Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
05/15/2017 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 15, 2017
8:12 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)
OTHER LEGISLATIVE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 156
"An Act relating to a municipal tax exemption or deferral for
economic development property."
- MOVED CSHB 156(CRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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
04/25/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/17 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
05/15/17 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SCOTT BRANDT-ERICHSEN, Attorney
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered comment during the hearing on HB
156.
JESSE LOGAN, Staff
Representative Dean Westlake
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained Conceptual Amendment 1 during the
hearing on HB 156.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered information during the hearing on
HB 156.
DOUG WARD, Director of Shipyard Development
Ketchikan shipyard
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
156.
JOHN SPRINGSTEEN, Executive Director
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered feedback related to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to HB 156.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:12:14 AM
CO-CHAIR ZACH FANSLER called the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:12 a.m.
Representatives Talerico, Westlake, Parish, and Fansler were
present at the call to order. Representatives Rauscher,
Saddler, and Drummond arrived as the meeting was in progress.
Also present was Representative Spohnholz.
HB 156-MUNI TAX EXEMPTION: ECON DEVEL PROPERTY
[Contains discussion of HB 148 and SB 100.]
8:13:10 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 156, "An Act relating to a municipal tax
exemption or deferral for economic development property."
8:14:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH moved to adopt a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 156, Version 30-LS0602\U, Wallace/Shutts,
5/13/17, as a working document. [There being no objection,
Version U was before the committee.]
8:14:36 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH explained that Version U would amend AS
29.45.050(m), as follows: broaden the language of optional
municipal property tax exemptions for economic development
properties; allow municipalities to provide property tax
incentive for a specified period rather than five years at a
time; broaden the factors by which a property would qualify for
a tax incentive "from having to meet all three factors currently
in the statute to any of four significantly broader factors";
protect municipalities that are school districts by setting a
floor at the 2.65 mils set out in the education funding formula;
grandfathering ordinances in effect before January 1, 2017,
which are limited to five years under existing law; and not
allowing a municipality to accept economic development property
from the tax rate applied for a service area controlled by a
board that set its own rates.
8:16:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that HB 156 had been in the
committee's possession for a couple months, and he inquired as
to the reason the committee was just now addressing it.
8:16:43 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH answered that often language of one bill will be
"amended onto bills" that are further along in the legislative
process. He said that is what happened to HB 156, the language
of which he indicated was incorporated into SB 100, which is
related to municipal ability to set liens. He said HB 156 also
was "amended onto" HB 148, which relates to the powers of
second-class boroughs to provide emergency services. He
indicated that both he and Co-Chair Fansler decided it would be
best to "revisit the modified language - the language as amended
- for the purpose of public discussion."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked, "Had this language ever been
considered earlier in the session?"
CO-CHAIR PARISH offered his understanding that it had not.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER, in response to the same question, offered his
understanding that the answer was no.
CO-CHAIR PARISH amended his original response by saying,
"Actually, I believe it was taken up in the House Rules
[Standing] Committee."
8:19:01 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER reopened public testimony [which had been
closed on 3/28/17].
8:19:26 AM
SCOTT BRANDT-ERICHSEN, Attorney, Ketchikan Gateway Borough,
commented that the exemption that HB 156 addresses is one that
the Ketchikan Gateway Borough has used in the past and is a
helpful economic development tool.
8:20:07 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:20 a.m.
[Between this at-ease and the next, there was a brief period on
the record during which Co-Chair Fansler asked Mr. Brandt-
Erichsen to state his affiliation for the record.]
8:21:10 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:21 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
8:22:38 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSELER ascertained that no one else wished to
testify. [Public testimony was not officially closed.]
8:22:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
HB 156, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "a municipal tax exemption or deferral for
economic development property"
Insert "municipal property tax exemptions;
extending a mandatory exemption from municipal
property taxes for certain assets of the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority; and
providing for an effective date by amending the
effective dates of sec. 2, ch. 10, SLA 2010, as
amended by sec. 4, ch. 61, SLA 2012, and sec. 2, ch.
71, SLA 2010, as amended by sec. 5, ch. 61, SLA 2012"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 29.45.030(a) is amended to read:
(a) The following property is exempt from
general taxation:
(1) municipal property, including property
held by a public corporation of a municipality, state
property, property of the University of Alaska, or
land that is in the trust established by the Alaska
Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956, P.L. 84-830, 70
Stat. 709, except that
(A) a private leasehold, contract, or other
interest in the property is taxable to the extent of
the interest; however, an interest created by an
operating agreement or [A] nonexclusive use agreement
between the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority and a shipyard operator or a user of an
integrated transportation and port facility, if the
shipyard or integrated transportation and port
facility is owned by the authority and initially
placed in service before January 1, 1999, is taxable
only to the extent of, and for the value associated
with, those specific improvements used for lodging
purposes;
(B) notwithstanding any other provision of
law, property acquired by an agency, corporation, or
other entity of the state through foreclosure or deed
in lieu of foreclosure and retained as an investment
of a state entity is taxable; this subparagraph does
not apply to federal land granted to the University of
Alaska under AS 14.40.380 or 14.40.390, or to other
land granted to the university by the state to replace
land that had been granted under AS 14.40.380 or
14.40.390, or to land conveyed by the state to the
university under AS 14.40.365;
(C) an ownership interest of a municipality
in real property located outside the municipality
acquired after December 31, 1990, is taxable by
another municipality; however, a borough may not tax
an interest in real property located in the borough
and owned by a city in that borough;
(2) household furniture and personal
effects of members of a household;
(3) property used exclusively for nonprofit
religious, charitable, cemetery, hospital, or
educational purposes;
(4) property of a nonbusiness organization
composed entirely of persons with 90 days or more of
active service in the armed forces of the United
States whose conditions of service and separation were
other than dishonorable, or the property of an
auxiliary of that organization;
(5) money on deposit;
(6) the real property of certain residents
of the state to the extent and subject to the
conditions provided in (e) of this section;
(7) real property or an interest in real
property that is
(A) exempt from taxation under 43 U.S.C.
