Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB123 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB15 | |
| HB137 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 10, 2015
1:34 p.m.
1:34:07 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Munoz
ALSO PRESENT
Chris Hladick, Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development; Cynthia Franklin,
Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development; Jane Pierson,
Staff, Representative Steve Thompson; Remond Henderson,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections; Nancy
Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Quinlan
Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration; Representative Dave Talerico, Sponsor; Mike
Peterson, Self, Juneau; Mitch Falk, Self, Juneau; Eddy
Grasser, Safari Club International - Alaska Chapter,
Juneau; Ron Somerville, Territorial Sportsman, Juneau; Matt
Robus, Self, Juneau; Doug Larsen, Self, Juneau; Thor
Stacey, Alaska Professional Hunters' Association, Juneau;
Joshua Banks, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Doug Gardner, Director, Legislative Legal Services; Carrie
Belden, Director, Probation and Parole, Department of
Corrections; Al Barrett, Self, Fairbanks; Mike Tinker,
Self, Esther; Wayne Kubat, Self, Wasilla; Gary McCarthy,
Self, Chugiak; Dick Rohrer, Self, Kodiak; Sam Rohrer, Self,
Kodiak; Mike Crawford, Safari Club International, Soldotna;
Keith Baxter, Kenai River Special Management Advisory
Board, Soldotna; Nancy Hillstrand, Self, Homer.
SUMMARY
HB 15 CREDITS FOR TIME SERVED/GOOD TIME
CSHB 15(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with four previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2
(ADM), FN3 (COR), FN4 (LAW).
HB 123 ESTABLISH MARIJUANA CONTROL BOARD
HB 123 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 137 HUNTING, SPORT FISH, TRAPPING FEES
HB 137 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 176 REPEAL ST EMPL WAGE RAISE;LEGIS EMPL BENE
HB 176 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
1:34:18 PM
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 123
"An Act establishing the Marijuana Control Board;
relating to the powers and duties of the Marijuana
Control Board; relating to the appointment, removal,
and duties of the director of the Marijuana Control
Board; relating to the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board; and providing for an effective date."
1:35:07 PM
CHRIS HLADICK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, relayed that the bill
was the funding vehicle for the marijuana initiative and
would also create a board to regulate marijuana (an option
left to the legislature in the initiative language). He
discussed that the administration had spent considerable
time reviewing a variety of options for the regulatory
framework. Following its work the administration
recommended a new five-member volunteer board with a shared
staff with alcohol. He explained that while some additional
staff was needed for the increased workload associated with
the implementation of the initiative and a new license
pool, the cost of the board remained reasonable at $50,000
annually for board travel and per diem. He relayed that the
cost was comparable to what would be required for the
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to hold additional
meetings to address marijuana regulations and licensing; it
would provide a board solely dedicated to the responsible
and safe regulation of the new industry.
1:37:22 PM
CYNTHIA FRANKLIN, DIRECTOR, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, provided a sectional analysis of the bill:
Section 1: Amends Title 4 naming the director of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board as the director of
the Marijuana Control Board. Establishes the process
for appointment and removal of the director.
Ms. Franklin elaborated that a majority vote would be
required for both boards. She continued with the sectional
analysis:
Section 2: Establishes the 5 member Marijuana Control
Board in Title 17 with designated seats for public
health, rural, public safety, and industry.
Ms. Franklin added that the section reflected the way the
division wished alcohol was regulated; not the way the ABC
Board was currently structured. The structure for the ABC
Board was currently contained in SB 99, Title 4 revisions.
She stated that there was no requirement for a public
health or public safety representative on the current
makeup of the ABC Board. The division felt the seats were
essential in the new marijuana industry. She addressed
Section 3:
Section 3: Establishes terms of office for board
members and chair, sets out requirements for board
meetings and provides for board member per diem.
Outlines the powers and duties of the board to propose
and adopt regulations, establish qualifications for
licensure, review applications for licensure, hear
appeals from the actions of the director, reduce the
area of a licensed premise, and to adopt regulations
according to AS 44.63. Establishes the board's
enforcement powers as mirroring those of the Alcoholic
Beverage Control Board outlined in AS 04.06.110.
Provides for appointment and removal of the director
and establishes the duties of the director.
Ms. Franklin elaborated that Section 3 included the first
change from the House Labor and Commerce committee
substitute; it put into statute the intent that the
marijuana board would meet immediately following the ABC
Board in order to reduce spending on staff travel. She
moved to Sections 4 through 11:
Section 4: Defines board in AS 17.38.900(1) to mean
the Marijuana Control Board created by this act.
Section 5: Defines "director" as the director of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and Marijuana control
board. Defines "registration" to mean registration or
licensure as determined by regulation.
Section 6: Amends the duties of the Department of
Commerce, Community, and Economic Development to
include providing clerical and administrative support
for the Marijuana Control Board.
Section 7: Places the Marijuana Control Board on the
list of entities whose procedural hearings are held by
the Office of Administrative Hearings.
Section 8: Provides for a sunset date.
Section 9: Amends uncodified law for initial
appointment of board members.
Section 10: Provides for transition regulations such
that if the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board adopts
any regulations before the Marijuana Control Board is
created, those regulations can be implemented,
enforced, amended or repealed by the Marijuana Control
Board and provides that regulations adopted by the
board in any transition period take effect after the
effective date of the act.
Section 11: Provides for an immediate effective date.
1:40:34 PM
Co-Chair Thompson relayed that the bill would come before
the committee again at a later date for additional
discussion and public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked why Sections 1 and 2 both included
provisions for the appointment and removal of the director.
Ms. Franklin replied that Section 1 amended existing Title
4 law so that the statutes regarding alcohol also indicate
that the director of the ABC Board was simultaneously the
director of the Marijuana Control Board. Section 2
addressed the same issue in Title 17.
Representative Gara thanked Ms. Franklin for her work on
the bill. He observed that enforcement would be needed when
commercial operations began. He believed that extra
enforcement staff (beyond current police officers,
troopers, and law enforcement) were not necessary until
revenue was generated from marijuana. Additionally,
regulations would need to be developed; however, he
disagreed with the process where the Department of Law
charged the ABC Board for work done by its attorneys. He
did not believe the services represented a real cost. He
questioned whether the cost should be included in the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson believed Commissioner Hladick had a
comment about the possibility of not needing to hire two
sets of enforcement officers. Commissioner Hladick replied
that any new enforcement officers would be cross-trained in
order to work together when traveling throughout the state.
The administration believed that before commercial
operations began there would be commercial operations
starting, which would keep officers busy.
Co-Chair Thompson surmised that officers would be cross-
trained in order for one person to have the ability to
handle both alcohol and marijuana issues.
Representative Guttenberg pointed to the 2018 expiration
date for the board. He wanted to ensure that the date
allowed sufficient time for the Division of Legislative
Budget and Audit to do an accurate job to provide the
legislature with a report. Ms. Franklin replied that the
division would follow up with the timeline. She added that
the sunset matched the date of the ABC Board extension.
Representative Guttenberg understood. However, he thought
the initial audit of the Marijuana Control Board may need
to be a bit different.
Representative Pruitt addressed board membership. He
thought the public health, rural, public safety, and
industry seats were fairly clear; however, the fifth seat
was either filled by a member of the general public or from
the marijuana industry. He cited Sections 2(e) and 2(f) of
the bill:
(e) Not more than two members of the board may be
engaged in the same business, occupation, or
profession.
(f) A board member representing the general public,
the public safety sector, the public health sector, or
a rural area, or the member's immediate family member
may not have a financial interest in the marijuana
industry.
