Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
02/15/2008 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SB248 | |
Aenergia, Llc | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | SB 248 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 248-SALMON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT 3:34:29 PM CHAIR HUGGINS announced SB 248 to be up for consideration. TIM GRUSSENDORF, Staff to Senator Lyman Hoffman, Alaska State Legislature, presented SB 248 on behalf of Senator Hoffman, sponsor. He indicated the salmon product development tax credit was enacted in 2003 to allow processors to claim up to 50 percent of the cost of qualified investments from the fisheries business tax. To qualify, projects must be new, predominantly for salmon, and involve value-added products. The credit encourages and accelerates development and production of value-added salmon products, giving an economic incentive to invest in technology and equipment. The current bill makes two changes. The first extends the sunset date three years, to December 31, 2011. 3:36:22 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the meeting. MR. GRUSSENDORF discussed the second change. He said after some processors had invested in equipment, they found it didn't qualify once the Department of Revenue (DOR) reviewed the project and application. Thus Section 2 says folks can present their project to DOR, which will review it; if it's approved, DOR is bound to that decision as long as the processor follows the intent and the project that was submitted. CHAIR HUGGINS noted the credit is binding. He asked: If a project is deemed not appropriate, is that decision not binding? MR. GRUSSENDORF replied that's how he understands it, but someone from DOR could speak to that. CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether that is a big deal, based on past experience. MR. GRUSSENDORF noted packets contain a sheet from DOR's Tax Division showing credits denied at audit. He didn't know how often it had happened, but indicated the bill lets the processors know better whether their investments will qualify. CHAIR HUGGINS observed that $2.5 million was denied in 2004. MR. GRUSSENDORF clarified that it was upon audit. CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether there is concern in the other direction, since there must be some rationale for denying it during an audit. 3:38:22 PM MR. GRUSSENDORF surmised some processors had called in, explained the project over the phone, and then been told it sounded like a project that would qualify; then it wasn't done exactly as discussed or there was miscommunication. So now there'll be a process under which a determination is made as to whether the project fits within the scope of the credit. CHAIR HUGGINS asked about page 2 of the analysis, which says the credits only reduce fisheries business tax to the state and do not impact revenues shared with municipalities. MR. GRUSSENDORF answered that he believes some of the fisheries tax goes back to the communities where the fish was landed. The other part goes to the state, and this credit only applies to that part. He deferred to DOR for details. 3:39:49 PM MARY McDOWELL, Vice President, Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA), listed PSPA's member companies that are salmon processors, many with shore plants around the state. She said those companies make good use of this tax credit to advance the program's goals and purposes, including: developing and expanding new and value-added salmon products, helping Alaska's salmon products keep pace with evolving consumer demands, and keeping Alaska's fisheries competitive in world markets. She highlighted letters from companies regarding how they've used the credit to make improvements and how much sooner they've been able to accomplish these developments because of it. MS. McDOWELL said the legislature constructed the tax credit tightly to accomplish specific goals; it has been successful, but momentum must be maintained. Skyrocketing energy costs eat up profits and hamper the ability to reinvest and advance new product forms. She pointed out that most processors operate in rural areas where energy costs are highest and yet the need for the kind of economic activity generated by the seafood industry is highest as well. MS. McDOWELL told members that adding value to salmon products right away and keeping products competitive provides benefits to fishermen, communities, processors, and the state coffers. The state needs to encourage economic diversification, prepare for the future, ensure Alaskan products are competitive, and make the best use of natural resources. Adding value to raw products is an important part, and this tax credit facilitates those goals. She opined that this pays for itself because adding value in Alaska increases the raw fish tax, which comes back to the state. She encouraged support for SB 248. 3:43:43 PM SENATOR STEDMAN asked about machines that the processors are buying for value-added products. MS. McDOWELL answered that many do boneless, skinless fillets for cans or else filleting and freezing. And one company does prepackaged meals, for instance. Some secondary products otherwise are done outside of Alaska. Even filleting and packaging the fish within Alaska, rather than sending out headed and gutted fish, increases the in-state value tremendously. SENATOR STEVENS recalled that this idea came out of the Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force. Noting it seems very successful, he surmised the big change over the past four or five years relates to the market. Most salmon used to go to Japan, but now it finds markets in the U.S. and Europe. He asked Ms. McDowell to comment. 3:45:57 PM SENATOR McGUIRE joined the meeting. MS. McDOWELL agreed that where the fish go is changing, partly because of excellent marketing; a good reputation; and increased consumer demand for a pure, natural product, a sustainably managed product, and value-added products. Together, those are making a big difference, she added, stressing the forward momentum that needs to be maintained. SENATOR WAGONER returned to Senator Stedman's question, saying in his district a lot of fish are bled on the boat, iced, brought in, and filleted by hand. But then a machine is used to pick the pin bone. He said he knows of five or six processors that have gone clear to the pin bone stage, which probably doubles or triples the price and value of their product. He opined that this is a highly rewarding bill that should be given the utmost consideration. He added that he has no conflict because he no longer is a commercial salmon fisherman. MS. McDOWELL added that doing these processes in the communities reduces transportation costs and saves energy because of being able to get rid of the waste out there and ship a more finished product. It also creates more jobs in the state. CHAIR HUGGINS asked how the fish are shipped and where the labor comes from for the plants. MS. McDOWELL replied there is a huge variety for shipping; things are shipped fresh, flown out, frozen in blocks or portions, and so on. With respect to labor, there are thousands of jobs. Some go to Alaskans, but there are complaints about nonresident hiring. The industry is working hard to move Alaskans into skilled labor positions, and there is recruitment in rural Alaska for the processing lines. She indicated PSPA works closely with the labor department on all those issues. 