1620(d), as amended or under 43 U.S.C. 1636(d), as
amended; or
(B) acquired from a municipality in
exchange for land that is exempt from taxation under
(A) of this paragraph, and is not developed or made
subject to a lease;
(8) property of a political subdivision,
agency, corporation, or other entity of the United
States to the extent required by federal law; except
that a private leasehold, contract, or other interest
in the property is taxable to the extent of that
interest unless the property is located on a military
base or installation and the property interest is
created under 10 U.S.C. 2871 - 2885 (Military Housing
Privatization Initiative), if [PROVIDED THAT] the
leaseholder enters into an agreement to make a payment
in lieu of taxes to the political subdivision that has
taxing authority;
(9) natural resources in place including
coal, ore bodies, mineral deposits, and other proven
and unproven deposits of valuable materials laid down
by natural processes, unharvested aquatic plants and
animals, and timber;
(10) property not exempt under (3) of this
subsection that
(A) is owned by a private, nonprofit
college or university that is accredited by a regional
or national accrediting agency recognized by the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation or the
United States Department of Education, or both; and
(B) was subject to a private leasehold,
contract, or other private interest on January 1,
2010, except that a holder of a private leasehold,
contract, or other interest in the property shall be
taxed to the extent of that interest."
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Page 3, following line 8:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
REVISOR'S INSTRUCTION. When implementing secs. 2
and 3, ch. 10, SLA 2010, and sec. 2, ch. 71, SLA 2010,
the legislature does not intend to retain the
amendments to AS 29.45.030(a)(1) made by sec. 1 of
this Act, but does intend to retain the amendment to
AS 29.45.030(a)(8) made by sec. 1 of this Act.
* Sec. 4. Section 8, ch. 10, SLA 2010, as amended
by sec. 4, ch. 61, SLA 2012, is amended to read:
Sec. 8. Section 2, ch. 10, SLA 2010, takes effect
November 30, 2027 [2017].
* Sec. 5. Section 10, ch. 71, SLA 2010, as amended
by sec. 5, ch. 61, SLA 2012, is amended to read:
Sec. 10. Section 2, ch. 71, SLA 2010, takes effect
November 30, 2027 [2017]."
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE pointed out that Conceptual Amendment 1
had been drafted to align with the original bill version. He
deferred to his staff for explanation.
8:23:42 AM
JESSE LOGAN, Staff, Representative Dean Westlake, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 would not
change any language in the bill; it would add new sections to
extend the November 2017 sunset on mandatory property tax
exemptions for certain assets owned by the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to 2027, and it would
extend the tax exemption to interest created by operating
agreements or nonexclusive use agreements between AIDEA and a
shipyard or integrated transportation and port facility that's
owned by AIDEA. Mr. Logan stated that the second change is in
response to [Resolution No. 2692], from the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough, supporting the extension of the tax exemption. He
remarked that there had been confusion in the past as to whether
[the Ketchikan shipyard] was eligible for the tax exemptions,
but Conceptual Amendment 1 would clarify that.
8:25:57 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:26 a.m.
8:26:26 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER emphasized that because [Version U] "is
currently being rolled into SB 100," it is imperative to clarify
that any changes being made in the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee will also need to be presented as
amendments during the upcoming House floor session scheduled for
10 a.m.
8:27:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested an at-ease to read the
aforementioned letter from the Ketchikan Gateway Borough.
8:27:22 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:27 a.m. to 8:36 a.m.
8:36:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER directed attention to [the fifth
"whereas" paragraph] at the bottom of the first page of the
aforementioned resolution, and he asked for an explanation of
"the reversionary, private, leasehold interest in the Ketchikan
shipyard."
8:36:53 AM
MR. LOGAN deferred to Mr. Brandt-Erichsen.
