Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/27/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB76 | |
| HB102 | |
| SB113 | |
| SB124 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 27, 2005
9:06 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Green convened the meeting at approximately 9:06:27 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: SENATOR BEN STEVENS; HENRY WEBB, Staff to
Representative Ralph Samuels; BEN MILLIGAN, Staff to Representative
Bill Stoltze; JIM JORDAN, Executive Director, Alaska State Medical
Association; RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Community and Economic Development; CHUCK
HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; PATRICK SHIER, Acting Deputy Director, Employment Security
Tax, and Chief, Division of Employment Security, Department of
Labor and Workforce Development of Employment Security, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development
Attending via Teleconference: From Anchorage: BOBBY FITHIAN,
Representative, Alaska Professional Hunters Association; RICK
THOMPSON, Resource Manager, Department of Natural Resources; GEORGE
STEWART MD; From Kodiak: DONNA JONES; From Offnet Sites: GLEN
CAROLL; JULIE BONNEY, Representative, Alaska Groundfish Data
Association; LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Department
of Law; ED DERSHAM, Vice-Chairman, Alaska Board of Fisheries
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 76-BIG GAME SERVICES & COMM. SERVICES BD
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the Department of
Natural Resources, and the industry. A committee substitute was
adopted and the bill reported from Committee.
HB 102-MEDICAL LICENSE: APPLICATION/FOREIGN GRAD
The Committee heard from the bill's sponsor, the Alaska Medical
Board, the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, and took industry testimony. The bill reported from
Committee.
SB 113-GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERY
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of Law, the
Alaska Board of Fisheries, and took public testimony. The bill was
held in Committee.
SB 124-FISHERIES BUSINESS LICENSE; BOND
The Committee heard from the Department of Revenue and the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The bill reported
from Committee.
SB 153-INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS REVENUE BONDS
The bill was scheduled but not heard.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 76(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the Big Game Commercial Services Board and
to the regulation of big game hunting services and
transportation services; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
HENRY WEBB, Staff to Representative Ralph Samuels, the bill's
sponsor, explained that this bill would re-establish a Big Game
Commercial Services Board within the Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development, to oversee the professional hunting and transporting
industry. When the previous such Board terminated in the mid 1990s,
its powers had been transferred to the Division. In the year 2003,
both a Legislative Budget & Audit report, Audit Control Number 08-
30025-03, dated October 16, 2003 [copy on file] and a letter, dated
March 18, 2003 [copy on file] from the Board of Game to Senate
President Gene Therriault and House Speaker Pete Kott, pointed out
many of the problems facing the industry. The Audit suggested that
the Legislature re-establish the Board. While a similar bill had
passed the Senate the previous Legislative Session, it had not
progressed through the committee process of the House of
Representatives. "Extensive work" has been conducted on this bill,
which balances the concerns of the industry, the public, and the
agencies that manage the resources. The majority of this 29-page
bill relates to transferring the authority from the Division to the
Board.
9:09:13 AM
Mr. Webb stated that the differences in the bill before the
Committee and the bill that passed the Senate the previous year
would include increasing the membership of the Board from seven to
nine members; requiring that the Board issue a license to someone
who satisfied license requirements, and increasing the level of a
fine that would have precluded an individual from being able to
receive or renew a guide or transfer license for a violation of a
hunting, guiding, or transporting statute or regulation that had
been received in the previous twelve month period from $1,000
to$2,000.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to adopt the committee substitute Version 24-
LS0332\Y as the working document.
There being no objection, the Version "Y" committee substitute was
ADOPTED as the working document.
Mr. Webb noted that one of the three differences between CS HB
76(FIN) am, Version 24-LS0332\F.A and the Version "Y" committee
substitute is the elimination of the requirement that the Board
must award a license at their next meeting. This change, which was
suggested by the Division of Occupational Licensing, would provide
some flexibility to the Board and the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development.
9:12:01 AM
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that the phrase "first meeting
of the Board" had been eliminated from language in Version "Y",
Sec. 4((a)(2) beginning on line four, page three, which reads as
follows.
(2) authorize the issuance of [ISSUE] registered guide-
outfitter [GUIDE], class-A assistant guide, assistant guide,
and transporter licenses after the applicant for the license
satisfies the requirements of the license;
New Text Underlined [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED]
Mr. Webb affirmed.
Mr. Webb continued that the second change that would be implemented
by the Version "Y" committee substitute would be the inclusion of
the phrase "an unsuspended fine" in Sec. 6(a)(1)(ii), (iii), and
(iv), lines 23, 25, and 27 respectfully. This language was included
at the suggestion of the Department of Public Safety.
9:12:39 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the levels of the fines specified in
those sections were new.
Mr. Webb stated that the fine levels were included in the previous
version of the bill, Version "F.A".
Co-Chair Green clarified therefore that the inclusion of the term
"unsuspended fine" was the issue at hand.
Mr. Webb concurred.
Mr. Webb stated that the third change included in Version "Y" was
the expansion of some of the criteria that must be included in
guide and transport contracts. The new language is included in Sec.
17(c) beginning on line 26, page 11 of the bill; specifically the
language reflected on lines six through 19 on page 12.
Mr. Webb stated that this criterion was not exclusive; the Board
could develop additional criteria "as they deemed appropriate".
9:13:41 AM
Co-Chair Green recalled that a vast amount of time had been spent
discussing this legislation the previous year. To that point, she
asked for confirmation that other than the language identified
today, the remainder of the language mirrored that of the previous
Session's bill.
Mr. Webb affirmed.
Senator Dyson asked permission to abstain from voting on the bill
due to a conflict of interest. The bill would affect his business.
Co-Chair Green overruled the request.
Senator Dyson noted that while the bill might "make his life a
little more miserable", he would probably vote in favor of it.
9:14:50 AM
BOBBY FITHIAN, Representative, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association, testified via teleconference from Anchorage and stated
that this bill "is supported by every State, federal, or private
entity that has any stewardship" involving such things as wildlife
or wildlife resources. It would enhance "proper stewardship,
accountability, and sustainability" to one of the State's "oldest
and most recognized industries". A tremendous amount of discussion
has transpired in regards to this issue, and he appreciated the
Committee's attention to the bill.
