Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/24/2000 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 24, 2000
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, to
the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the disposal of state
agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural Resource
Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 25
"An Act relating to a municipal river habitat protection tax
credit."
- MOVED HB 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/26/99 324 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/26/99 324 (H) RES, FIN
3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/14/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/14/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/21/99 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/21/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/21/99 (H) MINUTE(RES)
1/24/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 25
SHORT TITLE: RIVER HABITAT PROTECTION TAX CREDIT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/19/99 24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/99
1/19/99 24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/19/99 24 (H) CRA, RES
2/02/99 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
2/02/99 (H) MOVED HB 25 OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/02/99 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
2/03/99 130 (H) CRA RPT 7DP
2/03/99 130 (H) DP: JOULE, DYSON, KOOKESH, MORGAN,
2/03/99 130 (H) MURKOWSKI, HALCRO, HARRIS
2/03/99 130 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCRA)
2/03/99 130 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
1/24/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 116.
EARL CLABO
537 Fern Avenue
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116, Version X.
BILL WARD
Ward Farms
P.O. Box 1087
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116, Version X.
JIM ELLISON, Publisher
Alaska Farmer Magazine
P.O. Box 53390
North Pole, Alaska 99705
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116, Version X.
ROBERT WELLS, Director
Division of Agriculture
1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116, Version X.
DAVE BECKER
P.O. Box 224
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 116, Version X.
GARRETT PERNEY
Alaska Farm Bureau
P.O. Box 82423
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 116, Version X.
BOB FRANKLIN, President
Fairbanks Alaska Farm Bureau
P.O. Box 7484
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 116, Version X.
DOUG WITT, Executive Director
Alaska Association of Conservation Districts (AACD)
351 West Parks, Number 101
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the AACD.
REX WRIGLEY
P.O. Box 1036
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 116, Version X.
SCOTT MILLER, President
Delta Junction Alaska Farm Bureau
HC 60 Box 4140
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 116, Version X.
CRAIG TRYTTEN
P.O. Box 81628
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 116, Version X.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR MASEK called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Hudson, Masek, Harris, Morgan, Barnes,
Whitaker and Joule. Representatives Cowdery and Kapsner arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 116 - BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
Number 0136
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation, to the agricultural revolving loan fund, to the
disposal of state agricultural land, and to the Alaska Natural
Resource Conservation and Development Board; and providing for an
effective date." [HB 116 had been heard previously, in 1999.]
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 116, version 1-LS0407\X, Cook,
1/14/00, as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so
ordered and Version X was before the committee.
Number 0186
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 116, explained that the bill creates a Board of Agriculture
and Conservation, which becomes the policymaker for the Division
of Agriculture. The board can then hire an executive director
and/or staff to manage the agriculture issues. She stressed that
the principal aspect of the bill is to make sure that the policy
of agriculture has continuity from one administration to another.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated she has been working extensively
with the agricultural community, which is beginning to come into
its own in spite of what has been done for it in the past;
therefore, she is encouraged that if some continuity of policy
can be established, then the agricultural community will continue
to grow.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the board would consist of
seven members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the
legislature. The members would serve a staggered three-year
term, and they may appoint a director who can employ staff that
are responsible for the daily operations of the Agriculture
Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF). Essentially, all existing statutory
duties of the Division of Agriculture [Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)] are transferred to the new board. The seven
members would be individuals with business or financial
experience: one from a statewide agriculture promotion
organization, one from the Alaska Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, and four from different enterprises in the commercial
production of agriculture.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES directed attention to the sectional analysis
of Version X contained in members' packets. She noted that most
of the sections confirm the transfer from the director of the
Division of Agriculture, DNR, to the Board of Agriculture and
Conservation. Furthermore, the Board of Agriculture and
Conservation will replace the ARLF Board and the Creamery Board;
two boards are being joined into one and being given a larger
responsibility, which means there should be a savings in dollars
and cents. One of the problems with this was regarding who could
get an ARLF loan if [that person] was a member of the board.
