Gas-tax bill goes to Otter
BOISE – Legislation aimed at setting a cutoff date for negotiations between Idaho’s Indian tribes and the state over fuel taxes is headed for Gov. Butch Otter’s desk, where its fate is uncertain.
Senators sparred over the bill in an impassioned debate Wednesday afternoon, before passing it on a 19-16 vote. The measure, which had earlier passed the House, is strongly opposed by all of the state’s Indian tribes.
“We’re still going to look at negotiating, that was always our intent,” Chief Allan, chairman of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe, said after the vote. “If we don’t get anything done, we’ll be in court as well, but right now we’re going to give every effort to get everything done with the governor.”
A day earlier, Bob Wells, the governor’s office liaison to the Idaho Indian Affairs Council, hinted that the governor, whose signature is required for the bill to become law, doesn’t welcome the measure.
“We did not initiate the legislation,” Wells told tribal leaders. “We would not have brought that legislation this year, but it’s here, and we’ll have to deal with it.”
The legislation, HB 249a, declares that the state will impose its gas tax on reservation fuel sales by any tribe that hasn’t reached an agreement with the governor as of Dec. 1. Backers of the bill estimate that Idaho is missing out on $3.5 million a year in potential state taxes it could collect if it could tax reservation sales, rather than just having tribes impose their own tribal gas taxes.
But Sen. Mike Jorgenson, R-Hayden Lake, asked the Senate, “They use it to maintain their own roads – what’s wrong with that?”
A year ago, lawmakers agreed to hold off on similar legislation, to allow the tribes and governor to negotiate over the issue. But backers of the bill, including the House GOP leadership and the Idaho Petroleum Marketers Association, say enough time has gone by – even though the state’s had three governors in the past year.
Sen. Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, said, “There certainly is an advantage to the tribes dragging these negotiations out – I’m not saying they are doing that … but there certainly is an economic advantage. In the meantime, the taxpayers are losing out and the retailers are losing out.”
Jorgenson, chairman of the Idaho Indian Affairs Council, urged his fellow senators to reject the bill, detailing a history of good-faith negotiations between the tribes and the state over the past year.
“This bill says if we don’t reach agreement by December, we’re going to pull the trigger,” Jorgenson said.
Sen. Edgar Malepeai, D-Pocatello, urged senators to oppose the bill to preserve good state-tribal relations. “I look at this relationship as a marriage relationship,” he said. “If you do have a disagreement, what do you do? You talk it out. If you don’t come to an agreement, you continue talking. … If I offered an ultimatum to my wife, my relationship would not last two seconds.” Sen. David Langhorst, D-Boise, noted that at least some of the tribes are close to reaching agreements with the state, but the bill could derail that by prompting a lawsuit. Allan said the bill has legal flaws that would allow the tribes to challenge it in court. “We’re still going to look at negotiations … but it just really dampers everything when they have to pass a bill like this,” he said.
He commended the senators who argued against the bill, especially “the ones from the north that stuck by us.” He added, “We’re a little disappointed in Sen. (Joyce) Broadsword, because she is our senator, she represents us in our district.”
Broadsword, R-Sagle, voted for the bill, and didn’t speak out in the debate.
Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, who also voted for the bill, told the Senate, “For me this is about fair tax policy, this is about interstate commerce, and this is about roads knowing no boundaries.”
Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Post Falls, said as the former mayor of Post Falls, he’s worked with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe a lot over the years, and “they have always honored their commitments to us. … I cannot in good conscience vote for this.”