Representative Pruitt continued that due to the language
related to the fifth board seat, there could potentially be
two individuals with a financial interest in the marijuana
industry on the board. He asked if that was the intent. He
wondered about the reason for the potential duplication.
Ms. Franklin answered that the "or" was included because
the background of the director was taken into
consideration. For example, if the director had a marijuana
industry background, the industry would lose a seat on the
board. Likewise, if the director had a public safety
background, the public safety seat on the board would be
replaced by a member of the general public. The language
was a recognition that with a five-member volunteer board
that would only meet a few times per year, the director's
background had a significant impact on the agency; it was
an attempt to avoid background duplication between the
director and a board member. The replacement by a member of
the general public would only occur if the director had one
of the designated backgrounds.
1:47:40 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the committee would hear the
bill the following week.
Representative Guttenberg referred to the board membership,
specifically related to a member from the marijuana
industry. He reasoned that there were different components
of the industry. He wondered if the concept had been taken
into account.
Ms. Franklin replied that there had been significant
discussion related to the industry seat, particularly in
the first two years when regulations would be developed.
The department recognized there would be different aspects
of the industry just as there were in the alcohol industry.
The makeup of the board did not include a prohibition on
any certain section of the marijuana industry. She noted
that there was a section in Title 4 that prevented a
wholesaler from having a seat on the ABC Board. The
division had not identified any aspect of the industry that
would eliminate a person from consideration as a board
member. She added that it was anticipated that there would
not be a way to represent all aspects of the industry on
the board.
HB 123 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 176
"An Act eliminating geographic pay differentials for
employees of the legislature; repealing state employee
salary schedule increases; and providing for an
effective date."
1:49:24 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 176, Work Draft 29-LS0796\E (Wayne,
4/2/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that staff from various departments
were available to answer questions.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
provided the changes in the Committee Substitute (CS). The
geographic pay differential had been removed from the
legislation due to potential problems outlined in a legal
opinion (copy on file). The bill only addressed the Cost of
Living Allowance (COLA), which was scheduled as a 2.5
percent increase on July 1, 2015, and would not occur for
state, legislative, and court employees. She detailed that
COLA had ranged from zero to very high rates; the previous
year it had been 1 percent. She relayed that the savings
under the legislation would be approximately $9,296,100
annually for all branches of the government.
Representative Gara understood the need for cost savings;
however, he recalled a three-year pay increase that was
minimal for state employees. He detailed that the first two
years had been increases of 1 percent, which had lagged
behind inflation, whereas, the third year was planned at
2.5 percent in order to even out with inflation over the
three-year period. He believed the bill took away the one
increase that would hold employees even with inflation. He
asked for verification that his understanding was accurate
and relayed his concern.
Ms. Pierson replied that Representative Gara's numbers were
accurate. She reiterated that historically the COLA
increases had ranged from zero to 4 percent.
HB 176 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 15
"An Act relating to credits toward a sentence of
imprisonment and to good time deductions."
1:53:57 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 15, Work Draft 29-LS0102\S (Martin,
4/8/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Wilson explained the changes in the CS. She
detailed that the word "substantial" had been deleted from
the following sentence on page 1, line 12: "...under
electronic monitoring and the court imposes substantial
restrictions on the person's freedom of movement..."
Additionally, on page 2, Section 3, the CS required a
defendant to request to claim credit [toward a sentence of
imprisonment for time spent in a treatment program] 10 days
prior to a disposition hearing.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that staff from various departments
were available to answer questions.
Representative Guttenberg believed electronic monitoring
was only available in Fairbanks, Juneau, Anchorage, and
possibly on the Kenai Peninsula. He stated that individuals
in communities without electronic monitoring were not
eligible for the program. He spoke to concerns about equal
justice throughout the state.
Representative Wilson replied that the Department of
Corrections (DOC) had the ability to offer electronic
monitoring into other areas; however, the private sector
was not present in the areas. She deferred to DOC for
further detail.
REMOND HENDERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, confirmed that Representative Wilson was
correct; the department did have electronic monitoring
available in other communities (outside of metropolitan
areas). He elaborated that department staff was available
to provide a list of the communities if desired.
Additionally, the department was looking at expanding
electronic monitoring in other areas in order to free-up
prison beds.
Representative Guttenberg surmised that electronic
monitoring was not currently available in some communities
and may or may not be available in the future. He stated
that individuals currently using the electronic monitoring
service were paying a significant portion of the fee. He
wondered what the cost of the service would be for
individuals in smaller communities such as Tanana.
Mr. Henderson answered that the bill dealt with electronic
monitoring on pre-trial cases (the individuals did not fall
under the department's jurisdiction). There was a zero
fiscal note, because there was no cost to the department.
He reiterated that staff was available to list current
communities with electronic monitoring capability.
1:59:23 PM
Representative Guttenberg was interested in pre-trial
information related to the legislation. He asked the
department to follow up with the information.
Representative Gara was satisfied with that the CS met
intent the committee had discussed at a prior meeting. He
asked about the cost of electronic monitoring. Mr.
Henderson answered that there was alcoholic monitoring and
GPS monitoring; the alcoholic monitor was slightly more
expensive. He believed less expensive monitoring was $14
per day plus a weekly $10 urinalysis fee ($108 per week).
Representative Gara stated that there was an equal access
to justice issue. He wondered why a condition could not be
made to serve all of the state's court houses to provide
rural residents with access.
Mr. Henderson deferred the question to the Alaska Court
System.
2:01:59 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, asked
Representative Gara to repeat his question. Representative
Gara reiterated his question.
Ms. Meade shared that pre-trial electronic monitoring
currently existed in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and
Kenai. The state did not have contracts with electronic
monitoring vendors. She detailed that the defendant, who
has a third-party custodian as a bail condition, could
decide to hire the vendor to act as the third-party
custodian. She explained that the vendor was paid for by
the defendant; the defendant brought the vendor to the
judge for approval as the third-party custodian. She
believed the cost could be in the neighborhood of $300 to
$500 depending on how much monitoring a person contracted
with a vendor.
Representative Gara stated that judges were approving the
usage under their standards for safety and monitoring. He
wondered why the court system could not specify that the
monitoring had to be provided in a multitude of other
communities if it was provided in several.
Ms. Meade replied that it had never been considered by the
court in the past. She stated that there was no
relationship between the court and the vendor. The court's
only role was to approve or disapprove of the vendor as the
third-party custodian. She noted that the courts had not
declined third-party vendors as custodians for having an
office in one location but not another.
Representative Gara believed the court system did good
work; however, he hoped the court would consider the issue
because it was unequal access to justice issue. He stated
that the court had done a substantial amount on unequal
justice over the years. He asked for verification that
electronic monitoring was limited to people in third-party
custody. He discussed that the electronic monitoring was
going to individuals who would otherwise get a third-party
custodian. He detailed that a third-party custodian had to
be with the individual 24-hours per day; the custodian
could go to jail if they did not trail the individual
constantly during the required time period.
Ms. Meade replied in the affirmative. She added that people
who were released on their own recognizance with no bail
conditions would not need to hire a third-party custodian
and were not covered under the legislation.
Representative Gara discussed that third-party custody was
provided as an option to individuals who were not the most
reliable in the eyes of the court in order to free up jail
space.
2:06:40 PM
Representative Gattis wondered if the bill was necessary to
free up jail beds and expand monitoring statewide. Mr.
Henderson answered that currently the department was not
granting time for electronic monitoring in pretrial;
however, he believed the department had the ability. He
stated that the bill was not essential for the department
to exercise the ability for individuals in its custody.
