Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/04/2019 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB65 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
April 4, 2019
10:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Louise Stutes, Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Sarah Vance
Representative Mark Neuman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to claims against protection and indemnity
insurance policies of vessel owners."
- MOVED HB 105 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 65
"An Act repealing the fisheries business tax allocation to
municipalities; repealing the refunds to local governments of
fisheries business taxes; repealing revenue sharing for the
fishery resource landing tax; providing for an effective date by
amending the effective date of sec. 36, ch. 61, SLA 2014; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 105
SHORT TITLE: COMM FISHERMEN'S FUND:VESSEL OWNER CLAIMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) ORTIZ
03/25/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/25/19 (H) FSH, FIN
04/02/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/02/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/19 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/04/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: FISH TAX: REPEAL MUNI REFUNDS/REV. SHARE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) FSH, CRA, FIN
04/04/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
LIZ HARPOLD, Staff
Representative Dan Ortiz
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of Representative Ortiz,
sponsor of HB 105.
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of the governor, provided a brief
overview of HB 65.
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis of HB 65.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:01:47 AM
CHAIR LOUISE STUTES called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Representatives Vance,
Kreiss-Tomkins, Edgmon, and Stutes were present at the call to
order. Representatives Kopp, Neuman, and Tarr arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 105-COMM FISHERMEN'S FUND:VESSEL OWNER CLAIMS
10:02:31 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 105, "An Act relating to claims against
protection and indemnity insurance policies of vessel owners."
CHAIR STUTES stated that no amendments were received for HB 105
and that the committee's intent is to move the bill today.
10:02:57 AM
LIZ HARPOLD, Staff, Representative Dan Ortiz, Alaska State
Legislature, spoke on behalf of Representative Ortiz, sponsor of
HB 105. She thanked the committee for hearing the bill and
noted there is much industry support for the bill.
10:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP moved to report HB 105 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 105 was reported from the House
Special Committee on Fisheries.
10:04:27 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:04 a.m. to 10:07 a.m.
HB 65-FISH TAX: REPEAL MUNI REFUNDS/REV. SHARE
10:07:09 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 65, "An Act repealing the fisheries business tax
allocation to municipalities; repealing the refunds to local
governments of fisheries business taxes; repealing revenue
sharing for the fishery resource landing tax; providing for an
effective date by amending the effective date of sec. 36, ch.
61, SLA 2014; and providing for an effective date."
10:07:42 AM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, Commissioner Designee, Department of Revenue
(DOR), testified on behalf of the governor. He paraphrased from
the governor's letter of February 15, 2019, [included in the
committee packet], which read in part:
Currently, the state shares revenues from state
fisheries business taxes with municipalities. For the
fisheries business taxes, 50 percent of Fisheries
Business Taxes are shared with the municipalities
where the fishery resources were processed.
Similarly, the state shares 50 percent of the Fishery
Resource Landing Tax with the municipality where the
fishery resources were landed. The revenues that form
the basis of the disbursement each October are from
taxes collected for the previous calendar year of
processing and landing of fisheries resources. In
fiscal year 2018, the state shared approximately $29
million in revenues. This bill would repeal the
statutes that provide for this revenue sharing.
10:09:15 AM
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN said the policy rationale behind HB 65 was
to identify statewide revenues currently being shared or
diverted to help balance the budget. He stated that the
Fisheries Business Tax, or the raw fish tax, is collected from
processors and people that export unprocessed fishery resources
from Alaska and the Fishery Resource Landing Tax is levied on
fishery resources processed outside of and first landed in
Alaska. He said these taxes relate to processing activities
within and outside of an incorporated city or organization
borough. He explained HB 65 would make repeal of the revenue
sharing portions of these two taxes retroactive to January 1,
2019. Consequently, he continued, these taxes would not be
shared with the municipalities in October 2019 even though the
taxable event occurred in calendar year 2018.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN noted the Fisheries Business Tax dates
back to 1899, pre-territorial Alaska. He said the tax was first
shared with municipalities at 10 percent of the total revenue in
1962; the share was raised to 20 percent in 1979; and raised to
the current 50 percent in 1981. Sharing with an unorganized
borough was authorized in 1990, he stated. The Fishery Resource
Landing Tax dates back to 1994, he related, and the legislature
restructured the tax in 1996 to mirror the Fisheries Business
Tax program. Sharing was part of the program from the
beginning, he noted. He said the implementation cost would be
about $50,000 to update the tax revenue management system, and
no additional staff would be required.
