Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
04/14/2010 09:00 AM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB246 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 246 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 14, 2010
9:36 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
"An Act relating to the licensing and regulation of sport
fishing operators and sport fishing guides and licensing and
registration of sport fishing vessels; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 246(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 294(FIN)
"An Act amending the termination date of the licensing of sport
fishing operators and sport fishing guides; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 246
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) NEUMAN
04/19/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/19/09 (H) FSH, RES
03/16/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/16/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/10 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/18/10 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/18/10 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/18/10 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/19/10 (H) FSH RPT 3DP 2NR
03/19/10 (H) DP: KELLER, BUCH, EDGMON
03/19/10 (H) NR: JOHNSON, MUNOZ
03/19/10 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
03/24/10 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/24/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/13/10 (H) RES AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
04/13/10 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/10 (H) RES AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM ELLIS, Staff
Representative Mark Neuman
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 246 on behalf of
Representative Neuman, sponsor.
CHARLES SWANTON, Director
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 246, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:36:49 AM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. Representatives Tuck,
P. Wilson, Olson, Edgmon, and Neuman were present at the call to
order. Representatives Kawasaki, Seaton, Guttenberg, and
Johnson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 246-SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSES
9:37:13 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the only order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 246, "An Act relating to the licensing and
regulation of sport fishing operators and sport fishing guides
and licensing and registration of sport fishing vessels; and
providing for an effective date."
9:37:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt CSHB 246, Version 26-
LS0929\S, Kurtz/Kane, 4/12/10, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version S was before the committee.
9:38:08 AM
JIM ELLIS, Staff, Representative Mark Neuman, explained that HB
246 extends Alaska's sport fish guide licensing and reporting
program for two years. The legislation also limits license fees
for a sport fishing operator and sport fishing operator guide to
$50. Mr. Ellis specified that the program gathers important
fisheries data through the log book program. The data is used
in management in terms of making decisions regarding which
fisheries are doing well and which are not and provides some
professional standards for sport fishing guides and guide
operators. Collecting this data allows Alaska's sport anglers
to be exempt from the National Saltwater Angler Registry and its
requirement to purchase an additional tag as well as a license
to fish.
9:39:17 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said that the legislation basically addresses
the fees that active guides pay the department when they obtain
their guide log books and specifies a new sunset date for the
program.
MR. ELLIS confirmed that Version S changes the sunset date of
the program from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2013.
9:40:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to how long the existing
fishing services license fees have been in place. She also
inquired as to why [two of the fees] are being reduced.
MR. ELLIS responded that he was unsure how long these fees have
been in place.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN answered that the fees have been in place for
four years, and this legislation adds two more years.
Originally, the department requested that there be no sunset
date. However, he opined that it's important for expenditures
to the guides have legislative oversight. Co-Chair Neuman
reiterated that this is an important program. The guide log
books helps establish a record of fish movement in the state.
The reduction in fees from $100 to $50 was in response to sport
fish guides who pay to collect the data; the $50 fee seems more
appropriate, he remarked. Co-Chair Neuman related that he also
reviewed the federal funds that [the Alaska Department of Fish &
Game] receives for federal restorations. In fact, this year
there is fish and wildlife assistance in the amount of $19
million. He opined that he's trying to help [fishing guides] as
best he can during this downturn in the economy.
9:43:49 AM
CHARLES SWANTON, Director, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), explained that SB 246
basically specifies minimum guide standards and data collection.
The department's preference would be the Senate version of this
legislation, which extends the sunset date to January 1, 2017,
or the House Special Committee on Fisheries version that has no
sunset. With regard to the fees, they have been in place since
January 1, 2005. The sport fishing operator and business owner
combination license under Version M is reduced from $100 to $50,
and therefore the fees for a sport fish operator, sport fish
guide, and sport fish operator and guide combination are all
$50. If Version S passes, a fiscal note will likely have to be
constructed due to the change in fees. Mr. Swanton opined that
the effect of the reduction of fees would be $100,000-$150,000
reduction in revenue. The cost of the program is $437,600 per
year and the fees from this licensing generate approximately
$240,000 and the remainder is made up with ADF&G funds, which
are resident and nonresident license fees.