8:37:20 AM
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN stated that AIDEA's ownership interest in
the property is tax exempt, but with other state tax-exempt
property, wherein someone is either leasing or operating the
property, there is a possessory interest that can be valued and
have a tax levied based upon that value. He concluded, "So, the
private possessory interest in the shipyard or in the Delong
Mountain [Transportation] Facility is ... the interest that
would either be taxable or exempt."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that AIDEA may
provide financing for a shipyard or road system, but the actual
lessor will bring its own money and make its own investments;
therefore, the property obtained through AIDEA financing is tax
exempt, but the property the lessor "brings to it" should be
taxable.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN stated that the arrangements are not always
situations in which the private entity brings a certain quantity
of funds and AIDE provides the financing. He said of the
approximately seven AIDEA projects around the state, there are a
couple that are direct leases, for example, the FedEx aircraft
maintenance hangar in Anchorage. He continued:
AIDEA provided financing, but the tenant - the lessee
- has a possessory interest in the lease, and they're
operating in their own business interest. ... They
may bring ... certain equipment there and AIDEA
provided certain financing for construction of ... the
hangar, but it's more of a landlord/tenant-type
relationship.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN said the situations with the Delong Mountain
Transportation Facility and the Ketchikan shipyard are not
leases - they are operator agreements - and the operator did not
finance the construction of the facility. The money for the
construction of the facility, he noted, was largely AIDEA or
federal government or state government money - not private.
Notwithstanding that, he stated that there is about $1 million-
worth of equipment that the private operator has brought on
site, and that property is taxed. He added, "That privately
owned property would not be changed by the amendment language."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER summarized that in broad terms: the
property obtained through AIDEA is tax exempt, while property or
interest that the private lease holder brings to it is not.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN responded that in general that is correct.
He said if the private party is the owner of the property or
asset, then "that's going to be taxable ... regardless of the
proposed language." He said Conceptual Amendment 1 deals with
the situation in which AIDEA is the owner of the property; the
operator has only the rights to operate it for a defined period
of time - no ownership interest.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked, "So, ... possessory interest is
just what you own, right?"
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN said the best example is in considering a
car rental. A person rents the car; the car company owns the
car; the renter pays taxes based on the limited possessory
interest - the time renting the vehicle. In this analogy, he
explained, the car company would be AIDEA, whose interest is tax
exempt, but the person's time using AIDEA's property would be
taxable.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER concluded that it is possible to tax the
possessory interest even though the person being taxed doesn't
actually own it.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered yes. He said there are factors to
determine what the value of the taxable possessory interest is,
and that will vary according to the rights the person has, the
duration [of possession], and whatever other limitations there
may be on the use of the property.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated:
So, it sounds like if AIDEA has provided financing to
allow the (indisc. -- rustling papers) to use
property, under ... [Version U], that property would
... not be taxable; and heretofore, the Ketchikan
[Gateway] Borough has assumed that that property was
taxable. Is that correct?
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN responded no. He explained that the
shipyard property in Ketchikan has been operating since the
1980s and, under AIDEA ownership, since 1997. From 1997 to
2011, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough treated the property as 100
percent exempt, that the possessory interest of Alaska Ship and
Drydock was exempt from taxation. In 2011, a different assessor
determined that even though the property qualified for the same
mandatory exemption as the Delong Mountain Facility, it should
be treated as an optional exemption. He said there is a
separate statute that allows communities to optionally exempt
the private leaseholder possessory interest in AIDEA property.
He continued as follows:
We ended up having litigation with the state over the
issue of whether it was a mandatory or optional
exemption, and that case was resolved with the
valuation of the property being set lower and the
borough reserving the right to renew the case if the
exemption ... did not end up being codified in statute
when the Delong Mountain Facility exemption gets
extended - if in fact it gets extended.
8:46:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much possessory interest exists
that may be subject to taxation under the aforementioned law
suit.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that part of the dispute that the
borough had with the State Assessor's Office regarding the
shipyard property was related to tax years 2015 and 2016. The
state assessor asserted that the shipyard property was worth, in
total, approximately $74 million. Additionally, there was
approximately $1.5 million in property, privately owned by Vigor
Industrial LLC ("Vigor"), which was, and still is, treated as
taxable. Regarding the $74 million, he said the borough
asserted that the valuation of the possessory interested was a
lot less, only about $20 million. Further, the borough asserted
that because the shipyard facility in Ketchikan was "in the same
scenario as the Delong Mountain Facility," it was entitled to a
mandatory exemption from property taxes. Mr. Brandt-Erichsen
said the case was resolved with the valuation of the possessory
interest being set for 2015 at approximately $29 million and for
2017 at about $27 million. He said as the duration remaining on
the lease becomes less, that value will likely continue to drop,
because the period of time will be shorter.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER offered his understanding that Mr.
Brandt-Erichsen was saying that it will be necessary for the
exemption to be clarified in statute in order for the exemption
of property taxes to be maintained.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN responded that there are two things going on
here: one is extending the mandatory exemption that applies to
the Delong Mountain facility and the Ketchikan shipyard
facility; two is clarifying the language to avoid another fight
with the state over whether the two facilities are both
facilities owned by AIDEA, operated under an operating agreement
and entitled to that exemption.
8:49:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for confirmation that the
clarification under statute would be so that the property tax
exemption will remain - the property is mandatorily exempted.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that is correct.
8:49:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Brandt-Erichsen, "When did you
first bring this issue to the attention to AIDEA or any member
of this committee?"
