Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/28/2001 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
March 28, 2001
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN)
"An Act relating to 'take-a-child-hunting' seasons for big
game."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 72(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to fund
the acquisition of high- resolution digital orthoimagery and
digital elevation data for the entire state of Alaska.
- MOVED HJR 19 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 194
"An Act relating to fees for commercial fishing licenses and
permits; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 194 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 72
SHORT TITLE:TAKE A CHILD HUNTING SEASON
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) KELLY
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/06/01 0288 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/06/01 0288 (S) RES, FIN
02/07/01 0301 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN,
THERRIAULT
02/12/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/12/01 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
02/12/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/13/01 0354 (S) RES RPT CS 3DP 3NR SAME TITLE
02/13/01 0354 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR, KELLY;
02/13/01 0354 (S) NR: PEARCE, LINCOLN, ELTON
02/13/01 0354 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
02/23/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/23/01 (S) -- Meeting Postponed to
2/26/01--
02/26/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
02/26/01 (S) Moved CSSB 72(FIN) Out of
Committee
MINUTE(FIN)
02/26/01 0500 (S) FIN RPT CS 7DP 2NR SAME TITLE
02/26/01 0500 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,
AUSTERMAN,
02/26/01 0500 (S) WILKEN, WARD, LEMAN; NR:
HOFFMAN, OLSON
02/26/01 0500 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
02/28/01 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
02/28/01 0535 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2OR 2/28/01
02/28/01 0539 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/28/01 0539 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/28/01 0539 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
02/28/01 0539 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
72(FIN)
02/28/01 0539 (S) PASSED Y16 N2 A1 E1
02/28/01 0539 (S) LINCOLN NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
02/28/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/01/01 0560 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD
READING
03/01/01 0560 (S) RETURN TO SECOND FOR AM 1
UNAN CONSENT
03/01/01 0561 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y5 N10 E4 A1
03/01/01 0561 (S) AUTOMATICALLY IN THIRD
READING
03/01/01 0561 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y14
N1 E4 A1
03/01/01 0562 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/01/01 0562 (S) VERSION: CSSB 72(FIN)
03/07/01 (H) RES AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/07/01 (H) <Bill Rescheduled to 3/12/01>
03/09/01 0508 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0508 (H) RES
03/12/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/12/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/12/01 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/19/01 (H) Failed To Move Out Of
Committee
03/19/01 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 19
SHORT TITLE:DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY AND ELEVATION DATA
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/09/01 0514 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/09/01 0514 (H) RES
03/21/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/21/01 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/28/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 194
SHORT TITLE:ENTRY PERMIT FEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)STEVENS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/19/01 0648 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/19/01 0648 (H) FSH, RES, FIN
03/26/01 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/26/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(FSH)
03/27/01 0741 (H) FSH RPT 6DP
03/27/01 0741 (H) DP: DYSON, COGHILL, SCALZI,
KERTTULA,
03/27/01 0741 (H) WILSON, STEVENS
03/27/01 0741 (H) FN1: (DFG)
03/27/01 0747 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KERTTULA
03/28/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KRISTOPHER KNAUSS, Staff
to Senator Pete Kelly
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of SB 72.
GUST PANOS, Chairperson
Digital Orthoimagery Subcommittee
Alaska Geographic Data Committee
4230 University Drive, Room 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HJR 19.
JOHN ELLIS
AeroMap U.S., Inc.
(No address provided)
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke regarding HJR 19 and 3-D imagery.
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of HB 194.
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the Department of Law in
support of HB 194.
JERRY McCUNE
United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA)
211 4th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 194.
KEVIN BROOKS, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
PO Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the ADF&G on HB 194.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-24, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR DREW SCALZI called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Fate,
McGuire, Chenault, Stevens, Kerttula, and Scalzi were present at
the call to order. Representative Green arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
SB 72-TAKE A CHILD HUNTING SEASON
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 72(FIN), "An Act relating to 'take-a-
child-hunting' seasons for big game."
Number 0138
REPRESENTATIVE FATE made a motion to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS), Version T [22-LS0084\T, Utermohle,
3/27/01], with Senator Pete Kelly's letter of intent, for
purposes of discussion. There being no objection, Version T was
before the committee.
Number 0233
KRISTOPHER KNAUSS, Staff to Senator Pete Kelly, Alaska State
Legislature, came forth on behalf of Senator Kelly, sponsor of
SB 72, to explain the changes in Version T. He pointed out that
page 1, lines 11-13, now reads: "A big game animal taken under
this subsection must be counted against the bag limits of both
the child and the adult, parent, stepparent, or legal guardian
who accompanies the child."
Number 0295
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he was glad that issue had been
addressed, because it had been a concern of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. Knauss to confirm that the
intent of the added language is that there not be an opportunity
for the adult to [take a second animal during the regular
season].
MR. KNAUSS confirmed that.
Number 0350
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked the sponsor [Senator Pete Kelly]
for the letter of intent.
Number 0362
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSB 72 [version 22-
LS0084\T, Utermohle, 3/27/01] out of committee with the attached
letter of intent, individual recommendations, and the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, HCS
CSSB 72(RES) was moved out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
HJR 19-DIGITAL ORTHOIMAGERY AND ELEVATION DATA
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Urging the United States
Congress to pass legislation to fund the acquisition of high-
resolution digital orthoimagery and digital elevation data for
the entire state of Alaska. [The resolution was sponsored by
the House Resources Standing Committee.]
Number 0441
CO-CHAIR SCALZI explained that the technology being introduced
in HJR 19 is "three-dimensional [3-D] mapping." The majority of
Alaska maps were produced between the 1950s and the 1980s. The
resolution asks the U.S. Congress to provide Alaska the funding
for the same technological benefits provided to all other
states.
