Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/10/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| 344 | |
| HB334 | |
| HJR30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2014
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Geran Tarr
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 334
"An Act relating to the qualified oil and gas service industry
expenditure credit; and relating to a credit against oil and gas
exploration, production, and pipeline transportation property
taxes."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Requesting that the federal government and the United States
Secretary of the Interior reconsider the Izembek Land Exchange
decision and approve the Izembek Land Exchange, allowing the
residents of King Cove to have road access to the Cold Bay
Airport for critical health and safety reasons and to improve
the quality of their lives.
- MOVED HJR 30 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 344
"An Act prohibiting the importation of, sale of, purchase of, or
release into the water of the state of certain invasive aquatic
plant species."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
HOUSE BILL NO. 351
"An Act relating to uses that are not incompatible with the
purposes of the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 334
SHORT TITLE: OIL & GAS TRANSFERABLE TAX CREDIT CERT.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) PRUITT
02/24/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/24/14 (H) RES, FIN
03/10/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HJR 30
SHORT TITLE: IZEMBEK LAND EXCHANGE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HERRON
02/26/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/14 (H) RES
03/10/14 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor of HB 334, explained the
changes in proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 334,
Version U.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 334.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff
Representative Lance Pruitt
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Lance Pruitt, during the discussion of HB 334.
MATT FONDER, Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 334.
FRED KIGA, Senior Vice President
Vigor Industrial, Inc. - Vigor Alaska
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 334.
DOUG WARD, Director
Shipyard Development
Vigor Industrial, Inc. - Vigor Alaska
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 334.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 334.
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the prime sponsor of HJR 30.
SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. Senator
United States Senate
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 30.
HENRY MACK, Mayor
City of King Cove
King Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 30.
MIKE COONS, Director
Citizen Initiatives, Alaska
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 30.
STANLEY MACK, Mayor
Aleutians East Borough
Sand Point, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 30.
GARY HENNIGH, City Manager
King Cove, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Briefly commented during the discussion of
HJR 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:44 PM
CO-CHAIR DAN SADDLER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
Johnson, Olson, P. Wilson, Tarr, Kawasaki, Hawker, Feige, and
Saddler were present at the call to order.
^#344
1:06:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER began to discuss HB 334, and Co-Chair Feige
first requested an explanation of the reason that HB 344 was
pulled from the committee's agenda for today.
HB 344-INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANT SPECIES CONTROL
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, sponsor of HB 344, explained that the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued a quarantine notice
on the invasive aquatic plants, and Elodea [canadensis] could no
longer be sold or distributed. The department moved forward so
quickly with the quarantine that the bill to ban import of
Elodea [canadensis] was no longer necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON spoke as follows:
I was kinda looking forward to hearing this because
we've had some concern about float planes and when you
say quarantine. I've spoken with the department and
it is not their intention to keep float planes from
flying in and out of lakes that may or not have this
plant in there. So, I just want to be clear that for
my office working on it, Campbell Lake is in my
district, that when you say quarantine that doesn't
mean that you won't - you'll still be able to land
your airplane - as opposed to having someone import,
sell, and otherwise. So I just want to be clear on
that. We're working with the department to clarify
that quarantine doesn't mean quarantine.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER also expressed his interest in putting that
statement on the record.
HB 334-OIL & GAS TRANSFERABLE TAX CREDIT CERT.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 334, "An Act relating to the qualified
oil and gas service industry expenditure credit; and relating to
a credit against oil and gas exploration, production, and
pipeline transportation property taxes."
1:08:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that he will speak to the work draft for HB 334, Version U
[labeled 28-LS1407\U, Nauman, 3/4/14 and not yet before the
committee]. Relating the reason for his introducing HB 334, he
said he visited the [Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, Inc. shipyard] in
Ketchikan this past summer. During this visit he discovered the
shipyard facility could not use a tax credit the legislature
passed last year [to AS 43.20.049]. He explained that the tax
credit requires the party must be a taxpayer to qualify, but a
government entity, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA) owns the actual yard. He discussed this with
Mike Pawlowski, Department of Revenue (DOR), who suggested a
possible remedy for an entity that is not a state taxpayer
without providing a blanket exemption. After some discussion,
he developed the work draft [Version U]. It would apply a
credit to the state property tax on the asset by the owner. The
owner could take a credit over five years, although the credit
cannot reduce the tax to less than zero. It would also include
an option for a municipality to use the credit. He described a
scenario that illustrated how Seward's Ship Dry Dock [and Ship's
Chandlery] might also be interested in the tax credit. He
stated the goal of HB 334 is to ensure that as many Alaskans as
possible have an opportunity to participate in what he viewed as
the "renaissance" from SB 21 and bring manufacturing back home
to Alaska.
1:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 334, Version U, labeled 28-LS1407\U,
Nauman, 3/4/14, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version U was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that [SB 21] acknowledges that
North Slope companies often order equipment to be built in the
Lower 48 or another country. The goal of [SB 21] was to provide
an incentive that would provide jobs for Alaskans and that if
the product was produced in Alaska, the company could obtain a
tax credit.
1:15:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER related his understanding that HB 334
would allow a transferable tax credit for improvements to the
tangible personal property under AS 43.20.049 to be applied
against taxes under AS 43.56. He asked the reason to allow the
tax credit to property tax since the broader interpretation
would allow the tax credit against corporate income tax,
production tax, or property tax liabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT deferred to the bill drafter.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied
the question raised by Representative Hawker is completely a
policy call.
1:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, referring to the difference between the
original version of the bill and Version U, said that the
original version of HB 334 limited the tax credit to the initial
purchaser of the tangible personal property. He offered his
belief that Version U broadens this substantially by allowing
the tax credit to be traded freely on the open market
DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the initial language was more limiting.
He explained that Version U was broadened to make it applicable
to anyone associated with the property. He related his
understanding that the tax credit is still limited to anyone
associated with the property.
1:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER questioned whether that allowance is in
the [bill]. He read from AS 43.20.052 (a), as follows:
A person that is entitled to take a credit under AS
43.20.049 that wishes to transfer the unused credit to
another person may apply to the department for a
transferable tax credit certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that any restriction to "another
person" would not exist.
MR. CRAFT replied correct.
1:18:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
reason to allow the credit to be applied to property tax
liability instead of limiting the tax credit to corporate income
tax liability. He didn't think the language in the bill would
limit the tax credit to the construction.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered that the genesis for allowing tax
credits against the property tax liability was to avoid creating
a tax credit similar to the film tax credit that could be
applied by someone without an existing tax liability. He
related a scenario to illustrate how a company might build
something yet not have a tax liability. This would allow not
only the major investors but also the service industry to
benefit. These parties may own the asset but not have a tax yet
Version U would allow them to apply tax credits to their
personal property tax liability.
1:21:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems like the tax credit is so
broadly applied that it doesn't limit the tax credit to the
party who owns the asset. The tax credits could apply to
someone who builds something but if the company doesn't have any
corporate tax liability, the tax credit could be transferred to
anyone who has a property tax liability. Further, it doesn't
seem to be limited just to oil and gas properties. He asked if
the tax credit will be limited to oil and gas properties or if
it will include other properties as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered that the intent was to apply the
tax credit to the oil and gas industry, although it is a policy
call if the committee wants to go beyond the industry. The bill
evolved due to recognition of some limitations to the tax
credit. He hoped that companies in places like Southeast Alaska
and Seward could participate in the oil development that occurs
in other parts of the state.
1:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER understood that, as written, Version U
would allow the tax credit to be applied against taxes levied
under AS 43.56. He said the title of the chapter is oil and gas
exploration, production, and pipeline transportation property
taxes, which provides a broad scope for the industry since it
includes pipeline transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed.
1:23:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the tax credit could be used by
someone building modules, but it will have to be transferred to
the oil companies or to someone with pipeline taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT replied yes. He explained that Vigor
Industrial and Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, Inc. do not have any
tax liability to the state. Thus, the bill would make the tax
credits transferable to any company producing their products.
1:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI understood that an oil and gas
corporation that is making money under AS 43.20 would have a
transferable tax credit that could be purchased by a company in
the same field to apply towards the company's property tax
liability.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT believed it would be applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI surmised that a North Slope oil and gas
company could go to a Fairbanks or Anchorage company and use the
tax credit to reduce property taxes for their related
facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT acknowledged that he raises a good point
that a company in Fairbanks might be able to reduce its property
tax liability.
1:26:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that often small companies cannot
use the tax credit, unless they are oil and gas companies, so
the parties must transfer these credits. He wondered how this
would stimulate in-state manufacturing if the parties must
transfer their tax credits - probably at a discount - to gain
any benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested Vigor Industrial, Inc. may be
able to address the question.
1:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the
company will obtain a discount by having the product made in
Alaska, which could encourage manufacturing in Alaska. It will
provide the indirect benefit by creating manufacturing jobs in
Alaska even though it might not directly benefit the
manufacturer.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her understanding that the tax
credit would only apply to oil and gas property taxes due to the
state and not to municipal tax liabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said yes, but said the goal is to allow an
option to use the tax credits for municipal property taxes.
1:31:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related a scenario to illustrate the tax credit
limitations for an oil and gas company when contracting with a
manufacturer to produce something for a North Slope project.
The oil and gas company would be limited to no more than $10
million in tax credits in any year, although the company can
hold the tax credits in up to five successive tax years.
However, under Version U, the question is whether the tax credit
is transferrable and if an oil and gas company can transfer tax
credits in excess of $10 million to another company to use.
1:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification on the language in
Version U that allows an option for taxpayers in other
communities to use the tax credit.
MR. CRAFT replied that the option is under discussion but is not
yet in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed. He acknowledged that is the
intent, but the bill is a work in progress.
1:34:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 2 of the fiscal note that
states the department cannot determine the amount of tax credits
that may be claimed by taxpayers as the department currently has
no information about the amount of this type of activity in the
state. She wondered whether the department could provide a
general idea of the impact since this could amount to millions
of dollars in tax credits.
MATT FONDER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue
(DOR), responded that Representative Tarr's question is
difficult to answer. He explained that the manufacturing credit
under discussion was adopted under SB 21, which has not yet been
in effect for a full year so the department doesn't have any
solid information on the proposed tax credit.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remarked that currently the state hasn't
been looking in-state for manufacturing, especially in terms of
maritime oil and gas development. He said if the state allows
someone to manufacture offshore platforms or other equipment in
the state, it could then potentially impact the state's
revenues.