RICK THOMPSON, Resource Manager, Department of Natural Resources,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, to notify the
Committee of the Department's support of the bill.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the committee substitute from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
There being no objections, SCS CS HB 76 (FIN) was REPORTED from
Committee with zero Fiscal Note #1, dated February 4, 2005 from the
Department of Fish and Game, zero Fiscal Note #2, dated February 4,
2005 from the Department of Public Safety, zero Fiscal Note #4,
dated February 11, 2005 from the Department of Natural Resources,
and $20,000 Fiscal Note #5, dated February 11, 2005 from the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
9:18:02 AM
AT EASE: 9:18:08 AM / 9:18:30 AM
HOUSE BILL NO. 102 am
"An Act relating to the licensure of foreign medical graduates
and to applications for a license to practice medicine; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
BEN MILLIGAN, Staff to Representative Bill Stoltze, the bill's
sponsor, explained that this bill is an effort to address the
shortage of doctors in the State as measured on a per capita basis,
particularly in specialty fields. "In order to curb this shortage,
it is important to recognize foreign medical school graduates." The
current requirement is that doctors must complete a residency
program in the United States (U.S.). This legislation would provide
the Alaska State Medical Board the discretion to establish proof of
competency and professional qualifications requirement in order to
allow foreign medical school graduates to practice medicine in the
State.
Co-Chair Green noted that Members' packets include a one-page bill
summary letter [copy on file] dated January 25, 2005 from the
Alaska State Medical Association and addressed to Representative
Stoltze.
9:20:00 AM
Senator Olson spoke in "strong favor" of the bill. He shared that
during his membership on the State Medical Board, this issue was a
continuing "snag", as many "very good" foreign medical school
graduates were unable to practice in the State.
Co-Chair Wilken asked how Alaska compares to other states in this
regard.
9:20:48 AM
Mr. Milligan deferred to a forthcoming testifier, Jim Jordan, as he
would be more qualified to address that question.
GEORGE STEWART, MD, testified via teleconference from an offnet
site to attest to the shortage of doctors in the State,
specifically in specialty areas such as pulmonary critical care
medicine in which he practices. While, ideally, there should be ten
such practitioners, there are currently only eight and two of them,
himself included, are 68 years old. This legislation would not
"dumb down" acceptance for medical licensure in the State.
Dr. Stewart cited two examples of very qualified foreign trained
medical doctors who could not practice in the State due to their
not meeting the State's U.S. training program requirement. This
legislation would have allowed the Medical Board to review these
doctors' qualifications and allowed the issuance of licenses to
these doctors. The Board was disappointed that the current
interpretation to existing requirements disallowed such action. In
response to Co-Chair Wilken's question as to how Alaska's
requirements compared to other states, he noted that most other
states require 24-months of U.S. training. Alaska requires three
years of training.
9:24:53 AM
Co-Chair Green pointed out that a letter [copy on file] dated April
7, 2005, from Dr. Stewart and addressed to herself and Co-Chair
Wilken included the examples presented by Dr. Stewart.
JIM JORDAN, Executive Director, Alaska State Medical Association,
noted that the aforementioned letter from the Association is
indicative of the Association's support of the bill. He urged the
committee to adopt the legislation as it would provide the Medical
Board "the needed flexibility" that is required in regards to the
qualification of foreign graduates.
9:25:48 AM
Mr. Jordan added that a March third issue of the USA Today
newspaper [copy not provided] cautioned that by the year 2020, the
nation would experience a shortage of between 85,000 and 200,000
physicians. The State must be able to attract quality, well-trained
physicians, including those who might not have been trained in the
U.S.
Mr. Jordan stated that some "very positive unintended consequences"
could occur were this legislation adopted. Eighty different
languages have been reportedly spoken in the Municipality of
Anchorage school district. "That is reflective of the diverse
ethnicity of our population." It is "very critical" when
administering medical care "that the care that is provided be
culturally competent". This bill would be an opportunity for some
foreign nationals to provide such culturally competent care. They
would also serve as teachers for the physicians in the community.
9:27:56 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked Mr. Jordan how the State's requirements
compare with other states.
9:28:20 AM
Mr. Jordan understood that numerous other states require fewer
years of graduate level training programs. In addition, other
states' medical boards are allowed "the latitude to adopt by
regulation different standards that would provide for competency"
of foreign trained medical doctors.
Mr. Jordan noted that competency considerations could include
licensure in another state for a period of time; English
competency; specialty certifications or passage of a U.S. core
clinical competency examination. "The key is to provide the
discretion to the State Medical Board to adopt by regulation the
standards" that would assure that the State has competent
physicians.
9:29:38 AM
Senator Olson questioned the reason that "such a good bill" had not
been introduced before.
9:29:58 AM
Mr. Jordan responded that, the fact that medical doctors such as
Dr. Stewart, have stepped forward and provided "specific hard core
examples" of need have furthered the cause.
9:30:30 AM
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development testified in
strong support of the bill. He acknowledged the comments of the
testifiers and stated that providing the Board the needed
discretion would be "a step in the right direction". "This is a
good fix."
9:31:27 AM
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 102am was REPORTED from Committee with
zero Fiscal Note #1 dated February 2, 2005 from the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
9:32:04 AM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 113(RES)
"An Act relating to entry into and management of Gulf of
Alaska groundfish fisheries."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS, the bill's sponsor "by Request of the
Managers", stated that this bill "is a process piece of
legislation" that would authorize the Alaska Board of Fisheries
(the Board) and the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(the Commission) "to develop a new fisheries management regime
called the direct access privilege program" pertaining to the
development of groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
Co-Chair Green asked that the term "managers" be further explained.
Senator B. Stevens communicated that the term managers includes a
combination of representative from the Department of Fish and Game,
the Alaska Board of Fisheries, the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Limited Entry Commission, and the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council. This legislation is the outcome of a two-year
process conducted by the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Rationalization
Management Team, which includes representatives from the four
aforementioned entities. The purpose of this endeavor was to align
the State's fisheries resource management with the federal
fisheries management plans that are being developed and implemented
for the federal fisheries outside of the State's three-mile from
shore oversight limit.
Senator B. Stevens stated that the bill would provide the
Department of Fish and Game (the Department) and the Commission to
explore and develop a plan to limit access privileges to harvest
fish within the State's three-mile "zone".