Therefore, it specifies on page 2, subsection (d) [of Version X]:
Notwithstanding AS 39.52.150(a) or other law, a person
serving on the board, or an immediate family member of
a person serving on the board, may obtain a lease,
permit, or loan under AS 03.10 or under AS 38.05. A
person may be appointed to the board even though that
person, or an immediate family member, has a lease,
permit, or loan under AS 03.10 or AS 38.05. However, a
board member may not use or attempt to use the office
for personal gain and may not intentionally secure or
grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that this is an "ethical thing"
and is probably something [members] would have to recuse
themselves on, if they were getting loans. She added that there
is a zero fiscal note.
Number 0531
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked where the money will come from to
operate the board.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES reiterated that the Board of Agriculture and
Conservation will replace two existing boards: the ARLF Board
and the Creamery Board.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES acknowledged that but asked how it will be
funded.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that it is all being funded by the
ARLF at this time.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked what the expenditure of the Division of
Agriculture has been on an annual basis.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that the Division of Agriculture has
been funded by the ARLF since she joined the legislature.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked whether those are collections from loans
that are being paid back.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES interjected that the ARLF was originally a
pot of money that was set aside for loaning money to farmers.
She pointed out that in the history of the ARLF there were many
failures and a lot of debts, but now all of the loans are
current. Some assets in the ARLF have been repossessed and are
currently in that fund, and the interest of the Board of
Agriculture and Conservation is to liquidate those assets. That
is part of the focus: being able to have a continuity of
agricultural interest without having so much political
interference. She indicated that [the ARLF] would like to see
some general funds, but she does not see that happening anytime
soon; therefore, the ARLF has to fund the operations of the Board
of Agriculture and Conservation as well as keep funds available
for loan money.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that there is also a provision
regarding interest on page 4, paragraph (4), that is being
deleted; it states, in part:
that may not be less than eight percent or more than
the commercial rate, unless the commercial rate is
eight percent or less;
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that [the statute] is being
amended to make the interest rate on farm development, chattel or
irrigation loans comparable to that charged by other agricultural
lending institutions in the state.
Number 0786
CO-CHAIR HUDSON indicated it is the right way to go, getting the
bureaucracy out of some of these industries.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS referred to a letter sent by the Alaska
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (AASWCD)
last year, opposing parts of HB 116. He wondered if those
concerns have been addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated the concerns have been addressed
and AASWCD is neutral [on the bill].
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said, "You stated in your presentation that
the department [DNR] and the Governor were behind this bill. ...
Are they willing to testify on behalf of this for you?"
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded:
I doubt it. And I'll be quite frank with you: from
the very beginning we've been working with Commissioner
Shively, and he silently supported what we were doing,
but I don't believe he'll come forward and testify in
that respect. We have had a lot of cooperation from
Director Rob Wells, who works for Commissioner Shively,
but I don't believe they'll come forward and object,
and that's probably the biggest thing we can expect.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE read from DNR's fiscal note analysis:
"Interest rate reduction from 8% to 5% would reduce revenue to
ARLF, amount is unknown at this time."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that the fiscal note is from last
year; the proposed CS for HB 116 cannot be given to DNR until it
is approved by the committee. She indicated that the language
has been changed, and the rate is to be the same or not less than
other farm agency loans that are available. The fiscal note is
also indeterminate, but that is based on the bill that was before
the committee last year, which was quite a bit more expensive.
Because there is one board that will replace two existing boards,
which are already funded, it will cost less.
Number 1157
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered if the committee could get the
fiscal note from the DNR for the proposed CS before it leaves the
committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK MASEK indicated that would happen.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES clarified that she is expecting a zero
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES expressed that the agriculture industry has
been an abysmal failure compared to the amount of money that has
been put into it. She indicated hope that someday the state can
recoup some of the money lost over the years, the most recent
example being the farms in the Point MacKenzie area.
