Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/11/2003 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 11, 2003
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Peggy Wilson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to an annual wildlife conservation pass and the
fee for that pass; relating to nonresident and nonresident alien
big game tag fees; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 163(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Relating to the ultra low sulfur diesel fuel requirements of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency and their
application to Alaska.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 191
"An Act relating to the Alaska coastal management program and to
policies and procedures for consistency reviews and the
rendering of consistency determinations under that program;
relating to the functions of coastal resource service areas;
creating an Alaska Coastal Program Evaluation Council;
eliminating the Alaska Coastal Policy Council; annulling certain
regulations relating to the Alaska coastal management program;
relating to actions based on private nuisance; relating to
zoning within a third class borough covered by the Alaska
coastal management program; and providing for effective dates."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE:NONRES. GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0433 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0433 (H) RES, FIN
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN1: (DFG)
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN2: (DFG)
03/05/03 0434 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/14/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/14/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/17/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/04/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/09/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/09/03 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(RES)
04/11/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 163, answered
questions relating to amendments to Version D.
MICHELLE SYDEMAN, Assistant Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 163, informed members
that the bill will require an additional one-half position in
the department.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-29, SIDE A
Number 0001
VICE CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Gatto, Heinze, Lynn, Morgan, Guttenberg, and Kerttula were
present at the call to order. Representative Wolf arrived as
the meeting was in progress. Representative Fate was excused.
Also in attendance was Representative Wilson.
HB 163-NONRES. GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
[Contains discussion of SB 122, the companion bill]
VICE CHAIR MASEK announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to an annual wildlife
conservation pass and the fee for that pass; relating to
nonresident and nonresident alien big game tag fees; and
providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by
the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.]
Number 0150
VICE CHAIR MASEK reminded members that before the committee,
adopted as a work draft on 4/4/03, was Version D, labeled 23-
GH1098\D, Utermohle, 3/18/03. She returned attention to
amendments. [A first Amendment 1 and an additional Conceptual
Amendment 1 had been moved, discussed, and withdrawn on 4/9/03.]
Number 0193
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN moved to adopt [a new] Amendment 1, which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, following line 14
Insert:
(9) a wildlife conservation pass will provide new
revenue that may be used to support fish and wildlife
management, including protection, and to support and
promote the tourism industry;
[The first part of this amendment was identical to the first
Amendment 1 discussed 4/9/03; the latter ended with the
additional phrase "for which wildlife resources attract visitors
to the state".]
Number 0197
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to request an explanation.
Number 0265
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that new
Amendment 1 resulted from discussions with committee members and
[Chair Fate's] staff regarding the desire to have further intent
language and direction in the bill about where funds may be used
- he emphasized the permissive "may" - for fish and wildlife
protection or in support or promotion of the tourism industry.
He noted that it is a finding [in the legislation].
Number 0368
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA removed her objection.
Number 0380
VICE CHAIR MASEK asked if there was any objection to adopting
Amendment 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0405
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 6, lines 12 - 14:
Delete all material and insert
(4) a person who possesses a current year sport
fishing license, hunting license, or trapping license
issued to the person by the department under this
title;
Page 6, following line 14:
Insert a new paragraph (5):
(5) a person who possesses a valid Alaska
driver's license issued under AS 28.15;
Renumber
Page 6, following line 23:
Insert:
(d) The commissioner may issue a duplicate
wildlife conservation pass as a replacement for a
wildlife conservation pass issued under this section.
The fee for a duplicate wildlife conservation pass is
$5. The commissioner shall not issue a duplicate
wildlife conservation pass unless the commissioner or
a delegate is satisfied that the original has been
lost or destroyed.
Re-letter
Number 0418
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected for purposes of discussion and
requested an explanation.
MR. WILLIAMS referred to the portion of Amendment 2 relating to
page 6, lines 12-14. He said the intent of the bill is that if
someone makes a contribution to fish and wildlife management in
Alaska by buying a hunting, fishing, or trapping license, that
would serve as an exemption to buying the wildlife pass.