Senator B. Stevens referred the Committee to the April 2005
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [copy on file] between the Board
and the Commission which details the process through which those
entities would conduct public hearings to evaluate the criteria for
participation in the Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries direct
access privilege program (the Program).
9:34:49 AM
Senator B. Stevens avowed that anything affecting fisheries would
be a "controversial" issue in this State; this legislation would be
no exception. One of the primary issues is the fact that the
legislation would "allow the managers to explore the development of
a new system". People become afraid and leery, and resist any
change to the existing system: these are the reasons behind "the
controversy and the passion and the objection" to advancing this
plan.
Senator B. Stevens shared, as a personal note, that he has been
personally criticized due to his father's (United States Senator
Ted Stevens) involvement in federal fisheries management plans.
"The same people that are criticizing the federal management plan
are again criticizing me at this level of implementation." It is "a
sad fact" that the criticism could not be targeted towards the plan
or the implementation or development rather than being personal
criticisms. Nonetheless, the proposed process "would explore new
ways of managing fisheries into the future" while continuing to
protect the biomass and seek new efficiencies in the fisheries.
Efforts to protect the "historical participants" and to determine
how to allow new entries into the fishery would be sought within
the constraints of maintaining an economic fishery.
Senator B. Stevens noted that numerous individuals, both those who
support and oppose the plan, would be presenting testimony.
9:37:51 AM
Co-Chair Green asked that the legislation be explained in layman
terms, specifically what it would attempt to do and why someone
might support or disapprove of the effort being proposed.
9:38:06 AM
Senator B. Stevens explained that the bill would address how the
State's fisheries management policies could best align with the
management of the fisheries outside of the State's three-mile
coastal water management zone boundary. The Alaska Department of
Fish and Game and the Commission manage the fisheries inside of the
three-mile boundary and the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council manages the fisheries conducted outside of that three-mile
boundary.
Senator B. Stevens continued that a federal Rationalization of the
Fisheries effort would be implemented this year to fisheries
outside of the three-mile boundary. This bill "would allow the
inside of the three-mile fisheries managers to develop a plan to
react to what's going on outside" of that zone. "The ultimate goal
? of this bill is to protect the State water fishermen" from the
activities conducted outside of the three-mile zone. There is "an
invisible barrier" there: "the fishermen from inside can't go
outside, but there's nothing to prevent the outside fishermen from
coming inside."
9:39:49 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the change might create a worse
scenario than that incurred by maintaining the status quo.
Senator B. Stevens responded that many individuals support
continuance of the status quo. "The question is whether the status
quo would make us better off or worse off." It is both his and the
managers opinion that the State would fare worse by continuing the
status quo.
Co-Chair Green understood that those supporting this proposal base
their position on the fact that the fisheries outside of the three-
mile limit would change while the fishery inside of the three-mile
limit would remain the same and thus could not react to changes
occurring in the outside waters.
Senator B. Stevens affirmed. "The theory is ? that there would be
an invasion or an influx of those outside fishermen coming in and
harvesting the fish inside and then going out to the outside."
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that this legislation would
serve "to neutralize" that activity.
Senator B. Stevens responded that this legislation would "attempt"
to do that".
9:40:48 AM
Senator Stedman asked for information regarding the public process
that has occurred on the bill, specifically whether this would be
"the end or basically the beginning" of that process.
Senator B. Stevens characterized this legislation as being neither
of those; "this is a step in the evolution of it". The Gulf of
Alaska Ground Fish Rationalization Management Team has been
discussing this issue for approximately three years and more than
nine public meetings have been held. Those activities have "evolved
into this legislation". This bill "has evolved" from a similar bill
that was introduced but did not advance the previous Legislation
Session, even though "extensive public hearings" had occurred.
9:42:20 AM
Senator B. Stevens stated that the aforementioned "MOU outlines the
public hearing process that would be" conducted before the direct
access privilege criteria is developed. "In a step one through ten"
process, this could be regarded as step one-and-a-half or two. A
long process would be anticipated.
9:43:00 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether testimony from those opposing the
legislation would be forthcoming.
Senator B. Stevens affirmed.
Senator Hoffman understood that the legislation would be limited to
the Gulf of Alaska fishery; specifically that the Bering Sea
fishery would not be addressed.
9:43:24 AM
Senator B. Stevens affirmed that the legislation would be limited
to the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery. "The underlying piece" to
this legislation is that it would allow the Board and the
Commission "to develop a plan, but only at the request of the
participants in that fishery. It would not develop a plan and then
impose it on the fishery." Were the fishermen "to come forward with
a proposal or request to be included" then the Managers would
develop a plan and the criteria. That sequence of events "is
probably the most misunderstood piece of this legislation".
Senator Hoffman referenced the "excusive harvest shares to persons"
language in Section 1(a)(7), page two, line 14, and the "access
limitation for the dedicated access privilege program" language in
Section 1(b) page two, line 21, and voiced concern about how an
individual could become a participant in the fishery, as, were the
program a success, it might be expanded to the Bering Sea fishery.
9:45:50 AM
Senator B. Stevens expressed that the language in "Section 1 is
Legislative findings and intent". "The actual heart and soul of
the" bill is included in Sec. 2(c) on page three, lines seven
through 20.
Senator Hoffman acknowledged that the heart and soul of the program
is the dedicated access privilege concept. The question is how
would people who grow up in the State be granted access to the
program.
Co-Chair Green asked whether the concern is to whether the program
might be extended to the Bering Sea fishery.
Senator Hoffman responded that were the program successful, it
might expand to the Bering Sea; however, the question is in regards
to the process that would allow new participants in the program.
Senator B. Stevens recognized Senator Hoffman's question as
addressing a valid concern. The only fisheries that would be
included in the program would be those that requested inclusion:
those would be the fisheries which require significant capital
investment and are experiencing "extensive competition and
pressure?" such as the Gulf of Alaska Pollack trawl fishery and the
rockfish and flatfish industries. Entry-level fisheries would
continue to be available even were this program implemented.