GUST PANOS, Chairperson, Digital Orthoimagery Subcommittee,
Alaska Geographic Data Committee (AGDC), gave a PowerPoint
presentation on the Alaska Orthoimagery Initiative, compiled by
the AGDC. He explained that the goal of HJR 19 is to obtain
funding from Congress to acquire digital orthoimagery and
digital elevation data for Alaska, to be made available on the
Internet for all the agencies and the public to use. [Mr. Panos
followed the format of the spiral-bound booklet found in the
committee packet. He also provided a map and 3-D glasses.]
MR. PANOS defined "digital orthoimagery" (DO) as an aerial
photograph that shows everything on the earth's surface at a
moment in time, with map-like features that allow for accurate
measurement and depiction of township and range, or latitude and
longitude. He listed the DO specifications for five-meter
resolution: statewide coverage; quarter-quad format, like maps
in the Lower 48 with 1:24,000 scale; color-infrared imagery;
national map accuracy standards; and North American 1983 data
that is being adopted nationwide. He also described the DO
specifications for one-meter resolution: urbanized areas, 227
federally recognized Native villages, major transportation
corridors and the trans-Alaska pipeline; color-infrared imagery;
quarter-quad format; national map accuracy standards; and North
American 1983 data.
MR. PANOS next described digital elevation data (DED) as an
array of [elevation values] representing the shape of the
earth's surface. He explained that existing elevation data for
Alaska, which was derived from USGS [United States Geological
Survey] maps, is not very accurate. He cited the specifications
for DED: 30-meter postings, which show a latitude and longitude
point every 30 meters; 7-meter vertical accuracy; and 1983 North
American data. Mr. Panos stated that the uses of DED are to
make geometric corrections for orthoimagery and to derive
topographical information for calculating aspects, drainage,
watersheds, solar insulation, slopes, and landforms, for
example, and for generating contours.
MR. PANOS provided an overview of the AGDC. Formed in 1993, the
AGDC currently has 40 members representing State of Alaska
departments, federal agencies, municipalities, boroughs, Native
organizations, private enterprise, and the University of Alaska.
Its purpose is to provide statewide leadership for surveying,
mapping, and related spatial data coordination. Mr. Panos
specified AGDC's overall objectives: to build geographic
information partnerships in Alaska; to leverage resources; to
promote the visions and goals of the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure; and to serve as the technical advisory committee
to the Alaska Land Managers Forum. Mr. Panos added that the
reason AGDC was given approximately $8 million from the federal
government was because it leveraged its resources by forming a
partnership with those other groups.
MR. PANOS mentioned aviation safety and infrastructure
development, put together by the FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration], the "Capstone project folks," and Raytheon. He
explained that presently the FAA is trying to provide leadership
to improve aviation safety, air traffic control, and
infrastructure development. He described eight "hot button"
uses of orthoimagery: first, to increase safety via Capstone
technology, utilizing more accurate data; second, to more
accurately chart publications for both VFR [visual flight rules]
and IFR [instrument flight rules] flights; third, to lower the
instrument-approach minimums, resulting in more arrivals and
departures; fourth, to augment planning information for airport
location and development; fifth, to aid in managing airspace and
creating 3-D traffic modeling; sixth, to plan and zone to
protect existing and future arrival and departure routes;
seventh, to accurately locate towers, power lines, and other
aircraft obstructions; and eighth, to provide military area
charting and routes for military and civilian traffic
"deconfliction."
Number 1240
MR. PANOS informed members that the Alaska Fire Service has
compiled reported uses of orthoimagery in disaster response and
hazard prevention. He said fire is a natural part of the
Alaskan ecosystem, and fire management is fundamental to the
protection and enhancement of human values, wildlife, habitat,
and ecosystem integrity; wildfires burn approximately one
million acres a year, and suppression response is based on
statewide fire management plans. Mr. Panos also mentioned
prescribed fire plans for fuel hazard reduction. He listed the
following uses by Alaska Fire Service for orthoimagery: to
assess fuel types and changes in surface features; to identify
resource habitat to assess the level of [fire] suppression
efforts necessary; to strategically plan prescribed burns; to
locate natural fire barriers, which helps in crew placement; to
pinpoint ingress and egress routes; and to plan relocation of
village landfills for fire prevention.
MR. PANOS discussed the Alaska Land Transfer Program. He said,
"The state and federal government and Native corporations are in
partnership to execute the largest surveying effort in U.S.
history and a huge adjudication effort." The transfer will
shift 104 million acres to the state and 44 million acres to the
Native corporations. Mr. Panos stated that he had worked with
the cadastral surveyors at BLM [Bureau of Land Management] "to
put this together." He listed the following ways that
orthoimagery serves as a reference source: to validate Native
allotment locations with accuracy, thereby spending less money
to do so; to develop survey plans for ANCSA [Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act] and state selections; to identify field
[survey] transportation needs for four-wheeled vehicles, fixed-
wing [aircraft], boats, or helicopters; to preview the landscape
and estimate labor [costs], which are currently between $8-10
million a year; to determine what technology and techniques to
use by previewing the landscape; and to delineate bodies of
water that are 50 acres or more in size.
Number 1559
MR. PANOS stated that everyone knows [development of Alaska's]
natural resources is key to [the state's] economic vitality;
consequently, [the state] must work with the best data
available. He mentioned receiving help from Phillips [Alaska,
Inc.], Minerals Management Service, and BLM to create the
example in the committee packet. Mr. Panos highlighted some
uses of orthoimagery in oil field development: to determine
lease boundary locations, by projecting the lease boundaries
over the orthophoto; to delineate hydrologic basins and the
effect that oil development will have on them; to plan the
routing of ice roads; to evaluate water sources for ice-road
construction; to determine locations for infrastructure
development; to locate ecological monitoring stations; to serve
as the base material for [sensitive habitat locations]; and to
use as a communication tool for public meetings.