Number 1301
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that a lot of money has been thrown
down a rat hole. However, the agriculture industry cannot be
legislated; it is a growing industry that starts from the
grassroots up. She said the efforts made by the legislature were
honorable back when there was money available, and the intent was
great. It was doomed to fail from the beginning, and she would
also like to recoup some of that money. She explained that
virus-free potatoes and carrots have been shipped to Taiwan
because of Alaska's clean industry, and there will be a return.
The state needs to get more land out to the farmers, and to allow
them to do it without being subsidized.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it was doomed to fail from the
beginning because the land was allowed only agricultural rights,
which were transferred from generation to generation; they could
not go to the bank and borrow money, but could only get money
from the State of Alaska. She said she has seen bison eating all
the barley, and there are some mighty fat bison that were paid
for by the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered if any of the work that has been
done is patterned on other states with a similar agriculture
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES responded that her agriculture experience is
primarily from growing up in Oregon. There, Oregon State
University (OSU) was the main contact on policy and building the
agricultural community; it was purely science and marketing in
nature. She noted that agriculture is not Alaska's forte, but
could be. She indicated that Alaska is the only state that does
not fund its agricultural division; it has been 12 years since
any general funds came into the Division of Agriculture, which
has been existing off of the ARLF.
Number 1741
EARL CLABO testified via teleconference from Wasilla on behalf of
the Northland Pioneer Grange. He indicated that they do not
object to HB 116, and he thanked Representative James for all her
work. His personal opinion, having been in Alaska since 1952 and
having watched the agriculture cycle, is that he also does not
object to the bill, Mr. Clabo concluded.
BILL WARD testified via teleconference from Delta Junction on
behalf of Ward Farms, indicating that he has also worked with
Representative James on the bill and is grateful for her efforts
and commitment to agriculture. He is pleased to see that she is
showing a strong interest in one of the resource economies of the
state that is part of the overall economy, instead of just
relying on oil as a source of income. He stated that he supports
the bill for the reasons already discussed with respect to the
continuity that it would provide between the community and the
administration. It also would provide interaction between the
needs of the industry and the ideas that the industry can offer
to help make the operations of state government more efficient,
cost-effective and productive.
MR. WARD emphasized that the legislature no longer provides
general funds for agriculture; all of the funding now comes out
of the ARLF, which is in effect the money that has been paid back
by those in the industry, out of their interest payments, to help
it grow. He pointed out that since they are now left to sink or
swim on their own, they have a legitimate right to have an active
involvement and an active say into how the money is spent.
MR. WARD told members that he is tired of hearing that
agriculture is the big drain on the state's general economy, and
that the $300 million that was lost and will never be returned,
when nothing is being mentioned about the millions of dollars
that were dumped into fisheries and never came back either. At
least in the agricultural industry, they are willing to take
control of their own destiny and make their own businesses pay;
they are contributing to the rural economy and are not the
failures but the survivors.
Number 2030
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES congratulated him on being one of the
survivors. She asked him if he could tell her where the money
for the ARLF came from originally.
MR. WARD answered that it came from the same pot of money from
the oil wealth that was dumped into the state, which provided
money for the fisheries, tourism and everything else.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that he is absolutely correct,
which means that when it is said that Alaska is not putting any
money now into agriculture, that is not correct because every
dime was originally put there by the state. She indicated that
she feels the same way about fisheries: fisheries have never
supported themselves in Alaska, but the state should not have to
support all of these things. It has only been recently that the
agricultural industry has started to produce, and the money that
was put out has started to come back to the state.
MR. WARD invited Representative Barnes to the farm tour in Delta
Junction.
Number 2168
JIM ELLISON testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
indicated that he has farmed for 50 years, 30 of those in Alaska.
The publisher for the Alaska Farmer Magazine, he said that he had
researched the bill and found nothing to object to; he fully
supports the bill.
Number 2213
ROBERT WELLS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources, testified via teleconference. He indicated
that the sectional analysis for Version X does not seem to match
up. He also indicated that [DNR] is currently of neutral
standing on the bill. He pointed out that members of the ARLF
Board are appointed by the governor but not subject to
legislative confirmation, which is something that the committee
might want to look at.