However, the bill was aimed at applying to individuals who
were not yet in custody.
Representative Wilson stated that the bill represented an
incentive and another tool in the court system's toolbox.
She hoped the bill would incentivize people to get the
needed treatment during the pretrial period versus while
sitting in jail. She explained that it was also an
incentive to get the time [served] credit. She anticipated
that vendors would begin to operate in smaller communities
if they saw that the service was needed. She had worked
closely with DOC, which was doing significant work to
ensure people were getting the help they needed.
Co-Chair Thompson asked how long a person was typically in
pretrial status. Mr. Henderson replied that the number
varied greatly; it could be several days to several months.
Representative Guttenberg wondered if the bill presented an
equal access to justice issue. For example, a person in
Bethel wanting access to the service in their own
community. He wondered if there was a constitutional
question. Ms. Meade saw his point, but hesitated to say
whether it was a constitutional issue. She stated that
currently people did have the option available in
communities with vendors. The incentive to use the service
was that a person could be out of jail with an ankle
bracelet instead of in jail pretrial. She stated that the
fact that no vendor had found it economical to go to some
smaller communities had not caused the court to deny people
from using the service in communities where it existed. She
deferred the question to Legislative Legal Services for
further detail.
2:10:37 PM
DOUG GARDNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), replied that Legislative Legal Services
had not considered the question, probably because they did
not know where the service was available and where it was
not. He did not know whether the issue rose to a
constitutional level and did not want to speculate. He
surmised that there were probably other bail conditions the
court could order in urban areas that may not be available
in rural areas. He explained that based on his experience
as a prosecutor in trial courts throughout Alaska, courts
tried to adjust bail conditions to the realities of the
communities in which a person was held. He believed judges
did a good job and had significant opportunity to balance
out bail conditions.
Representative Guttenberg observed that all things could
not be equal throughout the state from one community to
another. He wondered about tools that were available for
judges to provide a comparable option in a community.
Ms. Meade replied that there were a number of bail
conditions (around 18) listed in the general bail
conditions statute and other statutes that contained
special bail conditions for different offences. For
example, domestic violence, alcohol, and drug offences had
a few additional bail conditions. She stated that judges
had many choices when setting bail. The last condition
applied could be anything a judge believed would adequately
protect the community and the rights of the defendant.
2:13:30 PM
Representative Gara discussed that it was beneficial to
provide the electronic monitoring service to give people
the ability to work and in order to free up jail space. He
addressed that there were people who could afford
electronic monitoring; however, the people who could not
afford the service or lived in a community without the
service could not get the benefit of time served. He
asserted that people without access to the service had to
be in third-party custody, which was more onerous. He
stated that the third-party custody limitations were
greater than those on electronic monitoring because the
person had to be tailed around the clock. He shared that he
had just learned that the individuals in third-party
custody did not get the credit for time served. He stressed
that the bill would create two classes of people: the
people who could afford electronic monitoring would receive
credit for time served, whereas the other individuals would
not receive credit for time served. He reasoned that a
simple conceptual amendment could include third-party
custody as another way to receive credit for time served.
He explained that the amendment would save additional jail
space for two equal groups of people.
Representative Wilson replied that there were a lot of
classifications. She emphasized that the bill represented
another tool in the toolbox. She highlighted that the
service was not brought forward by a judge; it was brought
forward by the person charged. She reminded the committee
that the individuals under discussion had not been found
guilty of any crime. She asserted that people who could not
make bail may sit in jail, which was another
classification. She reasoned that electronic monitoring
made it easy for a person to prove to a judge that they
abided by any conditions specified by the court. She stated
that it was more difficult under third-party custody, which
required a person to testify that the person they had been
tasked with watching had met all of the conditions. She
hoped that the incentive would mean electronic monitoring
would become available in additional areas statewide. She
believed it was not more readily available throughout the
state because currently people did not receive credit for
time-served under electronic monitoring. She emphasized
that currently very few options were available for
treatment purposes during pretrial. She stated that the
bill could not fix everything. She was willing to work with
Representative Gara on the other issues, but she did not
believe the bill was the appropriate place. She stated that
developing the bill had been a cooperative process to
ensure that everyone could live with its changes. She
wanted the opportunity to see how the changes would work in
the coming year and to make revisions at a later time if
necessary.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Kawasaki had
joined the meeting. He added that Representative Munoz was
excused.
2:18:18 PM
Representative Edgmon asked if there was any scenario where
offenders with third-party custodians could be included in
the future. Ms. Meade replied that the idea could
potentially be taken up in the future. She stated that
until the option was in statute, the courts would not
provide credit for the time. She stated that the option
would be a policy call by the legislature, which would be
applied by the court.
Representative Edgmon hoped that in the future there would
be much more electronic monitoring utilized. He wondered
what the department envisioned for the future in an era of
downsized budgets. He believed the option would be a
greater tool for everyone to utilize.
Mr. Henderson replied that the DOC commissioner was very
interested in expanding electronic monitoring responsibly.
He furthered that the commissioner did not believe
electronic monitoring had been used effectively. He noted
that a person would not automatically receive electronic
monitoring if they committed a minor offence. He stated
that electronic monitoring needed to be done on an
individual basis and responsibly. He relayed that it was
one of the vehicles the department saw that would help
eliminate the need for a new prison. Additionally, the
department had been looking at the option of moving more
people into community residential centers.
Co-Chair Thompson asked about the current number of
incarcerated individuals awaiting pretrial. Mr. Henderson
replied that as of April 3, 2015 there were 1,875 people in
pretrial.
Representative Edgmon remarked that he was also interested
to hear from the department on the current limitation of
vendors and electronic connectivity that was perhaps out of
the state's control. Mr. Henderson agreed and deferred the
question to his colleague for additional detail.
CARRIE BELDEN, DIRECTOR, PROBATION AND PAROLE, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS (via teleconference), replied that
electronic monitoring could be done anywhere GCI had
coverage throughout the state. She relayed that services
private companies could provide depended on their service
provider. She addressed the issue of fairness between urban
versus rural locations. She explained that the service was
limited by technology; DOC would like to have the option
available statewide, but it was not in the department's
hands.
2:22:14 PM
Representative Edgmon asked whose hands the issue was in.
Ms. Belden replied that the department was at the mercy of
the technology in some of the rural locations; some
locations did not have the cellular service tower coverage
or a reliable signal. Another concern was that when someone
violated a bail condition there had to be some sort of law
enforcement presence in the community to rectify the
violation; the issue would have to be taken into account by
the court when it decided where to place a person.
Representative Edgmon conveyed his support for the bill. He
wondered if there was a scenario that electronic monitoring
would be routinely used throughout the state in the state
(pre and post-trial). Ms. Belden replied in the
affirmative. There was new technology that was rapidly
developing that she hoped would be available in Alaska in
the next couple of years that would help the state to
expand and provide a better service.
Representative Edgmon asked for verification that the
availability of private vendors was not a limiting factor.
Ms. Belden believed the limitation was related to cellular
towers.
Representative Wilson noted that the bill had removed the
word "private" preceding the word "residence" in order to
prevent limiting electronic monitoring to a person's home.
She noted that a residence could be a halfway house or
other, which was another way the bill aimed at addressing
more rural areas.
2:25:05 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the GPS
element of an ankle monitor was only for location purposes
and the communication between the monitor and the
authorities was via cellular telephones. Ms. Belden replied
in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether counting time served on
electronic monitoring as equal to time served in
incarceration was too generous. Ms. Meade replied that the
issue was a policy call for the legislature. She elaborated
that one-day to one-day was the ratio currently in statute
(AS 12.55.027) for time spent pretrial in a treatment
program. She detailed that currently the only way to get
credit for time served was in a residential treatment
program with characteristics that resembled incarceration.