1:37:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER recalled prior discussions during the
legislative process on SB 21, about who would be qualified to
take the corporate income tax credit. It was envisioned the
credit would seldom be used. He further recalled conversations
about limiting the applicability of the front-loaded tax credits
that had unbalanced the tax system. He wondered if this bill
would change the intent of SB 21. He proffered that HB 334
would substantially increase applicability of this tax credit,
but seems to go against the philosophy for development of SB 21.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remarked that he didn't necessarily
disagree. He introduced HB 334 since some areas of the state
currently cannot participate in the development of the state's
oil and gas resources. Certainly, it's important not to burden
the state in the capacity the state had under Alaska's Clear and
Equitable Share (ACES), but this seemed to create a way for
people to potentially use this tax credit, even if it only
allows a few people in Southeast Alaska to participate in oil
and gas development in Alaska. Additionally, it would allow the
state to use the shipyard, one of its assets, on a larger scale.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER absolutely agreed. One reason he liked
the original version of HB 334 is that he envisioned a
participant in the North Slope might have a corporate income tax
liability. However, taking the corporate income tax and making
it transferable to property taxes also creates some complexities
due to the interplay between state and local property taxes. He
suggested that the sponsor may wish to ensure the bill targets
the parties it intends to benefit in the most efficient way.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered "duly noted."
1:43:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI shared some of the concerns mentioned in
terms of local taxation issues. He asked for further
clarification on what constitutes a modification.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT deferred to the DOR.
1:44:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his reading of this is that the oil
service industry could build a pipeline from the west side of
Cook Inlet to the Tesoro Refinery to use the tax credit. He
asked for further clarification on whether this bill would mean
10 percent of the pipeline would be eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered no; the intent is not any work
that is done, but whether the asset is manufactured or modified
at the facility in-state, pointing out a pipeline wouldn't be
manufactured in-state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he will go back and review the
constraints on SB 21 expenditure credits. He was unsure whether
a service industry would qualify for tax credits if a gas
treatment plant was built on the North Slope.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER clarified the credits relate only to
tangible personal property.
1:46:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled the purpose of SB 21 was to
apply against corporate income tax. He recalled the goal was to
encourage companies to become corporations, which could increase
the tax rolls. However, he wondered if this would run afoul of
the interstate commerce if the state offers a discount beyond a
normal discount for in-state purchase.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested there could be optional
language inserted to avoid problems with interstate commerce
since she didn't currently see that language in the bill.
1:48:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, recalling the state couldn't go above a
certain number for local hire, wondered whether the threshold
was at 10 or 15 percent or 50 percent before the state would
have issues with federal interstate commerce. He said he would
be curious how that relates to projects.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT deferred to the legislative attorney. In
terms of encouraging companies to become corporations and pay
corporate income tax, he suggested the bill was another way to
allow LLCs to benefit. He did not see a way for companies like
Vigor Alaska to qualify for tax credits which is the reason he
was looking towards using tax credits to offset personal
property taxes.
1:50:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 334.
1:50:51 PM
FRED KIGA, Senior Vice President, Vigor Alaska, Vigor
Industrial, Inc., testified in support of HB 334 and thanked
members for considering the concept embodied in HB 334. He said
that Vigor reviewed SB 21 last year in terms of ways to enhance
tangible personal property for oil and gas development and
production. Over a six-month period, Vigor held discussions
with Mike Pawlowski of DOR to consider a variety of ways to
frame tax credits designed to enhance employment for Alaskans
and economic development in Alaska. Ultimately, using a
property tax credit under AS 43.56 seemed to be the way to
develop that concept. He acknowledged that "it's somewhat
squishy" when considering the production income tax credit and
whether companies have tax nexus for purposes of using it.
MR. KIGA said parties with tangible property are generally
subject to the state property taxes. In terms of out-of-state
oil and gas companies, the provisions of AS 43.56 provide a
credit against expenses going forward. From the 10,000 foot
level, this concept could help oil and gas companies evaluate
the economic cost of whether to invest or use an in-state
manufacturer to create an asset. He stated this as the goal of
HB 334 and the direction he hoped the legislature would take.
1:53:55 PM
DOUG WARD, Director, Shipyard Development, Vigor Alaska, Vigor
Industrial, Inc. (Vigor), stated he has been associated with the
Ketchikan Shipyard for over twenty years. He lauded the pride
and joy that young workers have in building ships in Alaska. He
highlighted some challenges his company faces as a shipbuilder
in Alaska. He offered his belief that Alaska has one of the most
modern shipbuilding factories in North America due to the
partnership that exists between AIDEA, the community of
Ketchikan, and industry. Certainly, that's true in Ketchikan,
given the size of the Ketchikan shipyard. This facility not
only focuses on the best practice for facility design and
infrastructure, but also on the human workforce development
plan. As of 2013, the company employs 161 productive workers,
of which 13 percent are women. The shipyard project began as an
economic development project through AIDEA. It initially was a
DOT&PF maintenance facility, but ship building and repairs began
once AIDEA took it over.
1:55:42 PM
MR. WARD advised that the shipbuilding component provides year-
round stability for the workforce and a stable economic base for
seasonal boat repairs. He detailed shipbuilding at the
facilities, such that the shipyard built two airport ferries for
the Ketchikan airport, a marine fueling station for the Olympics
in Vancouver, the Susitna ferry, and an ice-strength twin-hull
vessel destined for service in Cook Inlet, which may ultimately
operate on the North Slope serving the oil and gas industry due
to the ice-breaking capabilities. Additionally, the shipyard
has completed building a longliner destined for the Bering Sea.
MR. WARD said as Vigor looks forward, HB 334 could accelerate
the state's return on its investment in the shipyard. He stated
that an influx of businesses are moving to Ketchikan, noting
that two naval architecture firms recently opened offices in
Ketchikan. Additionally, two international marine electronics
firms are looking to open shops in Ketchikan. However, the
vendor base is lacking in Alaska as compared to the Gulf of
Mexico or Puget Sound. He emphasized that Vigor believes HB 334
will help to move the company to participate in the oil and gas
industry sooner and it will encourage additional customers to do
business in Alaska, such as marine operators who buy ships and
operate vessels. Further, HB 334 could be valuable to those
types of customers, he said. Vigor has also been looking at the
Seward shipyard since Cook Inlet has begun taking off.