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that the Ketchikan Gateway Borough
brought the issue of the treatment of the Delong Mountain
Facility versus the Ketchikan shipyard facility to the
legislature in 2010. At that time, no action was taken to
clarify the language, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Brandt-Erichsen when he first
realized it would be impossible to "amend this bill to
accomplish your purpose."
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN replied, "The borough, in adopting
Resolution [No.] 2692 and forwarding it to the legislature, was
seeking to have an amendment such as this included in
legislation some time during the course of the session." In
terms of HB 156 being scheduled, he said he heard about it over
the weekend.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER remarked that the borough's resolution
was signed on February 6, 2017, but Mr. Brandt-Erichsen had
heard just this weekend about the legislature's intent to
schedule the meeting to "accomplish the goals of this
resolution."
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that he had been aware of "the
language of the amendment to accomplish the goal" for a couple
of months, and there is similar language in the borough's
resolution. He clarified that what he became aware of just this
weekend was "the hearing on HB 156 and the fact that it might be
considered in this hearing today." In response to a follow-up
question, he said he did not personally have a discussion with
any member of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee regarding the plan to offer an amendment in response
to the borough's resolution. He said the borough engages a
lobbyist who works in Juneau, and he has had communications with
that lobbyist over the last week. He said the lobbyist's name
is Ray Matiashowski.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he would like Mr. Matiashowski
available for questioning to discern "the genesis and providence
of the resolution and amendment."
8:53:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, Alaska State Legislature, noted that
his district includes Ketchikan, Alaska. He said he was aware
of the desire of the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and Vigor to gain
statutory tax-exempt status "for this particular facility." He
said it is an economic opportunity for the entire state. He
explained that the facility employs people from around the state
who are trained in facilities such as [the Alaska Vocational
Technical Center] in Seward. He said the facility itself does
much to provide repair and construction needs of the Alaska
Marine Highway System (AMHS). He said AIDEA owns the property
as it does a mining facility in another part of the state. The
logic is, "Why would we be taxing a state-owned facility?"
Representative Ortiz said Conceptual Amendment 1 is a "win-win"
amendment that recognizes the contributions of the facility in
support of Alaska's transportation infrastructure.
8:56:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER reiterated his concern regarding timing.
He asked Representative Ortiz if he knows of anyone who came to
any member of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee prior to the past weekend to discuss the need for
Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ said he is not aware of any such attempts.
Notwithstanding that, he shared his experience thus far in the
legislature has shown that often times "you have to look for ...
the best opportunity that presents itself to get the goal
accomplished; and it just so happens that that goal seemed to
... become apparent here at the end of this last week." He said
that did not mean other opportunities had not been sought. In
response to a follow-up question, he said that until [Friday,
May 12], he had not been aware that [Conceptual Amendment 1]
would be brought forward by the House Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee. He clarified that he was answering
as to the specific amendment to the specific bill.
8:59:31 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked Representative Saddler to focus on the
substance of the proposed Conceptual Amendment 1. He explained
again his understanding that HB 156 was going to be rolled into
SB 100. He said that as co-chair of the committee, he felt it
proper to vet [HB 156] before the public.
9:00:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that thus far only Mr. Brandt-
Erichsen had testified. He questioned again why "this is coming
before us when the committee's had this bill in its hands for
two-and-a-half months."
CO-CHAIR FANSLER reiterated that HB 156 is being rolled into SB
100 and he believes it is important to vet the proposed
committee substitute in public, which is what is currently being
done.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he looks forward to "members of the
public getting that vetting in front of them" rather than
hearing only from the attorney for the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER stated, "That is why we're having this meeting
right now."
9:01:12 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted there is a slight difference in the
language of Conceptual Amendment 1 and the language requested
through Resolution No. 2692.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN acknowledged there is a difference, but said
the borough views it as substantively the same. He added that
the proposed language of Conceptual Amendment 1 may actually be
clearer than that proposed in the borough's resolution. In
response to a follow-up question, he said the $29 million was
the valuation for 2015; the 2017 valuation of the interest is
more in the range of $25 million.
CO-CHAIR PARISH responded as follows:
It's my understanding that under the language, as
amended, the interest created by an operating
agreement would be tax exempt - or not taxable except
to the extent that it's associated with those specific
improvements used for lodging purposes. Would that
result in a change in the total interest taxable by
the Ketchikan Gateway Borough?
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that it would, but he explained
that it would not result in a change in revenue to the borough.
He said the borough currently has adopted an ordinance allowing
for an optional exemption for the value of that property. He
added:
And what that means is: For example, for the purposes
of the school contributions, the borough still makes
those payments. With a mandatory exemption, we would
not make those payments. And the value of that amount
is approximately $70,000 a year.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked for confirmation that there would be "a
shift of $70,000 from ... the city to the state."
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered yes, from the borough to the state.
CO-CHAIR PARISH added, "Because the exemption would be mandatory
instead of optional, as it is presently by ordinance, is that
right?"
