HB 243 - MARINE FUEL TAX FOR HARBOR MAINTENANCE CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced the first order of business as House Bill 243, "An Act relating to taxes on motor fuel used in or on boats and watercraft; and providing for an effective date." There is a proposed committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute for HB 243, version 1-LS074\K, Kurtz, 2/1/00. There being no objection, Version K was before the committee. CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained the proposed committee substitute incorporates the issues discussed on Thursday [January 27, 2000] related to the definition of a qualified municipality. The proposed committee substitute does not incorporate the issues of limiting the tax, a sliding scale, or collecting the rebate because the Department of Revenue thought that those issues would be best left to the purview of the House Finance Committee. CHAIRMAN HALCRO explained the changes were made to Section 3, subparagraphs (A) and (B) [page 2]. The changes define the qualifying municipality as one that has assumed responsibility for its harbor, and has adopted a local ordinance dedicating the funds to its harbor for maintenance and operation. Number 0227 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK asked whether the changes apply to Section 4, of the proposed committee substitute, as well. CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied "Yes." Number 0282 REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH asked whether the proposed committee substitute would harm in any way the areas that would normally receive money. CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied no. It simply addresses the municipalities who have chosen to accept responsibility and take title for their port or harbor. The other communities who have not accepted that responsibility would still get a benefit through the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities. Number 0336 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON stated, for the record, that this is not a dedication of funds; it is strictly an indication of the intent of the legislature. CHAIRMAN HALCRO noted that the Department of Revenue is very concerned about the dedication of the revenues, which is why they prefer to deal with that issue in the House Finance Committee. Number 0377 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move CSHB 243, version 1-LS074\K, Kurtz, 2/1/00, out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note; she asked unanimous consent. REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING stated he would like to see the bill go one step further of eliminating the tax altogether and going to a user-fee system. The beneficiaries would then pay directly for the different services offered by a harbor, as opposed to a tax being applied to everybody across the board, especially since many might not benefit. Number 0506 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated, to Representative Kohring, that his comments on moving the bill to a user-fee [system] is way out of line. It would require a lot of changes to a system that is already in place. Number 0559 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Chairman Halcro whether there is a revised fiscal note. CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied no. The Department of Revenue wants to work with the House Finance Committee in determining the final outcome in relation to the issues of collection and reimbursement before submitting a fiscal note. CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated, in response to Representative Kohring's comments, that this tax along with the motor fuel tax is as close to a user fee as possible. The problem with eliminating the marine fuel tax altogether is because for some ports and harbors it's hard to generate revenues. In addition, under the concept of assuming responsibility and relieving the state's liability, he thinks, that those communities should be the beneficiary of the revenue. CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated, there being no objection to the motion, CSHB 243(TRA) so moved from the House Transportation Standing Committee.