10:11:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked, "Why decimate local coastal
communities...?" He pointed out, for example, that this revenue
sharing represents one-third of Unalaska's revenue, and as an
industrial center the community must provide important water;
wastewater; life, safety, and fire protection; law enforcement,
and a host of other services. He stated Unalaska would struggle
at best to recover that one-third of revenue to its tax base.
He further pointed out that Unalaska is just one community of
many that would find itself with a huge hole in its budget in
one fell swoop. He said there must be some rationale other than
needing the money at the state level.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN offered his belief that during public
testimony the committee will be hearing from all the communities
that this would affect. He said the rationale from the state's
perspective is that it has limited resources now and is in
uncharted territory simply by actions over the last several
years that have never been seen before: a portion of the
earnings reserve is being used to fund government and portions
of the [permanent fund] dividend are not being distributed. The
administration's perspective, he related, is that all available
revenue to the state needs to be brought to the table and then
the executive branch and the legislature need to decide the best
and most efficient way to redistribute the entire revenue stream
back to Alaska. He said it is not a matter of all of it is
coming from the communities never to be seen again.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON opined that the [administration's]
thinking is absolutely flawed and absolutely counter to the
governor's mantra that the state is open for business. He
maintained that the multiplier effect of the coastal Alaska
economies from the maritime and transportation businesses
enhances the entire gross domestic product (GDP) of the state.
He said taking away the ability of these local communities to
provide a whole host of services cripples their ability to
contribute to keeping Alaska open for business. He pointed out
that for the last 20 years Unalaska has by volume been the
largest seafood community in the state. He further opined that
the commissioner's response doesn't have any authenticity with
the premise behind the whole thing, knowing that if these local
communities are crippled in their ability to provide these
services, who will come in and provide the services or where
will this money come from? That question remains a black cloud,
he continued, and therefore he will be opposing this measure
with everything he's got.
10:15:11 AM
CHAIR STUTES inquired whether, prior to making this decision,
the administration had discussions with any of the communities
that would be greatly affected by the proposal.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN replied that he doesn't know the answer to
that question. The fisheries tax resides in the Department of
Revenue, he said, but this was a part of the budget process that
he was not a part of.
CHAIR STUTES requested that, when the commissioner is next
before the committee, a response is provided as to whether there
was any kind of dialogue regarding the effect. She concurred
with Representative Edgmon that this proposal would preclude
Alaska being open for business. Transferring those dollars
would shift the burden to local municipalities, she continued,
which would prevent them from providing the amenities that are
required to maintain a viable, strong, and healthy community for
their citizens. She pointed out that a person can live anywhere
in the United States and fish in Alaska, and the objective is to
keep those people in Alaska with their families and argued that
HB 65 is absolutely opposite of that direction.
10:16:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN recalled that the landing tax would be
retroactive to cover the cost of this operating budget. He
asked when those funds are let to the communities.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN responded the taxes are distributed back
to the communities in October each year and the revenues that
are distributed are the actual revenues collected during the
previous calendar year. So, he explained, in October [2019] the
amount would be distributed based on the actual revenues
collected in calendar year 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that the money
that was let this year was collected from the prior year, so the
money collected this year is still sitting in the Department of
Revenue.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN answered yes; the revenues are collected
throughout the year and then distributed the following year.
10:18:14 AM
CHAIR STUTES offered her understanding that the administration's
proposal under HB 65 is to collect the 2019 revenue as well as
going back to the 2018 revenue from these municipalities.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN replied it would be more accurate to say
not "distribute" the revenues that the municipalities would be
expecting to receive in 2019. The bill wouldn't take revenues
that were already distributed, he explained, it would just not
distribute revenues that would be expected in October 2019.