Removing the word "valid" and providing clarification enables
someone who bought a three-day fishing license, for example, to
be exempt.
Number 0590
MR. WILLIAMS addressed the second portion [referring to page 6,
following line 14]. He indicated the intent that residents be
exempt from the requirement to have a pass. Recognizing that
people may not carry or have a permanent state identification
(ID) or a voter registration card, he said [proposed paragraph
(5) in Amendment 2] says that if a person has an Alaska driver's
license, showing it can serve as an exemption to the pass. He
acknowledged that a person doesn't have to live in Alaska or
technically be a resident in order to obtain an Alaska driver's
license, but suggested that if someone makes that commitment to
buy the license and pay the fee, [the administration] believes
it will be a lot easier [to have that as an exemption], because
the desire is to lessen the burden on "operators" with regard to
proof of residency.
Number 0694
MR. WILLIAMS explained that the portion relating to [page 6,
following line 23] refers to the provision for replacing a
wildlife pass for $5. He said it is virtually the same language
that exists for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license.
Number 0739
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked where someone would go to replace a
lost pass.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that currently there are about 1,600
vendors for ADF&G licenses, and indicated a person could go to
any of those vendors.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked about tracking and whether these 1,600
vendors are linked to a centralized computer in order to verify
that the person had a license to begin with.
MR. WILLIAMS reiterated that this language mirrors the current
language for hunting and fishing. He said the department takes
people at their word, and if people are willing to pay the $5,
the license will be reissued without a lot of upfront checking.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that a regular residential fishing
license costs [$20] and that someone could obtain the same
license for $5 if the person claimed the license was lost.
Number 0844
MR. WILLIAMS said he thinks that's true, but highlighted the
costs involved with requiring additional tracking and having
computer terminals at various places. He also suggested that
enforcement could occur after the season, for example, if a
violation were discovered. "But I think, in the long run,
that's a cheaper way to go ... than requiring all the check-ins
and holding people up from pursuing their pursuits," he added.
Number 0920
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA withdrew her objection to Amendment 2.
Number 0930
VICE CHAIR MASEK announced that there being no objection,
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0948
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered [Conceptual Amendment 3] to
change the effective date to January 1, 2004. On page 8,
deleted would be line 20 [Section 14] because it would be
redundant. And on line 21, Section 15, deleted would be the
words "Except as provided in sec. 14 of this Act,". Thus the
entire effective date would be changed to say that the Act takes
effect January 1, 2004.
Number 1010
VICE CHAIR MASEK asked Mr. Williams to respond.
MR. WILLIAMS stated that the governor's intention is that the
bill's effective date would be July 1, 2003, and that the
department has been working towards that date.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there were any difficulties,
technical or otherwise, involved with delaying the effective
date. She acknowledged that less money would be obtained, but
suggested it may be easier to get this up and running if it
started next year.
MR. WILLIAMS agreed that certainly a little more time to educate
and notify the public about the pass would [be helpful] to
getting the program up and running.
Number 1122
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the average time is to draw
up regulations for a bill such as this.
MR. WILLIAMS responded that it would take some time, and that
depending on when the bill passes, it's doubtful that
regulations would be in place by July 1 [2003], although the
department would work to get them done as soon as possible.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how many new positions the department
will add [if the bill passes] to take care of compliance.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that there are two fiscal notes from the
department and that there will be some new expenses incurred to
the department.
Number 1180
MICHELLE SYDEMAN, Assistant Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), said
one-half of a position would be needed to administer the extra
duties.
MR. WILLIAMS said he thought there might be some dialogue on the
fiscal note.
Number 1214
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked how much revenue would be lost every
month if implementation were delayed.
MR. WILLIAMS opined that an effective date of July 1 [2003]
would capture a significant amount of revenue from the tourists.