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that is correct.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked what the effect on the bottom line for
Vigor would be.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN differed to Doug Ward, the director of the
shipyard. He reviewed that both the [borough] and state
assessors had treated the property as if it were mandatorily
exempt, up until 2011. Once the state assessor began treating
it as optionally exempt and there was a cost penalty associated
with it, the Ketchikan Assembly discussed requiring some sort of
payment in taxes. He said the operating margin and
profitability of the shipyard is such that if it were required
to pay payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) in the full amount of the
local tax levies, then it could impact the viability of the
shipyard.
9:07:08 AM
DOUG WARD, Director of Shipyard Development, Ketchikan shipyard,
noted that he has held his position for the last 25 years; he
was previously employed by Alaska Ship and Drydock; he is
currently employed by Vigor. In response to Co-Chair Parish's
question, he stated that only in the last two years has the
Ketchikan shipyard approached marginal profitability. He
stressed the importance of profitability, since under its
operating agreement, [Vigor] participates in both revenue
sharing and profit sharing with AIDEA. The payments to AIDEA go
into an AIDEA-held, dedicated repair and replacement fund in
order to maintain the state asset, he said, and that ensures the
long-term maintenance of the state asset. He said, "Any tax
payments that would be related to our possessory interest in the
operating agreement would diminish our profitability and impact
... our ability to maintain a competitive position when seeking
new ship constructions and ship repair contracts in an open,
competitive basis." He added, "The final impact of that could
be a reduced volume of production work at the shipyard, with
reduced employment and increased competitive disadvantages for
future ship repair and ship building contracts."
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked how much money is going to AIDEA and how
much is going to the repair and maintenance fund.
MR. WARD answered between [$50,000 and $75,000]. He stated it
was approximately [$65,000] last year in combined revenue and
profit sharing, and the projection for this year is roughly the
same.
9:11:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ stated appreciation for the questions
brought forward. He said the bottom line is the question of
whether Conceptual Amendment 1 is in the best interest of Alaska
and the AIDEA-owned facility. He opined that it is. He said
the profit margins Vigor works under are narrow. Vigor has been
awarded the bid to construct the two new AMHS ferries. It was a
competitive bid, and Vigor is on schedule to "perform to the
parameters of that particular bid." He emphasized that the
profit that Vigor would make for those two ferries is minimal.
He said the intent [of Conceptual Amendment 1] is to "create the
best possible environment" for Vigor to continue to operate the
facility, employ people from around the state, and facilitate
marine transportation infrastructure.
9:14:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Ward to confirm that if Vigor
had to pay property tax to the Ketchikan [Gateway] Borough, it
would cost [the shipyard] an additional $50,000 to 75,000 per
year.
MR. WARD answered about $70,000 a year.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, regarding the shipyard having approached
profitability in only the last couple years, asked about startup
costs and whether the shipyard is on a trajectory plan towards
profitability or operating at a standard level only now
occasionally achieving profitability.
MR. WARD answered the former. He added that new contracts are
being actively taken, both in new ship fabrication as well as in
ship repair. He said the shipyard's customers in ship repair
include the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), federal agencies, state
agencies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the
Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS), and a large number of
publicly owned clients, including the Inner Island Ferry
Authority. He said the shipyard is looking to expand its
activities in the fish harvesting market, as well as "general
heavy manufacturing for manufactured and fabricated metal
products being imported to Alaska." He concluded, "So, we're
definitely looking forward to expanding the business, expanding
our employment, as well as increasing the marine industrial
support sector of the state of Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed his support for the creation of
manufacturing and seafaring jobs in the coastal communities of
Southeast Alaska. He asked Mr. Ward to confirm that if the
property tax exemption were to be made mandatory, then the
shipyard might lose $70,000 a year, but the business would not
be killed in a year, because the shipyard could probably "grow
enough to accommodate that loss."
MR. WARD replied that he would not conjecture as to what the
future could bring. Notwithstanding that, he stated:
The 30-year operating agreement, which we entered into
with AIDEA, recognized the competitive difficulties of
establishing a viable shipyard enterprise in a remote
and isolated location like Ketchikan. When we started
this project, our first year under Alaska Ship and
Drydock was in 1994; our development plan at that time
was to add a small lift to service the local seine
fleet. With collapse of the timber industry in the
mid-1990s, both the Ketchikan [Gateway] Borough and
the State of Alaska came to Alaska Ship and Drydock
and asked if we could create a development plan that
would ... [ensure] long-time liability of the
Ketchikan shipyard. That plan is referred to as the
1999 Shipyard Development Plan, and as far as
profitability, the operating agreement recognized that
profitability in the early years was going to be
difficult, and ... to establish not only a skilled and
competitive Alaskan workforce, but [also] to develop
all of the required infrastructure for long-term
viability, was going to be a long-term proposition.
And it was for that reason that the AIDEA operating
agreement is for a 30-year term, beginning in 2005.
9:20:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how the proposed tax exemption
would affect transfer of payments from the borough to the state.