CHAIR STUTES rephrased her understanding that it would be to not
distribute revenues that the municipalities are currently
banking on.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN responded yes.
10:18:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS posed a hypothetical scenario in
which HB 65 doesn't pass the legislature and there is a line
item in the budget, pursuant to the law, that these revenues get
disbursed back to municipalities. He asked whether the
commissioner is willing to make any comment to municipalities on
the degree to which the governor or administration would abide
by the will of the legislature if HB 65 fails to pass and
disburse those revenues back to communities and to not line item
veto that disbursement.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN answered that he cannot speak to what
actions the governor may or may not take regarding line item
vetoes.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired how the commissioner
would suggest municipalities plan around that uncertainty.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN replied that he couldn't speak to how
communities would need to prepare for this action.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that that is unfortunate
because there is a lot of revenue that is a major share of many
municipalities' budgets. He said "black cloud" is appropriate
because there is not the wherewithal to respond to that kind of
uncertainty. He asked why the administration is not proposing a
revenue increase on the fish tax or a different revenue measure,
rather than preventing the disbursement of revenues back to the
municipalities.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN answered that HB 65 is the governor's
attempt in this budget process to address a portion of the
revenue section. He said the administration is willing to
listen to bills that are introduced and recognizes that this
will be an ongoing discussion this year and next year.
10:21:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that HB 65 doesn't impact Anchorage
residents in the same way it does coastal communities, but she
sees her role as having a statewide perspective. She expressed
her disappointment with the lack of follow-through on some of
these proposals. She said she would be willing to work on doing
things differently if there was leadership from the third floor
on workable proposals. But for this proposal, she continued,
there has been no communication with communities and no plan,
and it would absolutely devastate small communities. She opined
that it is a failure of leadership on the part of the third
floor to put forth proposals like this without any backup as to
what the impacts would be and to create divisiveness by doing
things that disproportionately impact some parts of the state.
She offered her hope that the message of needing to do this
differently will be heard by the third floor. She said changes
must to be done in a way that doesn't devastate a local
community and that engages people in how it will be done and how
it will work.
10:23:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE allowed that this is a hard and unpleasant
conversation, but recalled the governor saying that everything
is on the table. Just because everything is on the table
doesn't mean it is going to pass, she continued; there needs to
be discussion for and against the proposal's merits. She said
she agrees with her colleagues that HB 65 goes against the idea
of localized government, of Alaska being open for business, and
of sharing in the responsibilities of state government.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE opined that if this fish tax had been 100
percent to the municipalities then she would say that isn't
equitable. But, she continued, being at 50 percent it's sharing
the load because now her district isn't affected to the degree
as some of the other coastal communities. She pointed out that
Homer invests the funds directly back into the public access
fish dock to support the fishing industry infrastructure. Homer
is putting that money directly back to that purpose, she said,
and she thinks that is what most of these communities are doing.
She further pointed out that the state relies upon the dock and
fishery infrastructure to maintain that resource. To have it
swept and then distributed across the state, she added, creates
an undue burden on these communities that are expected to
maintain this infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said the responsibility of legislators is
to look at the state as a whole. She noted that Alaska's fish
belong to everyone but said she can't ignore that these
communities are expected to provide that infrastructure and need
the support to do so. She observed that HB 65 talks about an
established harbor facility grant and grant applications. She
further observed that Section 4 deletes the previous language
and inserts, "The tax collected under this chapter shall be paid
into a separate account in the general fund." She requested the
commissioner to speak to the bill itself to provide a full
understanding of what is being proposed versus what is currently
on the books.
CHAIR STUTES noted that Mr. Brandon Spanos would review the bill
once committee members are finished asking questions.
10:27:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP remarked that HB 65 seems broadly consistent
with the budget being worked as a math problem behind closed
doors versus working with affected constituencies. He said he
understands how this can happen, especially if key personalities
aren't really tied in with the state. He suggested the
administration send someone to Naknek in the summer to see what
happens to a little town that goes from 1,100 to about 15,000.