MR. PANOS turned to the issue of public safety and "Legal
Access," a report compiled by an easement management team
composed of state and federal employees as well as
representatives from the Native corporations. He said many
easements in Alaska give access to major waterways on state
federal and municipality lands; there are approximately 3,000
easements in Alaska, many of which cross Native land. Mr. Panos
told the committee that easements are not in good shape right
now. He pointed out some color-coded lines on a map that
indicated disputed easements and proposed easements. He listed
the uses for orthoimagery regarding legal access and public
safety: to identify conflicts between easements and land
ownership; to reroute existing easements because of public
safety concerns; to improve, maintain, and mark easements; to
avoid placing easements in [environmentally sensitive areas];
and to identify discrepancies among [locations of reserved]
easements to actual trails.
Number 1838
MR. PANOS next pointed to Resource Assessment [and Public Use].
He read, "Public access to Alaska's natural resources is
essential to meet increasing tourism, recreation, [and]
development demands." He stated that good land-use planning and
environmental assessment are necessary to ensure public access
while meeting environmental considerations. Mr. Panos indicated
an orthoimagery map [located in the committee packet] that shows
a before-and-after picture of "the old Sourdough Campground" on
the Richardson Highway, which was a mosquito-infested area prior
to the application of orthoimagery technology.
MR. PANOS listed the following uses for orthoimagery regarding
resource assessment, compiled by the people in the Glennallen
district and the park service: to locate existing ATV trails
and assess their impact on land, water, and living resources; to
inventory overused public access trails, in order to determine
whether they should be shut down or rehabilitated; to plan for
optimal location of new public access trails; to locate
[publicly established] camping sites; to identify which camping
sites are in need of restoration; and to plan for optimal
locations for camping sites, so that people can get the best use
out of them, while still maintaining the environment.
Number 1980
MR. PANOS told the committee that according to the Department of
Community & Economic Development, [more than] 35 percent of the
communities in rural Alaska don't have flush toilets or running
water; he added that he believed that figure had dropped to 30
percent. Many [federal, state, and local] initiatives are in
progress to improve [conditions] in the rural communities, with
a focus to improve the infrastructure in terms of sanitation,
water, power, and transportation. Mr. Panos listed the
following ways that orthoimagery could be used for community and
economic development: to identify culturally and
environmentally sensitive areas, such as salmon-fishing and
berry-picking locales; to identify communities' existing and
future land uses by mapping out trails, buildings, and roads; to
identify the boundaries of ANCSA [section 14(c)] land claims; to
verify the boundaries of the major landowners; to figure out
hazards, such as flood plains; and to serve as an aid to
communication with the people of the communities.
Number 2085
MR. PANOS defined "Base Map Data Framework" as "layers of
information" for which Alaska has a need. The framework is
depicted on a graph [shown in the committee packet] consisting
of the following elements: elevation; geodetic control;
[digital] hydrography; bathymetry, which shows the depth of the
coastline; cadastral [surveying], which essentially is showing
the location of all survey boundaries; transportation, which
involves getting coordinates on roads; government units, which
shows who has administrative jurisdiction over which land; land-
cover information, which shows land, water, and vegetation
types; elevation [data]; and digital orthoimagery.
MR. PANOS explained that elevation, geodetic control, and
hydrography maps are complete, while bathymetry, cadastral,
transportation, governmental units, and land-cover map work is
still in progress. In contrast, (accurate) elevation maps and
digital orthoimagery maps [for Alaska] do not exist. He said,
as an example, that digital orthoimagery could supply such
information such as the exact dates during which a pilot should
not fly through a certain area, in order to avoid disturbing
moose or caribou calving.
MR. PANOS told the committee that the average map of Alaska is
over 40 years old; many of the maps are over 50 years old. He
added that there are no plans on the horizon by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) to update them. He indicated the last
statewide base [survey] for imagery was in 1978, for Fairbanks;
he showed the committee two maps of Fairbanks [in the committee
packet] and pointed out the changes in the area [over a 21-year-
period], which are highlighted by the use of digital
orthoimagery.
MR. PANOS mentioned approaching the "Commerce Business Daily
(indisc.)" with an RFI (request for information), to determine
[data acquisition] costs. He called this the "sticker shock
page." He said the collection of the digital information data
would take approximately four years, at a cost of approximately
$60 million. Regarding data accessing, Mr. Panos said that the
information has no licensing restriction on it like many data;
consequently, it would be put on the Internet as it became
available. The information would be available on the Internet
through the Alaska Geospatial Clearinghouse and could be
ordered, either from the University of Alaska Fairbanks [a
potential in-state repository] or the USGS EROS [Earth Resources
Observation System] Data Center. He stated that the fee charged
to the consumer would only be the cost of the compact disk.
Number 2338
MR. PANOS spoke next regarding letters of endorsement. He told
the committee that so far, [AGDC] has 55 letters of endorsement
from the following groups: the federal government, including
the National Digital Orthophoto Program, the U.S. Air Force, the
U.S. Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Land Management, among
others; industry and advocacy groups, including the Resource
Development Council [for Alaska, Inc.], the Alaska Land Managers
Forum (ph), Arctic Power, Institute of the North, the Alaska
Airmen's Association, Inc.; private industry, including oil
companies, engineering firms, and mining companies; conservancy
groups, such as the Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited;
Native corporations, including the Association of ANCSA Regional
Corporation Presidents/CEOs, Inc.; local government, including
municipalities and boroughs; several State of Alaska agencies,
with the help of Senator Phillips; and professional mapping
companies, including "three of the more prominent ones."
Number 2443
MR. PANOS showed a map of digital "orthoquads" currently for
sale in Alaska "on what we call the 'National Aerial Photography
Program' desktop," comprising basically the area from the Kenai
peninsula to the Wasilla area. He noted that Alaska is the only
state that does not belong to the National Digital Orthophoto
Program.
MR. PANOS explained that the National Aerial Photography Program
takes aerial photography, which the National Digital Orthophoto
Program turns into orthophotos. Referring to "the archive," he
showed another graph depicting, in color, everything "covered"
to date, which does not include Alaska. He mentioned a seven-
year plan that spans from 1997-2003, in which Alaska is not
included. Mr. Panos noted that recently the NASA [National
Aeronautics and Space Administration] shuttle project - a
photographic mapping mission - covered an area from 60 degrees
north to 60 degrees south, which did not include [most of]
Alaska.