He noted that much of the cruise ship business and other tourism
occurs between July and the end of the tourist season, usually
October.
Number 1310
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked: Why not take this shot and go for
it? And if the date remains July 1 [2003], as desired by the
governor, wouldn't a delay put this program in harm's way?
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained her reasoning for Conceptual
Amendment 3. The committee has heard from a number of small
Alaskan businesses about what the impact would be on them, since
they've presold their tours. She indicated delaying the
effective date wouldn't have so much of an effect on businesses,
including cruise ship companies, that have presold their tours.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if the business owner in Petersburg,
for example, could request an extra $10 [from her clients] if
she hadn't already specified that she was offering wildlife
tours.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested this is segueing into another
area. She offered to give her opinion on that later.
VICE CHAIR MASEK requested that Mr. Williams address this
further. Since the amendment hadn't been brought before the
committee earlier, she also said this isn't good timing.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA respectfully disagreed, saying
[consideration of amendments] is supposed to happen at this
time.
MR. WILLIAMS reiterated the administration's intent that the
effective date be July 1 [2003], and his belief that this date
can be met [by the department], going forth with education and
trying to do the best they can, recognizing that there will be
some "bumps in the road" the first year.
Number 1587
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO questioned whether tour operators would
tell their customers that they must pay extra [on prepaid tours]
or else not go on the tour. He opined that there would be a lot
of blame put on legislators and the state as a whole for rushing
into something without preparation. He said he wasn't in favor
of a July 1 [2003] start either, because it is too quick for
something that seems complicated and hard to identify - unlike a
hunting license, where the resulting take is identifiable. He
said he would vote "do not pass" on the bill itself, but also
didn't like the effective date, whereas rolling it back to
January 1 [2004] provides plenty of time. He asked Mr. Williams
to comment.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that with any new program, there will be
some education and rough moments in the first year, and that
hopefully the department will take into account that this is a
new program in the first year. He said this outreach has been
calculated into the fiscal note with regard to "working with
groups and getting them set up as vendors."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said there is no real money for
enforcement.
Number 1739
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG spoke in favor of Conceptual
Amendment 3. He pointed out that the committee had heard a lot
of testimony with regard to the effective date from small
businesses around the state. He offered his understanding that
for many people who didn't like the bill at all, they'd said
that it would be at least palatable if it weren't implemented
this year, since these businesses will basically "eat" the cost.
He highlighted testimony from a woman who charges $15 for a
walking tour, which would double if she charged her clients [for
the wildlife pass]; otherwise, she would eat the cost and
receive nothing.
MR. WILLIAMS reminded members that this is an annual pass and
won't be charged at each tour level [if a person partakes of
more than one tour]; thus it won't be incumbent on each tour
operator to charge another $15 [if the person has paid already].
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE, noting that she has participated in the
tourism industry extensively, remarked that it is a "fluid"
industry: even after tour operators have printed their
materials, Princess Tours might decide to raise its prices, for
example. She suggested that people have to roll with it, opined
that this won't be that big of a thing, and highlighted the fact
that this is something the governor wants. She suggested doing
this to raise revenue in the state.
Number 1928
VICE CHAIR MASEK spoke against Conceptual Amendment 3, saying
that where there's a will, there's a way. She opined that the
bill will help the industry in Alaska; access can be improved,
for example, so that more visitors can come. She said other
states have put in a lot of funding to help increase the tourism
industry, and do ask help from visitors. She characterized this
as a "friendly bill in helping to bring in income to our state."
She asked whether there was further discussion on Conceptual
Amendment 3.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Lynn,
Guttenberg, and Kerttula voted in favor of Conceptual
Amendment 3. Representatives Masek, Heinze, Morgan, and Wolf
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 failed by a
vote of 4-4.
Number 2073
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report CSHB 163, Version 23-
GH1098\D, Utermohle, 3/18/03, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Number 2081
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected.