1:58:18 PM
MR. WARD anticipated that HB 334 could help small liquefied
natural gas (LNG) projects in the future. He clarified that it
could potentially reduce costs by 20-30 percent in the
distribution of the small LNG projects by using marine transport
to move products throughout the state, which in turn could
stimulate more manufacturing in Southeast Alaska. Since these
assets are expensive and time-consuming to build, HB 334 could
be a useful financing tool for shipbuilding in Alaska.
1:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recapped that current projects wouldn't
qualify but this bill might encourage more activity to occur.
MR. WARD answered absolutely. Currently the oil and gas
industry defaults to the Gulf of Mexico, with nearly 60 years of
oil and gas experience. He characterized the Gulf of Mexico
area as a very mature industry with competitive shipyards. As
the state works towards building industrial activity, it faces
obstacles in Alaska, such as great distances between population
bases, the lack of a vendor base, more onerous environmental
regulations than in the Gulf of Mexico, and higher labor rates.
He surmised that the workers are paid 40 percent more in
Southeast Alaska than in the Gulf of Mexico region. Thus, these
types of tax credits could help encourage people to use Alaska
manufacturers in the future, noting, of course, that the
activity would need to meet the definition of modification or
manufacturing as defined by the DOR.
2:01:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood some physical limitations could
exclude Alaska from being involved in some of the projects. She
asked for further clarification on Alaska's shipyard size
limitations.
MR. WARD responded that those with manufacturing capacity in the
state need to be selective on projects as the industry moves
into the oil and gas arena. For example, the Ketchikan shipyard
is limited to building an optimal 250-foot vessel, although the
shipyard could accommodate a 500-foot vessel. Considerations
companies will make will be to assess services available in any
community and what the facility is designed to build. He
anticipated significant opportunities in shipbuilding in the
next 10-20 years. Once Alaska reaches the vendor base and
scale, the state could be looking at larger projects, he said.
2:03:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired what types of projects does the
shipyard envision manufacturing and how would these projects fit
under the definition of qualified oil and gas service industry
expenditures [under HB 334].
MR. WARD said representatives of ExxonMobil Corporation, Inc.
will visit the shipyard in the near future to discuss projects
for Point Thomson. One opportunity could be to manufacture
1,000 gallon double-walled storage tanks. Additionally, on the
main transportation side, small LNG carriers - cryogenic ships -
are being developed in Norway to distribute gas to small
communities. He suggested a series of barges with cryogenic
containers could be dropped off in coastal communities on a
monthly basis. He anticipated that Vigor will also consider
articulated tug and barge setups, potentially performing some
work at liquefaction plants or re-liquefaction plants, as well
as providing the marine transportation component of distributing
gas in the state.
MR. KIGA added that as oil and gas exploration develops on the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, the likelihood exists that some of
the supply vessels that accompany the drill rigs could stop for
service at Ketchikan or Seward shipyards. He acknowledged this
assumes the activity will meet the definition of modifications
or manufacturing under the existing statutes. If so, these
activities could also qualify for the tax credits.
2:05:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for the size of the small LNG carriers.
MR. WARD anticipated that the ship sizes range from 250 to 650
foot LNG carriers, although he was unsure of the exact capacity.
He characterized them as being relatively small LNG carriers and
within his company's range to build in Ketchikan.
2:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER thanked the committee for furnishing a
copy of AS 43.20.049. He said that this statute allows a
taxpayer to apply a credit against the tax due under this
chapter, which relates to corporation income tax, against a
qualified oil and gas service industry expenditure incurred in
the state. He said the definition of "qualified oil and gas
service industry expenditure" means an expenditure directly
attributable to an in-state manufacture or in-state modification
of tangible personal property used in the exploration for,
development of, or production of oil or gas deposits, but does
not include components or equipment used for or in the process
of that manufacturing or modification.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER questioned layering this tax credit. He
related a scenario to illustrate the point that not only does an
oil and gas operator incur expenditures with vendors, but those
vendors are doing business with other vendors, who in turn are
conducting business with yet other vendors. He wondered whether
the language in SB 21 or HB 334 clearly states that the intent
is to offer one tax credit against tangible personal property.
Although this question might be considered rhetorical, he would
like the record to be clear that HB 334 intends to offer one tax
credit to a single tangible personal property. He suggested
that the language in HB 334 might need to be clarified.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue (DOR), offered to discuss the underlying
statute. First, the nexus to the definition of tangible
personal property used in the exploration for, development of,
or production of oil or gas was written specifically because
it's a nexus to the property tax statute. He said that AS 43.56
levies oil and gas property taxes at a statewide level on
tangible personal property used so it was the manufacture of
something that was going to create a tax base in the state to
begin with. Secondly, he referred to the language in AS
43.20.049(c), which prevents the expenditure from being used for
a deduction against the tax levied under this chapter or a
credit or deduction under another provision of this title. In
Representative Hawker's example of an exploration company, with
the "loss carry forward" which he reminded the committee
retained in SB 21 for the benefit of new entrants, along with
the exploration credits "on the books, at least in middle earth
for a little while," the use of that expenditure for a producer
or explorer is more valuable as a deduction or qualifying
expenditure for one of the other credits in this chapter. He
summarized that this was the limiting utility in the way the
underlying statute was drafted. This narrowly would apply to a
group that really is a corporate income taxpayer who might be
the service company working with the producer or explorer. He
offered a willingness to continue to work with the committee to
develop "sideboards" on the language. However, the limiting
factor in the development of the credit was to recognize that
the expenditures are more valuable in other places in statute,
he said.