He shared his experience of having worked in Naknek year around.
He related that the police, fire, and emergency medical calls
explode, the landfill load becomes massive from the canneries,
and sewer and water loads become massive. He said these little
communities need help. He pointed out that currently Naknek is
desperately looking for a couple million dollars to build out
its sewage infrastructure so it can handle this fishery that is
one of the top four largest landings in the U.S. for tonnage
going across the dock.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP further shared his experience of managing
the personal use dipnet fishery in the City of Kenai for about
seven years. There were no resources, he related, and half of
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley were fishing there.
He said it was like getting run over by a truck from the sheer
force of managing that much parking and that much fish waste and
human waste all along the beaches. These little communities, he
continued, feel the same way - when the fishery is over, they
take a deep sigh and recover, but it is a tremendous strain on
resources and that is why there is this emotion. He advised
that being out in these places during the peak will show they
aren't sleepy little areas - they are tied into the whole world
as a point of origination for landing and catch and they need
help to do that better.
10:30:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON related that the Bristol Bay Borough is a
small industrial center and with about 100,000 people coming and
going in the summer a lot of services are expanded. He pointed
out that the Bristol Bay Borough is looking at over $10 million
just to fix a sewer infrastructure issue that has been lingering
for some time and is critical to the overall performance of the
local industry. He agreed with Representative Kopp's suggestion
to visit communities during the [summer] season. He offered
credit to the administration for trying to balance the budget
and to bring significant cost drivers under control. He stated
everyone needs to be cognizant of the long-term projections and
factor them into long-range thinking but opined that the short-
term impacts of HB 65 don't pass muster. He asked whether the
Dunleavy Administration would be open to new revenues.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN replied that Governor Dunleavy is not
promoting revenues right now and believes the spending side must
be addressed first. He offered his own belief that introducing
revenue bills waters down the spending discussion and said he
believes the governor would agree on this. He said he believes
the spending side needs to be looked at first. He concurred
with Representative Kopp that the administration did approach
this budget process differently. Commissioner Tangeman related
that the governor came to him first and said it needs to be
known how much revenue there is. That is why these types of
bills are put on the table, he said; it is available revenue,
not getting into the impact side of it, which is obviously
extreme. The governor wanted to know what the available revenue
was first, he continued, and then go to the expenditure side and
start prioritizing, almost a zero-based budge approach. That is
why there is the budget that was presented and the deficit that
was presented, he added. He said the administration doesn't
have revenue bills this year, but the administration knows that
revenue bills will be discussed as part of the process and will
be prepared to sit at these microphones to discuss those when it
is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON recalled the governor's announcement of
plans to continue his community visits on the budget. On behalf
of the communities in House District 37, Representative Edgmon
invited the governor, Commissioner Tangeman, and others to come
to the communities, meet with local leaders, and see what it is
like in the winter as well as the summer. He said having a
local conversation on the budget and the fiscal future is very
much warranted and is something he does regularly with his
communities.
10:34:43 AM
CHAIR STUTES asked whether Commissioner Tangeman believes that
revenue is a part of the resolution of Alaska's fiscal problem.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN responded it is obviously one side of the
story - it is available revenue and prioritizing expenditures
for that revenue. He said the state is in a position it has
never been in before, since building the state's budget has
generally started with the previous year's budget and adjusting
it as needed. For revenues, he continued, Alaska has lived and
died by the price of oil, with boom years and bust years.
Living in a state that has stable revenues makes budgeting a
completely different exercise, he noted. He added that Alaska
is incredibly fortunate to have not had any personal, sales, or
other taxes and is the envy of 49 other states because of that.
He predicted there would be a new Alaska in the coming decades.
He explained that his perspective is to budget the way
individuals do their monthly budgets how much revenue there is
to spend, rather than to spend first and then look at the
revenue. He offered his belief that revenues are not at the
level needed for a sustainable period and that it is a problem
everyone must tackle. He said he therefore appreciates the
approach that this governor is taking.