MR. PANOS told members that spatial data is essential for
planning, developing, and managing assets, improving living
conditions, and protecting the environment. It increases
knowledge and reduces uncertainties, allowing for better
decisions from which "we" will reap savings. Mr. Panos
indicated the value of spatial data used in "a good decision
support program" is worth 1 to 4 percent of the total value of
the resources being managed; for example, if Alaska had $1
trillion worth of resources, 1 percent would be $10 billion.
Thus good infrastructure information would pay off considerably.
MR. PANOS noted that the next point was procured from Australia:
When there is good spatial data infrastructure, the cost-benefit
is about a 1:9 ratio. He said some people at Ducks Unlimited
figured out a 1:7 ratio on their return. He stated that the
benefits of spatial data increase; more organizations have
access to the data, which means that everyone is using good
information on which to base decisions. Mr. Panos said that is
the reason [AGDC] is putting the information on the Internet.
Number 2625
CO-CHAIR SCALZI commented that the list of endorsements was
impressive.
Number 2650
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that a [pilot] could not file an
instrument flight plan without a published navigational aid, and
asked how the initiative would increase the number of published
navigational aids in small villages.
MR. PANOS said he would have to ask the people at the FAA. He
added:
The point they were making, to me, on this is that
they don't have good terrain data out in the Bush, and
so their approaches have to be very ... long coming
in. They said if they had better terrain data, they
could lower their approaches and get more people in
and out.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE responded, "Well, I'm a flier, and that
doesn't quite add up to ... how it's done. But that's all
right; we'll let it pass."
MR. PANOS reported that actual products, developed with AeroMap
and the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation, would "come
out of this program"; a variety of projects can be generated
with orthophoto and with digital elevation data. He indicated
some examples on the wall of the committee room and mentioned
additional 3-D material. In response to a comment by Co-Chair
Scalzi about the effects of wearing the 3-D glasses, Mr. Panos
said the digital elevation data makes it possible to perform 3-D
"fly-throughs" of an area. The U.S. Air Force is very
interested in this technology, for example, because it allows
using a simulator to practice air operations.
Number 2770
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. Panos why Alaska was not up to speed
with the Lower 48 regarding this technology.
MR. PANOS replied that the Alaska is too big, and covering an
area of its size would be expensive. He said for years he has
brought up the subject to the USGS, which is hesitant to deal
with Alaska because of the amount of money that would be
involved. He recounted that someone in North Carolina had
suggested Alaska's "counties" could help pay, but he'd informed
the person that the North Slope Borough, for example, is as big
as North Carolina, but with only 10,000 people.
Number 2845
JOHN ELLIS, AeroMap U.S., Inc., came before the committee to
explain the purpose of the 3-D glasses that he provided. He
said the digital elevation model is a 3-D model, which is
accurate horizontally and to 2.5 meters; the 3-D glasses aid in
seeing the model. Mr. Ellis added that land-cover information
and other information can be draped over the model, producing "a
whole new world - almost like something you can pick up." Mr.
Ellis pointed out that this technology is not new; almost all
image-processing software available today can automate these
types of maps. For example, children could get on the Internet
and download an image of their favorite campground to see what
the elevation differences are. He mentioned software such as
"Photoshop."
Number 2969
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HJR 19 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HJR 19 moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
HB 194-ENTRY PERMIT FEES
TAPE 01-24, SIDE B
Number 2995
CO-CHAIR SCALZI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to fees for commercial
fishing licenses and permits; and providing for an effective
date."
[There was a motion to adopt HB 194 for discussion purposes, but
it was already before the committee.]
Number 2958
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, speaking as the sponsor, informed
members that HB 194 involves a very complex subject. It has a
lot to do with the 1982 Carlson case, a class-action suit
brought against the State of Alaska and the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC) for charging a three-to-one difference
between nonresident and resident fishermen. Representative
Stevens detailed the supreme court's decision: the state would
not be allowed to charge three-to-one, but instead must use a
differential based on the difference paid in taxes by a resident
versus a nonresident. The [supreme court] still has to rule on
what the state owes in the case. If the state loses the case,
it may owe more than is estimated now.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS further explained that HB 194 would
repeal the present statute regarding the 3:1 ratio and replace
it with language that allows the state to charge nonresidents
"the maximum amount allowed by the court". He mentioned that
the state's attorney, Stephen White, argued the case in superior
court, where he suggested six budget categories in which the
state would be able to charge nonresidents more than residents.
In June 2000, the superior court came up with a formula for what
the state could charge, allowing only two out of the six
categories. Representative Stevens said this could cost the
state $22.5 million; Mr. White would be appealing that decision
in the state supreme court, in an attempt to get the other four
categories included in the formula. He continued:
Even now, today, if you were to go down to the [CFEC]
and apply for a limited [entry permit], you'd be
charged ... three times more than out-of-state
fishermen, ... despite what the court has ruled. So
what we're doing is ... adding to that liability that
we will owe at some point in the future. This bill
will allow the [CFEC] to stop charging three-to-one
and begin to charge this maximum amount allowed by the
courts.
If the bill is passed, the CFEC will begin to use the
formula the court has directed us to use, based on
those two budget categories. At the same time, the
Department of Law will continue trying to get those
other four categories into the formula. HB 194 will
help us resolve the problems we're facing right now.
Hopefully, it will not create any additional problems.
It gets rid of that ... three-to-one ratio. It shows
that we are acting in good faith with the courts. It
shows that when we realized what our liability was ...
we took steps to correct things.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it doesn't "get us anywhere to stick
with the present statute." He pointed out that in addition to
needing a statute change when the court decides which budget
categories can be listed, the state already must change it
because of the court's decision against the state's use of the
three-to-one ratio.
Number 2732
MARY McDOWELL, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G),
spoke on behalf of CFEC in support of HB 194, saying CFEC
believes the bill is a "win-win action." She said:
By adopting the provisions of this bill now, as
opposed to sticking with the current statute and
fixing it after the supreme court has finally ruled,
we're actually ahead, whether or not the supreme court
rules in our favor.