Senator B. Stevens voiced that it is understood that not all
fishermen begin their fishing career in the offshore trawl
industry. To that point, he identified the mechanical jig fishery,
which is the largest fishery in the Gulf of Alaska, as being
excluded from the legislation. He noted however, that, at some
point in the future, that fishery could be included were those
fishermen to request such action. Both the entry-level fisheries
and the mechanical jig fishery, which is "the most controversial
gear type", are opposed to this legislation.
9:48:36 AM
Senator B. Stevens stated that both his and the Managers' position
is that if "those who participate in fisheries across the State and
in the Gulf of Alaska want to have the fisheries managers explore
new ways to manage their fish to make it more economic, safer,
higher value products, then" they should be provided "the right to
explore the development of a new management regime. If they don't
want it, then they don't have to have it imposed on their fishery."
Senator B. Stevens quoted a [unspecified] harvester from Homer who
labeled the legislation as "a tool that we are allowing the
managers to create and then implement once the participants agree
to it through the public process" detailed in the MOU.
9:49:40 AM
Co-Chair Wilken understood that the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, the Commission, and the Board manage the fisheries area
within three miles of shore, and that the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council manages the fisheries outside of that three-mile
zone.
Senator B. Stevens affirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for clarification as to which of those two
areas the dedicated access privileges would apply.
Senator B. Stevens stated that those privileges would apply to the
inside three-mile from shore zone.
Co-Chair Wilken asked to whom the privileges would be granted.
9:50:37 AM
Senator B. Stevens clarified that, depending on their history; a
person could be a participant in the federal fishery, the State
fishery, or both. While a fisherman might be limited in regards to
what area they could fish, the fish biomass moves in and out of
each zone and an agreement between the Department and the Council
allows the fish to be caught on either side. This legislation is
specific to the fish caught in the three-mile from shore zone.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that the privilege "would be granted by
the group" fishing the three-mile zone.
Senator B. Stevens clarified that the privilege "would be granted
to the group" inside the three-mile limit.
Co-Chair Wilken ascertained, therefore, that the Managers would
grant the privilege.
Senator B. Stevens affirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken theorized that a fisherman fishing outside of the
three-mile zone could apply for a dedicated access privilege to
fish within the three-mile zone.
Senator B. Stevens stated that that was correct, provided the
applicant met the qualifications that would be developed through
the process allowed by this legislation. This process is outlined
in Sec. 5 page four of the bill.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that this legislation would
provide a method to "manage those that are outside that want to
come into the three-mile zone".
Senator B. Stevens affirmed. In addition, it would also "manage the
ones inside to protect them from the outside".
9:52:21 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the dedicated access privilege would
have value in that it could be sold.
Senator B. Stevens stressed that that issue, "is one of the big
challenges in this program", as the State's Constitution prohibits
the State from allocating the resource. To that point, "this is the
right to harvest the resource; it's a privilege not a perpetuity".
Senator B. Stevens shared that some of the criteria that would be
developed would address how often the privilege must be renewed,
the circumstances through which transfers of the privilege might
occur, or whether the privilege would be reassumed into a pool to
be redistributed to future participants. These are things that the
Board and the Commission must develop in the plan. This is "the
root of the opposition" to the bill; "we are giving them the right
to develop a plan but we don't know what the outcome of the plan"
might be. The question is "how do we know the outcome of the plan
until we give them the authority to develop it".
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the dedicated access privilege would
be awarded to a fishery group or to a boat.
Senator B. Stevens stated that under the current version of the
bill, anyone with "historical participation would be eligible for
consideration". This would not pertain to a processor.
9:53:41 AM
Senator B. Stevens stated that the federal approach to determining
one's future participation level is a percentage based on the years
of participation and the percent of those years' quota that was
caught. The State of Alaska would "face different challenges" in
this regard as the State is prohibited from allocating that right;
the State's approach must be to grant the privilege to participate
in that fishery.
Co-Chair Wilken asked for clarification regarding whether the
"they" being referred to is a boat.
Senator B. Stevens stated that the privilege to participate could
be granted to a boat or to an individual. The conditions of the
bill would allow the term "they" to include anybody who is
currently participating.
Senator Hoffman concluded that this would include vessel owners.
Senator B. Stevens stated it could include vessel owners, the boat,
or the individual. The provisions in the bill would allow the
managers to develop "the criteria to quantify" who would be
eligible.
Co-Chair Wilken surmised, therefore that "they who are eligible,
will possess a dedicated access privilege at some time".
Senator B. Stevens affirmed.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether that privilege could be sold.
Senator B. Stevens responded that that is one of the issues that
would be determined. That is why the renewal option would be
available. He reiterated that the privilege could not be given to
them, as the State is prohibited from allocating its resources.
Co-Chair Wilken thanked the sponsor for the clarifications.
Senator Olson asked whether this legislation would have any affect
of the Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), since the State's
Constitution prohibits the allocation of specific resources.
Senator B. Stevens replied in the negative, as the IFQ program is
specific to the halibut and sablefish fisheries, both of which are
managed by the federal fisheries management plan. There is a
separate fisheries management program in effect for the groundfish
fishery, which includes Pollock, codfish, and flatfish.
Senator Hoffman noted that it could be very costly to participate
in many of the fisheries. To that point, he asked whether an
individual's financial interest in a vessel would qualify the
person for the dedicated access privilege.
Senator B. Stevens stated that this issue would be addressed by the
criteria specified in Sec. 5(a)(b)(c), page four and specifically
Sec. 5(d) on page five of the bill. The Managers must address each
of the concerns listed in Sec. 5(d) while they develop an
individual plan for implementation for each fishery. Different
management plans are currently developed now for each region of the
State.
9:58:30 AM
Senator Hoffman determined therefore that it would be up to the
Board to develop the plan.
Senator B. Stevens affirmed, and stated, that, more importantly,
the outcome would be determined by the industry working in
conjunction with the Board. He reiterated that the industry must
request the implementation and the development of the plan for
their fishery. Were a fishery to not desire the plan, it would not
be developed or implemented.
Senator Hoffman commented that the bill contains language
specifying that the program must be "in the best interest of Alaska
and Alaskans".
Senator B. Stevens avowed that that is the purpose of the proposal.
9:59:15 AM
Senator Stedman reviewed historical events in which the United
States assumed control of fishing grounds within 200 miles of its
coastline. Russian and Korean fishermen had previously fished those
grounds. Following the U.S. control of those grounds, the federal
IFQ program was implemented. Continuing, he asked whether this
situation could have evolved as an effort "to improve upon the past
restrictive entry systems".