CHAIR STUTES said she equates it to the State of Alaska trying
to build a new puzzle and all the pieces are needed to complete
that puzzle and one of those pieces is revenue.
10:37:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed her surprise at the comment about
not having a conversation about revenue. This bill, she opined,
is recognition that the state needs more revenue, but instead of
being a new form the bill just takes the money from local
communities. It doesn't seem entirely honest to say that this
isn't a conversation about revenue when really it is, but it's
just in a more subverted form, she further opined. It's not a
new tax, she continued, it's a shifting of the responsibility,
so the conversation is happening but just not in a way that is
moving forward.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that this is very
disagreeable in a policy sense but in an odd way it is an
intellectually honest budget. He said this is what a cuts-only
approach to balancing the budget looks like, and in a certain
sense it moves the conversation forward and brings into focus
the stakes, even though the stakes might not be liked.
CHAIR STUTES thanked Commissioner Tangeman for coming before the
committee. She recognized that it is not a pleasant subject and
offered appreciation for the commissioner's straightforwardness.
She invited Mr. Spanos to provide a sectional analysis of HB 65.
10:39:51 AM
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), provided a sectional analysis of HB 65.
Regarding Section 1 and Section 2 he paraphrased from the
analysis included in the committee packet, which read:
Section 1 would amend AS 29.60.800(a), relating to the
harbor facility grant fund, to conform to the repeal
later in the bill of the statute providing for refunds
to municipalities from the fisheries business taxes.
Section 2 would amend AS 29.60.810, relating to grant
applications for harbor facilities, to conform to the
repeals later in the bill of the statutes providing
for the allocations and the refunds to municipalities
of fisheries business taxes.
10:41:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested Mr. Spanos to describe the
sections in addition to reading them from the analysis so that
the public could better understand them.
MR. SPANOS responded he would do his best but noted that HB 65
is a fairly technical bill with repealers and technicalities.
He explained HB 65 would stop the sharing of 50 percent of the
tax with local communities and would allow that money to stay in
the general fund to be appropriated as the legislature sees fit.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN recalled a previous question about the
harbor facility grant fund and what that fund has to do with
this. He requested Mr. Spanos to explain how that interacts
with HB 65 and why it is in the statute in the first place.
MR. SPANOS explained the Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development (DCCED) administers the harbor facilities
grant fund. He said DOR's function is simply to collect the
revenue from the payers of the Fisheries Business Tax and the
Fishery Resource Landing Tax and then transfer the revenue to
DCCED and the local municipalities. He stated he is unable to
speak to how the fund itself functions.
CHAIR STUTES requested Commissioner Tangeman to provide the
committee with a response regarding how that would be affected.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN replied that DOR would work with DCCED and
get back with a response.
10:43:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE brought attention to [page 2, lines 1-4, of
HB 65, which state: "A municipality or regional housing
authority that owns a harbor facility may submit to the
department of Transportation and Public Facilities an
application for a harbor facility grant to be used for
construction, expansion, major repair, or major maintenance of a
harbor facility."] She asked whether that is a different
conversation than with DCCED.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN responded that DOR administers the tax,
collects it, and then distributes the 50 percent back out, which
is the gist of the bill. He said DOR would look at the details
of the interplay between the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), DCCED, and DOR and include that in
DOR's responses to the committee.
CHAIR STUTES requested that the response address what effects
[the bill] would have on the grants.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that that is the main issue behind
her question. She said the municipalities need support for the
fisheries infrastructure and services. She noted that [under
Section 4 of the bill] the [tax] money would go into a separate
account in the general fund. While the bill says a separate
account, she continued, it would nonetheless go into the bigger
Alaskan pot to be redistributed to the communities. She said
these coastal communities would have a large deal of uncertainty
as to whether that money would be channeled back to them in an
equitable manner, yet they bear the larger burden of the
infrastructure that supports the fisheries and all the commerce
that is generated through them. She related that the
communities want to know where the assurance is from the
administration that they will still get that money back from the
state for the infrastructure and services if the 50 percent
mechanism is taken away. If the coastal communities dry up, she
opined, so does the commerce and that is the opposite of
strengthening the state's economy.
