Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/09/2003 01:24 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 163-NONRES. GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS Number 1118 CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to an annual wildlife conservation pass and the fee for that pass; relating to nonresident and nonresident alien big game tag fees; and providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor. Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on 4/4/03, was Version D, labeled 23-GH1098\D, Utermohle, 3/18/03.] CHAIR FATE indicated the public hearing had been closed previously and reminded members that several amendments had been incorporated into Version D. He asked whether the committee had any questions before addressing further amendments. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she had concerns, not questions. The committee took an at-ease from 2:48 p.m. to 2:50 p.m. Number 0896 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, following line 14 Insert: (9) a wildlife conservation pass will provide new revenue that may be used to support fish and wildlife management, including protection, and to support and promote the tourism industry for which wildlife resources attract visitors to the state; Number 0890 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to ask for an explanation. CHAIR FATE explained that it sets forth the intent, since there had been questions about what these funds would be used for. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA removed her objection. Number 0832 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether adding [Amendment 1] to the findings section directs those funds or whether it is just part of the opening statement about the legislation. CHAIR FATE said that, to him, this is more than just intent language, although it is clarification of what the use will be. Emphasizing that it's in the body of law and uses the word "will", he then noted that it says "will provide new [revenue] that may be used to support" and so forth. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said his concern is whether its being under Section 1, "Findings", makes a difference. CHAIR FATE clarified that these amendments had come from the administration. Number 0697 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said she believes it's appropriate and in line with the other findings, paragraphs (1) through (8). CHAIR FATE concurred. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA observed that Amendment 1 says the pass [may be used to] support and promote the tourism industry. She didn't recall much testimony on how it would do that. She asked what the plan is to do with the funds for the tourism industry, and whether the funds will go into marketing, for instance. Number 0622 JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Hugh Fate, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the committee aide, responded: This was language that we had discussed with the administration regarding expanding out the possibility of -- and, again, it's primarily a finding, but it's intent language so that when ... future legislators ... are looking at how funds are distributed, ... they have [an] option of ... moving that money into the tourism industry as far as marketing or whatever area they see fit. Number 0565 REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether someone from Legislative Legal and Research Services could give him an answer as to how it is different to put this language in the findings section, rather than relating it to a statute with a reference line. MR. POUND offered his opinion instead, saying a paragraph that he believed was on page 6, line 30, to page 7, line 2, in the previous bill version was in a completely different part of the legislation. He said [Amendment 1] was put together to bring that language back into the bill, "in part, especially the wildlife management portions of it." He also indicated that the omission had been discovered this very day, and that there may be a modification needed to Amendment 1 because it is somewhat duplicative. CHAIR FATE announced his preference of making recommendations to the House Finance Committee and moving the bill forward. Number 0310 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK reiterated that she believes Amendment 1 is in the appropriate place and adds language brought up in committee discussions from the tourism industry. "We're trying to facilitate all users, every one that has a stakeholder in this bill here," she added. "And I think we're compromising quite a bit, and I think this amendment ... should pass." She asked that Representative Guttenberg remove his objection and then have the House Finance Committee take a closer look at Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would remove his objection. Number 0193 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK renewed her motion to adopt Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE referred to the wording "promote the tourism industry for which wildlife resources attract visitors to the state". She said it seems to be a very narrow part of tourism. If a boat owner doesn't run a wildlife tour, for example, the funds cannot come back to that person. CHAIR FATE replied: Part of what you say is true, but there's very little ... in the ... tourism industry that doesn't deal with the viewing of wildlife, whether it's on a tour ship or whether it's on a rubber-tire crate to ... the Interior of Alaska or whatever. ... So it's not quite as narrow ... as a person might be made to believe here in the wording .... Number 0082 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO told members he isn't entirely pleased with the bill, but now that it's before the committee, he has some trouble with the wording of Amendment 1. He questioned whether it will always be true that a wildlife conservation pass will provide new revenue. He suggested it makes more sense to say "funds generated from a wildlife conservation pass may be used to support", for instance. TAPE 03-28, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIR FATE said this isn't talking about the bottom line or a balance sheet, but about revenue derived from one pass. If more than one pass is sold, there will be a multiple of the cost of the pass as revenue. He suggested it is a matter of semantics. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO replied that it's tough for him to make a declaration that something will happen unless he can offer supporting evidence. He indicated he wouldn't pursue it unless some other members agreed, but said he'd feel more comfortable with "funds generated from", rather than the existing language. Number 0108 MR. POUND proposed a possible way to address Representative Gatto's concern and duplicative wording. Referring to [subsection (e)] page 6, line 30 - which he said is relatively unimportant - and on to page 7, line 7, he suggested that [subsection (e) should read in part, "The annual balance in the account may be appropriated by the legislature for the purpose of fish and game management, viewing, and education programs," with the following inserted: "including protection and to support and promote the tourism industry for which wildlife resources attract visitors [to] the state". Deleted would be the wording "for other public purposes" [page 7, line 2]. MR. POUND then suggested that on page 7, line 7 [it should say]: "The annual balance in the account may be appropriated by the legislature for the purpose of fish and game management, viewing, and education programs, including protection and to support and promote the tourism industry for which wildlife resources attract visitors [to] the state." Deleted would be "for other public purposes". MR. POUND suggested the foregoing would take care of Representative Gatto's concern about wording saying this will generate funds, because it refers it back to fees. CHAIR FATE said it sounds like a pretty good compromise. He suggested Amendment 1 should be withdrawn and a new Amendment 1 should be moved. Number 0250 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK withdrew Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt new [Conceptual] Amendment 1 [as set forth by Mr. Pound previously]. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE expressed confusion, saying she hadn't been finished with her discussion. Number 0317 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected for purposes of discussion. She told members: Here's where I think we're going awry with this. I think Representative Guttenberg's point about findings versus intent's pretty well taken. This really isn't in "finding". It may be intent. But now what we're doing is actually getting ... into where we think the money should go, and that's probably the statute itself. So I don't really care, because I have problems with the whole bill. But I do think you're starting to really get the record pretty confused about, "This just isn't a finding." ... There hasn't been evidence on it. It's not in the right place in the bill. So, I don't know what you want to do about it, but there's my objection. Number 0410 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK withdrew new Conceptual Amendment 1. [HB 163 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|