Public commenter urges review of developer's tax on military construction; House members prepare joint resolution
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A public commenter cited a large gap between federal military construction spending and developer's tax revenue collected in the CNMI and urged the House to seek an attorney‑general opinion and oversight. A House member said a draft joint resolution is available for members to sign to press the issue with federal contractors.
Melvin Alofaisau presented public comment to the House raising concerns about developer's tax exemptions for military construction projects and private contractors funded by the U.S. military. Alofaisau cited a public statement by Delegate Kimberly King Hines and told the House that, according to figures he referenced, about $158,000,000 in federal military construction was carried out while only $87,000 in taxes and fees were collected by the CNMI. "That's less than 1%..." he said.
Alofaisau asked the House to take three steps: request a formal opinion from the attorney general on whether the developer's tax can be applied to military contractors; consider amending the developer's tax act to explicitly include or exclude federally funded private projects; and initiate an oversight hearing to assess the fiscal impact of any exemption on local infrastructure and services.
Representative BJ Atto addressed the floor later in miscellaneous business and said a draft joint resolution is ready for signatures by members to prefile a formal position in Washington, D.C., that would press enforcement of tax responsibility on military subcontractors. He asked members to sign the draft so the legislative branch can move forward with a prefiled joint resolution.
Background: Alofaisau framed the request as an issue of fairness and fiscal transparency, not opposition to the federal presence. He asked the House to clarify whether privately contracted projects funded by the military should be subject to local developer's tax and related fees.
Next steps: No attorney‑general opinion was requested on the record during the session and no committee vote was taken; House members were asked to sign a draft joint resolution for prefiling.