Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2004 House Bill 5709: Diseased tree removal tax credit
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Fran Amos (R) on March 30, 2004, to authorize a Single Business Tax credit of up to $10,000 for a firm that sells trees for less than the market price to a municipality to replace ash trees infested with emerald ash borer. The credit would equal the total amount the trees were discounted below the market price.
- Referred to the House Agriculture and Resource Management Committee on March 30, 2004.
- Reported in the House on May 25, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 3, 2004, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that reduces the tax credit to $5,000 and authorizes it for tree nurseries only. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 3, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Fran Amos (R) on June 3, 2004, to clarify the definition of a tree nursery. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 3, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kathleen Law (D) on June 3, 2004, to tie-bar the bill to House Bill 5603, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 5603 would raise the penalties for violators of quarantines established to limit the spread of the emerald ash borer. The amendment failed 46 to 61 in the House on June 3, 2004.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Passed 64 to 42 in the House on June 3, 2004, to authorize a Single Business Tax credit of up to $5,000 for the losses incurred by a tree nursery on ash trees infested with the emerald ash borer parasite.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 8, 2004.
- Referred to the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism Committee on June 8, 2004.
Most Recent Comments
1) Rep. Law's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 4, 2004Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on House Bills 5709, 5710 and 5711 because this House cannot continue to give the people's money away in the form of specific tax breaks, no matter how important the issue, at a time of continuing state budget deficits.
The sum total of these three bills will remove over $30 million from the state treasury, funds that could be used to plug the current year school aid or Medicaid deficits. I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of tax breaks when education and health care continue to be at risk."
Reply
Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
My district has experienced the destruction of the Emerald Ash Borer, so it is not out of a lack of sympathy that I oppose this legislation. My basis for opposition is two-fold: (1) many people have already replaced their ash trees and would be unable to reap this benefit, and (2) at a cost of over $200 million, we have much higher priorities, including healthcare and early education, that require our support. To continue to fritter away revenues through tax expenditures is not a fiscally sound practice."
Reply
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted 'no' on HB 5709 because of the estimated $12 million dollar cost, and because the bill is poorly drafted because it treats smaller nursery stock dealers unfairly. When you consider that the state has to come up with $500 millionin spending cuts to balance the budget, and when the Senate Republican Majority leader is talking about closing prisons and laying off 170 State Police troopers, it would seem that we as a legislature have to set our priorities a little better."
Reply
View Full Conversation
