Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/25/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB156 | |
| SB63 | |
| HB156 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 25, 2017
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zach Fansler, Co-Chair
Representative Justin Parish, Co-Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Dean Westlake
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson (alternate)
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to a municipal tax exemption or deferral for
economic development property."
- HEARD & HELD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 63(FIN)
"An Act prohibiting smoking in certain places; relating to
education on the smoking prohibition; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 156
SHORT TITLE: MUNI TAX EXEMPTION: ECON DEVEL PROPERTY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TILTON
03/06/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/17 (H) CRA
03/23/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/23/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
03/28/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/28/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/25/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 63
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF SMOKING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
02/17/17 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/17 (S) HSS, FIN
03/01/17 (S) HSS AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/17 (S) Moved SB 63 Out of Committee
03/01/17 (S) MINUTE(HSS)
03/03/17 (S) HSS RPT 5DP
03/03/17 (S) DP: WILSON, BEGICH, VON IMHOF, GIESSEL,
MICCICHE
03/13/17 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/13/17 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/17 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/20/17 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/20/17 (S) Moved CSSB 63(FIN) Out of Committee
03/20/17 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/21/17 (S) FIN RPT CS 6DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/21/17 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, MACKINNON, BISHOP, VON
IMHOF, OLSON, MICCICHE
03/21/17 (S) NR: DUNLEAVY
03/27/17 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/27/17 (S) VERSION: CSSB 63(FIN)
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) CRA, JUD
04/13/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/13/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/13/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/18/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/18/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/18/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/25/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of CSSB 63(FIN), provided
answers to questions.
MARTY MCGEE, State Assessor
Municipal and Community Policy and Research Section
Division of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 156.
HEATH HILYARD, Staff
Representative Cathy Tilton
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 156, on behalf of Representative Tilton, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:19 AM
CO-CHAIR JUSTIN PARISH called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04 a.m.
Representatives Drummond, Westlake, Talerico, Saddler, and
Parish were present at the call to order. Representatives
Rauscher and Fansler arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 156-MUNI TAX EXEMPTION: ECON DEVEL PROPERTY
8:05:24 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to a municipal tax
exemption or deferral for economic development property."
8:06:06 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH highlighted the main focus of HB 156 [which is
specified in the fourth paragraph of the sponsor's statement,
which read as follows, original punctuation provided]:
HB 156 (Municipal Tax Exemptions) amends AS
29.45.050(m) to remove the requirement that a full or
partial property tax exemption or deferral for
economic development property be limited to five
years, with possible renewals. This legislation would
authorize a municipality's discretion to establish a
full or partial property tax exemption or deferral
over a designated period of time without limitation in
state law, and to designate a period of time for an
exemption or deferral that differs based on the type
of economic development property. In addition, AS
29.45.050(m) would be amended to augment the
requirements for eligibility for a full or partial
property tax exemption or deferral for economic
development property by including economic development
property that involves a "significant capital
investment in physical infrastructure" that expands
the tax base of the municipality and that will
generate property tax revenue after the exemption
expires.
CO-CHAIR PARISH directed attention to language on page 3, lines
1-8, of HB 156, which read as follows:
(3) HAS NOT BEEN USED IN THE SAME TRADE OR BUSINESS IN
ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS BEFORE
THE APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR EXEMPTION IS FILED;
THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PROPERTY WAS USED
IN THE SAME TRADE OR BUSINESS IN AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN
ANNEXED TO THE MUNICIPALITY WITHIN SIX MONTHS BEFORE
THE APPLICATION FOR DEFERRAL OR EXEMPTION IS FILED;
THIS PARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO INVENTORIES
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that this means if
someone has a property tax exemption on properties in one
community, then someone in another community would not be
allowed to have "a property exemption of the same sort" for a
period of six months, if that property is in the same trade or
business. He said that is problematic and "a peculiar piece of
language."
8:08:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND stated her assumption that because the
language was going to be deleted, the committee would not
concern itself with it. Notwithstanding that, she offered that
"a piece of property can't move"; however, she acknowledged that
boundaries of municipalities can move - usually in expansion.
CO-CHAIR PARISH observed that the aforementioned language [on
page 3, lines 1-8,] had been moved to page 2, [lines 11-16].
8:10:01 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:10 a.m. to 8:16 a.m.