10:00:10 AM
Senator B. Stevens characterized the comments "as a fair analysis".
The 200-mile limit was established by the Madison Act of 1976. The
management conducted by the North Pacific Management Council was
once referred to as the Total Allowable Fishing for Foreign Fleets
(TAFFF). "All these fisheries" were included in that allocation.
This evolved into a Joint Venture Fishing in which U.S. harvesters
caught the fish and sold and transferred them at sea to a foreign
factory ship. The next program was the Total Allowable Catch for
American Fishing Fleets (TACAFF), which evolved to include the U.S.
owned foreign factory ship and then the shore-based investments for
groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Kodiak. "Now there is
pressure in capitalization, for all the fish can be harvested by
U.S. fleets and not only that", there is competition between Alaska
fleets and other U.S. vessels.
Senator B. Stevens stated that this legislation is, as suggested by
Senator Stedman, "another evolution of an attempt to say we want
the fish harvested" within three-mile limit to be caught by Alaska-
based fisherman, and managed by the Department of Fish and Game.
"There is competition at every level now. It's just an evolution of
efficiency" and processing capacity and demand for the State's
products.
Senator Hoffman opined therefore that, as the fisheries beyond the
three-mile limit were Americanized; this legislation could be
characterized as an attempt to Alaskanize fisheries within three-
mile limit.
Senator B. Stevens characterized the legislation "as an attempt to
protect the Alaskan participants". There is an invisible barrier
three miles offshore: the federal side has limited license
participants and a quota system. The joint federal/State management
regime has specified that a certain amount of fish could be caught
inside the three-mile zone and a certain amount of fish could be
caught outside that zone. Those who participate in the three-mile
limit fishery are not permitted to participate in the fisheries
outside of that zone. However, there is nothing in law that would
prevent those who fish outside the three-mile limit from fishing
inside the three-mile limit. The State currently has open
participation. Those who can fish outside the three-mile limit,
fish inside the three mile limit first and then fish outside the
zone and harvest their fish. Alaskan fishermen are not permitted to
participate outside that three-mile zone.
Senator B. Stevens concluded therefore, that this legislation is an
attempt to say that those who fish outside could not come inside
the three-mile limit and harvest the fish in those waters first.
This act shortens the season and eliminates the ability for our
shore-based fishermen to earn a living.
10:04:08 AM
Co-Chair Green understood therefore that "that is the ultimate
risk": Fishery openings could become shorter and shorter.
Senator B. Stevens affirmed that fishery openings get shorter and
shorter each year. He disclosed that the mechanical jig fishery
once opened in March and closed in October. Then it was shortened
to March to June, and currently it is March to April.
Co-Chair Green surmised that openings could be as short as a month.
Senator B. Stevens informed that the duration of some fisheries is
less than 12 hours.
10:05:00 AM
Co-Chair Wilken asked for an explanation of the mechanical jig
machine fishery and why that fishery was excluded.
10:05:17 AM
Senator B. Stevens expressed that that fishery is "a controversial
topic. A mechanical jig fishing machine is a machine that's set on
the side of a smaller vessel that", either through the use of
electronics or hydraulics, "jigs and as soon as there's pressure on
the jig, it automatically winds the fish up".
Co-Chair Wilken asked for an example of what would be considered a
small vessel.
Senator B. Stevens stated that a 26 to 42-foot vessel would be
considered a small vessel. The equipment has been referred to as a
hook and line type of equipment. A vessel manned by one or two
crewmembers could operate up to eight jig machines.
Senator B. Stevens stated that there are differing allocations
specified for gear types: jig fisheries; long line fisheries; cod
fisheries; and trawl fisheries would each have separate
allocations. The jig fishery is typically the entry-level fishery,
as it would not require a lot of capital investment. People get
into that fishery at a young age and then could move through the
various fisheries. Some people have stayed in that fishery and
earned a good wage for many years. This fishery is the perfect
example of the harder you work, the more fish you catch.
Senator B. Stevens stated that the main concern about this
legislation by people in the jig fishery is the belief that this
program would be imposed on them. Since this was the concern and no
effort in support of the program was forthcoming, the Managers
therefore excluded this entry-level fishery from the program.
Following that action last year, the group was satisfied. However,
"it's a different story this year".
10:07:22 AM
Senator Olson asked which fish the jig fishery primarily harvests.
Senator B. Stevens responded that they primarily fish Pacific Cod
as well as some rockfish.
Senator Stedman remarked that the jigs resemble downriggers used by
sport fisherman to fish salmon.
Senator B. Stevens reiterated that this is a controversial bill;
however, it would allow the Managers to develop a new regime of
management at the request of participants in certain fisheries. "It
is contingent upon" the Legislature to provide them the ability
they deem necessary while insuring that the program would not be
forced on those fisheries that do not desire it.
Co-Chair Green voiced appreciation for the explanation provided by
Senator B. Stevens.
Senator B. Stevens provided a handout titled "Table 10:South Alaska
Peninsula Area state-waters Pacific Cod fishery openings, 1997-
2004" [copy on file] which depicted the fishery opening dates for
the various years.
10:09:46 AM
DONNA JONES testified via teleconference from Kodiak and spoke in
opposition to the bill. This legislation is contrary to the State's
Constitution in two ways: it would deny citizens the right to the
legislative process by allowing the Board of Fisheries and the
Limited Entry Commission "to make decisions that should be made at
the Legislative level"; and it would allow an "allocation or
harvest use privilege to our fleet fishery resources", many of
which would be given to out-of-State recipients. This allocation
system of dedicated access privilege would seriously" reduce the
State's fishery resource benefits to State residents: these
benefits are an entitlement that is guaranteed by the State's
Constitution. "Both of these issues are seriously infringing upon
my rights as an Alaskan citizen." In recent testimony to the Senate
Resource Committee, she had declared that, "the true purpose of
this bill is not to end the race for fish, but it's about the race
to get the fish allocated".