MS. McDOWELL stated that recently the Department of Law has done
briefings for several legislative committees on the details of
the Carlson case; therefore, most of the legislature is "fairly
familiar" with the potential fiscal ramifications of having to
pay these possible refunds and interest for past overcharges of
nonresident fishing licenses. She referred to the sponsor's
explanation and said the Carlson case raises prospective issues
such as what the fee structure should be now and in the future.
The subject of HB 194 is how a fee structure can be established
that is "feasible to administer and will maximize our revenues
from nonresidents, while avoiding possible future liability."
MS. McDOWELL explained that the "three-to-one" mandate in
statute is the main issue in this bill. She said [CFEC] is
continuing to use this ratio, even though the court has said it
unconstitutionally overcharges nonresidents in some of the fee
categories. The three-to-one ratio has not been ruled
unconstitutional, but the supreme court has said that a formula
must be used to charge higher nonresident fees. At this point
in court, [the state] is arguing which state expenditures can go
into that formula.
MS. McDOWELL said the ratio by itself is not acceptable, unless
fees for residents and nonresidents are so low that they happen
to fall into the allowable differential. For example, with
crewmember licenses, the state has charged three-to-one for
years, but the dollar amount is so low that it happens to fall
within what's allowable. For years, [CFEC] charged [residents]
$30 and [nonresidents] $90; last year, that was changed to $60
and $125, respectively, but since the dollar amount is so small
and it stays within the ratio, no refund will be owed. However,
within higher permit fee categories, some permit fees have a
differential of $500 between residents and nonresidents. So, in
regard to allowable fees by the court, she said, if "we prevail
at the supreme court and we get differentials hiked, we'd be
able to charge double the amount, similar to those amounts ...
under the provisions of this bill. So, our revenues would ...
go back up."
MS. McDOWELL remarked that until last summer's superior court
decision, the state could claim that the court had not set out a
specific explanation about what is acceptable and how to
calculate the differential. Now, however, [CFEC] has that
direction from the court. She noted that Stephen White,
Department of Law, could elaborate on this.
MS. McDOWELL commented that if the superior court ruling is not
overturned, what is currently being charged will accrue a debt
of approximately $2.13 million every year under the current
statute. In addition to this debt, approximately 250 new
members are added to the Carlson [class] each year that the
current three-to-one statute is used.
MS. McDOWELL noted that HB 194 doesn't address or affect the
outcome of the Carlson case, since it affects liabilities that
may be ultimately found for charges in the past or the present.
Those issues will have to "run their course" in court. This
bill affects what [CFEC] would charge for licensing in 2002.
This would happen without conceding to the court's decisions.
It would support the state appeal.
MS. McDOWELL explained that HB 194 keeps the current $60
resident fee for crewmember licenses. It also allows ADF&G,
which handles crewmember licenses, to raise nonresident fees to
"tack on the entire allowable differential." This will help
offset the loss and [CFEC's] having to reduce the fees in some
permit categories.
MS. McDOWELL pointed out that HB 194 also addresses the $5
crewmember license for children 11 years and under - which was
established by the legislature "one to two years ago" for
residents and nonresidents - by authorizing ADF&G to add the
allowable nonresident differential to the $5 fee.
MS. McDOWELL referred to the annual renewal fees for the CFEC
permits, including limited entry permits and interim-use permits
that one needs for an unlimited fishery. Under HB 194,
nonresidents would be charged the base (resident's) fee, plus
"up to" the maximum allowable differential that the court will
allow. Residents would be charged slightly more than what is
under current statute. The fee would go from $250 to $300. She
said this is not something "that fishermen love," but United
Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) supports this increase to offset some
of the loss in revenues.
MS. McDOWELL noted that this $250 cap for residents has been in
effect for 20 years with no changes. However, permits for
individual fisheries move up and down within the five fee
categories because they are charged for each type of license,
according to the economic return in that fishery. But if the
cap were set at $300, then each of the five classes would be
"proportionally hiked by about 20 percent." So, for example,
under this bill, the lowest fee class would go from $50 to $60.
In short, the resident fee affects the nonresident fee.
MS. McDOWELL suggested that the decision on the resident fee cap
be revisited after a final supreme court decision, since at that
point "we" will know what happens to the revenues that are
generated. She said fees generated by CFEC permit fees are also
used to fund the Division of Commercial Fisheries (under ADF&G).
So it [resident fee cap] is a concern to fishermen as well as
the legislature.
MS. McDOWELL turned attention to reduced "poverty fees." These
fees are set in statute for people who can show they are below
poverty level; the fees have been $15 for residents and $45 for
nonresidents for years. Ms. McDowell noted that those fees are
not high enough to cover what [CFEC] is required to submit for
insurance under the fishermen's fund. She explained that HB 194
would set poverty fees at half of the normal fee a person would
pay for the annual renewal of a permit.
MS. McDOWELL said this is a modest change for most people, since
most poverty permits are at the lowest fee category. She
reported that 700 out of 895 poverty fee permits in 2000 were in
the $50 resident fee class; under this bill, the fee would
increase to $30 from $15. For the few people in higher
categories who apply for poverty fees, their permits would
increase more substantially; for example, in 2000 there were 83
[poverty] permits in the $100 [fee] class, and those fees would
increase to $60 under this bill. She went on to say that the
few people in the highest fee class would see a tenfold
increase, from $15 to $150, but it is still a savings of $150
[over the full fee].
MS. McDOWELL referred to the fiscal note. She said HB 194 would
save $1.13 million a year in refunds and interest if the
superior court decision stands, or more if the plaintiff wins.
She said even though the fiscal note shows a $470,000 loss of
revenue that [CFEC's] fees generated, it is a little misleading
because it would be more than offset by "other things that the
bill does." The first offset would be the way refunds are
calculated under the Carlson case. There is a stipulation with
the plaintiff's attorney that credit is given if a fisherman
over time has held permits above or below the allowed
differential. [CFEC] can a use a year in which [fishermen] paid
less than what was charged to them in order to offset an
overpayment. So, if [CFEC] wins in supreme court, and during
this "intervening time" CFEC has undercharged, it can deduct
that amount from the refund owed.
