Hawker advised that the original language
change satisfied him.
There being NO OBJECTION to the amended Amendment #2, it was
adopted.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CS HB 334 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 334 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with zero note #1 by the Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development and a new zero
note by the Office of Management and Budget.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|