MR. WARD answered that the operating agreement refers to the
establishment of a repair and replacement fund at a minimum
level of approximately $1.6 million. He said the fund will be
managed by AIDEA for long-term maintenance of the (indisc.)
asset. He explained that once the fund reaches the minimum
required balance, AIDEA has the option of participating in
revenue sharing with the municipality, borough, and Ketchikan
Public Utilities, "in part for repayment for financial incentive
that they have provided locally through the tax exemption and
competitive power rates." He said the other option AIDEA has is
to direct the excess funds to participate in revenue sharing to
the state general fund. Mr. Ward stated, "Should we have to
make payments on our possessory interest, that would reduce
revenue streams to the AIDEA R&R funds and potentially reduce
funds that can be distributed to either the state general fund
or to the municipalities of Ketchikan." In response to
Representative Saddler, he suggested further detail could be
provided by representatives of AIDEA.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said it sounds like there is "an excess
with state finances," which he said he appreciates.
9:24:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if low bidding is a trend.
9:25:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ deferred to Mr. Ward, but said in general,
because of the "tightness of capital budgets" and overall lack
of state revenue, he does not see "a very robust capital budget
moving forward from the State of Alaska." As a result, he said
he predicts an increasingly tough environment for private
industry when finding projects.
9:26:55 AM
MR. WARD, in response to Representative Rauscher's restatement
of the question, reviewed that the Ketchikan shipyard
participates in two activities: new ship construction and
marine vessel repair, maintenance, and conversion. The new ship
construction market is cyclical, and in general the U.S.
shipbuilding industry in major regions is heavily affected by
federal oil and gas policies that are set, especially in terms
of exploration, drilling, and transportation, as well as other
national and international forces that drive the demand for ship
building. He indicated that those on the commercial side of
ship building are "price takers, with respect to competitive
bids." In terms of the ship maintenance and conversion, he
said, "These vessels represent near-to-market opportunities, in
which we can be, to some extent, price makers." He further
explained, "Because of our geographic proximity to the vessels
that work in Alaska, we're able to enjoy some competitive
advantage to that geographic proximity." Mr. Ward said with
respect to public vessels and the [Alaska] Marine Highway System
in particular, "we have to be competitive in our maintenance
work for any public-owned assets or they go elsewhere for
maintenance."
MR. WARD stated that the trend is going to be for continued
cyclical demand for both repair and ship fabrication. He
reiterated that economic factors affect repair. He continued:
To put this into perspective: Through our
public/private partnership, which has been noted
nationally as an extremely successful model of
public/private partnering, Alaska now has a world-
class facility that is probably 90 percent complete of
its development plan. We have a young and ... very
talented Alaska resident workforce that is, every day,
learning new innovations and how to do this work
faster, cheaper, and better. So, we are approaching a
world class Alaska resident workforce. With those two
assets in hand, we look forward to increasing our
competitive advantages, decreasing our competitive
disadvantages, and growing a marine industrial support
sector in the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER directed attention to language in
Conceptual Amendment 1, [which is found under Section 1,
subsection (a), paragraph (1), subparagraph (C)], which read as
follows:
(C) an ownership interest of a
municipality in real property located outside the
municipality acquired after December 31, 1990, is
taxable by another municipality; however, a borough
may not tax an interest in real property located in
the borough and owned by a city in that borough;
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for further clarification
regarding that language.
9:32:37 AM
MR. LOGAN explained that that language is currently in statute;
it is not being changed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he would like to know what it
means.
9:33:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE echoed Mr. Logan's previous response
that the language already exists in statute; therefore, "we had
nothing to do with it." He indicated that initial discussion
had been in regard to the sunset clause.
9:34:10 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH noted that there were two individuals from AIDEA
and one from the Municipality of Anchorage available for
questions, and he said he would like to hear from them their
opinion of Conceptual Amendment 1.
9:35:39 AM
JOHN SPRINGSTEEN, Executive Director, Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), stated that
[Conceptual Amendment 1] would not have a material effect on
AIDEA. He offered his view that that Ketchikan shipyard was "an
emergency economic redevelopment project (indisc.) the downturn
of Ketchikan's timber industry as a result of impacts of federal
regulation. He continued:
Just in general, AIDEA's mission is to grow and
diversify the economy by financing development to
facilitate the creation of jobs and revenue for
Alaskans. So, with regard to the Ketchikan shipyard,
AIDEA successfully implemented this mission.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN said the [shipyard] project provided significant
economic benefit to the community, both directly and indirectly,
by providing jobs to a struggling community through "the
redevelopment."
9:36:40 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH said he is not familiar with the Delong Mountain
Transportation Facility, and he inquired, "How analogous is it
with the Vigor shipyard?"
MR. SPRINGSTEEN imparted that the Delong Mountain Transportation
System is the road we (indisc.) to the Red Dog Mine. He said
the benefit of it is the creation of new industry where none had
existed prior. He listed the following entities that have
benefited, including the State of Alaska, AIDEA, and all on the
receiving end of "revenue from the project." He indicated that
money circulates through AIDEA and is contributed, in part, back
to the state's general fund.
9:38:07 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if any language in Conceptual Amendment 1
would impair the ability of a municipality to require PILT.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN deferred to Mr. Brandt-Erichsen.