MS. McDOWELL went on to say that since this does not come back
in the form of a fee receipt, there is still concern that fees
that would normally go to the Division of Commercial Fisheries
wouldn't go there. But as far as the state's fiscal situation,
the money "comes back" in the form of reducing those refunds.
MS. McDOWELL noted that if the state does not prevail in the
supreme court, there would be refunds plus interest; thus there
is a savings by not charging it upfront. In the meantime, since
this bill allows [ADF&G] to hike nonresident crew member fees
right away - which could offset a substantial portion of the
decline in fees while [CFEC] is having to redo some of the
permit fees - [CFEC] can be increasing the crewmember
nonresident fee, which would help offset it as well. If the
plaintiffs win the aspects that they're appealing to the supreme
court, what [CFEC] would save in this bill wouldn't fully cover
the additional debt, but it would reduce what [CFEC] owes by
$1.13 million a year.
MS. McDOWELL concluded by saying HB 194 contains legally and
financially responsible actions for the legislature to take. It
protects the best interests of the state by "minimizing our
potential accrual of more debt while seeking to maintain state
revenues." It contains language that is "flexible enough to
fulfill this purpose on into the future regardless of the
outcome in the high court." This bill also "concedes nothing in
the Carlson case; it can't be construed in any way to concede
what the state is arguing, and it actually could help us avoid
the risk of punitive action by the court." It provides a tool
for remaining in compliance to avoid further legal liability.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if the poverty fee is based on the
amount of income derived from the fishing enterprise or the
total.
MS. McDOWELL replied that it is derived from total family
income.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said even though he intends to support this
bill, he wants to look into the issue of crewmember permits.
Most of [the bill] emphasizes deep-sea offshore fishing.
However, there is an inland-waterway fishery in Alaska; for some
fisheries [in Western Alaska], people couldn't even feed
themselves, and yet this is an increase for crewmembers. He
added that these fisheries can't have crewmembers anymore, since
they sold no fish last year. Most of those family enterprises
consist of a "man and a wife going out on the boat together,"
with only one having a limited entry permit.
MS. MCDOWELL remarked that this bill does not propose an
increase in resident crewmember licenses.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said he realizes that, since he obtains a
license every year.
MS. McDOWELL noted that for a fishery that does not open, the
permit fees for the year are waived by CFEC for the permit
holder. However, there is still a hardship [fee] for fisheries
that open and have a poor season.
Number 1858
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the numbers if the state
prevails or loses [in the Carlson case].
MS. McDOWELL answered that [CFEC] had to calculate and submit
this under the court ruling by March 15. She went on to say
there are 11,000 plaintiffs in the [Carlson] class, and the
total refund calculated, with interest, was $22.5 million up to
March 15, 2001; this amount increases a little each day. The
plaintiffs contend that no differentials at all would be
allowable; if they win, the number hasn't been calculated, but
it would be much higher than $22.5 million. She mentioned that
she could obtain those numbers. She went on to say, "If the
state prevailed on everything that it's arguing, there would be
no refund - we would have no liability."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked: If Alaska implemented an income tax in
the next few years, on both residents and nonresidents in
Alaska, and the differential was revisited, would it be a part
of the differential consideration?
STEPHEN WHITE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, explained
that the state does not get any credit in terms of how much more
a nonresident is charged for taxes that both residents and
nonresidents pay. It only receives benefits from taxes that
residents pay for service which nonresidents do not also pay.
This is how [Alaska] can take its oil revenues, for example,
which pay for services [for] Alaskans. If a tax is imposed
equally on residents and nonresidents, it doesn't come into the
formula at all.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS asked Mr. White to comment on plans
regarding the [Carlson] court case and what he estimates the
outcome will be.
Number 1640
MR. WHITE replied that the [Department of Law] filed a notice of
appeal before the supreme court several weeks ago. The state is
appealing the four budget categories that Representative Stevens
mentioned earlier. These are legitimate costs of the state for
commercial fishing which, if put into a formula, would
substantially increase the amount of differential that could be
charged nonresidents. Furthermore, [CFEC] is appealing the
issue about whether any refunds of permit payments need to be
paid to nonresidents; it is also appealing whether [the state]
needs to pay interest on this. [The state] has also argued
other technical legal questions such as whether this is an
appropriate class action or if it should be limited to only the
six people whose names are on the complaint.
MR. WHITE explained that altogether 11 points are being
appealed. He is confident that at least some budget categories
will be included [in the formula]. The superior court included
only [the state's] direct operational costs of managing
commercial fisheries, such as salaries for people in CFEC and
the Division of Commercial Fisheries. The superior court did
include some overhead costs for the department [ADF&G], but did
not allow [the state] to include capital costs for constructing
fish hatcheries, harbors, general state infrastructure
attributed to the population because of commercial fisheries, or
the subsidy to hatcheries that principally support commercial
fisheries. He expressed hope that some of these categories will
be included.
MR. WHITE explained that if all the budget categories had been
included at the superior court level, the differential would
have been $570 - more than any of the current ranges for limited
entry permits. [The state] would have been "home free." He
pointed out if [the state] wins on the interest argument, he
believes the [amount owed] would be cut from one-half to two-
thirds because [the state] has accrued 10.5 [percent] interest
on payments back to 1982. Although it is hard to say what the
state's opportunities to win on those issues are, the more the
state wins, the more the [amount owed] will go down
proportionately, "to the possibility of not being at all."
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that Mr. White has said he
"will see this through to the end."
Number 1425
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated, "I take an issue with the courts."
