Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
03/21/2006 01:30 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB432 | |
| HJR18 | |
| HB417 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 432 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 417 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 18-FEDERAL MARINE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ACT CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18, Relating to the federal Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and the state's right to tax commercial passenger vessels. 2:07:20 PM CODY RICE, Staff to Representative Gatto, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HJR 18 asks Congress to clarify subsection 445 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA). Subsection 445 was intended to prohibit/exclude an ad valorem tax imposed by Yakutat on cruise ships that entered the bay but did not actually stop at the port. Subsection 445 has been broadly interpreted to invalidate a number of existing and proposed taxes nationwide. 2:08:52 PM MR. RICE related his understanding that Congress is going to address subsection 445 this year through the "Coast Guard" bill. He recalled discussions with the offices of U.S. Representative Don Young and U.S. Senator Ted Stevens on this particular issue and they have expressed interest in clarifying the issue through the aforementioned bill. Mr. Rice opined that HJR 18 would illustrate strong support from the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS commented that he hasn't heard from anyone in opposition to this. CO-CHAIR GATTO reminded the committee that there is an initiative on the ballot for which clarification of subsection 445 would be helpful. Furthermore, this seems to be a state's rights issue. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS pointed out that if the head tax remains and money has to be spent in relation to cruise ship industries. He reminded the committee that the Ketchikan bridge had to be raised in order to allow the cruise ships to pass under it. Therefore, he questioned whether the bridge in Ketchikan could be funded by the cruise ship monies. CO-CHAIR GATTO highlighted that sometimes the law says that the money "must" be used for specific facilities. He then informed the committee that taller ships are in the design phase, and thus he surmised that the bridge would have to be raised yet again. CO-CHAIR ELKINS disagreed, and pointed out that the ships can go around. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS recalled that originally, the first bid was where the South Coast properties were and thus there would've been a "small shot across." However, the cruise ships wanted to go through and the [Ketchikan bridge] was moved to its present location and raised. CO-CHAIR ELKINS mentioned that the Federal Aviation Administration didn't want the bridge on the north end. CO-CHAIR GATTO questioned why a drawbridge isn't being considered. 2:12:43 PM CO-CHAIR ELKINS announced that he will support HJR 18 because if the referendum passes, clarity [on subsection 445] will be necessary. 2:13:20 PM CO-CHAIR ELKINS moved to report HJR 18 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered. 2:13:59 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|