8:16:29 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH returned to the language being discussed prior
to the at-ease, and he stated his intent to ask someone from the
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
to provide clarity.
8:17:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested the bill's prime sponsor or the
prime sponsor's staff could shed light on the language in
question.
8:18:06 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted that the phrase "a municipality that is a
school district" was in the original statute, and he said he
does not know how many municipalities that are school districts
have the power to levy property taxation, except perhaps
municipalities that overlap with school districts, such as the
City & Borough of Juneau School District. He remarked that he
recently learned that even the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation is a municipality.
8:18:54 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:19 a.m. to 8:20 a.m.
8:20:23 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the committee would set aside HB
156 [to be taken up later in the meeting].
SB 63-REGULATION OF SMOKING
8:20:54 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 63(FIN), "An Act prohibiting smoking
in certain places; relating to education on the smoking
prohibition; and providing for an effective date."
8:21:23 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSSB 63(FIN),
labeled 30 LS0024/N.4, Martin, 4/19/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 29 - 30:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) within 10 feet of playground equipment
located at a public or private school or a state or
municipal park while children are present;"
Page 3, lines 9 - 11:
Delete all material and insert:
"(C) a reasonable distance, as determined
by the owner or operator, of an entrance, open window,
or heating or ventilation system air intake vent of
(i) a vessel covered by this section; or
(ii) a long-term care facility as defined in
AS 47.62.090."
CO-CHAIR PARISH objected for discussion purposes.
8:22:10 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:22 a.m. to 8:24 a.m.
8:24:33 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH explained that the proposed Amendment 1 pertains
to areas where smoking would not be allowed. The first change
it would make would be to expand the area from being "at" the
public or private school or state or municipal park playgrounds
to being "within 10 feet" of those areas. He further explained
how the language would be changed in regard to smoking
prohibitions related to vessels and long-term care facilities,
as defined by AS 47.62.090.
8:26:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that Amendment 1 would leave it up
to the owner or operator of a vessel to determine what is
reasonable, and he asked Co-Chair Fansler for his interpretation
of what would be "reasonable".
8:26:46 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER remarked that the proposed Amendment 1, in
general, addresses a concern that people are being "dinged for
smoking outside near a playground" and to include language about
long-term care facilities - a topic brought up in public
testimony at a previous hearing. In response to Representative
Saddler's question, he suggested someone from the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS) could better answer as to what
would be reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested the bill sponsor could provide
insight.
8:27:54 AM
SENATOR PETER MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of CSSB 63(FIN), indicated that one challenge of
creating this legislation was to determine how to protect people
from secondhand smoke, while at the same time not trying to
regulate those who choose to smoke tobacco. He acknowledged the
recent fire that had burned down a playground in Juneau. He
shared that his community was involved in building a playground,
and on the day of the ribbon cutting, a parent was sitting in
the treehouse, with his/her kids, smoking. He clarified that
the intent of CSSB 63(FIN) is not to regulate smoking outside,
but to allow smoking a certain distance from buildings,
including playground equipment. He noted that members of the
House supported the bill, but asked that the terms be loosened a
bit, in terms of how close the smoker is to the playground
equipment. Regarding vessels and long-term care facilities, he
said those in charge will make the determination about what
distance is reasonable.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Senator Micciche if he supports all
or part of Amendment 1.
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that he supports both [parts of]
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the definition of "children".
SENATOR MICCICHE said children are under 18 years of age. He
related that "young adults like to come and play" at the
aforementioned playground and may choose to smoke a cigarette.
He indicated that [any attempt to regulate that activity] would
cross over into saying that people who choose to smoke should
not be allowed to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that the "tremendously cushy,
recycled rubber product" [used on the ground at playgrounds] is
highly flammable, and he expressed his hope that people would
determine that adults should not be smoking at playgrounds.
8:31:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that the playground equipment
itself may be well within the 10-foot of the boundary of the
[flammable] ground cover. She questioned whether people should
smoke near the ground cover, even if it they are further than 10
feet from the playground equipment. She noted that in
participating in cleanup efforts, she has picked up thousands of
cigarette butts, and she questioned, "Do we want the cigarette
butts ending up in the playground groundcover and potentially
starting a fire or are we going to rely on people's general
smarts at keeping cigarettes ... out of the groundcover itself?"