He went on to say that the state passes laws, and the courts
should be there to determine whether or not the laws are
reasonable and legal. He expressed concern about being in a
"defensive mode" and wondered if this is the best legal
approach. He suggested that [the state] be in an offensive mode
and adopt what the attorney general used in arguments. He
added, "We're talking about saving about $1.1 million for
another year until that determination is made, versus either
22.5 million or perhaps significantly higher." He said this
seems to be "pretty reasonable," and said perhaps it would be
worthwhile to "arm you with the support of the legislature." He
indicated this would provide a reason for the difference between
permit prices, and then [Mr. White] could argue a stronger case,
that "at least it's Alaska's total; it's not just a legal
battle, but it's the will of the people who are elected by the
people."
Number 1336
MR. WHITE commented that it wouldn't affect the court's decision
if this legislation names and includes all six budget
categories. The court will determine on its own what the
state's fisheries budget is, and will use it based on principles
of public budgeting processes. He mentioned that a Ph.D.
economist, who is also a legislator from the state of
Washington, had come to help present the case.
MR. WHITE said, "That's the kind of economic theory that the
courts are going to be looking at to determine what budget
expenditures should be, and should not be, in this formula."
Therefore, what the legislature says is going to be irrelevant
for the court's interpretation. In fact, if [the legislature]
includes all six budget categories, and "we don't get all six of
them," then the statute will have to be changed once again. The
language in HB 194 enables [the state], in very generic terms,
to charge the most that the law allows. This will become a
differential in which, each year, the amount will change. In
short, he thinks this is the most efficient way to deal with
this case and still be able to charge nonresidents the most that
is possible.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN again expressed dissatisfaction with taking
a defensive posture and "back-peddling" while awaiting the
court's decision. He said that is the wrong way to use the
court.
MR. WHITE replied that the court is interpreting the U.S.
Constitution, not a state statute. It is beyond "our" power to
affect what [the court] is actually looking at. Passing this
bill will show the Alaska Supreme Court that the state took
corrective action as soon as the superior court ruled that there
was some possible liability. This will be helpful because the
other side's argument is that the state has known for 18 years
that it has been charging nonresidents higher fees. He
indicated that the other side believes that the state should pay
back all money received from the three-to-one ratio, plus
interest, to all nonresidents, including those that can't be
located.
MR. WHITE reiterated that his argument to this would be that as
soon as it became clear that there was some liability to the
state, the legislature took the appropriate steps to adopt a
basic formula into statute. In addition, steps have been taken
to notify all the nonresidents so they can continue to keep [the
state] informed of their whereabouts, in case [the state] has to
pay them back. The bill, a good-faith effort, demonstrates that
the state is acting responsibly. He noted that the U.S.
Constitution says all residents and nonresidents have to be
treated substantially the same when pursuing a vocation in terms
of license fees and so forth; the exception is, the state can
charge more for those services it provides that are based upon
taxes that only residents are paying.
MR. WHITE added that the formula says this. He remarked that it
won't help his argument to go into the supreme court and say:
"The legislature thinks the fisheries budget is composed of
these factors, because the supreme court is not looking at what
the legislature does in terms of its definitions of the
fisheries budget," because it is a U.S. constitutional issue.
"We are being aggressive in terms of attacking it in every way
that we can," he concluded.
Number 0947
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN requested clarification about the purpose
of the bill in relation to the legal case.
MR. WHITE explained that the bill stops interest from running on
potential future refunds, and shows the court that the state is
acting responsibly in terms of "pounding the argument that the
state should pay not only all the nonresidents out there, but
also all the nonresidents that we can find." The [Carlson]
class is arguing that the State of Alaska has ignored this
situation for 18 years. He said many of these class members
have "disappeared": some addresses cannot be found and some of
these people are deceased. He reiterated that the other side
believes the State of Alaska should pay "all the people we can
find, all the people we can't find, ... [and] also pay that
money into a fund or distribute it amongst all the rest of the
nonresidents." This is an argument he will face in court. This
bill will help [the state] defeat this argument and help to keep
the money that otherwise might have to be paid for people [in
the Carlson class] who can't be contacted.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS commented that there are two major issues
here. First, the state must move away from the three-to-one
ratio and find a way to begin charging the right amount or the
most that can possibly be charged to nonresidents, since
liability is accruing. He noted that he also likes the idea of
sending a message to the court saying, "By the way, we think all
of these things should count." He mentioned that Mr. White
would say this bill does not weaken this case and does not admit
any guilt on [the state's] part.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS pointed out that many people, including
himself and Co-Chair Scalzi, believe [the legislature] should
send a stronger statement to the court. However, this statement
should not be included in HB 194. The bill is an attempt to
current the current situation. He proposed, therefore, that the
House Resources Standing Committee come up with a separate
resolution, to say that the legislature opposes actions the
courts have taken, and believes all six budget categories should
be included [in the formula].
Number 0564
CO-CHAIR SCALZI called an at-ease at 2:38 p.m. The meeting was
called back to order at 2:44 p.m.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Mr. White to comment on the difference
between commercial and sport licenses.
MR. WHITE responded that the difference is that pursuit of a
livelihood or having a license for a vocation, such as
commercial fishing, brings the privileges and immunities clause
from the U.S. Constitution into consideration; this clause says
there must be substantial equality in the way that one licenses
or treat residents and nonresidents. This is what has driven
this case from the beginning.
MR. WHITE pointed out that recreational pursuits such as hunting
and fishing, and college tuition charges in regard to residents
and nonresidents, are not included in this clause. It is more
permissive for states to charge more [for nonresidents] for
those pursuing non-vocational activities. There was a challenge
in the courts a few years ago concerning the higher allocation,
by percentage, of moose to residents. The concern was that this
was unconstitutional. However, the courts said since it was
recreational and the state constitution gives a higher value of
resources to residents, these discriminations in favor of
residents can be made. So, different parts of the constitution
are involved when dealing with recreation as opposed to
vocation.
Number 0346
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked: If the supreme court reverses the
superior court's decision and this bill is in place, what would
the estimated lost revenue be?