MR. WELLS indicated he was referring to the sectional analysis
for version 1-LS0407\X, dated 1/11/00. He referred to Section 41
of the sectional analysis where it states, "amends existing
statute, adding the new board's director and staff to the list of
exempt service employees."
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that Mr. Wells is correct. It is
the director that is exempt, not the staff. The sectional
analysis says the director and staff, so that is a conflict.
Number 2411
MR. WELLS pointed out that new board - the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation, with seven members on it - will receive travel
expenses and per diem, according to the proposed CS, and he
believes that is calculated using the same rate as for other
state board and commission members. He indicated [the committee]
would need to look into that cost. The second board, the
Creamery Board, is a nine-member board with five of the members
already on the ARLF Board; their expenses are not expenses to the
state and are quite minimal. His concern with per diem is that
the new board will be involved in a lot more policy decisions and
will be meeting more than the current ARLF Board meets; it is a
cost to look at.
MR. WELLS informed the committee that another concern with the
new board is its being exempt from the Executive Ethics Act and
being able to enter into financial agreements, whether those are
for loans, land sale contracts or leases with members who are
currently serving on the board. He cautioned about being careful
in terms of interest rates, because that is the source of income
for the ARLF, upon which the Division of Agriculture depends for
its financial operations for the other aspects of the division
that include marketing, inspection and the plant materials
section. If the interest rate is set too low, it could
potentially shorten the lives of the ARLF and the Division of
Agriculture.
MR. WELLS also expressed concern with Title 38, disposals under
current law. For instance, who is responsible for the surveys,
the appraisals, the public notices and the costs? He also
wondered who would be responsible for the disposal of
agricultural classified lands and the administration of those
land sale contracts. He wondered if it would be the
responsibility of the new board, because currently it is
administered by the Division of Mining, Land and Water. He
indicated it certainly implies some work and expenses that have
not been addressed.
Number 2635
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Mr. Wells to provide in writing a critique
of the proposed CS. He feels that it is a positive measure, he
said, and one that really wants to put agriculture on a front
burner.
MR. WELLS agreed to do so. He indicated that many positive
things are going on in agriculture.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Mr. Wells to also include what [imported
products] could be substituted with Alaska products.
MR. WELLS agreed to do so.
Number 2776
DAVE BECKER testified via teleconference from Delta Junction,
saying that he has been in Alaska for about three years working
at Ward Farms and looking for the opportunity to move out on his
own. He indicated he has about 15 years' experience in the
agriculture industry. He sees a lot of opportunity in
agriculture, especially in Delta Junction, but there is not a lot
of support from the state. He specified that he supports the
bill.
GARRETT PERNEY testified via teleconference from Fairbanks on
behalf of the Alaska Farm Bureau, stating that he has 30 years of
agricultural experience, has his Bachelor of Science degree in
animal science, and has worked in Alaska for nine years in
agriculture. He indicated that the Alaska Farm Bureau strongly
supports the bill and has worked extensively with Representative
James. The most important aspect of the bill is the development
of a stable board with stable policies, which will enable Alaskan
farmers to count on what will happen in the future.
TAPE 00-2, SIDE B
Number 2955
MR. PERNEY noted that Alaskans are trying to build an
infrastructure that is up-to-date and functional, but it takes a
lot of time, effort and money. The soils in Alaska are
relatively immature, which makes it difficult for farmers to get
started. The price of the average farm in the United States is
$1.7 million, which is a tremendous economic input for any single
family. Mr. Perney said HB 116 and the new Board of Agriculture
and Conservation will be beneficial to the growth of agriculture
in Alaska.
Number 2881
BOB FRANKLIN, President, Fairbanks Alaska Farm Bureau, testified
via teleconference from Delta Junction in support of HB 116. He
told members that he would like to see some stability in the
industry; every time a new governor is elected and a new
commissioner is appointed, the track changes from one direction
to another, which can be devastating to farmers and the
agricultural industry. He would like to see the bill passed
expeditiously.