SENATOR MICCICHE responded that legislation is about balance,
and having participated in the cleanup of his community's
playground, he has found "lots of things that shouldn't be in a
playground." He said, "We can't legislate against that." He
indicated that [Amendment 1] serves as a compromise; it would
address the goal of protecting employees at work and children on
playgrounds from secondhand smoke.
8:34:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he would not object to Amendment 1,
because it sounds like a reasonable amendment.
8:34:17 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER, regarding Representative Drummond's concerns,
said he thinks Amendment 1 is trying to find balance in a "tough
balancing act."
8:35:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER brought up the issue of flammability of
playgrounds, because of the fire the day before that burned down
the playground at Twin Lakes in Juneau, Alaska. He suggested
there may be a need for future legislation regarding the
materials that are allowed for use in playgrounds.
8:36:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said he was involved in the construction
of a playground, and all materials, including ground cover were
considered playground equipment. He added that he personally
considers the private property to be part of the playground
equipment, for example a big sand pit and the fence that
surrounds it.
8:37:25 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that considering a
fence around a playground as part of the playground equipment
surpasses the intent of Amendment 1.
8:37:48 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE illustrated that under Amendment 1, a young
adult smoking on a playground at 11 p.m., when there are no
children around, would be fine, whereas the same young adult
smoking on the same playground at 3 p.m., when there are
children around, may be fined. He also noted that playground
ground cover material is regulated, included flammability and
depth; however, anyone with a determination to burn something
can be successful in that attempt.
8:39:23 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH expressed concerned about the point that
Representative Talerico raised. He considered that a person
walking around the playground where children are present could
be fined. He suggested an amendment to Amendment 1, to add
"exclusive of groundcover and fencing" following "within 10 feet
of playground equipment".
SENATOR MICCICHE offered his understanding that half of the
committee wants "to go one way" while the other half wants "to
go the other." He reminded the committee that "this is the law
in half of the state right now, and three citations have been
written since it became law over a decade ago." He said he does
not think "we need to be overly concerned," because "it
purposely has a light footprint on enforcement." The intent, he
reiterated, is to protect employees. He said he thinks most
people find they enjoy being in a work environment without
[tobacco] smoke. He said he thinks there is "a fair balance,"
but pointed out that the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee, having possession of CSSB 63(FIN), can amend
it as it chooses.
8:41:32 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH responded that upon hearing there have only been
three citations, his mind has been put at ease on that subject.
8:41:42 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH removed his objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
8:42:03 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSSB 63(FIN),
labeled 30-LS0024\N.5, Martin, 4/24/17, which read as follows:
Page 4, line 28, following "building":
Insert "if the smoking is in accordance with
regulations adopted by the Marijuana Control Board
created under AS 17.38.080"
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected for discussion purposes.
8:42:27 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, to delete "freestanding" from page 4, line 27. He
explained that he believes that the regulation of the
consumption of marijuana should be regulated by the Marijuana
Control Board.
8:44:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for clarification. She read the
sentence in which the word "freestanding" is found, which read
as follows:
(3) in an establishment licensed under AS
17.38 that is a freestanding building.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Co-Chair Parish, "Do you mean to
insert 'if the smoking is in accordance' following 'AS 17.38'?"
She indicated that without the word "freestanding", the sentence
would be confusing, because it would read as follows:
(3) in an establishment licensed under AS
17.38 that is a building.
8:44:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he does not think that "that"
modifies AS 17, but rather it modifies "establishment". He
suggested a placement of commas following "establishment" and
following "AS 17.38" may help clarify that it is the
establishment that is the building.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER objected to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
2 for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Co-Chair Parish to point
specifically to the part of Amendment 2 that would be amended by
Conceptual Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR PARISH explained that he would be adding a line to
Amendment 2 that would include the sentence on page 4, line 27,
and would delete "freestanding" from that sentence [which
precedes the word "building" on line 28].
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if it is Co-Chair Parish's intent
to exempt buildings that are attached, in other words not
freestanding.
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that would be at the discretion of the
Marijuana Control Board.
8:47:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who oversees "whatever regulation
we're trying to stick in this." He asked, "Who's actually
regulating the first part, and who's regulating that part?"
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered, "They're both nested." In response to
a follow-up question, he said the final enforcement would
probably fall to public safety or municipal officials. He added
that the Marijuana Control Board would have the authority to
"remove the licensure from the establishment, if it ... came to
that."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the result of Amendment 2 being
amended by Conceptual Amendment 1 would be that two agencies
would have to be involved in regulation.