3:49:07 PM TOM SUNDERLAND, Marketing Director, Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC ("Ocean Beauty"), supported SB 248, noting Ocean Beauty is an Alaska corporation, 50 percent owned by the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation; it operates seven shore-based plants around the state, with salmon as the primary product. MR. SUNDERLAND said Ocean Beauty believes this tax credit has done exactly as intended. Salmon prices have increased, and this has allowed modernization of old facilities, speeding the process or encouraging it where it wouldn't have happened otherwise. This keeps jobs in Alaska and moves more value-added production into Alaska, rather than just sending headed and gutted fish overseas or to Seattle for reprocessing; this also creates a higher quality product. MR. SUNDERLAND explained that putting the machinery in the plants allows greater product variation, minimizing boom-and- bust cycles in the industry related to changes in demand, the market, customers, or currency issues. Ocean Beauty has invested a lot in filleting equipment and skinless/boneless canning equipment. He opined that net revenues to the state from this tax have increased during the time that the credit has been in place, due to the increase in the value of salmon. MR. SUNDERLAND also said Ocean Beauty believes this credit should be continued because of the amount of time it takes to implement changes. Even if it were financially feasible to make changes all at once, the company couldn't do so because of technical hurdles and the effort and manpower required. Ocean Beauty also takes a lot of time to develop new sales relationships that allow selling new forms of product. MR. SUNDERLAND reported that Ocean Beauty has used this credit to upgrades its plants at Excursion Inlet, Kodiak, and Alitak. There are continuing upgrades at the Kodiak plant and major upgrades at Naknek. But that leaves three plants untouched that they haven't been able to get to. While the plan is to upgrade them all, it cannot be done all at once. MR. SUNDERLAND said this program leads to not only job creation, but very good jobs. In 2007, for example, Ocean Beauty used a State Training Employment Program (STEP) grant to bring over trainers from Baader's headquarters in Germany to help Kodiak workers become technicians on some highly complex and advanced machines. He closed by saying Ocean Beauty believes this credit is good for the industry and the state as a whole. 3:53:27 PM MR. SUNDERLAND, in response to Senator Green, explained that Baader in Germany has sophisticated machinery used primarily for filleting. The expertise to operate and maintain these machines is extraordinary. To get the best training possible, Ocean Beauty flew Baader's own trainers to Kodiak, thereby creating some excellent jobs, some of the highest paying in the whole seafood industry. SENATOR STEVENS agreed this results in highly skilled, highly paid American employees in the fish plants. SENATOR GREEN expressed surprise that STEP money could be used that way. CHAIR HUGGINS inquired about DOR's position on the bill. 3:55:16 PM TIM COTTONGIM, Fish Group Manager, Tax Division, Department of Revenue, came forward with Dan Stickel, DOR economist. Mr. Cottongim said DOR has empirical evidence supporting the testimony regarding to an increase in 1) the amount of salmon tax collected, 2) the amount of fillet production, and 3) the ex-vessel value of salmon during the period this tax credit has been in place. Thus DOR sees a benefit to this credit program. However, he'd not had the opportunity to talk with the governor about the administration's position on the bill. CHAIR HUGGINS asked what it means that DOR auditing had disallowed $2.5 million in credits. MR. COTTONGIM replied he believes it means DOR can do a better job of educating customers as to what qualifies and what doesn't. He suggested DOR is challenged to do that if this program continues, which is one reason for wanting to include an outreach program in the future. 3:57:03 PM MR. COTTONGIM, in response to Chair Huggins, explained that 50 percent of all taxes collected from fisheries business is dedicated to the communities; that portion isn't affected. This tax credit is taken from the state's 50 percent. CHAIR HUGGINS asked whether that's how it has always been and whether Mr. Cottongim is satisfied with that. MR. COTTONGIM replied yes to both. In response to Senator Stedman, he specified that organized cities and boroughs that have processing within their boundaries receive a share of the taxes collected from processing activities in that area. SENATOR STEDMAN recalled that this tax started in 1914. MR. COTTONGIM concurred. SENATOR STEVENS remarked that one big improvement to a nearly perfect bill from five years ago is the addition of the preliminary determination as to whether something will qualify for the tax credit. He asked whether DOR feels comfortable that it can make this determination. MR. COTTONGIM answered that DOR knows it will be challenging to ensure all the criteria are met in advance. Processors must understand there'll be caveats and requirements to fulfill. Surmising there'll be bumps in the road, he mentioned give and take, outreach programs, and regulations that will afford DOR an opportunity to better work with the industry and educate everyone, in order to avoid as much conflict as possible. Furthermore, if preapproval is denied, a company can claim the credit with its tax return and go through the appeals process. Thus DOR believes there will be sufficient checks and balances so companies can correct any errors that DOR has made. 4:00:48 PM MR. COTTONGIM, in further response, explained that it would be the normal administrative appeals process, going through an informal appeal within the division, and then could go outside DOR after that, to the Office of Administrative Hearings. SENATOR STEVENS said it's short of a legal process, then. MR. COTTONGIM agreed. CHAIR HUGGINS noted the preliminary decision appears to be binding, without caveats or qualifiers. SENATOR STEDMAN moved to report SB 248 from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SB 248 was moved out of the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|