Ms. Jones stated that the federal Rationalization Plan and its plan
to allocate fishing quota to boat owners according to their history
would exert "great pressure" on the State to allocate its fisheries
with the hope "of slowing down the number of fish going to
processing plants". However, such allocations would not control
"the amount or time of the deliveries to the docks. The flood of
fish which fueled this bill and the federal Rationalization is that
of the trawl Pollock and long line cod fleet." Due to her
experience as a plant and fleet manager of a local Alaskan cannery,
she could attest "to the need to limit the trawl and long line
fleet to avoid the flood of fish to the dock". Efforts such as
setting gear, weight, and time limits such as limiting catches to
5,000 pounds of black cod within any five-day period in certain
areas of the State are already in place to control the amount of
fish going to the docks. These things could be accomplished within
the existing State regulatory systems. Annual quotas are
established that both protect the overall biomass and allow
fishermen to fish. She suggested that instead of establishing a
fleet with no fish limits, a preferred alternative could be to set
the amount of fish that could be brought in within a time specific
period. For example: one delivery per vessel per seven days. The
fishing vessel would continue to maximize its profits for the trip
and the seafood processing plants could accommodate one load per
vessel per week instead of a rush of three or four deliveries per
week.
Ms. Jones stated that other things that should be considered would
be the safety issue and "the slowing down of the total amount of
pounds which would allow the processing plants to focus on better
quality and value added products".
Ms. Jones continued that the differences between the federal and
State interests are significant. "The federal government caters to
national interests and recipients, that being every person in the
United States. The State of Alaska represents the best interests of
its citizens"; that is the basis of her opposition to the bill. It
is not in her "best interest for the State to allow the allocation
of our fishery resources, let alone to outside interests". Were
this legislation enacted, the State would suffer the "loss of jobs
due to consolidation, the loss of jobs due to the possible
formation of co-ops or associations, the loss of equal access to
entry level fishermen, the loss of revenue to our communities, and
the loss of control over our State fishery resources all of which
could ultimately cause the demise of many of our coastal
communities and the families that are reliant upon our fishery
resources."
Ms. Jones opposed "the privitization of the State's public
resources". The State "must implement the State's existing
regulatory tools to control the problems" that it is facing. Due to
the magnitude of the changes that would be imposed by the dedicated
access privilege specified in this bill, she would request that "a
socio economic impact study" be conducted prior to the passage of
this bill.
[NOTE: Co-Chair Wilken assumed chair of the meeting.]
10:14:42 AM
Senator Olson asked whether the testifier was a resident of the
State.
Ms. Jones affirmed that she was.
Senator Stedman commented that the action of moving the regulation
of fisheries from "the legislative arena" and to the Board of
Fisheries and other associated boards has "worked very well".
Ms. Jones declared that she has no problem with the Board of
Fisheries or the Limited Entry Commission "being greatly involved
in the fishing industry". However, "the allocation of the fishing
rights is something that nobody should have the right to do."
10:15:51 AM
GLEN CAROLL testified via teleconference from an offnet site and
informed the Committee that he is a lifelong Alaskan whose who has
been involved in fisheries for forty years with the last ten being
in the cod fishing industry. He spoke in support of the bill, as he
forecast no future for the manner in which the fishery is currently
being conducted. Under the current "derby style, open to entry,
Olympic competitive fishery", the fishing "seasons are getting
shorter and shorter" and the manner in which the "fish are
presented to the world is really backward marketing".
Mr. Caroll informed the Committee that the Kodiak Pollock/cod
season was ten months long in 2000, in the year 2005, the season
was 11 days long. He likened the status quo to "the bow of the
Titanic, it's already under the water and we just can't keep re-
arranging the deck chairs and asking the band to keep playing".
Mr. Caroll shared that he and his wife conduct direct marketing to
customers in Korea and on the east coast of the U.S. on a small
scale. The marketing of Alaskan cod "is analogous to the Western
states' cattlemen slaughtering three-quarters of their cows on the
fourth of July and expecting the market to absorb millions of
pounds all at once". That is how the State of Alaska's codfish
resource is marketed. The season opens January first and during the
next six to eight weeks, three-quarters of the allowable catch in
the Gulf of Alaska is harvested and "we can't figure out why we get
thirty cents for our fish when in Boston and Iceland, they get one
dollar". The entirety of "distributors and buyers across the
country know immediately that they just have to watch with open
hands" because the docks and the processors in the State of Alaska
"are awash with fish for six weeks". The price spirals downward, as
"desperate" fishermen "sell their fish at a cheaper and cheaper
price".
Mr. Caroll attested that until the "race for fish" is eliminated,
the quality of Alaskan fish would never be at the level it should
be nor match that of other places' fish.
Mr. Caroll stated that some have compared the proposed system to
the IFQ program. Rather than the criticisms in this regard being
about the IFQ program, they are in regard "to the implementation"
of the system. He avowed that there is "nothing wrong with the
concept of a quota share program", as reflected by the price of IFQ
halibut having tripled under the process and the fish's more
frequent availability. Elimination of "the race" for fish is the
only sane way to conduct business". Until fishery resources are
operated in a manner other than a derby style and are treated as a
business, the resource would "never truly be maximized". "This bill
would begin the process that would lengthen and create more shore
jobs in more communities throughout the State." It would increase
the value and quality of the fish.
Mr. Caroll stated that the Task Force process behind this
legislation has often been criticized as not being a real public
process. However, as a participant on the Task Force, he attested
that the work that had been conducted for more than one and a half
years had been an exceedingly public process. The general tone that
prevailed throughout the process, which was led by then Board of
Fish chair Ed Dersham, was one welcoming "good ideas". The meetings
included discussions, debates, and brainstorming sessions.
10:22:06 AM
JULIE BONNEY, Representative, Alaska Groundfish Databank
Association and a 23-year Alaska resident testified via
teleconference from an offnet site and informed the Committee that
Alaska Groundfish Databank is a group of shore-based trawl
fisherman and shore-based processors who support this legislation.
It would allow the Board of Fish and the Commission to explore
fishery restructuring for groundfish fisheries inside the State's
three-mile zone using a dedicated access privilege. The members
appreciate the MOU detailing how the public process would be
conducted as well as the fiscal note that would allow hearings to
be held in the affected communities. The bill is "process
legislation" that would allow Association members to participate in
the effort to develop fair and equitable plans in conjunction with
the Board of Fish and the Commission.