[Co-Chair Neuman passed the gavel to Co-Chair Johnson.]
9:46:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to how many fishermen
obtain all three licenses.
MR. SWANTON answered that there's an average of 1,647 business
licenses are issued and 1,882 sport fish guide licenses are
issued. Those are averages from 2005-2009.
9:47:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that ADF&G never has enough money
for to accomplish all it needs to do. Therefore, she expressed
concern about decreasing the fee revenue when the previous fee
revenues didn't cover the costs. Representative Wilson said she
likes the 2017 sunset date in the Senate legislation, and asked
how the sponsor would feel about such an extension.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related concern that currently there are many
fisheries in flux in terms of their management, such as the
Alaska Yukon [Delta] and the Chitina dipnet fishery. Having a
two-year sunset [provides some legislative oversight/review].
9:49:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON emphasized that she is very concerned
about decreasing the fees and subsequently funds to the
department. Since there are problems related to not having
enough fish, it is all the more reason to ensure the department
has enough money to perform the research it needs to do. She
highlighted the importance of having good data, which sport
fishermen likely realize as well. With fewer funds, it will be
that much more difficult for the department to ensure the
research is done.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN reiterated that there was an over $2 million
increase in federal funds for fish and wildlife management
assistance and sport fish restorations.
9:51:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that folks are more likely to
get the combination license because it costs the same as the
single license. He asked if those who are eligible to get one
license, either the sport fishing operator license of the sport
fishing guide license, are eligible to get the other license.
MR. SWANTON explained that the [sport fishing operator and sport
fishing guide] combination license is an individual who owns the
business and is also a guide. Whereas an owner of the business
who doesn't guide would only purchase the [sport fishing
operator license] and have employees, guides, who work for the
owner and who hold the sport fishing guide license.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that the sport fishing
operator license and the combination license are both reduced to
$50 in Version S. Therefore, the purchase of a combination
license is a "two for one," which he opined was the sponsor's
intent.
9:53:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that HB 246 only applies to
commercial sport fish operators and doesn't apply to an
individual who is a noncommercial operator that purchases a
sport fishing license to fish for himself/herself.
MR. SWANTON answered that to be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he does not support doing this. He
opined that a $50 or $100 fee isn't a great amount for these
commercial operations. To transfer this burden to the state's
general fund is not good public policy, he stated. He then
announced that he will be offering an amendment to keep the
current fees intact. He clarified that he supports extending
the Alaska's sport fish guide licensing and reporting program.
He then mentioned how costly it is to forward legislation
through the legislative process, and thus he questioned why the
extension wouldn't be for five years.
9:56:49 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that for every corporate jet in
Representative Edgmon's district there is a motor home, a 15
horse power Yamaha and a small boat with a guide guiding people
down the Deshka River. These are people for which $50 or $100
matters.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out the fee is a deductible
expense and he would prefer $100 deduction rather than a $50
deduction.
9:58:09 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN reminded the committee that the department has
achieved some efficiency in managing this program as the data is
now electronically processed. He then related that he has
received many emails regarding the budget and the cost of
government. Therefore, if there are efficiencies, it should be
passed on to the affected people.
9:59:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked how many guides are also the
owners of their own business.
MR. SWANTON, referring to page 2 of the Sport Fishing Guide
Licensing Brief," informed the committee that on average about
1,647 sport fishing business licenses, which include
owner/operator combination licenses have been sold. However, to
answer the question would require further research.
10:01:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI then asked whether the 2010 Saltwater
Sport Fishing Charter Trip Logbook Page has been put into
electronic form.