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered no, it would be the Marijuana Control
Board.
8:48:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that the
Marijuana Control Board is discussing whether to allow on-
premise smoking and the purpose of "this amendment" is to allow
on-premise smoking should the Marijuana Control Board make the
determination in favor of it in a licensed facility.
CO-CHAIR PARISH advised that CSSB 63(FIN) already makes that
provision; the proposed amendment is intended to give the
Marijuana Control Board maximum latitude in its regulatory
authority.
8:49:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said he would like to hear the prime
sponsor's thoughts regarding [Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2].
8:49:47 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports Amendment 2, "but if you
choose to adopt the free-standing piece, that's up to you." He
asked the committee members to imagine that they have operated a
children's book store in a mini-mall for 20 years, and the
Marijuana Control Board decides to allow on-premise smoking,
"and suddenly you're sharing air with a marijuana dispensary
that allows smoking." He continued:
If that's your intention by allowing it in any
building, then you should support the amendment to the
amendment. If you believe that that probably is only
appropriate in a freestanding building where the other
tenants wouldn't be subject to the marijuana, then it
may be more difficult to support.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he supports the regulation going to the
Marijuana Control Board. He continued:
We already have someone doing that, but I think there
may be one piece worth, perhaps, not supporting. If
you're subjecting others in abutting shops -- many of
these mini-malls just don't have any ventilation
whatsoever, right? So, whatever they're breathing,
you're breathing.
We did exempt vape shops, because I've not been
convinced that vapes are travelling the same way that
marijuana smoke or tobacco smoke would - just because
I don't know enough about it. So, that's kind of the
question.
I'm not going to make a fuss either way, but ... I
think it's important to understand why the word
"freestanding" is in this bill at all.
8:51:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said he is still trying to wrap his head
around marijuana being treated the same as a tobacco product,
and he questioned whether "the tobacco police" and "the
marijuana police" would regulate both products. He said he
thinks "both" would [involve] different enforcement agencies.
He concluded, "Because marijuana is legal, ... we're putting it
in with tobacco products, and I don't know if it's a tobacco or
not."
CO-CHAIR PARISH responded that he offered Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 2 to provide "maximum latitude to the Marijuana
Control Board," which he opined has a good record of "erring on
the side of caution."
8:52:56 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that CSSB 63(FIN) is a health bill about
secondhand smoke that would be regulated by the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS), which would be "the
enforcement." He said, "This is the one place that you cross
over; ... it's a little awkward, but ... if there ever is an
enforcement action, it would be in the same department."
8:53:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to the definition of
smoking on page 11, [beginning on line 6], which read:
(11) "smoking" means using an e-
cigarette or other oral smoking device or inhaling,
exhaling, burning, or carrying a lighted or heated
cigar, cigarette, pipe, or tobacco or plant product
intended for inhalation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked, "Does 'plant product' include
marijuana?"
SENATOR MICCICHE answered, "In the aspect of secondhand smoke in
the workplace, it does."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed that having heard the prime
sponsor's explanation, he is less likely to support Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
8:54:17 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked for confirmation that currently marijuana
on-site consumption is not allowed.
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that's correct. He added, "At present
the Marijuana Control Board is considering the subject."
CO-CHAIR FANSLER reasoned that the board would have to make the
decision to allow on-site consumption "before this would even
come into play."
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that's correct.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said, "We certainly don't want the situation
that I think Senator Micciche laid out in his example; but we
have no reason to believe that the board would be able to
theoretically license which establishments could have onsite
consumption and things like that; but we have not real knowledge
if that's going to be the case until they make a broader
decision."
CO-CHAIR PARISH replied that that is his understanding.
8:55:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that if the
Marijuana Control Board has this discussion, then it would
include whether to allow onsite consumption in a freestanding
building or in a building connected to other buildings. She
said she is not sure how the proposed deletion of "freestanding"
would help CSSB 63(FIN); therefore, she would oppose [Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2].
8:57:00 AM
SENATOR MICCICHE said [Amendment 2] makes the statement to the
Marijuana Control Board that "every part of it is in your lane,
except for where it crosses into the workplace safety of smoke
in a mini-mall." He said he supports Amendment 2, but not
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2, which "crosses into sort
of countering what SB 63 is trying to do." He said boards
consider what "lanes" have already been established under
existing statute when figuring out what they can do.