Vice-Chair Saddler summarized his understanding of Ms.
Meade's response to his prior question. Ms. Meade agreed.
Mr. Henderson concurred with Ms. Meade's statements.
Representative Wilson clarified that the treatment program
had to be state-approved. When a person was confined to the
program, they currently received the one-day for one-day
pretrial. She added that it was currently the only way to
receive the credit for time served.
Vice-Chair Saddler likened the current statute to the
bill's requirement that a person on electronic monitoring
would be confined to their place of residence unless they
were working or in a treatment center.
Representative Wilson stressed that in order for a person
to qualify for time served they were not allowed to leave
the treatment center.
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified his point that currently the
one-to-one ratio applied only to a confined treatment
center and that the bill would require a person to be
confined to home with an exemption for going to treatment.
Representative Wilson agreed.
2:27:27 PM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how the bill would reduce costs
for the state. Ms. Meade replied that the bill would not
reduce any costs within the court system. She elaborated
that it was routine for courts to issue bail orders; some
modifications may be made to court form orders, but that
was inconsequential and something the court did anyway. She
detailed that it was also routine for the courts to have
"Nygren hearings or 027 hearings" at sentencing where
people asked for credit. She thought there may be some
longer hearings at the outset if the legislation was
implemented, but the courts would have no fiscal impact.
She stated that changes would be fairly routine for the
courts to apply.
Mr. Henderson replied that the savings to DOC were
indeterminate. The department anticipated that there could
be potential savings. He stated that it was more cost-
effective to be on electronic monitoring than in a "hard
bed." He stated that the cost of $22 per day versus $150
per day meant there was potentially room for some savings.
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 1:
BY REPRESENTATIVE GARA
Delete "and the court imposes substantial restrictions
on the person's freedom of movement and behavior while
under the electronic monitoring program, including
requiring the person to be confined to a residence
except for a (1) court appearance; (2) meeting with
counsel; or (3) period during which the person is at a
location ordered by the court for the purposes of
employment, attending an educational or vocational
training, performing community volunteer work, or
attending a rehabilitative activity or medical
appointment"
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual amendment
that would apply the same rules related to credit for time
served for people in third-party custody as for people on
electronic monitoring.
Representative Gattis OBJECTED.
Representative Gara spoke to his amendment. He stated that
the people who would be put on electronic monitoring
largely had some threat of escape or danger to society.
Additionally, there was the problem of overcrowded prisons
in Alaska and the looming possibility of needing to build
another prison. He believed that the state needed to find
rational ways to minimize the number of days spent in
prison, while maintaining public safety. He believed it
made sense to use electronic monitoring, which would free
up prison space and would potentially be more humane. He
believed the same should be done for people under third-
party custody because they had the same restrictions and
had a person tailing them 24-hours per day. He continued
that the same purposes were served under electronic
monitoring and third-party custody; a person was required
to act under the court's conditions in both scenarios. He
furthered that a person would not receive the credit if
they violated their bail condition under both scenarios. He
noted that the two classes of people were essentially the
same: one class could afford electronic monitoring or lived
in a location where it was available, whereas the other
class that did not have the service available had to find a
24-hour third-party custodian to tail them. He added the
third-party custodian had to sign under oath that they
would be with the individual around the clock or they would
risk going to jail. He did not believe there was any
difference between the two categories of people. He
believed the introduction of a bill related to third-party
custodians in the future was unlikely. He stressed that
currently the bill would only benefit people who could
afford the service and who lived in a community where it
was available. He opposed discriminating against people who
did not have the service available.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony
Representative Wilson spoke against the amendment. She
stated that a lobbyist had not brought the bill forward.
She emphasized her commitment towards making something
work. She did not believe the situations highlighted by
Representative Gara were the same because a third-party
custodian was not awake 24 hours per day. She stated that
it was not possible to verify the movement of the person in
custody 24-7. She stated that it was different with an
electronic device because it tracked where a person was at
all times. She furthered that people who know how to break
the law often knew how to break it again. She stated that
the court did not have to provide the credit if it could
not be proven that a person only went where the court
designated was allowable. She did not believe the amendment
matched the intent of the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson asked the Public Defender Agency to weigh
in on the conceptual amendment.
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, addressed whether the bill
would create a disparity or inequity around the state. He
stated that an inequity currently existed to a huge degree.
For example, people with money could afford to make the
cash bail much more easily than people without money. He
believed access to electronic monitoring actually reduced
the inequity; it was often easier to afford the cost of
electronic monitoring than a large bail. He furthered that
general inequities existed around the state depending on
what programs, treatment, or options may be available. He
believed implementing the concept in statute would provide
incentive for the expansion of the program to other
communities. He noted that technology was becoming more
sophisticated. He referred to discussion that the bill
could cause DOC to potentially expand into pretrial
release. He saw the bill as promoting release and reducing
inequity and recidivism because it could be linked to
treatment. He believed including third-party custodians
would further reduce inequities. He detailed that third-
party custodians served a similar, but not identical
function. He added that the inclusion of third-party
custodians would be a policy call. He concluded that
granting credit for third-party would be a further
extension of the general policy, but there were subtle
differences between the two.
2:37:59 PM
Representative Gattis communicated that she had signed on
as a co-sponsor of the bill. She had heard from
constituents who had kids with infractions that were
sitting in jail instead of working or going to treatment
centers. She stressed if they were found not guilty they
had lost their job and sometimes their families. She stated
that if the individuals were found guilty, at least there
was an opportunity to inspire them to get off the wrong
track and move forward. She stressed that not only did the
bill save the state money, it would save families. She
stated that the bill would provide an opportunity to
individuals should they choose to utilize it. She supported
the bill and thought that the third-party custodian aspect
would "bungle" the legislation. She did not believe it was
onerous for the client using a third-party custodian, but
it was onerous to be the third-party custodian. She
stressed that the third-party custodian had to give up many
of their liberties to follow someone around. She was
reluctant to make the change. She liked DOC's attitude and
believed it was the department's goal to move forward.
Representative Guttenberg asked for a definition of
electronic monitoring. He stated that there were electronic
monitoring apps on smart phones. He wondered if the
definition only pertained to an ankle bracelet.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the committee was addressing
the conceptual amendment.
Representative Guttenberg thought the definition of
electronic monitoring was relevant. He wondered if it could
be expanded to anyone with a smart phone.
Representative Wilson replied that the bill focused on
ankle monitoring. She deferred to the court system for
further detail on what it had allowed.
Ms. Meade replied that judges had approved companies that
used ankle monitors with GPS active monitoring. She
detailed that a judge could designate certain exclusion
zones. For example, the monitoring company would receive a
beep if the person went to certain areas they were not
supposed to go (e.g. the victim's home, a school, or
other). She noted that electronic monitors measuring
alcohol existed, but were not used as much.
Representative Guttenberg asked if a GPS pretrial
monitoring program qualified. Ms. Meade confirmed that it
was all pretrial that was covered.
Representative Guttenberg stated that "theoretically a
judge could order this device instead of an ankle bracelet"
for someone in Bethel. Ms. Meade believed the court had
only approved ankle bracelets with GPS as electronic
monitors. She had not seen a situation where the court had
released a person with electronic monitoring via the
individual's cell phone.
2:43:39 PM
Representative Edgmon requested to hear from the court
system on whether the amendment would bog down the bill,
knowing that electronic monitoring was more at a formative
stage. Ms. Meade asked for clarification. Representative
Edgmon clarified.