MR. SWANTON explained that the sheet in the committee packet is
the department's attempt at a logbook sheet that can be scanned,
which will be imposed for saltwater in 2010. The same exercise
will occur for freshwater logbook sheets, such that they will be
reviewed, simplified, obtain public input, and making
modifications. The plan is to have a freshwater logbook that
can be scanned in 2011. The logbooks that can be scanned will
decrease the current eight to nine months that it takes to
process data to one to two weeks. Although the timeliness and
accessibility of the data will be better, the efficiency or cost
savings of logbooks that can be scanned can't be estimated at
this time.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI surmised that every time a charter
operator takes a person out in a boat, one of these logbooks
must be filled out. He further surmised that if an individual
takes another individual out on his personal boat, he wouldn't
have to fill out one of these logbooks.
MR. SWANTON responded that's correct.
10:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related his understanding from the
sponsor statement that there is value in collecting this data.
However, he questioned the true value of this data to the Board
of Fisheries if only guides provided it.
MR. SWANTON informed the committee that the department has other
data collecting mechanisms similar to the electronic logbooks
that are used for the average recreational angler, whether it's
a resident or nonresident. Those mechanisms include the
statewide harvest survey program, which has been ongoing since
1977. The data from the statewide harvest survey program is
used in conjunction with the logbook data. For some intensive
fisheries, the department also uses an onsite creel survey
program to collect data. Therefore, there are multiple data
collection methods in order to provide complete and
comprehensive coverage for the fisheries statistics that are
necessary to manage the fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested Mr. Swanton cite specific
examples in which, over the last couple of years, the logbook
data was used for Board of Fisheries recommendations.
MR. SWANTON answered that although he can't cite specific
examples, he's almost positive that the logbook data has been
included to the information provided to the Board of Fisheries.
10:06:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, in regard to changing the license fees,
noted his agreement with Representative Guttenberg's earlier
comments. There isn't an accurate break down with regard to
what people are willing to pay for these licenses and the
division isn't being given a tool to determine the numbers of
people in each class.
10:07:29 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked if an individual has to prove he/she is a
guide/owner prior to obtaining a license.
MR. SWANTON answered that an individual can't simply say he/she
is a guide and obtain a license. A myriad of documentation is
required.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that a guide could prove he's a
guide, while the owner/operator would have to have additional
[document] requirements. Therefore, there is a manner in which
to distinguish an owner/operator versus a guide. Perhaps, the
purpose behind this [reduction in fees] is related to the
additional costs required for an owner/operator versus just
being an operator or just a guide. He noted that to be a guide
on the Kenai one has to have training, go to college.
MR. SWANTON informed the committee that it's a separate program.
He specified that the Kenai training doesn't fall under ADF&G's
regulatory authority. Under the Department of Natural
Resources' authority, guides on the Kenai are required to go
through a week-long guide college.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON clarified that his point is that there are
other costs in some fisheries. The additional expenses of the
owner/operator may be why the decrease in the fees is being
suggested.
10:10:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related his understanding that [license
fees] have to support receipts-supported licensures. He asked
if the licenses being discussed today are different.
MR. SWANTON pointed out the fees being discussed today are set
in statute while those [receipt-supported licenses] are covered
separately under occupational licensing.
10:11:32 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN recalled that in the past the legislature has
decreased the fee for business licenses. Co-Chair Neuman asked
if the reducing funding due to the reduction in fees is
something Mr. Swanton can live with.
MR. SWANTON answered that if the proposed decrease in license
fees was any other time, in terms of sport fishing license
sales, it might be something that could be absorbed. However,
over the past couple of years, sales of nonresident licenses
have decreased. This reduction has been primarily occurred in
Southcentral and Southeast Alaska. The reduction has been in
the amount of about 70,000 licenses, which has resulted in a
substantial decline in ADF&G revenue. The ADF&G revenue is
used to match the sport fish restoration, which are federal
pass-through dollars. Mr. Swanton concluded that this further
decrease in fees, while not crippling, would have a major
impact.
10:13:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that one must report what he/she
has harvested in the Chitina dip netting fishery. He asked if
any thought has been given to collecting the data in another
manner, rather than placing the burden on the charter operator.