9:38:46 AM
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN said the amendment would have the Delong
Mountain Facility and Ketchikan shipyard facility be treated as
fully exempt, similar to the Healthy Clean Coal Project and some
other AIDEA projects. In that situation, he said, the
municipality could not require PILT; however, the entity
operating the facility could voluntarily enter into an agreement
for PILT.
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked what leverage a municipality would have
available.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN answered that the leverage a municipality
might have would vary by the circumstance. For example, in
Ketchikan, the benefits currently offered the Ketchikan shipyard
are voluntary exemptions from the city and borough property
taxes, as well as a reduced utilities rate. He said there are
financial benefits that the shipyard would still enjoy, even if
the property was mandatorily exempt. In the case of Delong
Mountain Facility, there may be any number of measures the
Northwest Arctic Borough may consider that would affect the
operation of the mine there. They may not be directly related
to the imposition of taxes, but they may be regulatory measures
that would have other impact on the operating of the mine that
could motivate an operator to agree to PILT.
9:41:01 AM
MR. LOGAN said he thinks Mr. Brandt-Erichsen did a good job in
illustrating the complexities within each taxing regime. To Co-
Chair Parish, he said the Delong Mountain Facility and Red Dog
have been operating through the borough for a number of years,
while this exemption has existed.
9:41:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE reminded committee members that the
Delong Mountain Facility was started before there was a borough
involved, "and it's worked out well." He said when making these
considerations, a balance is important to maintain.
9:42:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Springsteen if AIDEA
participates with any other shipyards other than the Ketchikan
shipyard.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Springsteen if he has any
concerns that "this legislation" would be considered special
interest legislation if it applies only to one facility.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN offered his understanding that "this mandatory
exemption would just bring the Ketchikan shipyard into parity
with the Delong Mountain Transportation System.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Springsteen, "Are you sure that
this would not violate the special interest ... prohibitions?"
MR. SPRINGSTEEN deferred to Mr. Brandt-Erichsen.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER then asked Mr. Springsteen if [Conceptual
Amendment 1] would have any impact on the finances of the Delong
Mountain Transportation System, the Red Dog Mine, the Northwest
Arctic Borough, or the State of Alaska's finances.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN offered his understanding that the only impacts
were related to the school funding formula; but "that's out of
the purview of AIDEA." In response to a follow-up question, he
referred to previous discussion regarding mandatory versus
optional exemption for property taxes that would result in a
flow of approximately $60,000 versus what the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough would bear. He welcomed correction from the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough attorney, since "it's a little out of our
purview." In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Saddler, he clarified that when he had mentioned
school funding, he was referring to both the Northwest Arctic
Borough and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the effect would be on the
school funding formula.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN deferred to Mr. Brandt-Erichsen.
9:45:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE proffered that there has just been a
PILT agreement "over there." The borough funding formula has
already been "written in and finalized." Regarding the PILT
agreement, he said, "They do the payments to the borough, as
well as to the borough school district."
9:46:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said he would like further explanation as
to how the school funding formula might be affected.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN offered his understanding that there are
$60,000-$70,000 being funded by the state versus being funded by
the borough.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Springsteen to confirm that he
is saying there is no impact on the Northwest [Arctic] Borough
School District.
MR. SPRINGSTEEN answered that his understanding is that "it
would be the ... status quo for the Northwest Arctic Borough."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Brandt-Erichsen if [Conceptual
Amendment 1] would affect funding in the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough School District.
MR. BRANDT-ERICHSEN explained that "the 2.65 mils mandatory
contribution" would not change the amount of money that the
school district receives; it would change who is paying it. He
continued:
If the increment that represents 2.65 mils on the
value of the possessory interest in either the
shipyard or the Delong Mountain Facility is paid by
the state, then the state is paying it; if it's paid
by the community, then the community's paying it.
With a mandatory exemption, then that amount that ...
relates to 2.65 mils is going to come out of ... the
state's education contributions. If there is no
exemption or it is an optional exemption, the
equivalent of 2.65 mils on the value of the possessory
interest in either facility would be paid by the local
government. And with respect to the Ketchikan
shipyard, that 2.65 mils equates to about $60-$70,000,
at this point in time.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER surmised that if Conceptual Amendment 1
made the property tax exemption in the Northwest Arctic Borough
for Delong Mountain Facility and in the Ketchikan Gateway
Borough, then it would affect school foundation funding; as such
it would affect the finances of the state; therefore, he opined
a fiscal should be required to ensure the impact on the state's
finances would be fully vetted.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said a fiscal note can be requested; however,
he reminded Representative Saddler that a bill would be heard on
the House floor today that "has the committee substitute wrapped
in it," which is why the committee is having the current
hearing. He further explained that [Conceptual Amendment 1],
even if adopted, would not be in SB 100, so it would need to be
offered on the House floor. He said he would request a fiscal
note if Representative Saddler wished, but "really, this
amendment will be heard on the floor at 11 o'clock ...
regardless."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER maintained his request for a fiscal note.