Ms. Meade replied that adding a third-party custodian into
the bill would be a policy call. She agreed with Mr.
Steiner and others who had said that there were differences
between being under a third-party custodian arrangement and
being on an electronic monitor with one of the vendors
known to the court.
Representative Edgmon asked if the amendment gave the court
another tool to apply. Ms. Meade did not see the amendment
as providing the court with another tool. Currently the
court could order third-party custodians; therefore, she
did not believe the amendment would give the court
something else it could offer to people out on bail.
Representative Gattis commented that a person with a
monitoring app on their phone could give the phone to
anyone. She reasoned that the cellphone would have to be
attached to a person's ankle. She believed the concept of
using cellphones as monitors was taking the conversation
too far into the weeds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether third-party custodianship
provided less reliable information about compliance than
electronic monitoring. Ms. Meade replied that an electronic
monitor provided more reliable information about where a
person had been pretrial than a third-party custodian;
however, it could vary with the truthfulness of the
custodian and other factors.
Mr. Henderson deferred the question to Ms. Belden. He added
that he agreed with Ms. Meade's statements.
2:46:36 PM
Representative Gattis MAINTAINED her OBJECTION to the
conceptual amendment.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Edgmon, Gara
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Gattis, Thompson
Co-Chair Neuman and Representative Munoz were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (4/5).
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke in support of the legislation. He
remarked on the significant cost of recidivism. He stated
that the bill would provide one tool to work towards
addressing the issue. He discussed that the bill "hits
people when they are recently incarcerated, when they are
most amenable to having behavior modified" and reduced a
person's exposure to the potential hardening aspects of
incarceration. He remarked that the service was optional on
both the part of the person incarcerated and the court
system. He believed the service was a decent tool.
2:48:11 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 15(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 15(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with four previously published zero
fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2 (ADM), FN3 (COR), FN4 (LAW).
2:48:42 PM
AT EASE
2:51:57 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 137
"An Act raising certain fees related to sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping; raising the age of eligibility
for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license
exemption for state residents to 65 years of age;
requiring state residents to purchase big game tags to
take certain species; and providing for an effective
date."
2:52:13 PM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 137, Work Draft 29-LS0625\G (Bullard,
4/9/15). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON,
discussed the changes in the CS. She highlighted the first
change that appeared in the bill title (page 1, lines 2
through 5) and read a segment of the title: "...the fish
and game fund; providing for the repeal of the sport
fishing surcharge and sport fishing facility revenue bonds;
replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping..." The language meant that the $9 surcharge for
hatcheries in Anchorage and Fairbanks, which was due to
expire around 2021, would go directly on top of fishing
licenses. The impact of the language change appeared in
Sections 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 32. She directed attention
to Section 34 and explained that the revisors of statute
would be notified when the bond was paid off; the sections
[Sections 4, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 32] were conditional and
would only take effect when the bonds were paid off as
shown in Section 35.
Ms. Pierson pointed to lines 3 through 5 (page 1) related
to replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping identification card for certain residents with an
identification card that would be valid for three years.
She explained that the senior card (for ages 62 and older)
that was currently good for life, would require renewal
every three years; the card would remain free of charge.
Ms. Pierson moved to page 5, lines 1 through 4 and
addressed language related to the low income license. She
detailed there was a slightly different way for accounting
for the specific license, which would be based on the most
recent poverty guidelines set by the U.S. Department of
Health and Social Services (instead of a set number) for
the previous year. The next change was also on page 5 and
related to the surcharge increase. The following change
appeared on page 5, line 31 and related to nonresident
hunting and fishing licenses. She stated that "there was
now a 75 percent raise" in the licenses. She pointed to the
difference shown on the entire page.
Ms. Pierson addressed a change on page 6 associated with
nonresident big game tags, which would receive a fee
increase of 100 percent. She moved to a change on page 9
related to the fish and game conservation decal. She read
from lines 15 through 19 on page 6:
Subject to appropriation by the legislature, money
received under this section may be used by the
department to fund programs benefiting fish and
wildlife conservation. Those programs may include fish
and wildlife viewing, fish and wildlife education, and
programs relating to fish and wildlife diversity.
2:57:24 PM
Ms. Pierson continued to address the changes in the CS. She
highlighted language on page 9 (lines 21 through 31)
related to the renewal of free licenses for seniors.
Co-Chair Thompson asked the bill sponsor to address the
committee. He noted that public testimony would be heard at
9:00 a.m. the following Monday if it was not completed
during the current meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, SPONSOR, explained that he
had been inspired to offer the legislation because it was
about the opportunity for Alaska residents to continue to
enjoy the state's resources and to have the ability to
participate in its hunting and fishing activities. He
supported the changes made to the legislation and was happy
with the CS.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that there were multiple people
from the department available to answer questions.
Representative Kawasaki requested an updated fee
spreadsheet showing current statute compared to different
versions of the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
3:01:09 PM
MIKE PETERSON, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to
pages 4 through 6 of the CS pertaining to resident and
nonresident fees. He believed the resident and nonresident
fees could be doubled across the board. He shared that he
hunted in Oregon and paid $148.50 for a nonresident hunting
fee. He did not "blink an eye" at the charge because the
money went towards keeping game up. He stated that it had
been 20 years since the fees had been raised in Alaska and
surmised that it could be another 20 years.
3:03:05 PM
MITCH FALK, SELF, JUNEAU, supported the bill's premise, but
opposed the recent CS. He agreed that the state needed to
start raising money for its fish and game efforts. He
believed residents should be included. He stated that there
was a lot of money left on the table through the federal
Pittman Robertson funds. He detailed that everyone
throughout the U.S. paid the taxes on all sporting goods.
He stressed that other states would use the funds if Alaska
did not. He relayed that the federal money was a three to
one matching fund. He stated that the $10 would bring in
$30. He spoke to the lifetime licenses. He stated that most
people in their 60s had much more money than people in
their 20s. He thought the time may have come to sunset the
free licenses for seniors. He had been told there had been
87,000 of the free licenses issued. He surmised that if a
$10 renewal fee was charged every few years it was not too
much to ask, especially given that residents received the
annual Permanent Fund Dividend.
3:05:25 PM
EDDY GRASSER, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL - ALASKA CHAPTER,
JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the current version of the
bill. He relayed that a broad coalition of outdoor groups
throughout the state had come together in support of an
increase for fish and game licenses and tags. He
appreciated the bill and Representative Talerico's efforts.
He discussed that America had one of the best wildlife
conservation programs in the world called the North
American Model for Wildlife Conservation. He shared that
the program had been instituted by various people including
Teddy Roosevelt and others. He explained that a user-pay
system had been created. He relayed that users had come
before the legislature in the past to ask for an increase
or to institute a license fee. He shared that sportsmen had
talked Congress into creating the Pittman Robertson Act in
1937. He stressed that the act was passed during the Great
Depression and individuals had much less money than people
did in present times. He agreed with the prior testifiers
that the fees in the CS were not high enough to capture
federal Pittman Robertson funds. He believed the bill left
significant money on the table in Pittman Robertson funds.
He recommended increasing the fees.