2:12:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER appreciated the relative value of an
individual expenditure. He said that someone claiming the tax
credit will be limited to a one-time credit; however, a person
contracting with the company couldn't also claim the credit. He
suggested that at some point it will be necessary to fine tune
who actually is eligible for tax credit.
MR. PAWLOWSKI answered correct.
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER returned to [AS 43.20.049] (c), which
read:
An expenditure that is the basis of the credit under
this section may not be the basis for
(1) a deduction against the tax levied under this
chapter;
(2) a credit or deduction under another provision of
this title; or
(3) any federal credit claimed under this title.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked to parse through the language noting
subsection (c) relates to the corporate income tax, but
paragraph (1) clarifies that the taxpayer can't take a credit
and deduction at the same time. However, paragraph (2) would
preclude using the credit under AS 43.20.049 (c) as the basis
for a credit or deduction under another provision of this title.
He questioned whether a specific exemption is necessary in order
to allow the expenditure to be applied to AS 43.56. He pointed
out that the language in AS 43.20.049 (c) may have embedded a
prohibition against what HB 334 is doing.
MR. PAWLOWSKI responded by acknowledging that SB 21 was narrowly
crafted last year and the decision to broaden the capability is
something the department must carefully think through.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commented on how difficult it can be to
interpret statutes over time.
2:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said if an oil company orders something
built for them, but the ten percent tax credit can't be used as
a deduction for anything else, it would have absolutely no
relative value. He asked for an example of how the tax credit
[under AS 43.20.049] could be applied. Certainly an oil company
wouldn't give away a 25 percent tax credit to manufacture
something for the field to subsequently receive a 10 percent tax
credit.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated the as introduced included language
that limited the transfer to the initial purchaser of the
tangible personal property, but Version U doesn't contain that
language. She asked whether the committee should consider
including that provision.
2:17:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER held public testimony open on HB 334.
[HB 334 was held over].
HJR 30-IZEMBEK LAND EXCHANGE
2:17:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30, Requesting that the federal
government and the United States Secretary of the Interior
reconsider the Izembek Land Exchange decision and approve the
Izembek Land Exchange, allowing the residents of King Cove to
have road access to the Cold Bay Airport for critical health and
safety reasons and to improve the quality of their lives.
2:18:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, testifying
as the prime sponsor, stated that HJR 30 dissects the "no
action" decision by now U.S. Secretary [of the Department of th
Interior (DOI)] Sally Jewell. He asserted that the Environment
Impact Statement (EIS) did not follow the law, and the
resolution points that out and seeks to have the legislature
endorse this resolution and send it to Washington, D.C. He
explained that this refers to the Omnibus Public Land Management
Act of 2009, endorsed unanimously by the legislature [in 2010
with passage of House Bill 210]. The federal act required an
EIS, which was worked on for four years. As you know, he said,
former U.S. Secretary [of DOI] Ken Salazar rejected the
proposal, affirmed by Secretary Jewell, essentially blocking the
land swap and the public safety corridor from King Cove to Cold
Bay.
2:19:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON explained that federal case law and
Congressional actions have reinforced the principle that trust
responsibilities to Alaska Natives applies to all federal
officials, all federal decisions, and all federal activities.
He offered his belief that USFWS conveniently decided it is
exempt from this [Act], but of course they are not. He said
that the DOI likes the situation, such that the Bureau of Indian
Affairs had the trust responsibility for Alaska Natives, and by
custom the Assistant Secretary of the Interior - Indian Affairs
- has been an American Indian or an Alaska Native. However, the
U.S. Office of Management & Budget (OMB) reduced their funding
and the administration moved the office to the White House
Domestic Policy Council. Now it is conveniently housed, in most
part, by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Thus, the role
of trust responsibility has gotten farther and farther removed
from the DOI.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON indicated that the U.S. Courts have warned
the federal officials they are bound by every moral and
equitable consideration to discharge this trust responsibility
in good faith and fairness. Although everyone can read the
resolution, substantial background exists, in particular, that
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) believes it is exempt
and does not have a responsibility for public safety and people.
Still, the Congress has explicitly associated trust
responsibility with six federal departments - Education, Energy,
Health and Social Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Labor, and the DOI.
2:21:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related the background of this decision.
He referred to page 2, line 4, that highlighted the legislature
unanimously passed House Bill 210, approving the state's
participation in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
The state wants the land exchange, he said. He referred to page
2, lines 29-31, in which the USFWS publicly stated, "safety
considerations are important, but they were not a factor in this
decision-- at least not a factor we analyzed, since we only
analyzed the environmental impacts, which is what we were called
upon to do since we are not a public safety organization", ...."
He reminded members everyone has seen USFWS employees "pack a
weapon" and in fact, they take actions to protect public safety.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, fast forwarding to 2013, noted he was in
King Cove when the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Kevin
Washburn, visited the community. He said he was also present
with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski when Secretary Jewell visited
the community. He emphasized what the agencies have chosen to
leave out is that the federal agencies have not produced a
public interest finding that is required. He further said that
the process requires the federal government to state why there
isn't a need for medical evacuations of Alaska Natives and also
to remove members of the community from a dangerous situation.
