WORK SESSION HB 2368-A, HB 2299-A

 

TAPE 151, 152, A

 

HOUSE REVENUE COMMITTEE

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