Ms. Bonney stated that while the process could be likened to
entering the unknown with "one's entire livelihood at stake",
fishery restructuring must occur in the Gulf Groundfish fisheries.
"The present management structure focuses on catching the most
amount of fish instead of extracting the most value for every fish
that is caught." The fishing industry must be provided the tools
that would allow them to be competitive in the global markets,
specially increasing pressure from the global farmed fish industry.
Other things that should be addressed include 12-hour fisheries in
which nine million pounds of fish are harvested and must be
processed. She noted that the only open access fishery on the west
coast of the U.S. is the Prince William Sound Pollock fishery, and
this year, the total capacity of the 12 vessels that fished it was
twice the allowable catch.
Ms. Bonney stated that another consideration is the confusion
experienced by those participating in the federally managed
program: were they to fish within the three-mile limit they would
be under the State jurisdiction and were they outside of that
three-mile limit they would be under the federal jurisdiction. Were
this legislation adopted and the process completed, the
federal/State components could be melded. Those federal
participants fishing within the three-mile limit under a federal
program would do so with all the appropriate activities such as
observer coverage and other regulations.
Ms. Bonney also urged that the historical investment process also
consider the impact on fishery dependent communities. During
discussions with the Alaska Attorney General's representative, it
was apparent that one of the biggest hurtles in developing a
dedicated access privilege would be establishing a program that
would be acceptable under the State's Constitution. Rather than
this process establishing something akin to the IFQ process, the
design must be one of a leasing privilege wherein the State of
Alaska would maintain the ownership on the resource. Further
discussions regarding such things as the duration of the privilege
or whether a portion of the history would revert back to the State
so that it could be reallocated to second generation fishers must
be developed in a process in which the public could participate.
Ms. Bonney highlighted the fact that an analysis [copy not
provided] conducted by the Department of Fish and Game of the
fishers that participate within the three-mile limit clearly
reflected that, "it is truly an Alaska fishery". This is supported
by the fact that 96-percent of the Kodiak long-line cod fishery;
95-percent of the Kodiak cod fishery; and 47-percent of the Kodiak
trawl fishery was harvested by Alaskan vessel owners and hired
skippers. The claim that the majority of the resource would be
allocated to out-of-state entities "is not true".
[NOTE: Co-Chair Green resumed chair of the hearing.]
Ms. Bonney urged for passage of the bill, as this legislation would
allow the process to begin.
10:29:01 AM
LANCE NELSON, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
testified via teleconference from an offnet site and informed the
Committee that, as the attorney assigned to represent the Board of
Fisheries, he worked on the development of the bill with the Board,
the Commission, and the sponsor. An informal Attorney General
opinion was issued in 1995 that stated that a program like this
would allow for the development of a program that would likely
"pass Constitutional muster". While there could be the risk that
the State Court System could identify some flaw in whatever program
might be developed, the process established by this bill "would
probably be the best possible way to develop and refine a program?"
Therefore, the Department's position has continued to be that a
dedicated access privilege program would have a "very decent chance
at surviving any Constitutional challenge."
10:31:23 AM
ED DERSHAM, Vice-Chairman, Alaska Board of Fisheries, testified via
teleconference from an offnet site and reviewed the history leading
to the development of the process proposed in this bill. He noted
that he had chaired the Alaska Groundfish Rationalization Committee
task force which had conducted nine days of public hearings over a
one-and-a-half year period, in addition to the public input that
was heard during regularly scheduled Board of Fisheries meetings.
As Ms. Bonney had testified, it was noted early in the process that
most of the State's fishing industry participants, specifically
those in the cod fishery, were Alaskan residents. It was clear that
finding a way to allocate at least partially based on history of
participants would be a good thing for Alaskans in reaction to the
federally rationalized fishery outside of the three-mile zone. The
Board also realized that current Board authority would not allow
such an allocation, therefore efforts were undertaken to address
the issue in an allowable manner.
Mr. Dersham stressed that "the problem" with the Board's "current
authority is that, while it works well in regards to many of the
Board's responsibilities, the authority does not allow for a slower
rate for fish harvesting nor does it provide protection "to
participants in State waters in relation to changes in federal
fisheries in adjacent waters". The only tools available to the
Board through which to slow the rate of fish would create further
"economic inefficiently". Even though additional restrictions have
been placed on the State cod fishery, the times allotted for
harvesting fish have worsened over the past two years and have not
served to slow down the harvesting. "Almost ridiculous economic
inefficiencies" would result were the Board to implement "extreme
measures" to try to address the forthcoming federal rationalization
plans; therefore, the response was to support the task force
efforts as included in this legislation.
Mr. Dersham stated that the MOU developed by the Commission and the
Board outlined the public process that must occur were this
legislation adopted. The desires and needs of the fisheries must be
involved in the process. The $45,600 Department of Fish and Game
fiscal note would specifically allow that initial public hearing
process to occur in communities most affected by a dedicated access
privilege program.
Mr. Dersham stated that the overall benefits provided by the
adoption of this process legislation would be intended to directly
benefit coastal communities and Alaska resident participants to the
extent possible. The result would be a more comprehensive potential
solution to some of these "races for fish" than could be developed
under the current authority.
Co-Chair Green asked whether there were any questions regarding the
April 25, 2005 Senate Resources' Letter of Intent that accompanies
the bill or the MOU.
There being none, Co-Chair Green stated that the bill would be HELD
in Committee in order for further review.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 124(L&C)
"An Act relating to requirements to obtain and maintain a
fisheries business license; relating to security required of
fish processors and primary fish buyers; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
10:38:03 AM
CHUCK HARLAMERT, Juneau Section Chief, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue, stated that this bill would "increase the process of
accountability for repayment of obligations that support the
industry" and improve the protection of employees and fishermen who
work for or sell to processors.
Mr. Harlamert stated that current law requires a processor to be
current on their taxes under Title 43 in that Section 1 of the bill
would modify current law to require a processor to be current on
their Employment Security Contributions (ESC), current on any
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) fines, current on their
Seafood Marketing Assessment, and current on local fish taxes.
Co-Chair Green noted that Members' packets contain a Department of
Revenue overview [copy on file].
Mr. Harlamert expressed that the Department's overview is very
detailed.