2:24:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referring to language on page 4, lines 3-
6, related that HJR 30 states the federal government and the
Secretary of the Interior purposefully ignored biological and
technical information concerning environmental justice and
transportation considerations. He referred to page 4, line 15,
and noted Secretary Jewell's decision did not provide the
required reports. After listening to all of the K-12 students,
Secretary Jewell said, "I've listened to your concerns, now I
must listen to the animals." He reported that subsequently
Secretary Jewell did essentially the same thing at the community
meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON concluded that the USFWS thinks it is
exempt from a trust responsibility to the Alaska Natives. This
resolution addresses how the USFWS purposefully and willingly
did not follow the Act or the Congressional Case Law.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that when he was in Washington,
D.C., last week, Senator Lisa Murkowski personally requested she
be able to testify on HJR 30. He said this issue is important
to her because it is an example of how callous the DOI has
become in its responsibilities to Alaska.
2:26:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out members' packets contain a
photograph entitled "U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Your Guide
to Hunting on National Wildlife Refuges" that depicts three bird
hunters. One reason given for the USFWS's "no action decision"
was due to the impact on black brant and the eel grass. He read
an excerpt from the guide, as follows, "... it appears hardy
water fowlers can hunt in the eelgrass to pursue and achieve
their daily bag limit of black brant, and then search for
ptarmigan on the upland year-round."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said that the trust responsibility is not
a limitation on Alaska Natives freedoms and rights; instead, it
is a limit on the federal government over Alaska Natives and
Alaskans, specifically the DOI's authority over Alaska. The
most recent Izembek [National Wildlife Refuge] decision has
utterly ignored the responsibilities that the federal government
is required to maintain, he stated.
2:27:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER thanked the sponsor for bringing forward
HJR 30. He said:
This whole issue has brought me personally as a state
legislator to a slow burn. And I mean that burn has
gone beyond smoking and, I mean, it's just, it ought
to be a raging fire with every single person in the
state legislature and every person in the State of
Alaska. And this foolishness from the feds has got to
end. It is completely and totally irresponsible for
them to stand in the way of what truly is a public
safety measure.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said if he could he would personally take
a bulldozer and start building the road and let [the federal
government] stop the state. He offered his belief that it has
reached that point in dealing with the "feds" on this issue.
It's time to stop sending these strongly worded letters of
support for something they are obviously not going to do. He
suggested it may be time to take matters into "our own hands"
and just do it. He said that he is happy to support HJR 30.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON reported that all three members of the
Alaska Congressional Delegation are fired up about this issue.
He acknowledged that they are strident about the way Alaska has
been treated. He hoped U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski will be able
to testify.
2:29:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that proposed road projects have
project alternatives. He asked what the next step is in a "no
action alternative" from the state's perspective.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that for four years the
coordinating agencies determined that there was no other
alternative but a road. However, the EIS ignored this
determination even though the federal agency EIS document was
complete. He offered his belief that this was a pre-engineered
decision to say "no action," and he surmised it was a decision
that was made above Secretary Jewell's "pay grade."
2:30:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that he'd like to put on the
record what Alaska is prepared to give up as a state. He asked
for further clarification on the amount of acreage "swap" in the
proposed Izembek Land Exchange.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON explained the federal government would
receive 60,000 acres and in return the state and local region
would receive 206 acres.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that it speaks for itself.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER acknowledged it was a considerable ratio.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON remarked what is incredible is that even
though the DOI and USFWS are required to consider the human and
public sector factors, those factors were irrelevant to them.
2:32:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired whether other examples exist in which
the federal government has agreed to be bound by the trust
responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered yes; case law throughout history
exists in terms of the government's responsibility under
[Article] 16 of the Constitution. However, similar instances
also happen, which he characterized as being an indifference
that seems prevalent. He surmised that the federal government
is geographically removed and feels that Congress has taken over
the trust responsibilities of the Alaska Natives and American
Indians, although that somehow doesn't occur. He suggested a
broader fear of the eight-mile road representing the public-
safety corridor exists such that the DOI is afraid that if it
agrees to this it will set precedent for a public-safety
corridor in every wilderness and every refuge.
2:33:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said that the point is it means people can't be
safe in refuges.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER suggested that the land Alaska would give
in the Izembek Land Exchange is an amazing ratio, and if his
math is correct it would consist of "34 to 10,000" in terms of
the land the federal government would receive.
2:33:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether other public safety
improvements have been considered that might address some of the
health care needs.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that the environment is the
limitation since the airport is designated "zero-zero" 100 days
per year, noting that King Cove represents an important port for
the fishing industry. Although King Cove has a safe harbor,
once boats are out of the harbor the seas are rough. He
emphasized that this issue really becomes an issue of safe
medical evacuation. He pointed out that 18 people have died,
including members of the U.S. Coast Guard. He referred to the
press release in members' packets dated February 14, 2014,
noting the difficulty of medavac evacuations, yet the community
of approximately 1,000 people lives 25 miles away from one of
the largest airport runways in Alaska. He emphasized the
runway's size by mentioning that it was considered as a second
alternative for space shuttle landings. He stressed that every
alternative was considered and vetted by the coordinating
agencies. One alternative was to use hovercraft, but it was
deemed to be too expensive and not reliable due to the
challenging weather conditions in the region.
2:36:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HJR 30.