VICE CHAIR MASEK opined that Representative Kerttula's amendment
[to change the effective date] would be deliberated in the next
committee of referral, the House Finance Committee, since it
deals with the fiscal impact.
Number 2108
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that her main concern, other
than constitutionality and the effective date, is that this pass
will have to be purchased not just specifically for someone who
advertises for wildlife viewing. She read from the definition
on page 7, line 5 [paragraph (1)], which says in part:
(1) "commercial provider for an opportunity to
view wildlife" means a person that provides to an
individual, for compensation or with the intent to
receive compensation, touring or recreational service,
equipment, or facilities in the field, or
transportation to or in the field related to tourism
or recreation;
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that in Alaska it is
difficult to avoid seeing wildlife. If a person is within a
city but is within an area used for wildlife viewing, that
person will have to be charged for the pass. She further
suggested that if people were only charged if the experience was
billed as "wildlife viewing," nobody would say it that way. She
opined that everybody will end up being charged when there is an
opportunity to view wildlife, even if the person is going up on
the tram or doing any number of activities. Stating opposition
to the legislation, she said she believes that it is overly
broad and unconstitutional as drafted, and that the effective
date will put the onus on Alaska.
Number 2248
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG offered his belief that the bill has
some serious failings, some fatal, among them the concept of
"wildlife viewing" [pass], which he suggested is just a tourist
pass. Even someone coming in the winter to visit [a resident]
is likely to see a moose, for example. With regard to the
effective date, he highlighted testimony from small businesses
as well as the operator of the tram, saying they've set their
price structures and done their [pre-season preparation] work.
He said he has heard from guides as well, who sell programs via
computer or by phone; the next time there is an interaction with
that customer is when a floatplane lands. He also suggested
that doing the regulations [in time for a July 1, 2003,
effective date] is more than the department can do with a one-
half position because it will require contacting 1,600 vendors
in the state for this entirely new program. He said he thinks
the time is wrong, and although the effort is a start for a
fiscal policy in the big picture, this isn't it by itself.
Number 2336
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO also spoke against the bill. He referred
to page 7, beginning on line 7, paragraph (1), noting that a
"commercial provider for an opportunity to view public wildlife"
includes a person who provides outfitting, guiding, and so
forth. He suggested that someone selling insect repellent at a
grocery store would be outfitting a person for wildlife viewing.
He expressed concern about interpretation by any one individual
as far as what "outfitting" or a "commercial service" means. He
indicated he had further objections as well.
Number 2402
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked the department personnel and
lauded the attempt to get money to try to leverage federal funds
in order to have proper wildlife protection and activities, but
said she didn't think this was the right way to do it.
Number 2426
VICE CHAIR MASEK referred to background materials on HB 163 and
[SB] 122, the companion bill, contained in members' packets.
She read from a portion:
The billion-dollar tourism industry draws substantial
revenue each year from marketing Alaska's wildlife.
It's only fair that these visitors and the industry
that ... directly benefits from them help to sustain
our fish and wildlife resources. Most visitors will
be happy to know ... they are making a contribution to
help ... wildlife conservation in Alaska. ...
One of the legislative priorities of the Alaska Travel
Industry Association [ATIA] is increased wildlife
viewing opportunities. The ATIA supports cooperative
efforts to expand wildlife viewing opportunities
throughout the state.
VICE CHAIR MASEK offered her belief that with this bill, these
funds would enable ADF&G to better respond to this need. Noting
that the bill had been amended, she indicated the committee is
striving to have a fair and balanced bill. She also opined that
the House Finance Committee will address some of the issues
raised in the current committee, and said there will be more
time on the House floor to debate it as well.
Number 2545
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gatto, Heinze,
Lynn, Morgan, Wolfe, and Masek voted in favor of moving
CSHB 163, Version D, as amended, out of committee.
Representatives Guttenberg and Kerttula voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 163(RES) was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|