10:41:22 AM
Co-Chair Green also noted that Members' packets also include a six-
page Fisheries License and Bond Bill Sectional Analysis from the
Office of the Attorney General [copy on file].
Mr. Harlamert affirmed.
Mr. Harlamert continued that Section 2 of the bill would modify the
process through which the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development could collect any unpaid ESC from a processor's labor
bond in that it could allow a processor to secure payment of the
estimated tax for the year using security that had been provided to
the Department for the prior year.
Mr. Harlamert noted that Section 3 of the bill is the most
complicated section of the bill. It would change bonding
requirements and the conditions through which employees could gain
satisfaction from the bond. Such efforts would assist in aligning
processors' bond levels with the risks. It would ease the bond
rules involved when a processor fails to pay employees or
fishermen.
[NOTE: Due to poor recording quality, the testifier's comments were
difficult to discern.]
Co-Chair Green understood that the primary objective of the
legislation is located in Section 3 of the bill.
Mr. Harlamert affirmed. Section 3 would make "the bond levels more
responsive to processors behavior". A processor who fails to
compensate fishermen or employees "would be more likely under this
bill to have their bond level go up." In addition, they would be
unable to utilize real property in lieu of bonds.
Co-Chair Green ascertained that a processor's bond level
requirement could be increased. She asked the point at which a
processor's obligation would create a warning that could prohibit
them from obtaining and maintaining their fisheries business
license or might subject them to prosecution.
Mr. Harlamert stated that a processor would be prohibited from
getting their license were they delinquent on their Title 43 taxes,
ESC, OSHA fines, or the Seafood Marketing Assessment. This would be
a very effective tool in getting those payments.
Co-Chair Green understood that the bond requirement component of
the bill is a separate issue from the licensing requirements.
Mr. Harlamert stated that the bill has two major components: one
being the requirements for licensure and the other being the
bonding component.
10:43:58 AM
Senator Stedman stated that, upon reviewing the accompanying fiscal
notes, it appears that this bill might generate revenue by
furthering the collection of the Seafood Marketing Assessment. In
addition, he wondered if the State's imposition of a cash bond on a
processor who got in trouble for lack of payment, might jeopardize
that processor ability to operate. It could be assumed that a
processor who had not paid their obligations might be having a cash
flow problem.
10:44:58 AM
Mr. Harlamert communicated that the State would have "better luck
collecting the Seafood Marketing Assessment", as presently keeping
current on that is not a requirement; however, only a "relatively
few" do not currently pay that tax.
Mr. Harlamert stated that the elements that would affect a
processor's bond would be whether one's employees, fishermen, or
unemployment security contributions had been paid. Currently the
bond level would be unaffected were a processor to satisfy a
judgment with another asset such as cash. This bill would "change
that in that the mere existence of a judgment in excess of $10,000
would trigger" increasing the bond level from $10,000 to $50,000.
10:47:09 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the Committee's questions thus far
could be more appropriately answered by the Department of Revenue
or the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
PATRICK SHIER, Acting Deputy Director, Employment Security Tax, and
Chief, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, stated that Mr. Harlamert has handled the
questions quite well. This legislation would allow the Department
of Labor and Workforce Development to move against a bond more
quickly than it could currently; the quicker the Department could
act, the quicker that problems could be resolved before either the
fish, cash, or processor left the State.
Co-Chair Green appreciated that information.
Mr. Harlamert stated that under current law, any processor who
could demonstrate a piece of real property located in the State
equal to the required bond level would be excused from the bond
requirement. This would be acceptable were no trouble to arise;
however, the process of foreclosing against that real property to
satisfy a judgment could be problematic. This bill would restrict
the use of real property in a case where a processor had a record
of failure to pay, and a cash bond would be required.
Mr. Harlamert stated that the changes in the bond requirements
would make the process more responsive and easy to access.
Senator Stedman ascertained that the real concern being addressed
by the proposed bond changes would be a floating processor who
might be in the State today but gone tomorrow as opposed to a fixed
shore-side processor who might get into a liquidity bind due to
market conditions or mismanagement.
10:49:59 AM
Mr. Harlamert stated that established longtime corporate citizens
of Alaska tend to have real property and they are allowed to use
that property in lieu of the bond. Floating or itinerant processors
did not have similar connections to the State and therefore a cash
bond was required from them to protect fishermen and employees.
There has been no change in the basic bond level or the right to
use real property in lieu of cash requirements. The only change
would be in the case of a processor who displayed a history of non-
payment. The consequences would be more immediate and "more
realistic".
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that were he a small
processor, he would be required to get a bond. To that point, he
asked whether his house could be recognized as collateral in lieu
of cash provided he had no prior judgment history.
Mr. Harlamert responded that Co-Chair Wilken would be required to
purchase a bond were he to buy fish in the State unless he had real
property he could use in lieu of the cash bond.
Co-Chair Wilken understood therefore that a portion of his house
could be used unless a judgment had been levied against him.
10:52:33 AM
Mr. Harlamert affirmed. He communicated that the judgment issue
could be revisited after a few years.
Mr. Shier stated that the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development supports this bill because it would require that all
taxes, assessments, and judgment must be current. Thus, it would
allow "the slate to be clean" going into the coming year. It should
be noted that processors are provided "ample opportunities" to
address the situation through options such as deferred payment
contracts and negotiated settlements. The Department "recognizes
the fact the employers provide jobs. That is very important" and no
effort is made "to hobble the folks that want to do the right thing
or ?. might fall on hard times in a particular year."
Mr. Shier stated that the bill would also provide an incentive for
a processor to contact the Department and rectify a situation. Sec.
3 would specify the length of time that would be available in which
to secure a bond. The bond is important, as sometimes "that is the
only thing that is left after the fish is gone, the cash is gone
and the employer is gone". Many things could contribute to the need
for a higher bond amount. The Department supports the language to
that point.
Co-Chair Wilken moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CS SB 124(L&C) was REPORTED from
Committee with zero fiscal note #2, dated February 4, 2005 from
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development; zero
fiscal note #3, dated December 16, 2004 from Department of Fish and
Game; zero fiscal note #4, dated February 24, 2005 from the
Employment Security Division, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; zero fiscal note #5, dated February 24, 2005 from the
Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, and new zero fiscal note, dated April 1,
2005 from the Department of Revenue.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 10:56 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|