2:36:51 PM
SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. Senator, United States Senate, said
she appreciated the opportunity to support HJR 30. She has
previously submitted written testimony; however, she asked to
supplement her testimony. This resolution outlines the history
and long fight that the 953 residents of King Cove have been
engaged in over a decades in order to gain access to a safety
corridor to allow access to the second-longest runway in Alaska
for purposes of life-safety. She emphasized it is important to
reinforce that Secretary [Jewell's] decision on December 23 to
reject the road alternative also rejected the legislative act
that reflected the work of all respective agencies since
legislation passed through the U.S. Senate, was concurred in by
the House of Representatives, and signed into law by the
President of the United States. The one remaining thing was a
best interest finding from the Secretary of the Interior. Her
actions effectively ignored the will of the Congress to move
forward with the land exchange and the safety corridor for the
people of King Cove. She has shared the fact that this is a
300-to-1 land exchange in which the Alaska Natives in King Cove
were willing to give up land they received as part of their
Native land settlement. The state also had agreed that the
exchange would allow for new wilderness areas in the state
despite the typical resolve against adding new wilderness in
Alaska. She said, "Still, this was not good enough for the
Secretary of the Interior, a 300-to-1 exchange."
SENATOR MURKOWSKI remarked that the action defies logic. She
characterized the land exchange rejection as "a stunning
injustice" to the people of King Cove and beyond that an
injustice to the people of Alaska.
2:40:44 PM
SENATOR MURKOWSKI related that Alaska hears far too often the
frightening circumstances in which medical evacuation to
Anchorage is necessary. She said the community faces dangerous
life-threatening circumstance, one of which played out on
February 14, 2014. If not for the heroics of the U.S. Coast
Guard, who knows what might have happened to the woman facing
the medical emergency. Besides the residents of King Cove not
able to gain safety, it also places the men and women serving in
the USCG in dangerous circumstances. The pilots and crews
willingly attempt rescues at considerable risk to themselves and
at considerable financial cost to the taxpayers, she said. In
this instance the dangers could all be avoided with a 10-mile,
one-lane, non-commercial use road.
2:42:14 PM
SENATOR MURKOWSKI said at the time Secretary Jewell rejected the
road, she indicated that she would work to help the people of
King Cove, but no proposal has been forthcoming. In fact, she
has not found one person at the DOI who has moved forward to
improve the situation, and each day that passes the people of
King Cove are placed at risk due to the decisions the federal
government has made.
SENATOR MURKOWSKI appreciated that the committee has advanced a
resolution which is strong, clear, and lays forth the facts and
reasons why it is imperative all Alaskans work to address this
wrong brought about by Secretary Jewell's decision. She offered
her belief that this resolution will help affirm that Alaskans
are united in opposition to the Secretary of the Department of
the Interior's decision and are also united in desiring to
protect the health and safety of those who live in King Cove.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER advised that her written comments will be
distributed to members.
2:44:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI thanked Senator Murkowski for her
efforts to help Alaska. He related that Secretary Jewell has
made overtures to indicate she would like to speak to the Alaska
Congressional Delegation on this matter. He pointed out the
language in HJR 30 is somewhat inflammatory, more specifically,
it states "heartless and cold decision" [page 4, line 13]. He
wondered if this type of strongly-worded message is necessary
and whether she stands by that language.
SENATOR MURKOWSKI responded she has used those exact terms, in
fact, she has called Secretary Jewell's decision "heartless"
because she believes the decision was without regard to Alaska's
Native people in King Cove. She said this troubles her greatly,
particularly since the Secretary of DOI has a trust
responsibility to Alaska's Native people. She concurred the
language in the resolution is direct and something Secretary
Jewell will not like to receive, but the state must be very
clear and state in no uncertain terms that Alaskans feel very
strongly this decision should not be allowed since it directly
relates to the safety of the people who live in the region. She
deferred to the committee to carefully and critically examine
the language; however, she stands behind the words she has used.
Ultimately, the legislature must be certain it can stand behind
the words it uses, as well.
2:47:06 PM
SENATOR MURKOWSKI recalled addressing the legislature in
February. She stressed that the King Cove road issue is not an
issue where something else can be found to make it go away. She
emphasized it isn't possible to trade the health and safety of
human beings for another project. In fact, this is not a
project, but is an issue that relates to people's lives in a
remote part of the USA. The government has an obligation -
where possible - to provide a level of safety and ways to
improve the quality of people's lives. She said she has
specifically informed Secretary Jewell that she does not intend
to back down from this and concluded that Alaskans agree a road
is the right decision. However, she acknowledged that the way
Alaska states its case is important. She appreciated that as
lawmakers the legislature is willing to advance a detailed and
direct resolution.
2:48:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether the resolution is
directed at the right person and if Secretary Jewell will be
making the final decision since it didn't seem logical that one
person could stand in the way.
SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI answered there has been a request for
reconsideration of Secretary Jewell's determination, which
clearly rests with her. She reported that the 2009 legislation
gave responsibility to the Secretary of Interior for making the
best interest determination. She has used every tool available
to ensure that the administration understands how this issue
relates to Alaska. She related that she has had repeated
conversations with Vice-President [Biden] to ensure that he was
aware of Alaska's position. She believed that if Secretary
Jewell decides to make the decision it will be done. However,
she did not think it hurts to direct this resolution to both
Secretary Jewell and the President; however, ultimately she
believes the decision will be made by Secretary Jewell.
2:51:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HJR 30.
