|
|
WORK
SESSION HB 2368-A, HB 2299-A |
|
|
TAPE 151,
152, A |
APRIL 30,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Wayne Scott, Vice Chair
Representative
Joanne Verger, Vice Chair
Representative
Phil Barnhart
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Members Excused: Representative Lane, Shetterly,
Chair
Witness Present: Mike Burton, Economic and Community
Development Department
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Richard
Yates, Legislative Revenue Office
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 151, SIDE A
|
004 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Calls meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. |
|
009 |
Richard Yates |
Provided description and revenue impact on HB 2368-A, discussed
additional amendments as yet undrafted that provide alternatives having to do
with delivery sales. |
|
030 |
Yates |
Discussed –A7 amendment which funds the Tobacco Task Force from the
Department of Revenue’s suspense account.
The –A6 amendments are being redrafted and deal with delivery sales. |
|
064 |
Rep. Williams |
There is still disagreement regarding the –A6 amendment? |
|
066 |
Yates |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
075 |
Rep. Williams |
Asked for clarification as to the disagreement with the –A6 amendments. |
|
078 |
Yates |
Has not been a party to the discussion on –A6 amendments, understand
that non-participating manufacturers, primarily from foreign countries
through delivery sales, are concerned about some of the language,
particularly addressing the qualifying statute dealing with the Master
Settlement Agreement. |
|
087 |
Rep. Hass |
Do the –A7 amendments stand alone without the –A6 amendments? |
|
088 |
Yates |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
089 |
Rep. Verger |
Will have -A8 and -A9 include the –A6 amendments or will they all be
separate? |
|
091 |
Yates |
-A5 amendments will be incorporated in the two new amendments; -A6
will be replaced by one of the two. |
|
095 |
Rep. Verger |
On revenue impact, the comment “current law forecast includes $8.6
million cigarette tax revenue from these enforcement efforts”? |
|
098 |
Yates |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
100 |
Rep. Verger |
“Enforcement costs were General Fund appropriations in 2003-05”, I’m
not sure I understand the way the sentence is written. Confused about the word “from”. |
|
104 |
Yates |
Provided explanation regarding revenue impact, assumes Task Force
continues and enforcement activities take place. During the special sessions
a lot of this was cut back, in the first part of this session the money was
restored. They are active, but need a
funding source for the 2003-2005 biennium. The amendment changes the source
of the funds for enforcement activities from General Fund to coming Cigarette
Tax collections. |
|
123 |
Rep. Verger |
Enforcement efforts by Justice Department and State Police over a
biennium will amount to $8.6 million. |
|
127 |
Yates |
That was the earlier estimate; understand revenues are doing a little
better than expected. |
|
132 |
Rep. Berger |
This amendment is going to take $3.2 million out to gain $8.6 million. |
|
137 |
Yates |
$8.6 million is in there already, if the enforcement activities are
not done, it will be lost.
Appropriation is only for one biennium; don’t know anticipated appropriation
for future biennia. |
|
149 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Close work session on HB 2368-A |
|
|
|
|
OPENED WORK SESSION ON HB 2299-A
|
155 |
Mazen Malik |
Provided description of HB 2299-A, (Exhibit 3), including revenue
impact. Discussed the –A5 amendment
definitions; the -A6 amendment allows special districts to opt out; the -A6
amendment is superseded by the -A8 amendment; the -A7 amendment is superseded
by the -A9 amendment. Discussed difference
between -A7 and -A9; described -A10 amendment (Exhibit 4). |
|
265 |
Malik |
Described revenue impact for HB 2299-A. |
|
390 |
Malik |
Discussed A-9 amendment. |
|
401 |
Malik |
Discussed A-7 amendment, as yet undrafted. |
|
446 |
Malik |
No fiscal impact issued as yet. |
TAPE 152, SIDE A
|
010 014 |
Mike Burton Burton |
Clarified the -A10 amendment intended to deal with conflict between
an urban renewal district and a company that wants to qualify from
construction progress exemptions by virtue of being in an enterprise zone. Proposed a conceptual amendment to the –A10 amendment: At the end of line 8, add the word “and”,
so that condition “A” becomes a requirement; At the end of line 9, add the
word “or”, so either condition “B” or “C” in addition to condition “A” are
the triggers. With the conceptual
amendment, the Economic and Community Development Department would support HB
2299A, with amendments -5, -8, -9 and -10 as conceptually amended. |
|
032 |
Rep. Verger |
Asked for an example that would further describe the construction,
property and modifications. |
|
036 |
Mike Burton |
The question is how does a enterprise zone process work. Used recent Target distribution center in
South Albany as an example. |
|
068 |
Burton |
Described circumstances for exceptions to exemptions. |
|
095 |
Burton |
Propose all businesses in an enterprise zones that are eligible be
treated the same, -10 amendments addresses that and provides concessions. |
|
|
Rep. Verger |
Each company has to be analyzed, and complex if under urban renewal. |
|
112 |
Burton |
Does not matter if company is urban renewal district. Described Columbia County case as an
exception. |
|
124 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–A5 AMENDMENTS INTO HB 2299. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, VICE
CHAIR SCOTT SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT CHAIR SHETTERLY, EXCUSED) |
|
129 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–A8 AMENDMENTS INTO HB 2299. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, VICE
CHAIR SCOTT SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT CHAIR SHETTERLY, EXCUSED) |
|
132 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–A9 AMENDMENTS INTO HB 2299. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, VICE
CHAIR SCOTT SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT CHAIR SHETTERLY, EXCUSED) |
|
136 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF CONCEPTUAL
AMENDMENTS TO THE –A10 AMENDMENTS. THE CONCEPTUAL AMENDMENTS WOULD BE:
ON LINE 8, STRIKE THE SEMI-COLON AND INSERT THE WORD “AND”; ON LINE 9
STRIKING THE WORD “AND” FOLLOWING THE SEMI-COLON AND INSERTING THE WORD “OR”. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, VICE
CHAIR SCOTT SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT CHAIR SHETTERLY, EXCUSED) |
|
145 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–A10 AMENDMENT, AS CONCEPTUALLY AMENDED, INTO HB 2299. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, VICE
CHAIR SCOTT SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT CHAIR SHETTERLY, EXCUSED) |
|
154 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED HB 2299 AS
AMENDED, INCLUDING CONCEPTUALLY AMENDED, TO THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams. EXCUSED:
Chair Shetterly. Rep. Berger will carry the bill. |
|
176 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Closed Work Session on HB 2299-A. |
|
178 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Meeting adjourned at 9:18 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant Reviewed by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Yates,
“Revenue Impact HB 2368-A, 1 page
2.
Yates,
“HB 2368-A7 Amendment”, 3 pages
3.
Malik,
“HB 2299-A, 2 pages
4.
Malik,
“HB 2299-A10, 1 page