3:08:49 PM
RON SOMERVILLE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMAN, JUNEAU, discussed
that there had been two different proposals during the
current session that both looked for a certain amount of
money to match general fund money that may disappear from
sport fish and wildlife. He stated that there were
currently $12 million to $13 million in general funds in
the two divisions. He shared that he had been the deputy
commissioner for the Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
under the Walter Hickel Administration and had been
responsible for the budget. He discussed that the divisions
competed with others and had lost all of their general
funding during his time with the department. He explained
that the sportsmen wanted the programs to continue and were
willing to pay for them. He explained that one of the
proposals had included resident tag fees; however,
sportsmen believed it was more workable to move forward
with a fairly sizable increase in license fees for
residents and nonresidents in addition to an intensive
management surcharge of $10 for all hunting licenses, which
would sunset in three years. He shared two graphs with the
committee (copy on file). He explained that the first graph
showed Pittman Robertson money that was available at a
ratio of 3 to 1 for wildlife. He detailed that the
obligated money for fish and game was not sufficient to
match the federal money (there was about $10 million in
federal funds remaining on the table). He stated that there
was a good chance a similar amount would remain in the
current year.
Mr. Somerville respected the bill sponsor's option, but he
felt it was necessary to increase fees even more. He stated
that the Territorial Sportsmen had consistently
communicated the amount of money they wanted to generate
and how to achieve the goal. He stated that there were many
things that federal aid was not capable of funding, such as
predator control. He discussed that the legislature had
passed a law called intensive management requiring the
department, where possible, to control predators to produce
more game (particularly moose and caribou) for harvest by
Alaskans. He highlighted the second graph relating to the
current predator control program. Additionally, federal aid
would not fund conflicts related to endangered species. He
stated that endangered species conflicts related to much of
the economic development concerns the state had about the
expansion of the listing of endangered species in the
state. He stressed that the regulatory process was
complicated in Alaska and most of the Board of Fish and
Board of Game processes; information and education
programs; and the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) implementation program could not
be funded by federal aid. He spoke to federal overreach in
the state. He stressed that it was important to generate
enough fish and game money in order to pick up some of the
critical programs. He emphasized that the contents of the
current legislation was not sufficient.
Mr. Somerville stated that the issue was not about urban
versus rural areas. He stated that the predator control
programs had been very successful in some areas. He used
Unit 9 as a successful area where a decline in the caribou
population had been stopped. He wanted the legislature to
tell the departments which one of the programs it would
like to see disappear if the funds could not be generated.
He stressed that the programs were currently funded with
general funds; it was necessary to generate additional fish
and game funds to pick the programs up.
3:15:11 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to Mr. Grasser's comment
about raising the non-resident fees. He observed that the
original outdoor caucus's suggestions had been much higher.
He referred to case law in the bill packet addressing that
it was legal to charge nonresidents higher fees than
residents. He specifically spoke to elk hunting and noted
that nonresidents paid 25 times more than a resident. He
wondered if the numbers were similar or in line with those
in other states.
Mr. Grasser replied that the organization he represented
[Safari Club International] had offices nationwide. He
relayed that there were states where the
resident/nonresident ratio was far greater than 25 to 1.
For example, a nonresident mule deer hunting tag in Arizona
was $2,500.
Representative Kawasaki stated that in version P [House
Judiciary Committee CS] the suggestion was to increase the
resident hunting fee to $40 and the nonresident fee to
$125, which was roughly 3.5 to 4 times more. He believed
the idea may be something to consider. He wondered if there
were groups who thought that adding to the nonresident fees
would reduce the number of out of state hunters in Alaska.
Mr. Grasser answered that as long as raises for
nonresidents were reasonable he did not see it as a road
block to participation in hunting activities in Alaska. He
noted that another member of the public signed up to
testify may have a better answer as he was currently a
hunting guide.
Representative Gara spoke to the nonresident fees that
seemed low. He asked if the group had a proposal on how
much to increase the nonresident fees that would act as a
disincentive to nonresident sportspersons.
Mr. Grasser answered that the coalition had suggested a 100
percent increase in nonresident tag fees, rather than the
75 percent in the CS. For example, a brown bear tag would
increase from $500 to $1000. He surmised that it could
probably be even higher for brown bear tags, but not for
all species. He noted there were other destinations people
could hunt in North America; therefore, if the fee was
increased too high, hunters would go to other locations.
For example, hunting was available in British Columbia and
Yukon Territories for Alaska Yukon moose, caribou, grizzly
bear, Dall sheep, and mountain goat.
3:19:20 PM
MATT ROBUS, SELF, JUNEAU, relayed that he was a board
member of Territorial Sportsmen Inc., which was a local
group; additionally, previously he served as the director
of the Division of Wildlife with DFG. He believed the bill
did not increase fees enough. He opined that at a minimum,
the increases in the bill needed to account for inflation
that had occurred since the last license fee increase 1993,
which amounted to a 63 percent correction. He detailed that
a $25 resident hunting license in 1993 was worth $41 at
present; however, the state was still only collecting $25.
He stated that the proposed increases in the CS and in the
prior bill version were well below that level. He believed
it was true that there would not be another chance to
increase revenue to the Fish and Game Fund for another
decade or two. He felt it was a substantial problem to not
even catch up with inflation. He pointed out that the
department needed to have sufficient money in the fund to
match all of the federal Pittman Robertson and Dingle
Johnson funds (wildlife and sport fish funds respectively)
in order to maintain the heart of the survey and inventory
programs that allowed the department to recommend to the
boards how to set seasons and bag limits and to preserve as
much opportunity as possible for Alaskans and nonresidents.
He stated that if the federal money (that had increased
radically in the past several years) was left on the table,
the state would lose out on funds paid by sportspersons.
The money was administered by the federal government, but
it was generated by users. He reasoned that at a time when
the state was having financial problems, the federal aid
money would be a boon to the state. He believed the bill
should be set at a level that would enable the state to
take advantage of all of the federal money available.
Mr. Robus shared that in the early 2000s the Wildlife
Division had been depleted of all general funds; however,
currently 13 percent of the wildlife and sport fish budgets
were composed of general funds. He believed the general
fund money would probably disappear; however, the jobs
mandated by the legislature, such as intensive management,
would not be possible without funding. He addressed the
ability of the state to deal with endangered species
initiatives or petitions (some of which he believed to be
frivolous or mischievous) represented a real cost to the
state. He detailed that it was difficult for the state to
defend against them without the ability to do research to
prove its side of the argument. He believed it was a unique
moment, where an unprecedented coalition of outdoor
oriented people were all asking to have the license and tag
fees increased to the level shown in a coalition letter
(copy on file). He noted that the coalition had included
the fee level it believed was appropriate in order for the
department to properly do its job and provide wildlife and
fisheries opportunity to Alaskans and nonresident visitors.
Co-Chair Thompson gave the gavel to Vice-Chair Saddler.
3:25:07 PM
DOUG LARSEN, SELF, JUNEAU, believed the fees in the
existing bill were not sufficient. He relayed that he had
served as the director of the Division of Wildlife
Conservation with DFG in the past. He relayed that based on
his past work he had a good understanding of the budget
challenges the division faced.
I support the coalition's proposed rates and feel that
the amounts in the existing bill are insufficient as
others have testified to. I've heard there may be
concerns among legislators about not wanting to raise
resident fees too much. As a resident I appreciate
that. However, if you look at the resident and
nonresident fees and contributions, nonresident
hunters have historically made up about 20 percent of
the hunters that come to Alaska each year; however,
they contribute about 75 percent of the funds to the
Fish and Game Fund. Residents on the other hand, make
up about 80 percent of the hunters in Alaska each
year, but they contribute about 25 percent of the
funds to the Fish and Game Fund. A similar
relationship exists with the sports fishing fees. This
isn't so much a reflection of inappropriately high
nonresident fees, in fact as you heard from Mr.
Grasser and others, compared to other states, Alaska
was pretty reasonable in that regard. Rather, it's a
reflection of inappropriately low resident fees.