8:58:42 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked for the definition of "freestanding".
SENATOR MICCICHE answered that a freestanding building does not
share a common wall; it does not share an air exchange. He
added that two buildings that abut but have two separate
exterior walls would be considered freestanding. In response to
a follow-up question regarding the stores in Juneau, he
emphasized that even if the walls of the buildings are really
close, if the structures do not share a wall or airspace, they
are freestanding. In terms of a building with a business on the
ground level and apartments above, [the business space] would
not be considered freestanding.
9:01:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered a definition of "freestanding"
he said was from Investor World as follows: "A freestanding
building is a structure that is not attached to another
structure. A detached garage is considered a freestanding
building."
9:02:08 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH recapped that shared air and shared wall
indicate a building that is not freestanding.
9:02:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered her understanding that [a
building that is not freestanding] could be determined by a
having a shared wall or "seams." She mentioned a recent fire in
the wall of a downtown Juneau camera store, which is has another
shop in the same building next door and other spaces above. She
said the smoke from that fire was moving throughout the entire
building and coming out the eaves of the second floor. The
space between the camera store and the next building is less
than two feet wide. She offered further details.
9:04:59 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER spoke in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2, because "sometimes you need not bind the hands of
the Marijuana Control Board." He said he would like to give the
board the ability to make knowledgeable decisions, such as not
to allow a marijuana dispensary next to a children's book store
without proper ventilation and prohibitions put into place.
9:06:06 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH spoke to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
He said he thinks it is appropriate to have stringent
requirements about shared air, and he does not want anyone to be
exposed to any intoxicant without his/her knowing consent.
Notwithstanding that, when there are two buildings that do not
share walls or "simply share a wall" or "lean up against one
another over the course of years," he said he is "inclined to
want to make a carveout ... for them."
CO-CHAIR FANSLER stated that he did not maintain his objection,
but gathered that others did.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO stated objection to the motion to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2.
[REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND] maintained her objection.
9:07:39 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Westlake, Fansler
and Parrish voted in favor of the motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. Representatives Talerico, Rauscher,
Saddler, and Drummond voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:08:13 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH [removed his objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 2]. He announced that there being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:09:07 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH presented questions to the prime sponsor, with a
request that he return with answers at his convenience. He
directed attention to language beginning on page 5, [line 29],
through page 6, [line 4], which read:
(b) A person in charge of a building at
which smoking is prohibited within a specific distance
from the entrance of the building under AS
18.35.301(c)(4) shall conspicuously display a sign
that reads "Smoking within (number of feet) Feet of
Entrance Prohibited by Law--Fine $50" visible from the
outside of each entrance to the building.
(c) The department shall furnish signs
required under this section to a person who requests
them with the intention of displaying them.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked Senator Micciche how many establishments
he anticipates would have a need for signage.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he would provide that answer. He
continued:
Most facilities have them. The reason we amended part
of the bill is that the new bill required the signs to
be changed; [they're] no longer required to be
changed. And the reason it doesn't have a fiscal
note, is [that for] anyone that requires a sign that
is not paper, we have a sponsor that is providing
those signs.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he wanted the proposed bill to have the
least fiscal impact possible, so "the existing signs that are in
place right now will suffice."
CO-CHAIR PARISH said that is commendable. He said there are a
few extra questions that he would forward to the prime sponsor's
office.
9:10:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the committee could anticipate
further amendments.
CO-CHAIR PARISH replied that an amendment was being drafted for
CSSB 63(FIN).
[CSSB 63(FIN) was held over.]
HB 156-MUNI TAX EXEMPTION: ECON DEVEL PROPERTY
9:11:25 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would
be the committee's return to discussion of HB 156.
CO-CHAIR PARISH directed attention to language on page 2, lines
11-16, of HB 156, which read as follows:
(1) that has not been used in the same
trade or business in another municipality for at least
six months before the application for deferral or
exemption is filed; this paragraph does not apply if
the property was used in the same trade or business in
an area that has been annexed to the municipality
within six months before the application for deferral
or exemption is filed; this paragraph does not apply
to inventories; or
CO-CHAIR PARISH said he would like to better understand "the
import of that paragraph."