MR. SWANTON remarked that the Chitina dip net [reporting] is not
all that different than the logbook sheets, it's just coming
from a different source and there's substantially more of them.
The technology to directly transfer the data electronically from
the guide at this point doesn't exist.
10:15:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to the number of sport fishing
guide licenses referred to by Co-Chair Johnson would be captured
by the fee referenced on page 1, line 10.
MR. SWANTON estimated that it would be a smaller fraction, but
noted that he doesn't have a way to calculate that without the
statistics before him.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON clarified that he is trying to understand
whether the small operators Co-Chair Johnson referenced earlier
have to pay the existing $100 for the sport fishing operator
license of the combination license.
MR. SWANTON answered that he was unsure whether he has that
information with him.
10:17:20 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked if using cruise ship taxes has been
considered.
MR. SWANTON opined that he was unsure whether moving into that
realm would be simple.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that he partially asked the question
in jest, but then opined that if "we can support a bison ranch
in Anchorage, I don't know why we can't support fishing in
Southeast."
10:18:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded the committee that the Division
of Sport Fish is charged with monitoring sport fish as well as
personal use fisheries. The Division of Sport Fish has had
inadequate funds to monitor the personal use fishery on the
Kenai River. In fact, there has been almost no enumeration of
the number of participants other than by the 33,000 who have
applied for licenses. Furthermore, there's almost no monitoring
of the catch or the export of fish by FedEx. If funds to the
Division of Sport Fish are reduced by reducing these license
fees, would that further restrict the division's monitoring
ability, he asked.
MR. SWANTON replied that at this point it would be premature for
him to speculate what would or would not be eliminated as a
result of the revenue reduction proposed in this legislation.
The information Representative Seaton presented on the Kenai
personal use fishery is somewhat simplified. In fact, he
related that he personally spent six hours last summer reviewing
permits and checking and verifying catches, licenses, and
permits in the Kenai River fishery. Therefore, to so say there
is virtually no monitoring is a simplification of the process.
10:21:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, noting that he has lived on the Kenai
River for in excess of 15 years and lived near it for another 15
years, took exception to some of the comments. He related that
from his house he can see a mile stretch of the mid-river
section of the Kenai River, where utilization is down
considerably compared to 15 years ago. He noted agreement that
the pressure on the Kenai River is at the mouth of it, but not
the total river system. Representative Olson told the committee
that he sees the division's boats and the park's boats go by.
He opined that there is more enforcement on the river than in
the past when he would see only the morning boat go down the
river at the time the guides entered the river. Representative
Olson added that although pressure on the middle portion of the
Kenai River has decreased and enforcement has increased, he
didn't believe [enforcement] was adequate.
10:23:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he wasn't talking about the
middle river, but rather if funds to the department were
reduced. The department has the duty to review the lower end of
the river, which has been a burgeoning fishery. He noted that
the fishery fluctuates widely depending on the number of fish
coming in on the tide. Therefore, he clarified that his point
is that reducing the funds available for monitoring all of sport
fishing will reduce the funds available for all monitoring,
including fisheries that require an increase in monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked if Representative Seaton was
referring to the portion of the Kenai River from the bridge to
the mouth.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied yes.
10:24:44 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related his understanding that a tremendous
amount of Pittman-Roberts money came into the state.
MR. SWANTON agreed, but highlighted that the Pittman-Roberts
funds go to the Division of Wildlife. He then clarified that
sport fish restoration funds are pass-through monies from excise
taxes on boat fuels, equipment, et cetera and those funds go to
the Division of Sport Fish.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opined that the commissioner has the ability to
move funds where needed. He then asked if federal funds from a
portion of the purchase of a fishing rod or hooks go to the
state.
MR. SWANTON clarified that [the excise tax on] boats, fuel,
fishing rods, hooks, gear, et cetera is distributed amongst the
states through the sport fish restoration program. A similar
program exists for the wildlife side, he reiterated. Those
funds are fairly specific with regard to the particular
activities that can be funded with those funds.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN maintained that the overall funds to ADF&G have
increased considerably this year.