9:51:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked the committee to consider whether
Conceptual Amendment 1 is in the interest of all parties
involved. He remarked that when considering the incentives that
the state puts forward to the oil and gas industry in
particular, "the scale of this arrangement is less than minute
in terms of what it might mean to the states" - $70,000 of added
obligation as an incentive to [the Ketchikan shipyard] in
support of 160 jobs around the state, as well as economic
diversification and development. He said when the state looks
for what it can do to facilitate economic opportunity,
diversification, and development, "this particular amendment
makes darn good sense."
9:53:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO said he likes to see statewide municipal
participation and Title 29 is all about municipalities; however,
whenever amendments are discussed that involve Title 29, he gets
nervous.
9:53:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE acknowledged the concerns expressed and
said there is a domino effect for this type of action. However,
he opined that the end result [of Conceptual Amendment 1] would
be a local benefit.
9:54:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated concern for the legislative
procedure in bringing the amendment at this time. He stated
opposition to Conceptual Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER restated the purpose behind today's meeting and
emphasized that in no way was it to accommodate hearing
Conceptual Amendment 1, which had been brought to his attention
yesterday, after the meeting was called on Saturday. He
recapped the steps that were taken to bring forward the
committee substitute for HB 156, which was then placed within SB
100. He stated his belief in the importance of bringing
legislation before the committee, hence the reason for bringing
forward the proposed committee substitute, which had not been
discussed by the committee prior to today.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER asked, "Is the objection maintained?"
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO answered, "Yes."
9:57:35 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Westlake,
Parish, and Fansler voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to
HB 156. Representatives Talerico, Rauscher, and Saddler voted
against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted by a
vote of 4-3.
9:58:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER again objected to the late hearing and
lack of public testimony.
9:59:28 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved to report CSHB 156, Version 30-LS0602\U,
Wallace/Shutts, 5/13/17, as amended, with individual
recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no
objection, CSHB 156(CRA) was reported out of the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.
10:00:26 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:00 a.m. to 10:02 a.m.
10:02:57 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, upon the request of Co-Chair Fansler, restated
the motion to report CSHB 156(STA) from committee so that it
would reflect that it would be accompanied by one existing
fiscal note and one fiscal note still to be drafted, at the
request of Representative Saddler.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER ascertained that no one objected to the
clarified motion; therefore, it was so ordered.
10:03:42 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH moved that both co-chairs of the House Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee be delegated the duties
and responsibilities in AS 24.08.060(a) during regular and
special sessions of the Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature. He
stated that this delegation remains in effect until withdrawn by
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected.
10:04:05 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:04 a.m.
10:04:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER spoke to his objection. He offered his
understanding that such a motion "illegitimately allows the
[chair] ... to introduce as a committee bill any legislation
that they would like to see introduced as a committee bill,
regardless of whether the members of this body agree to it or
not." He opined that this violates several citations in Mason's
Manual, including that "a committee cannot make an effective or
binding vote unless it has a measure before it" and "cannot vote
appropriately if it does not know the impact of an amendment."
Representative Saddler stated that the import of the motion
before the committee is that it would allow the chair to
introduce a bill as a committee bill without each member of the
committee being able to make a decision regarding the specific
bill, knowing the impact of the bill, and "having the option to
vote on that bill." Representative Saddler reiterated his
objection.
10:06:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER called a point of order on the motion.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER ruled that the motion is a proper one to be
made and to bring to a vote.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER appealed the decision of the chair.
10:06:29 AM]
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Westlake,
Parish, and Fansler voted in favor of sustaining the ruling of
the chair. Representatives Saddler, Talerico, and Rauscher
voted against it. Therefore, the ruling of the chair was
sustained by a vote of 4-3.
10:07:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for a written copy of the motion.
10:07:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated that the motion to grant the
authority under the statute provided is proper and is a step
"above and beyond what has been done by previous chairs in the
Alaska State Legislature." He said the custom has been for
chairs to have the opportunity to introduce committee bills
without any formal [motion] as is being made before the
committee now.
10:09:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER remarked that the statute does allow the
committee chair to introduce legislation, but said "that is
predicated upon the knowledge, assent, and action of the members
of the committee." He opined that the motion violates "the
spirit of this," if now the law. He reminded members, "What
goes around does come around."
10:10:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE called for the question.
10:10:12 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 10:10 a.m.
10:10:45 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER reiterated the motion to delegate to both co-
chairs of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee the duties and responsibilities in AS 24.08.060(a)
during regular and special sessions of the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature and to keep the delegation in effect until
withdrawn by the committee.
10:11:05 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Westlake,
Parish, and Fansler voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Rauscher, Saddler, and Talerico voted against
it. Therefore, the motion passed by a vote of 4-3.
10:12:45 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:13 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 156 Addtional Documents MSBTaxExemptionImpact.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Addtional Documents Legal Memorandum School Funding Language.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156_CityofSeward Support.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156_AEDC Support.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Municipal Tax Exemption Explanation.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Legal Memorandum, Municipal Taxation Authority.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Fiscal Note CED.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Comparison.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Addtional DocumentsGuide to AS2945050.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 0156A.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 0156U.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156_CityofSeward Support.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |
| HB 156 Ammendment 1.pdf |
HCRA 5/15/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 156 |