That's why I'm supporting the fee increases proposed
by the coalition.
I retired last October from the Department of Fish and
Game and my income is now less than it was while I was
working. Nonetheless, like many other Alaskans, I'm
willing and prepared to dig deeper into my pocket to
pay a higher amount to ensure that programs like
surveying inventory, intensive management, ESA, and
access defense remain viable. This is not the first
time, I think it's important to note, that this fee
increase idea has come forward. Efforts were
contemplated during Mr. Robus's tenure and during
mine, and more recently during Doug Vincent-Lang's
tenure as director. However, as has been noted, up
until now we couldn't find agreement among the user
groups. At this point, there is strong support for
higher both resident and nonresident fees. In my mind,
as Mr. Robus said, this is a huge difference from what
we've faced in the past.
I think it's important to make a quick note about the
IM surcharge concept. I'm not sure whether IM
surcharge is the correct terminology to use, quite
frankly I know that some people get very anxious when
they hear the term intensive management. Just like
others get anxious when they hear the term
conservation pass or decal. The reality is that funds
that go into the Fish and Game Fund will and should be
used for surveying inventory, intensive management,
and wildlife diversity. Intensive management was a
broader application than just predator control; it
involves habitat assessment, predator/prey assessments
to determine whether in fact predator control would
even be a useful way to increase populations as Mr.
Somerville related earlier. The state receives $2
million to $3 million annually from federal state
wildlife grants funds. Those funds, like Pittman
Robertson must be matched by state funds. Absent
sufficient GF or CIPs that means a need for more GF
funds, which means sufficient increases in the fees.
Money deposited into the Fish and Game Fund from a
conservation pass or decal can be used to match state
wildlife grants (SWG) dollars. In the past SWG dollars
were matched by state funds to conduct research on a
variety of un-hunted species and has been successful
at preempting ESA listings. Examples include, yellow-
billed loons, black oyster catchers, bats,
[indecipherable], murrelets, stellar sea lions. More
recently funds are being used to study Southeast
Alaska wolves to inform a petition to list a species
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act. Listings of game or non-game species have
huge implications for hunting and trapping as well as
for mineral and well exploration and extraction and
timber harvesting. Obviously huge economic
implications.
Mr. Chairman, the last thing I want to highlight is, I
had the privilege a few months ago to serve on the
governor's transition team for wildlife. While we had
a number of individuals that came to the table with
very different opinions about things and backgrounds,
the thing was that there were several points that
there was consensus and agreement on. That included
the need to increase and diversify revenue to the
Division of Wildlife Conservation specifically (it was
a wildlife committee). The conservation pass that has
been contemplated is a way to do that; to diversify
and bring other users into fold to help with the
funding. Also, the group said that there was a need to
expand and enhance intensive management. Specifically,
expand intensive management aspects not just for
predator control, but for habitat assessment and to
look at the predator/prey relationships that are so
important to that whole program. That's what intensive
management entails. That's where the concept of an IM
surcharge, or a wildlife conservation surcharge, or
something to that effect could be very valuable.
That's the reason for its inclusion in some of the
discussions that have occurred relative to the fee
increases. Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank
you for the opportunity to offer testimony.
3:31:12 PM
THOR STACEY, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS' ASSOCIATION,
JUNEAU, shared information about the association that
represented hunting guides in Alaska. He communicated that
the state's hunting guiding industry brought in
approximately $80 million per year; half of the economic
effects were felt in rural Alaska. He relayed that
according to a recent McDowell Group report, 89 percent of
Alaska's active hunting guides were Alaska residents;
however, 95-plus percent of clients were nonresidents. He
stated that as part of the coalition of sporting groups,
the association was comfortable supporting a 100 percent
increase in nonresident hunter license and tags.
Additionally, the association was comfortable supporting or
slightly exceeding the inflation rate from 1993 until
present. He explained that guides had to buy a resident
hunting and professional hunting license biannually. There
were two primary concepts at the core that the association
participated in continuously, including federal overreach.
He stated that without an adequately funded DFG and without
the ability to exert the association's role as stewards of
Alaska's resources, land, and animals, the state fell
victim to federal encroachment. He addressed that without
the ability to self-fund wildlife programs, the guides were
at the mercy of other factors that contribute to the
general fund, such as oil taxation. The association wanted
good, sound wildlife management to continue regardless of
oil flow and pricing. He stated that by increasing the fees
to the higher amount, sportsmen had the ability to isolate
the state's programs from the vagaries of oil production
and price.
3:33:56 PM
AL BARRETT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the current version of the bill. He
addressed what had been communicated about the CS earlier.
He had heard that page 4, Section 10 would be the current
proposal; however, page 5 included language about gross
income of less than $29,800. He stated that it had been put
on the record that some of the language would be removed
from the bill. He asked if his assessment was correct.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for Mr. Barrett to repeat the
question. Mr. Barrett believed it had been put on the
record that Section 10 would be amended by Section 11.
JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, believed
there may have been a drafting error. He relayed the
sponsor's intent to use the language under Section 10. He
thought a conceptual amendment may be necessary.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the
sponsor's intent was to have the language in Section 10
remain. Mr. Banks replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Barrett was glad the issue had been cleared up. He
shared that he had only hunted outside of Alaska once;
therefore, he did not know about the affordability of
hunting in other locations. He shared that his income was
very limited, but he had looked at the concept of
increasing licensing fees for the past couple of years. He
believed many nongovernmental organizations and legislators
had looked at the 50 or so licenses sold in the state with
blinders on. He discussed that there were many licenses
sold for $5 or less (e.g. waterfowl, low income, and
drawing hunts). He continued that it cost the department
approximately $2 just to issue and produce the licenses,
which was only a net of $3. He communicated that the cost
of most drawing hunts was between $5 and $10. He stressed
that licenses were too cheap. He provided examples about
how to increase funds by almost $1 million. He suggested
combining the 3, 7, and 14-day nonresident licenses. He
believed revenue could be increased by $513,000. He
discussed a similar strategy with the king salmon stamp
that could generate $465,000. He believed the low income
should be reconsidered; it was a $5 that cost $2 to
produce. He believed a $10 to $20 increase in the specific
license would be feasible.
3:40:23 PM
MIKE TINKER, SELF, ESTHER (via teleconference), shared that
he had retired from a 25-year guiding career in 2000 and
had been a member of the Fairbanks Advisory Committee for
over 25 years. He relayed that he and most of his
colleagues supported raising license and tag fees. However,
he believed there were some black holes. He recommended
using it as an opportunity for other changes and looking at
the whole picture. He applauded Representative Talerico's
efforts; however, he believed there were some important
focus issues. For example, he stated a change would be
needed in AS 16.05.130(d) in order to keep the concepts
that Mr. Somerville and Mr. Larson discussed. He explained
that currently there was a requirement that license fees
directly benefitted the user. The legislation impacted over
250,000 Alaskan license purchasers and the coalition
represented approximately 4 percent of that number. He
implored the committee to make some room for the other 96
percent of users. For example, many of the advisory
committees had been waiting for the bill to settle. He
spoke to the concept of making DFG healthy. He reasoned
that a nonresident musk ox tag could be increased to
$35,000 because the state had not sold one in eight years.
He continued that there were many other types of licenses
or tags that the state only sold 10 to 20 per year. He
believed it was important to determine how many of each
license sold before increasing a fee by 100 percent or
other. He believed the bill should provide the starting
point for the discussion. He noted that there were many
other ways to raise money without making huge increases to
fees. He stated that currently most of the trapping
licenses sold were sold as part of combinations. He stated
that when the combination tag fee was increased to the
point where a person could save the money they would have
put into supporting trapping by paying for hunting and
fishing, the state would lose the money. He appreciated
Representatives Talerico, Munoz, and Keller for putting the
bill forward.