DOUG WITT, Executive Director, Alaska Association of Conservation
Districts (AACD), testified via teleconference. He stated that
after being in opposition to the previous draft, the AACD
believes that the current version addresses those concerns.
Although he could not offer a formal endorsement, there is a
basic consensus that anything that government can do to
stabilize, standardize and streamline the decision-making process
will benefit the industry. He noted that the AACD will meet in
March, and one of its actions will be to formally endorse HB 116.
REX WRIGLEY testified via teleconference from Delta Junction,
saying that he is in support of HB 116.
Number 2634
SCOTT MILLER, President, Delta Junction Alaska Farm Bureau,
testified via teleconference from Delta Junction, speaking in
support of HB 116, the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, the
local grassroots representation, and the stability it will bring
to the agricultural industry. Presently in the state, there is a
shortage of barley, and there is great opportunity to be raising
barley; barley is currently being barged up or brought up the
highway. Mr. Miller pointed out that the state's investment in
agriculture is an insurance policy for food production, for
generations to come. When an insurance policy is purchased,
there is not a payout expected right away. The state needs to
have a long-term vision for agriculture, he concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS wondered what the percentage is of local
farmers who have been there for a considerable amount of time.
MR. MILLER stressed that the people in Delta Junction are serious
farmers who are there to make it work, and who are investing
their lives in this endeavor.
Number 2399
CRAIG TRYTTEN testified via teleconference. He expressed concern
about having a dairy person on the new board, because dairy has a
lot to do with the stability in agriculture in the state; it is
the trickle-down effect. He referred to an incident where a
cooperative was doing fine but then there was poor management or
directors that were self-serving; he feels that could happen with
HB 116. He noted that a floating interest rate is not a problem.
The biggest problem with the state is getting the land sold;
there are several people that come every year who want to farm,
but there is no land available. He concluded that if the land
were in the hands of the people, they could decide their own
destiny.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted that milk - about 6,000 gallons a
day - is imported into Alaska to supply local needs. He agreed
that the present situation is mismanaged. He wondered if there
will ever be a time when Alaskan farmers can supply the demands
of the local communities.
MR. TRYTTEN indicated there is a possibility of that happening.
He restated the desire to see more land in the hands of the dairy
farmers and more development.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered what percentage of milk from
Alaskan farms is supplying communities like Anchorage.
MR. TRYTTEN explained that [Matanuska Maid] provides 62 percent
of the milk to the market. He indicated that since the
Carrs/Safeway merger, the demand has picked up; they took
Dairygold out of the cooler at CARRS and people started buying
[Matanuska Maid]. He suggested the need for more infrastructure
and a few more people so that they can build a cooperative. They
are currently working on a $300,000 grant from U.S. Senator
Stevens to put together a cooperative development center for
agriculture in Alaska.
Number 2020
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES informed the committee that one of the
problems is that the people involved in agriculture would like to
have more say with regard to land. Currently, the only lands
division is in DNR; it manages the sale of the land. Many people
out there want to buy land, and the Division of Mining, Land and
Water is not getting the land out fast enough. She indicated
that the land sales and the collection of the contracts are to be
negotiated between the Board of Agriculture and Conservation and
the Division of Mining, Land and Water. A lot of questions need
to be answered regarding how it is going to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she is willing to listen to everything
Mr. Wells has to say, but she is not willing to put a lot of
things in the bill that will give it a huge fiscal note. The
intent of the bill is for the farmers to be able to do it better
for less. The interest of the farmer is in protecting the ARLF,
and they don't want to spend any more money out of that fund than
is absolutely necessary. The whole crux of the bill is to
replace and appoint a director. It is up to the seven members
on the Board of Agriculture and Conservation, who have been
appointed by the governor, to appoint a director. The secret to
that is having the seven-member board maintain a continuity of
policy over the different administrations.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES addressed Mr. Trytten's concern about not
having a dairy person on the board. She said a dairy person may
not want to serve on the board, but it is very possible that any
one of the members could have a farming background. She pointed
out that farmers agree that there needs to be a continuity of
policy over the long term in order for agriculture to be
successful; HB 116 does that. She restated that she would like
to have a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if there was another committee of
referral.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated that the House Finance Committee
is the next committee of referral, where the bill will get
intense scrutiny before going to the floor of the House.