10:28:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that if the proposed lower fees
are passed, the lack of funds will have to come from elsewhere.
Furthermore, the [proposed lower fees] will have negative
impacts in regard to federal matching funds. He asked if the
aforementioned is, in fact, the case.
MR. SWANTON concurred with Representative Edgmon's assessment,
but noted that he doesn't know the extent of the negative impact
with regard to federal matching funds.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired as to how much in federal matching
funds are received currently and at what percentage.
MR. SWANTON, from the top of his head, he estimated that it's an
average of $16-$18 million in sport fish restoration funds
annually and an average of $13-$14 million in ADF&G funds, in
terms of the match requirement. The match requirement is 75:25.
10:29:15 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired as to how much federal funds will be
lost with the passage of the proposed reduction in fees.
MR. SWANTON posed a scenario in which there was a loss of
$150,000, which would result in a potential loss of $450,000 in
federal funds that could not be matched.
10:29:59 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that the cells for the federal
receipts and general fund match on the fiscal note are blank.
MR. SWANTON related that no federal funds are for this
particular program. However, if there isn't a reduction in the
revenues ADF&G takes in, license sales funds from angler
licenses would have to be used for this program and thus those
funds would be removed from being able to be used for a federal
match.
10:31:32 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony. There being no one
wishing to testify, he closed public testimony.
10:32:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted his appreciation for what the
sponsor is attempting to do in terms of public policy. Although
the fees are nominal to begin with, Representative Edgmon opined
that there is merit, especially in comparison to other sectors
of the fishing industry, to returning the fees to their original
cost. [Returning to the original fees] is further supported
given the impact of reduced fees on the division and its ability
to support the program and attract federal dollars, he stated.
10:33:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved Conceptual Amendment 1, which would
return the fee structure on page 1, lines 9 and 12, to its
existing rates of $100.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected and related a different
procedural route the committee could take.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that there is already a motion to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected.
10:34:50 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related that this is an issue he has followed
closely for years and Version S is in response to what is
occurring in Representative Edgmon's district as well as other
issues in the state. Co-Chair Neuman opined that [one of the
goals with HB 246] is to become more efficient in government,
which would be achieved by using documents that can be scanned.
The aforementioned results in a small reduction of labor and
thus costs savings, which he indicated should be passed on to
the people.
10:37:30 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN told the committee four to five years ago, the
legislature appropriated $1 million to perform a tagging and
retagging and fish wheel program. The legislature appropriated
another $500,000 to obtain an opinion regarding the value of
sport caught fish. He requested a copy of the draft version of
that opinion, which was paid for by the legislature through a
capital appropriation. However, he was told he could not have a
copy of the opinion, which he charged is a public record. He
then asked Legislative Legal Services to provide an opinion,
which read as follows:
As I understand the facts, the Alaska State
Legislature appropriated $500,000 to the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game for a study of the economic
value of sport fish. The Alaska Department of Fish &
Game issued a request for proposals, which was
awarded. The Alaska Department of Fish & Game has now
received the report, but does not want to disclose it
because it wants to edit it to make it clearer. The
report fits the definition of a public record under
Alaska Statute, as a writing that is received by a
public agency and it is preserved for its
informational value. In addition, of course, was the
subject of a specific appropriation, which strengthens
it statute as a public record. The specific
legislative appropriation for this report also
eliminates any argument that the report is subject to
the deliberative process privilege.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN surmised then that this opinion is public
information. Co-Chair Neuman emailed [Legislative Legal
Services' opinion]. Upon meeting with the director regarding HB
246, the director said that he hadn't opened the attachment.