COMMISSIONER TANGEMAN replied that walking through the sectional
analysis is not going to address that question. He requested
that Mr. Spanos be able to provide the rest of the sectional
analysis and offered his appreciation for the question.
10:46:58 AM
MR. SPANOS resumed the sectional analysis. He explained that
Section 4 would amend a title within the tax statute that
relates to separate accounting of the Fishery Resource Landing
Tax, which is needed to conform to the overall repeal.
MR. SPANOS related that Section 5 would repeal five [statutes],
one within DCCED's statutes and the rest within the Tax
Division's statutes or the statutes that DOR administers. These
repeals, he continued, basically stop the sharing with the
municipalities and with any other special funds.
MR. SPANOS said Sections 6 9 are simply conforming amendments
for delayed provisions that are in existing law.
MR. SPANOS noted Section 10 clarifies the applicability of the
first five sections of the bill, so it is transition language.
MR. SPANOS stated Sections 11 12 provide DOR with timing for
repeal of various regulations that are currently in place
relating to the sharing of the taxes.
MR. SPANOS said Section 13 provides for retroactive application.
He explained that collection of the 2018 taxes has already
happened and those monies are now sitting in the general fund to
be shared in October, and this section would have those monies
remain in the general fund.
MR. SPANOS related that Sections 14 18 provide effective dates
for various sections of the bill.
10:49:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS spoke to the point of being open
for business. He noted he represents coastal communities and
that he has basically heard "no" from many people in his
district, which is to be expected given the bill would take
revenue away from those communities. A broader point here, he
said, is that when talking about revenues from resource
extraction or resource industries there is an interest for
everybody involved, including the State of Alaska, to have
alignment in those revenues. For example, he continued, if the
North Slope Borough and the three major oil and gas companies in
Alaska were consulted about the oil and gas property tax
revenues being taken away from the borough, concern would be
found that it is going to have a chilling effect on resource
development up there. There would certainly be a similar effect
in fisheries, he added. He further related that when
reallocation of the cruise ship passenger head tax revenues was
looked at, it was found that the cruise industry would be
somewhat jeopardized because communities would be unable to
manage the effects. There is incentive alignment that is
important with these revenues beyond just representing his
communities in coastal Alaska that is at play here, he said.
10:51:19 AM
CHAIR STUTES offered appreciation for the commissioner's courage
in coming before the committee with such an unpopular bill.
Obviously, HB 65 is a very controversial bill, she continued,
particularly in coastal communities. She said she is very
concerned with how this proposal would affect the communities
she represents as well as coastal communities throughout Alaska.
She stated that these fishing communities provide the
infrastructure and raw services for the industry and that these
communities depend on their portion of the raw fish tax to fund
their local budgets. She said she has heard no justifications
for why the state should be entitled to the municipal share.
Aside from there being little justification for such action, she
opined, there is no benefit to the residents of the state and
would hurt residents. She pointed out that while residents
don't pay any state taxes, they do pay local taxes, and the
state would be forcing local governments to either raise taxes
on residents to make up the shortfall or drastically reduce
essential services. She said the aforementioned is simply her
opinion and she welcomes further discussion and explanation from
the administration on why this is a good idea and she will try
to keep an open mind. She noted there would be invited and
public testimony at the bill's next hearing.
[HB 65 was held over.]
10:53:11 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:53
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB105 Fiscal Note DLWD 03.29.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Sponsor Statement 03.29.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - PSVOA 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - SEAFA 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - SEAS 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - UFA 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 ver A 03.26.2019.PDF |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB065 ver A 02.20.19.PDF |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Transmittal Letter 02.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Sectional Analysis 04.02.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Opposition Letter-UFA 04.01.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Opposition Letter-SEAS 04.01.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Opposition Letter-City of Unalaska 04.01.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Opposition Letter-Bristol Bay Borough 03.31.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Opposition Emails 04.02.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Fiscal Note-REV 02.20.19.PDF |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |
| HB065 Fiscal Note-CED 02.20.19.PDF |
HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 65 |