Number 1695
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES stated that she is never willing to move a
bill out of committee that still needs to be fixed. Her
preference is that the bill does not get passed out until it is
in as good a shape as possible. She doesn't want the House
Finance Committee to come back and say that they had to do the
House Resources Committee's work.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES replied that she has no problem with that,
but she doesn't want the bill to languish in committee or to end
up requiring a fiscal note. She stressed that the market will
drive the system. When the government tries to drive the system
and create the market, that is when there starts to be a problem.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the proposed CS for HB 116 would be
held over.
HB 25-RIVER HABITAT PROTECTION TAX CREDIT
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business before
the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to a
municipal river habitat protection tax credit."
Number 1303
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 25, informed the committee that HB 25 is a simple bill. He
explained that currently there is a provision in statute that
offers a tax credit to property owners along the Kenai River.
This legislation, HB 25, merely extends that provision to
municipalities along other rivers. He emphasized that this is an
opportunity, not a mandate. He mentioned that HB 25 was brought
forward due to requests from his community.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if Representative Davies had spoken with
local governments regarding this issue. She asked how local
governments view this in the environment of decreasing municipal
revenue-sharing. She also asked what type of initiative the
municipalities would be interested in.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES answered that he was not aware of any
initiative, although there has been some discussion since
introduction of the bill. He informed the committee that there
is a lot of interest in his area with regard to the development
of the Chena River and the Tanana River. There is some interest
to provide the opportunity for the private sector to perform some
work and receive credit for that work. He feels that this issue
is relatively small. Furthermore, this is up to the
municipalities.
CO-CHAIR MASEK voiced her understanding that this program on the
Kenai River has been successful.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed and noted that he had been in touch
with some of the Kenai Assembly members and other folks, all of
whom were in favor of [the opportunity]. Therefore, he expressed
the need to open that opportunity to the rest of the state.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked what effect the municipal river
habitat protection tax credit has had on the Kenai Peninsula
Borough. Would the tax credit provide an incentive for other
areas such as Fairbanks?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that some people in his area have
reviewed this and have expressed interest. Therefore, he had
introduced HB 25. After talking to some elected officials and
some [Department of] Fish and Game folks, he had the impression
that there are a few projects which, without this habitat
protection tax credit, would not have proceeded. This has been a
good marriage between private enterprise and the municipality.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY mentioned that a few years ago he had
property on the Kenai, which had erosion problems. The problems
that he encountered were with the Department of Environmental
Conservation, the state government, and the federal government,
not the local government. He asked: Is that still the case?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES reiterated that HB 25 is a simple bill. It
is not primarily addressing erosion control per se. The bill is
mainly directed at the habitat protection issue and the
prevention of erosion caused by overuse from people. The active
erosion control that Representative Cowdery may be involved in
probably would not fall under HB 25.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that she did not believe that the
tax credit program had been a factor in stopping the problems on
the Kenai River. She believes that the Kenai River Classic
raises much money and awareness, which is used to address erosion
problems and enhance habitat.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed that the Kenai River Classic is a
major piece. However, HB 25 is a small way in which to further
encourage [habitat protection].
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER noted that he, too, represents the
Fairbanks community. He said everyone should review the
opportunity to develop a river. He agreed that HB 25 is a small
piece of the puzzle. He said he is in support of HB 25, which he
hopes the chair will consider moving [out of committee].
Number 0455
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move HB 25 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 25 was moved from
the House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that there were witnesses on teleconference.
She conveyed her understanding that their testimony would have
been positive.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON recommended that those witnesses fax their
testimony so that it could be forwarded along with the bill to
the next committee of referral. [HB 25 was moved from committee.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|