9:14:10 AM
MARTY MCGEE, State Assessor, Municipal and Community Policy and
Research Section, Division of Community and Regional Affairs
(DCRA), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), offered his understanding that the purpose of the
proposed language is to "not erode the tax base" and to not
"create a competitive advantage for one property owner over
another," because the purpose is "to encourage new investment
and new equipment." He added, "Another interpretation of that
is that ... property ... that has been subject to tax remains
subject to tax, and any new property would be subject to the
exemption under this provision."
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for the reason for "in another
municipality".
MR. MCGEE offered an example: equipment associated with a fish
processing plant moves from one processing plant to another. He
said he "never dealt with property that was subject to that
provision." He added that he was the assessor for the
[Municipality of] Anchorage for 17 years.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for confirmation that "this provision
applies to personal property rather than real property."
MR. MCGEE answered yes, but noted that the distinction is
difficult to make, because it is not explicit in law. He said
once a piece of equipment becomes affixed, it becomes real
property, even though it can be detached and moved. He said he
thinks the idea is to avoid a situation in which "an operator"
shops different tax jurisdictions for a tax break and moves
his/her equipment just to avoid taxation." He added that this
is not a common practice [in Anchorage] where the tax
jurisdictions are large.
CO-CHAIR PARISH expressed concern that if a tax exemption was
granted for a particular trade or business in one municipality,
then it could not be granted in a different municipality for a
six-month period.
MR. MCGEE offered his understanding that that is correct.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for confirmation that if someone in one
municipality received a property tax exemption for an economic
development property in housing, "that someone" would not be
able to receive a property tax exemption in housing in another
municipality for six months.
MR. MCGEE answered, "Only if it were the same property." He
said there is nothing preventing a separate action for exemption
in the two municipalities.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked, "So, it'd only be if there were physical
property transferred from the one location to the other?"
MR. MCGEE answered that is correct. He returned to his example
of someone moving a significant piece of equipment "from one
location to another."
9:18:50 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH next directed attention to two sentences in
existing statute [AS 29.45.050(m)], which would be deleted under
HB 156 and are found on page 1, lines 7-12, of HB 156, and which
read:
THE MUNICIPALITY MAY PROVIDE FOR RENEWAL OF THE
EXEMPTION UNDER CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE
ORDINANCE. HOWEVER, UNDER A RENEWAL, A MUNICIPALITY
THAT IS A SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY ONLY EXEMPT ALL OR A
PORTION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT
LEVIED ON OTHER PROPERTY FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for examples of municipalities that are
school districts.
MR. MCGEE responded that boroughs and first-class cities are
school districts. He offered his understanding that "the
legislative intent ... of the original language was to preserve
and protect funding for schools."
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for confirmation that by deleting the
aforementioned language, the committee would be removing some
requirements for the support of schools.
MR. MCGEE responded yes. He added, "Typically, when you look at
the total millage for all the (indisc.) jurisdiction in the
state, about half of the millage is associated with education in
schools."
CO-CHAIR PARISH remarked that is concerning.
9:21:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested the committee hear from the
prime sponsor's staff for an explanation of the reason behind
the aforementioned proposed language on page 2, lines 11-16.
9:22:10 AM
HEATH HILYARD, Staff, Representative Cathy Tilton, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tilton, prime sponsor
of HB 156, explained that the language on page 2, lines 11-16,
is not new, but was moved from another part of statute by the
bill drafter, who thought it was more appropriate placed "in
front of these qualifying sections rather than at the back where
it's currently structured." He said it is difficult to
determine the specific effect of the language, because "the
legislative history on the original statute is relatively thin."
He offered examples.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the practical effect of an
amendment in the committee packet, labeled 30-LS0602\A.3,
Shutts, 4/24/17, would be. [This amendment had not been offered
and was never offered in the future.]
MR. HILYARD indicated that he had not been able to study the
amendment, but said after a cursory glance, he thinks it is not
in line with sponsor's intent for HB 156.
9:25:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed his wish to be given time to
study the amendment before the committee may be asked to vote on
it.
9:25:48 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH stated his intent to hold HB 156 and any
amendments.
9:26:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked if HB 156, as currently written,
would do away with the school tax "out there at that local
level."
MR. MCGEE responded no.
9:26:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND offered a comment regarding the
unoffered amendment, then upon ascertaining that Mr. McGee did
not have a copy of the amendment, suggested the committee needed
time to study it.
9:27:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH announced that HB 156 was held over.
9:28:03 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|