Therefore, Co-Chair Neuman provided the [commissioner] a hard
copy, which the commissioner did not read at that time. Co-
Chair Neuman interpreted this as a blatant illustration that the
commissioner didn't want to review this. In a more recent
discussion with the commissioner, Co-Chair Neuman discussed the
issue again. During that discussion, Co-Chair Neuman reminded
the director that legislators are elected officials, the voice
of the public. He further reminded the director that the
legislature sets policy and the administration administers that
policy. Co-Chair Neuman stated his dismay with such lack of
response. He echoed his earlier comment regarding his desire to
pass on efficiencies to the public, but added that he is also
trying to establish an example that the authority of the
legislature is respected and that the voice of legislator's
constituents matter and have a say with regard to how public
funds are spent. Ultimately, Co-Chair Neuman questioned what
tools the legislature has [to obtain such public information].
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN concluded by reminding the committee that the
department has received a lot of extra money this year. The
department, he opined, won't be substantially [negatively]
impacted by [Version S]. The reduction in fees merely amounts
to a $200,000. Co-Chair Neuman opined that the principle is to
ensure that the public's information is protected. He then
maintained his vehement objection to Conceptual Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested a copy of the earlier referenced
[opinion from Legislative Legal Services] to be distributed to
the committee.
10:44:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in rebuttal, highlighted that HB 246
applies to commercial operators in the sport fishing sector, not
noncommercial operators. In terms of efficiencies and the cost
to run the programs, he questioned why one small portion of the
array of fees and licenses in an industry is being addressed.
Again, he stated that these fees are nominal. [Version S] goes
above and beyond what the Senate companion legislation
addresses. In essence, a decrement is being applied to sport
fishing. The funds not obtained due to the reduced license fees
will have to come from somewhere, and furthermore the lack of
funds won't be present to attract federal dollars. In
conclusion, Representative Edgmon said he stands firmly with
Conceptual Amendment 1.
10:46:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed that the fees are nominal. For
example, his electrician's license cost $280 and requires 16
hours of continuing education prior to each renewal of that
license or passage of a test. Furthermore, he had to attend a
five-year apprenticeship program to even acquire his electrician
license. Representative Tuck reminded the committee that some
of the reasons for licenses are to protect the public and the
health of the practitioners. In this case, it is to protect the
resource by having accurate data to determine how best to
protect it. Representative Tuck related his desire to maintain
the existing fees and extending the licenses for two more years
in order to continue to acquire data. The reporting procedure
seems fairly simple and allows trends to be tracked, although he
acknowledged the nine-month lag. Representative Tuck related
his support for Conceptual Amendment 1.
10:48:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG related his understanding that with
Conceptual Amendment 1, the intent is return the fees on page 1,
lines 9 and 11 to $100.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed that to be the intent.
10:49:04 AM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN offered an amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1,
such that the fee on page 1, line 9, stays at $50 while the fee
on page 1, line 11, is returned to $100.
10:49:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected to the proposed amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1. He then reminded the committee that two
years ago the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)
stated that the fees for commercial licenses wouldn't keep pace
with increased expenses. The aforementioned resulted in an
increase in operator license fees. The intent of the
legislature, he opined, was for the fees for commercial
operations to cover the expenses of the program. He opined that
the fees in [Version S] should cover the expenses, but they do
not. Representative Seaton related that although he isn't
offering an amendment to raise these fees, he can't support
reducing them and creating an unfunded mandate through the
amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1.
10:52:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated that in the spirit of compromise he
would support the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON maintained his objection.
10:52:43 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Olson, Kawasaki,
Neuman, and Johnson voted in favor of the amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 1. Representatives Tuck, P. Seaton,
Edgmon, Guttenberg, and P. Wilson voted against it. Therefore,
the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by
a vote of 4-5.
10:53:41 AM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced then that Conceptual Amendment 1 was
now before the committee.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN maintained his objection.
10:53:56 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Edgmon,
Guttenberg, Tuck, and P. Wilson voted in favor of Conceptual
Amendment 1. Representatives Olson, Neuman, Johnson, and
Kawasaki voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1
was adopted by a vote of 5-4.
10:55:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 246, Version 26-LS0929\S, Kurtz/Kane,
4/12/10, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 246(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 246 CS v. S.pdf |
HRES 4/14/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 246 |