3:45:04 PM
WAYNE KUBAT, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. He read from a statement:
I have lived year-round in Alaska for 39 years, 31 in
the Mat-Su Valley. I became a registered guide in 1986
and started my own guide business that same year.
Almost all of the money my clients pay for their hunts
is new money to Alaska and stays here. License fee
increases will always be a tough sell, but with
falling oil revenues I hope you will move this bill on
with sufficient increases to adequately fund Alaska's
wildlife management into the future. The $10 intensive
management surcharge is a great idea. I'm disappointed
not to see it in this final draft. The wildlife
initiatives of the 90s stop same-day airborne wolf
hunting and moose populations plummeted throughout the
state. General moose seasons where I guide closed for
several years. Rural residents of Skwentna had to eat
black bear meat instead of moose. I'm a resident
hunter too. Even if resident licenses double a 12-
month license to hunt multiple species of some of the
world premiere big game animals will still cost less
than a 20 count box of 338 Winchester Magnum
ammunition. What a bargain. As a longtime Alaskan
guide I support the concept of a minor percentage of
nonresident hunters paying the bulk of our wildlife
management. I think Alaska's wildlife and residents
benefit from this arrangement. I can live with
increasing nonresident tag fees even up to 100 percent
if it results in effective game management. Thank you.
3:46:48 PM
GARY MCCARTHY, SELF, CHUGIAK (via teleconference), shared
that he had moved to Alaska in 1972 in pursuit of hunting
and fishing. He supported increasing the fees above the
figures in the CS. As a sheep hunter, he was saddened to
see the number and quality of the sheep declining over the
years. He stated that the department was reluctant to act
on many proposals put forward in the past year because
there was not adequate scientific data to support what was
occurring with the state's sheep populations. He stated
that following the crash in oil prices in the late 1980s
almost all sheep studies had been eliminated. He continued
that fortunately because of federal Pittman Robertson funds
the studies had picked up in the past several years. He
hated to see the money go away and to have inadequate
wildlife management just because the information was not
available.
3:48:31 PM
DICK ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), shared that
he had moved to Alaska 50 years earlier. He spoke in
support of the previous testimony provided to the committee
by coalition members. He believed resident fees should be
higher than those listed in the current CS. He had no
hesitation to pay higher fees. He thought it was good idea
to look at the senior license every three years. He noted
that if the legislature chose to eliminate the free senior
license he would not be concerned. His greatest concern was
federal overreach. He stated that if there was not enough
money to properly fund management statewide he could assure
that federal agencies would take over management.
3:50:25 PM
SAM ROHRER, SELF, KODIAK (via teleconference), shared that
he had a guiding license and was president of the Alaska
Professional Hunters' Association. He agreed with most of
the testimony provided during the present meeting. He
stated that there had not been an increase to the licensing
fee since 1993, which he believed was long overdue. He did
not believe the current CS increased the fees sufficiently.
He strongly encouraged the idea of the $10 intensive
management surcharge on all hunting licenses sold. He
stressed that the current $5 increase for resident hunting
licenses was insufficient. He believed a substantive
increase was needed and recommended an increase of at least
$15. He stated that a resident license for $40 was still
less than a box of ammunition; it was affordable.
3:52:16 PM
MIKE CRAWFORD, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, SOLDOTNA (via
teleconference), believed the license fees in the CS should
be increased. He agreed with testimony provided by Mr.
Somerville and Mr. Grasser. He opined that the Pittman
Robertson funds should not be left on the table. He spoke
against federal overreach. He believed DFG needed to be
kept informed. He thought that most hunters and fishermen
in the state were more than willing to pay their way. He
communicated that a goat, sheep, or moose tag for
nonresidents in Washington State was $1,652, a deer tag was
$531, a small game tag was $183, a freshwater fishing
license was $84.50, a saltwater license was $35, and so on.
He noted that Montana and Idaho also had much higher fees.
He believed nonresident hunters should help to pay for the
management of Alaska's wildlife and fish resources.
3:54:23 PM
KEITH BAXTER, KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY
BOARD, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), encouraged the
committee to include a sockeye stamp in the bill. He stated
that currently the bill proposed prudent increases to
existing license fees and the board believed the inclusion
of a sockeye stamp would also be a prudent measure. He
shared that in recent years many anglers who had previously
targeted king salmon on the Kenai River had shifted their
focus to sockeye. He stated that the growing interest in
the sockeye fishery presented management, habitat, and
enforcement challenges that required funding to address. He
reasoned that a statewide sockeye stamp would go a long way
towards providing the needed funding to address the
challenges. The board believed that adequate funding for
the rehabilitation, enhancement, and development of
Alaska's sport and personal-use fisheries were essential to
ensure their sustained health going forward. He believed it
was imperative that the vitality of Alaska's fisheries was
not jeopardized by fiscal uncertainty in its state
government. The board hoped that a statewide sockeye stamp
modeled closely after the existing chinook stamp would
provide a secure source of funding for the essential
fisheries programs well into the future.
3:55:40 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), shared
that she was the owner of a seafood processing plant in
Homer; the business had been a fisheries corporation for 51
years and it paid into the federal Dingle Johnson and
Pittman Robertson funds. She relayed that she did not
harvest wildlife or fish. She proposed a license for people
not harvesting wildlife of around $5. She explained that it
was a matter of trying to bring in funds from out of state
visitors and for Alaskan wildlife viewers. She discussed
that viewers brought $231 million in tax revenue to the
state, representing double the amount brought in by
harvesters. She supported bringing in the group of people
to diversify and help to match the Pittman Robertson funds.
She believed the state was missing a huge segment of income
derived from people that utilize wildlife, but did not
harvest them. She continued that individuals who
photographed animals, made money, and guided people to view
wildlife did not pay anything into the coffers. She stated
that there were 12,000 non-game species. She elaborated
that the wildlife action plans and state wildlife grants
needed matching funds. She stated that if there was some
way to keep common species common and prevent animals from
reaching endangered status, the state would prevent federal
oversight. She relayed that there were 18 million birders
in the U.S. who traveled. She stated that wildlife viewers
brought $2.7 billion in spending to Alaska. She reasoned
the visitors could pay a $5 license fee. She did not
believe wildlife viewers understood how it worked because
they had never been given the opportunity to contribute to
wildlife management. She did not believe the license would
cost the department anything. She reiterated her support
for a viewer license and a wildlife conservation decal. She
agreed that the state currently had "bargain basement"
license fees that needed to be increased. She supported the
idea of the inclusion of a sockeye stamp in the bill.
Representative Wilson queried how to charge a tax for
animal viewing. She wondered if it would include a tour-
type setting. She asked if any other states had a similar
tax.
Ms. Hillstrand replied that many other states had different
programs such as license plates, badges, licenses, and
decals. She stated that the primary point was her belief
that the state should market to the individuals. She
believed the state could figure out a way to attach some
sort of fee to the numerous viewers brought to Alaska by
the cruise ship industry.
Vice-Chair Saddler relayed that public testimony on the
bill would be continued on April 13, 2015. He discussed the
schedule for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
4:01:41 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Workdraft CSHB15 4-8-2015.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 CS WORKDRAFT FIN G Version.PDF |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 176 CS WORKDRAFT E version.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Legal Opinion.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Letters.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 176 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 176 |
| HB 137 Support letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |
| HB 15 Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 137 Additional Info Sommerville.pdf |
HFIN 4/10/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 137 |