MS. McDOWELL explained that [CFEC's] fees would decrease by
$470,000 in FY 02. But this is not "actually gone." If the
state prevails at the supreme court level, it can be subtracted
from what is owed to the plaintiffs. There is an offset due to
the stipulation with the plaintiff's attorney. If [the state]
loses at the supreme court level, a refund would be owed to [the
Carlson class], in which case [the state] could subtract the
undercharge.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked what the amount would be if the
state won and didn't owe a refund. She said [the legislature]
is passing HB 194 because of wanting to prevent any of those
future costs from being incurred during the interim while
awaiting the supreme court's decision.
MS. McDOWELL answered that in this interim, crewmember fees will
have been increased under provisions of this bill, which recoups
most of [the loss]. She noted that ADF&G is still calculating
the amount.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE clarified that she has been hearing from
colleagues that they don't like [the bill], and don't want to do
it, "but we're gonna do it because ... it shows the court good
faith and, by the way, it's going to save money in the event we
have to pay out." She said she didn't "buy in" to that good-
faith idea, because "if the court isn't going to listen to us if
we go back in and change the policies in our statute, why are
they going to listen to us when we go back and do something like
this?" She questioned the validity of saying, on one hand, that
the court will listen to [the legislature], while saying on the
other hand that it won't.
TAPE 01-25, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE referred to the "saving money" element of
the bill and said it's "an additional potential task if we
lose." She wondered about the benefits and setbacks, and
mentioned that under the current statute, $1.13 million may be
lost. However, this amount also has to be offset by the fact
that "we're going to be losing some revenues that we would have
continued to collect under the current statutory framework."
She said she feels this is a "cart before the horse kind of
thing." It is an unusual way of dealing with this issue, and
she was not sure whether she had even seen a situation like
this, except perhaps in the Kasayulie case. She continued:
I would feel much more comfortable waiting until the
highest court rules and take their message, whatever
it is, and reincorporate it into our statutes and make
sure that we have it right. I do not believe that
judges live in a box. I think that they hear, they
listen, they know what's going on around them. I'm
not saying it influences them one way or the other.
But they certainly aren't quarantined up until the
date in which the decision is made, and I wonder what
message we're sending by changing this at this point.
I just feel like it might be premature.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that the fiscal notes were
creative. She said she has never seen a zero fiscal note for
something that "clearly has fiscal consequences."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI remarked that the fiscal note contains a
$470,000 change in revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE stated that this is an indeterminate
section. She would not hold the bill, but wonders if "we're
just rolling over here." She then requested the answers to her
questions regarding the revenue difference.
Number 0246
JERRY McCUNE, United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), came forward to
testify. He said, "You lost some aspects of this case already."
No matter what the legislature says, the three-to-one ratio
portion is gone. He mentioned that he has heard many questions
concerning the interest that would have to be paid out this
year, under the current situation; if [the court] orders [the
state] to pay back all of the nonresidents, it would be $1.5
million for interest accrued at 10.5 percent. He reminded
members that if Mr. White is successful at "knocking that
interest rate down or knocking it off, then yes, you might not
have to pay that $1.5 million."
MR. McCUNE reported that after much discussion, UFA has agreed
to increase the resident fees on the "high-end cap" to $300, a
20 percent increase. United Fishermen of Alaska represents 26
groups in the state. They agreed to the bill so that some of
the funding that has been taken in could be recouped. He said
if "we" win the four [budget categories] in court, then all six
[budget categories] will be counted to offset the fee
differential, which will enable [Alaska] to charge nonresidents
more. He went on to say, "So we'll be able to come close to
where we were before, which is the agency usually brings in 4.8
million and [the agency] takes about 2.4 million to run." He
noted that UFA's support would not insulate [the committee] from
having people still call, because he couldn't make 7,500 phone
calls to inform people about this case. He mentioned that UFA
has also attempted to contact non-UFA members about this
situation.
Number 0492
KEVIN BROOKS, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game, said in regard to the higher-
end licenses for commercial crewmembers, the differential sends
it "in the negative direction." Historically, crewmember
licenses have been $30 [for residents] and $90 [for
nonresidents], but now it is $90 and $125, respectively. This
$65 difference is less than any differential that has been
contemplated. So, under the terms of HB 194 that would allow
[the state] to charge this differential, more revenue could be
generated on the crewmember side. This money is currently being
used in the fisheries budget to "the tune of about a million."
MR. BROOKS explained that the fee-supported services generated
from the limited entry permits are also in the commercial
fisheries budget to the "tune" of about a $1.4 million. He
indicated reductions could be offset by an increase in
nonresident crewmember licenses. He said this is "late-
breaking," because they had been thinking about damage
assessment, which meant considering things such as vendor
compensation and contributions made to the fishermen's fund by
statute out of this revenue. He noted that [ADF&G] is working
on this, and said a fiscal note would be attached to show the
increase of revenue "on the crew."
MR. BROOKS reiterated that currently there is a $65
differential. Based on the formula that has been looked at, the
average for the last four years would be $111. So, potentially
a nonresident crewmember could be charged $171 instead of the
current $125 if [the state] prevailed on all six budget
categories. He asked: If in one year that differential was
$570, would the crewmember be charged $60 plus that $570? He
said, "At some point, enough's enough. Maybe $170 is not too
much. My gut tells me $630 is probably too much to charge."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI stated that he appreciated [ADF&G's] work on the
figures and attempts to make it equitable.
Number 725
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS remarked that he would like the bill to
be moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee along
with Representative Green's idea concerning a resolution to
accompany the bill to make a stronger statement.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that Representative Stevens has
offered the fact that "they have quite a file on this," which
would help in writing a resolution. He said it would be
possible to have a resolution for the committee's review by
Monday.
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Representative Stevens if he wanted to
wait for the resolution to move the bill out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS replied that he would be comfortable
passing the bill out as long as the committee is planning to
have a resolution. He noted that "we" would put the resolution
together and show it to Representative Green to make sure it is
what he wants.
Number 846
REPRESENTATIVE MCGUIRE made a motion to move HB 194 from the
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 194 was moved from
the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|