2:51:45 PM
HENRY MACK, Mayor, City of King Cove, explained he is a life-
long resident of the City of King Cove. He thanked committee
members and the legislature for the overwhelming support for the
Izembek Land Exchange leading to the approval of the one-lane
gravel road connecting King Cove to the Cold Bay airport. He
recognized Representative Herron who authored HJR 30 and spent
considerable time in King Cove the past few years becoming very
familiar with the transportation access issues. This approval
process has been a long time in the making. He related he
served on the city council in 1976, when the City of King Cove
adopted its first resolution identifying the need for this road
to access the Cold Bay airport. Since that time 12 people have
been killed flying in and out of King Cove and countless
relatives and friends have been adversely impacted by the
necessity for medevac evacuation from King Cove. He expressed
astonishment that the community is still trying to address this
basic quality of life issue for residents with the federal
government. He emphasized the incredible offer to trade over
60,000 acres of state and King Cove Corporation land to the
federal government for 206 acres of the Izembek land to allow
nine miles of one-lane road access to the Cold Bay airport.
2:53:30 PM
MR. MACK noted that two days before Christmas, Secretary Jewell
said no to the people of King Cove. He reported that the entire
community is outraged, particularly since it implies that the
lives of King Cove's residents are not very important to her or
to the USFWS.
MR. MACK said the further insult to the Aleut people of King
Cove was the very flawed and biased EIS, which the federal
government has used to justify this unbelievable decision.
Secretary Jewell has further insulted the community by saying
the marine landing craft could work better than a road to
transport the sick and injured residents of Cold Bay. This
position shows a lack of federal government's awareness of the
extreme weather and marine navigational issues at the Western
end of the Alaska Peninsula. He pointed out this decision is
one of the most recent and extreme examples of federal
government overreach in Alaska. Finally, he stated that this
decision represents a major cultural insult to the predominantly
Aleut residents of King Cove since it completely ignores the
government's trust responsibility to fairly listen and include
the resident's expectations and concerns when decisions are made
that affect the lives of residents. Although the community has
asked Secretary Jewell to reconsider, thus far she has not yet
responded to the mid-January request. He has personally advised
Secretary Jewell and her staff that the matter will not go away
until the right decision is made. In closing, he respectfully
asked members to approve HJR 30 that clearly expresses the
community's needs, frustration, emotions, and expectations on
this critical issue to residents of King Cove. He thanked the
legislature and administration for standing strong and for their
commitment to the community on this important Izembek issue.
2:56:04 PM
MIKE COONS, Director, Citizen Initiatives, Alaska, said he was
testifying on behalf of himself and as the state director of
Citizen Initiatives, a national organization. He has previously
given a presentation on the Izembek land fiasco, which is also
available on the website patriotsride.org. He said he has
previously submitted written testimony to the committee, and he
expressed outrage over Secretary Jewell's decisions and
frustration with the federal government that is more concerned
with politics and animals than Alaskans and Americans. He
expressed further frustration that resolutions passed by the
legislature are read by few and then forgotten. During the past
two years he has yet to see a resolution have any impact on the
Congress to the advantage of Alaska. He said that Citizen
Initiatives has been working on a constitutional amendment
called the countermand amendment to call for a convention of
states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution; however, he has
not been able to get his resolution introduced and passed. The
countermand amendment would give 60 percent of the states the
ability to countermand actions like [the decision] Secretary
Jewell made, could put Alaska and the majority of freedom-loving
states in the driver's seat, and would make these resolutions no
longer needed. The countermand amendment would return to the
states the sovereignty and power over that of an overreaching
and blind federal government. He then offered support for HJR
30, stating it is all we have for now. He asked members to read
the proposed countermand amendment and offered his willingness
to discuss this and future Article V calls.
2:58:54 PM
STANLEY MACK, Mayor, Aleutians East Borough, stated that Mayor
Henry Mack is his nephew. He was born in King Cove but now
lives in Sand Point. He stated that he has been a fisherman for
60 years and thanked members for the opportunity to testify. He
appreciated the strong and consistent support for the issue. He
acknowledged Representative Herron's personal advocacy and
understanding. He said the Izembek Land Exchange will allow a
one-lane gravel road to be built so the 950 residents of King
Cove can finally reach a safe and dependable access to the Cold
Bay airport. As Mayor Henry Mack previously testified, he too,
was appalled and angered by Secretary Jewell's decision two days
before Christmas. He recognized that not all transportation
challenges can be resolved, especially given the weather,
topography, and funding issues throughout Alaska; however, the
King Cove transportation access problem is different because it
can be solved. In fact, it is one reason that the community has
been persistent for so long. He reiterated the unprecedented
land exchange that would have given 60,000 acres in exchange for
200 acres [to allow for road access]. He thanked the
legislature and the governor for standing so strong and
committed to the communities on this controversial issue.
3:01:20 PM
GARY HENNIGH, City Manager, said that both Mayor Henry Mack and
Mayor Stanley Mack have nicely summarized the testimony. He
explained he gave up his time to them, but thanked members for
the opportunity to testify.
3:01:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER closed public testimony on HJR 30.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report HJR 30 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, HJR 30 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
3:02:10 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB334 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334 Ver U Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334 Version U Work Draft.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334-DOR-TAX-03-07-14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB351 AQRC Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Charles Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Frontiersman Article.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Gilmore Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Map.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Smith Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Superior Court SOP v. DNR.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Supreme Court SOP v. DNR Appeal.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Supreme Court SOP v. DNR.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351-DNR-PKS-3-07-14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HJR30 Coons Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 EIS ExecSum.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 KCA Press Release.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 KCG Letter to Sec Jewell.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Map.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Press Release 2.13.14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Sen Murkowski letter to President Obama.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30-LEG-SESS-03-04-14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HB334 AS43.20.049.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB351 Schmid Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HJR30 Sen Murkowski HRES Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |