Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/07/2024 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB189 | |
| HB120 | |
| SCR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 189 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 7, 2024
9:06 a.m.
9:06:44 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Olson called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Sponsor; Seneca Roach, Intern for
Senator Kawasaki; Jon Hagheyeghi, Executive Director,
Alaska Commission on Aging; Marge Stoneking, Advocacy
Director, American Association of Retired People - Alaska;
Kris Curtis, Director, Division of Legislative Audit;
Nicole Wery-Tagaban, Administrative Operations Manager,
Division of Senior and Disability Services, Department of
Health; Representative Frank Tomaszewski, Sponsor; Zach
Young, Staff for Representative Tomaszewski; Joe Felkl,
Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish and Game; Jennifer
Yuhas, President, Outdoor Heritage Foundation of Alaska;
Chad Hutchison, State Director for Government Relations,
University of Alaska; Tim Lamkin, Staff for Senator Gary
Stevens; Tracy Welch, Executive Director, United Fishermen
of Alaska; Jeremy Woodrow, Executive Director, Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute; Glenn Haight, Commissioner,
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Bob Sivertsen, Chairman, Alaska Commission on Aging,
Ketchikan; Paula Pawlowski, Vice Chair, Alaska Commission
on Aging, Anchorage; Pamela Samash, Commissioner, Alaska
Commission on Aging, Nenana; Ed Martin, Self, Kenai; John
Hanrahan, CEO, OBI Seafoods, Seattle, WA; Julie Decker,
President, Pacific Seafood Processors Association; Scott
Arndt, Mayor, Kodiak Island Borough.
SUMMARY
SB 189 EXTEND ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING
SB 189 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SCR 10 JOINT LEGIS SEAFOOD INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
SCR 10 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HB 120 HUNT/FISH LICENSE FOR NONRESIDENT STUDENT
HB 120 was heard and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 189
"An Act extending the termination date of the Alaska
Commission on Aging; and providing for an effective
date."
9:07:37 AM
SENATOR SCOTT KAWASAKI, SPONSOR, introduced himself and
thanked the committee. He shared that his University of
Alaska Fairbanks Ted Stevens intern would be speaking to
the bill. He noted that the bill would extend the sunset
date for the Alaska Commission on Aging (ACA). The
commission dealt with issues related to seniors. He
mentioned a growing population of seniors in the state. He
thanked the committee for introducing a Committee
Substitute [for SB 170] which removed the sunset date for
the Senior Benefits Program. He noted that the bill was
awaiting consideration in the House.
9:08:51 AM
SENECA ROACH, INTERN FOR SENATOR KAWASAKI, addressed a
sponsor statement for the bill (copy on file):
Senate Bill 189 would extend the Alaska Commission on
Aging for eight years, until June 30, 2032, based on
the recommendations of the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee. Alaska's senior population is the
fastest growing per capita in the United States, with
the population aged 60 and older growing by 62.3%
between the years of 2010-2021. This drastic increase
in population has come with an increase in the number
of seniors living below the poverty line as the cost
of living has continued to rise. Additionally,
Alaska's senior mortality rate continues to score
higher than the national average in areas such as
senior suicide, fatal falls, and alcohol-induced
deaths. The Alaska Commission on Aging has proved
vital in collecting data and providing solutions to
the many challenges facing this particularly
vulnerable and important group of Alaskans.
The recently completed audit found that the Alaska
Commission on Aging is serving the public's interest
by formulating and approving the comprehensive State
Plan for Senior Services; advocating for older
Alaskans; providing education programs; making
recommendations to the legislature and the governor on
legislation, appropriations, programs and services for
seniors; and serving as a federally recognized
advisory council to satisfy the requirement of the
Older Americans Act, allowing Alaska to receive
federal funding through the Administration on
Community Living.
Senate Bill 189 is supported by the AARP, Access
Alaska, Alzheimer's Resource of Alaska, Anchorage
Senior Activity Center, Coalition of Mat-Su Senior
Centers, Denakkanaaga, Inc., Governor's Council on
Disabilities and Special Education, North Star Council
on Aging, Senior Citizens of Fairbanks, Inc. and many
other organizations.
I would respectfully request your support to extend
this vital commission.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there was any opposition to the
bill.
Ms. Roach was not aware of any opposition to the bill.
Co-Chair Olson was also not aware of any opposition to the
bill.
9:11:29 AM
Ms. Roach addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Page 1, Line 5
Deletes "2024" and replaces with "2032"
Page 1, Line 7
This Act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c)
Ms. Roach continued her testimony noting that without
action, the commission would expire on June 30, 2024. The
commission was originally enacted in 1981 and had been
extended every year. He discussed the commissions intent
to organize the states efforts to aid and support the
states senior population. He described the state plan for
Senior Services, which was released every four years and
provided framework for how the state distributed state
services to seniors including meals, transportation, safety
and protection, adult day services, senior housing,
vocational training, and legal assistance. The commissions
guidance ensured that Alaskas senior programs and services
were directed correctly and efficiently.
Ms. Roach described another primary activity of the
commission, which was a Yearly Senior Snapshot. The
snapshot looked at statistics and underlying trends of the
states senior population. The project gathered data in
reference to population growth, poverty rates, mortality
rates, economic indicators, the number of seniors receiving
benefits, health and safety information, and housing
information related to long-term care and its cost. The
summary of the senior population helped the state
understand underlying dynamics at play, and could help to
tailor government students.
Ms. Roach discussion how the commission helped the state
qualify for federal funding through the Older Americans
Act. The act required states to maintain a single planning
and service area to receive funds for states to help run
senior programs. He asserted that the approximately $5.7
million in funding would not be possible without ACA.
Ms. Roach referenced the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committees sunset review of ACA (copy on file). The audit
concluded that the commission served the publics interest
by helping older Alaskans lead dignified, independent, and
useful lives through advocacy, outreach, and education.
The committee went on to recommend that the commissions
termination date be extended until 2032. She summarized
that the commission acted as a necessary component in the
states senior care system, providing the framework for its
initiatives and the funds to fund them.
9:14:28 AM
Senator Kiehl referenced the state plan that ensured
funding. He asked for highlights of the commissions other
accomplishments.
Ms. Roach thought invited testimony could cite additional
accomplishments. She offered to provide more information at
a later date.
Senator Wilson noted that the sunset had an eight year
extension. He asked if the sponsor felt that eight-year
extensions would continue for a board that had always acted
in the best interest of the public.
Ms. Roach believed an eight-year extension was good for the
senior population and was supported by the sponsor.
Co-Chair Olson noted that the legislative auditor was
available for questions.
9:16:34 AM
JON HAGHEYEGHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON
AGING, relayed that he was in strong support of the bill.
He asserted that the extension was not just a procedural
necessity but was a critical step towards addressing the
critical needs of the states senior population. He thought
Alaskan seniors experienced special challenges, including
scarcity of accessible resources and the distance to
resources. He mentioned the ACA and the development of the
state Plan for Senior Services, which he described as a
strategic blueprint that qualified Alaska for federal
funds. He thought support of the bill reinforced the
state's commitment to the states seniors. He mentioned the
growing senior population in the state.
Co-Chair Olson asked for Mr. Hagheyegh to comment on not
having a sunset date for ACA. He deferred to the chair for
comment.
9:19:34 AM
MARGE STONEKING, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PEOPLE - ALASKA, spoke in favor of the bill. She
relayed that ACA had partnered with the American
Association of Retired People (AARP) Alaska in its advocacy
work to make Alaska a better place for aging. She asserted
that ACAs planning and outreach reflected its data
gathering and listening sessions with older Alaskans and
senior providers. See posited that ACAs Senior Snapshot
and comprehensive state plan were invaluable to AARP Alaska
and other organizations serving and advocating for seniors.
She mentioned ACA quarterly meetings around the state,
which provided a public forum that helped the state stay in
touch with how it supported seniors in remaining
independent. She noted that AARP Alaska supported the
reauthorization of the ACA. She cited that the states
senior population was the fastest growing in the nation.
Co-Chair Olson asked the state auditor to comment and
address the eight-year extension.
9:22:09 AM
KRIS CURTIS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT,
thought the previous speaker had provided a high-level
overview of whether the commission was serving the publics
interest. She referenced "A Sunset Review of the Department
of Health, Alaska Commission on Aging" (copy on file).The
committee had concluded that ACA was serving the publics
interest and providing an important service. She relayed
that the audit had one recommendation that ACA was
compiling statistics into the Senior Snapshot but was not
evaluating the services. They had provided metrics but no
evaluation. The audit also could not find evidence that the
report was provided to the governor or legislature.
Co-Chair Olson asked if the lack of evaluation was a
disservice to those that were being served.
Ms. Curtis thought the evaluation the adequacy of services
was very important for policy creation, and was part of
statute.
Co-Chair Olson agreed and reflected that the records should
have an impact.
Ms. Curtis thought the recommendation was administrative in
nature and was an easy fix, and noted that ACA was
receptive to the feedback. She thought there was important
information in the audit report. She explained that ACA had
experienced a lot of turnover. She noted that during three
and a half years there was vacancies in key positions, but
offered kudos to ACA for being able to effectively carry
out most of its functions despite the vacancies.
Co-Chair Olson asked about positive and negative aspects of
making the ACA permanent.
Ms. Curtis explained that the purpose of a sunset process
was to make sure that government entities did not exist in
perpetuity and at some point, to evaluate if there was a
continuing need. She added that the sunset also provided
the legislature an oversight mechanism as to how the entity
was operating, including occupational boards with support
from the Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing. For ACA, the legislature would use
its oversight to look at how the commission was supported
by the Divison of Senior and Disability Services.
Ms. Curtis continued to address Co-Chair Olson's question.
She explained that the downside of making the ACA permanent
would be a lack of an oversight mechanism. She thought the
committee had made significant changes during the last
oversight process, including evaluation of positions.
Without a sunset date, the legislature would lose the
ability for such an evaluation.
9:25:57 AM
Ms. Curtis continued her remarks. She thought the advantage
of having no sunset date for the ACA would be not having
the cost or resources for an audit. She thought it was a
policy decision.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Ms. Curtis recommended continuing
on with a sunset date and not making ACA permanent.
Ms. Curtis relayed that she was neutral.
Senator Merrick asked about the cost of the audit.
Ms. Curtis estimated that for a small board such as ACA
that the audit would take approximately 300 to 350 hours.
The hourly rate for an audit was approximately $88 to $89
per hour.
Co-Chair Olson estimated that the audit would cost
approximately $2,500.
Ms. Curtis replied that the audit would cost approximately
$25,000 every eight years.
Senator Bishop agreed with the auditor. He appreciated the
snapshot of senior services. He thought younger members
might want to pay attention to legislation that affected
the senior population. He thought a deeper look at the
effectiveness of ACA was warranted. He mentioned the
economic status of retirees, including rates of Social
Security and other benefits. He was interested in details
that indicated how many recipients received defined benefit
versus defined contribution plan benefits.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee would address the
fiscal note, which was roughly $450,000 per year. He asked
for the department to comment.
9:28:52 AM
NICOLE WERY-TAGABAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OPERATIONS MANAGER,
DIVISION OF SENIOR AND DISABILITY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, spoke to a new fiscal note from the Department of
Health, OMB Component number 2674. She noted that the
fiscal note was already in the budget for FY 25. The fiscal
note was for $449,000. Of the total, $239,000 came from
inter-agency receipts and $210,000 came from the Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA).
Co-Chair Olson asked if the funds were Designated General
Funds (DGF).
Ms. Wery-Tagaban answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony.
9:30:06 AM
BOB SIVERTSEN, CHAIRMAN, ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING,
KETCHIKAN (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill.
He thought the ACA mission worked in developing the state
plan for senior services, which was a statutory requirement
and a testament to the states commitment to guiding senior
services across the state. He mentioned collaboration with
AMHTA, which amplified ACAs impact, particularly in mental
health aspects of senior wellbeing. He considered that the
commission was part of the mechanism through which the
state received Older Americans Act funding for grants
within the state.
Mr. Sivertsen continued his remarks and referenced earlier
comments about a permanent extension. He relayed that the
commission welcomed the review and the audit because it
kept ACA on track and ensured it was providing services to
seniors in a meaningful manner. He mentioned ACAs outreach
and legislative advocacy. He discussed education. He
mentioned organizational partnerships to share information
with seniors on accessing services. He discussed travel
within the state and the challenge that 85 percent of
Alaskans were not on a road system. He mentioned outward
migration from the state and larger issues with senior
health and support.
9:33:27 AM
PAULA PAWLOWSKI, VICE CHAIR, ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
bill. She noted that all the commission members were
volunteers, and members tried to represent the entire
state. The commission was currently looking to fill a
position to represent Western Alaska. The commission had
only two employees. She explained that ACA listened,
evaluated, and provided feedback to partners. The mentioned
the state plan required by the federal government, which
took at least a year to assemble. She mentioned the growth
of the aging population, and cited that the 85-plus
population in Alaska was expected to increase by 500
percent by 2023 and 2050. She noted that the states
biggest need was for the 80-plus population and how to
provide seniors with the ability to age in place with
services and dignity.
9:36:28 AM
PAMELA SAMASH, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING,
NENANA (via teleconference), spoke in favor of the bill.
She thanked the committee and thanked the sponsor. She
emphasized that the senior population was exploding in
the state and needed help, particularly in the Interior and
in rural parts of the state. She relayed that she had
joined the board because she saw the need and wanted to
help. She relayed that she was from Nenana. She described
receiving calls from all over the state from people needing
help. She described the challenge of navigating Medicaid,
Social Security, and food insecurity. She encouraged
members to look over the state plan, which addressed many
areas. She emphasized that the topic affected everyone. She
emphasized that ACA members were volunteers.
9:39:39 AM
Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony.
SB 189 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to hunting, trapping, and fishing
licenses for certain nonresident postsecondary
students; and providing for an effective date."
9:39:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI, SPONSOR, explained that
HB 120 related to non-resident hunting, fishing, and
trapping licenses. He read from a Sponsor Statement (copy
on file):
House Bill 120 adds a new non-resident student
hunting, fishing, and trapping license. Upon passage
of this legislation, a non-resident student enrolled
in classes full or half time, as determined by their
school, can purchase a license at resident cost. This
does not change any regulations or the cost of tags.
Research shows hunting and fishing have declined since
the 1960s. As the percentage of the population that
hunts, fishes, and traps declines, so does our
conservation funding. Conservation funding by federal
statutes (Pittman-Robertson Act, Dingell-Johnson Act,
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act, etc.) is directly
tied to excise taxes on things like ammunition,
firearms, archery, and fishing equipment. These taxes
are then distributed to the states' fish and game
departments for conservation and management efforts.
To access these federal dollars, the states must match
the funding, Alaska does so by utilizing the revenue
from hunting and fishing licenses. The direct
correlation between our hunters and our conservation
ability cannot be overlooked. It is critical that we
encourage younger generations to participate in these
wonderful outdoor activities.
Though hunting and fishing may not be easy hobbies to
pick up, an additional financial burden may make it
even harder. Many younger students who might be
interested in learning how to hunt and fish are also
trying to pay for college life. Lowering the license
cost non-resident students pay may encourage them to
go hunting, fishing, or trapping with their fellow
students.
Representative Tomaszewski commented that part of the bill
concentrated on two other issues not included in the
sponsor statement. He mentioned recruitment and retention,
and thought the bill was a way for the University of Alaska
to recruit new students. He thought the bill would serve as
a marketing tool to attract students to the state for
higher education. He thought hunting and fishing created
connection with nature and would encourage students to stay
in the state. He spoke to the mental health benefits of
being in nature while hunting and fishing. He discussed his
personal enjoyment of being in nature.
9:44:17 AM
ZACH YOUNG, STAFF FOR REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI, addressed
a Sectional Analysis (copy on file).
Section 1: Amends the section to include the new
nonresident postsecondary student license.
Section 2: Adds a new subsection allowing for
nonresident students who are enrolled half-time or
part-time in postsecondary education to purchase a
special nonresident postsecondary student license for
sport fishing, hunting, or trapping at the same cost
as a resident license.
Section 3: Provides uncodified law that allows the
Department of Fish and Game to adopt regulations to
implement to the new license.
Section 4: Provides for an effective date.
Section 5: Provides for an effective date.
Mr. Young commented that the bill was an opportunity to
encourage and incentivize students to come to the state and
stay in the state. He thought many people loved the state
because of outdoor recreation opportunities. He proposed
that students were often in a difficult financial position
and were away from their families. He thought the bulk of
the recreation season took place outside the academic
sessions of UA. He thought recreation would incentivize
people to stay during the summer. He emphasized that the
government should incentivize staying in the state.
9:46:44 AM
Senator Kiehl thanked the sponsor for bringing the bill
forward, and thought it was a worthwhile step in
recruitment and retention. He asked if the bill proposed
any change to who would need a harvest ticket versus a
locking-tag for certain big game animals.
Mr. Young understood that hunters would still need to
purchase a non-resident tag for any big game animal and the
requirement would not be changed under the bill.
Senator Kiehl understood that under the bill, out-of-state
students would still the pay non-resident locking-tag
price.
Mr. Young answered yes.
Senator Kiehl noted that the intensive management fee
differed by resident and non-resident. He asked if the bill
proposed that non-resident students would pay the non-
resident intensive management fee for a hunting license.
Mr. Young explained that under the bill, the intensive
management fee would be adjusted down to the resident rate.
He noted that the intensive management fee only applied to
fishing licenses. Under the provisions of the bill, the
total cost of a hunting license for a non-resident student
would be $45 (including a $10 management fee), as it was
for an Alaskan. For a non-resident, the total was $160
(including a $30 management fee).
Senator Kiehl thought the bill indicated something
different. He asked for more details on the mechanics of
the provision in the meeting or at a later time.
Co-Chair Olson asked the sponsor's preference.
Representative Tomaszewski indicated he would gladly meet
with Senator Kiehl to discuss the provision in more detail.
Senator Bishop asked if students over the age of 60 would
get a hunting license at no cost.
Mr. Young relayed that the bill did not allow for any other
exemptions. He noted that there was an exemption in statute
for $5 hunting and fishing licenses for people under the
poverty line. He thought the senior discount would not be
applicable.
Senator Bishop asked if there was anyone from the
Department of Fish and Game that could address his
question.
9:50:33 AM
JOE FELKL, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, introduced himself and asked Senator Bishop to repeat
his question.
Senator Bishop relayed that at age 60, Alaska residents
could receive a lifetime hunting license. He asked if the
opportunity would apply to part-time or full-time students
as the bill was written.
Mr. Felkl answered no, and continued that the bill would
create a special non-resident license, which would still be
subject to all the requirements of non-residents, thus
would not qualify for the disabled veteran liscense.
Senator Bishop pondered whether a senior citizen that was a
part-time or full-time student would have a case for a
lawsuit.
Mr. Felkl explained that the way the bill was drafted, it
did not give non-resident postsecondary students any rights
in law that were for residents, including the disabled
veteran license. He could not speak to a possible lawsuit.
Co-Chair Stedman was curious about how the bill would
pertain to graduate students and students in training
programs such as at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center
(AVTEC).
Mr. Felkl explained that the bill sited a list of
postsecondary institutions in the state, including AVTEC.
Mr. Felkl clarified that the non-resident intensive
management surcharge would apply to the new license, as
would all other non-resident requirements such as bag
limits. The post-secondary students would not be able to
participate in personal use or subsistence hunts and
fisheries.
Co-Chair Olson asked Mr. Felkl to comment on the fiscal
note.
Mr. Felkl noted that there was three fiscal notes attached
to the bill. He commented on a new zero fiscal note from
ADFG, OMB Component 479. The fiscal note was for statewide
support services and focused on potential operating costs
for the Division of Administrative Services and Licensing.
He discussed the creation of a new license in the system
with supplemental questions. He discussed details of
potentially licensing changes. The department anticipated
additional applications if the bill was implemented, but
did not anticipate that the increase would require
additional staffing of create a substantively increased
workload.
Mr. Felkl commented two additional new fiscal notes from
ADFG, for the Division of Wildlife Conservation (OMB
Component 473) and the Division of Sport Fisheries (OMB
Component 464). He explained that the two notes focused on
potential revenue impacts to the Fish and Game Fund. The
fiscal note analysis showed recognition that there could be
a slight decrease in revenue, but the department agreed
with the sponsor that the new license would encourage more
postsecondary students that would not otherwise participate
in hunting and fishing. The department thought any
difference, positive or negative, would be minimal and both
notes were submitted as zero fiscal notes. He reiterated
that the holders of the new license type would still be
subject to all other non-resident requirements including
the intensive management and tag fees.
Senator Bishop asked how the bill would apply to non-
resident aliens that were part-time or full-time students
at the University of Alaska.
Mr. Felkl understood that the bill would also apply to non-
resident aliens.
Senator Bishop asked for Mr. Felkls response in writing.
9:56:44 AM
JENNIFER YUHAS, PRESIDENT, OUTDOOR HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF
ALASKA, spoke in support of the bill. She noted that
funding for conservation and management of the states
living resources was dependent upon license holders that
hunted, fished, and trapped. She thought recruitment of new
license holders was critical. She expected that the
legislation would generate revenue into the future as
people were recruited to the state. She mentioned students
at UAF that engaged in weekend activities. She suggested
that non-resident students could be recruited to hunting
and fishing activities that would create interest for
future participation and license purchasing.
9:59:45 AM
CHAD HUTCHISON, STATE DIRECTOR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, explained that the University of
Alaska (UA) supported the bill. He thought the bill aligned
well with the conversation the UA president was having with
the governor regarding using UA to boost the working-age
population of the state. He thought the bill was a step
towards helping students live the Alaskan dream.
Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony.
10:01:10 AM
ED MARTIN, SELF, KENAI (via teleconference), spoke in favor
of the bill. He thought the bill seemed to apply to a
special interest group that may come to UA to study. He
thought the bill should have a caveat that once the student
because a resident they would need a resident license. He
thought the sponsor was trying to tap into federal dollars.
He did not think the Senate realized that the country was
paying interest on a huge debt. He emphasized that the
resources in question belonged to Alaskans. He stressed the
importance of fiscal responsibility. He agreed that the
state needed to bring students into the UA system.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Mr. Martin was against the bill.
Mr. Martin relayed that he was against the bill unless
there was a provision that only allowed the special license
for one year until residency was established.
Senator Merrick understood that some of the federal dollars
were directly tied to excise taxes on things like firearms,
ammunition, and archery and fishing equipment.
Senator Wilson mentioned excise taxes and discussed student
residency conditions. He understood that the premise of the
bill was to offer benefits to students from out of state
and help them enjoy the Alaskan lifestyle.
10:06:02 AM
Co-Chair Olson thought there was an issue that needed to be
clarified regarding non-resident alien students.
Mr. Felkl relayed that under AS 16.05.14 (h), the statute
separated a non-resident person from a non-resident alien
for the purposes of fishing and hunting licenses and
permits. The bill would not include non-resident alien
students to qualify for the reduced license fee.
Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Tomaszewski thanked the committee and
relayed that he would get back to the committee with the
requested information.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that his office had received phone
calls from rural areas regarding limits on moose and
salmon. He mentioned a bill related to purchasing permits.
He asked why the bill proposed to give out-of-state
residents access at a reduced rate when there was a
shortage of some of the states resources.
Representative Tomaszewski explained that the non-resident
students would still have to abide by the restrictions and
regulations that were imposed on all residents of the
state. He thought Co-Chair Olson had posed a great question
that was a philosophical debate that was hard to get to the
bottom of.
Co-Chair Olson mentioned a moratorium between the state and
Canada that had to do with numbers of fish in trans-
boundary waters. He was interested in the sponsors
thoughts.
Mr. Young relayed that the previous year there had been
332,000 non-resident fishing licenses sold the previous
year. The UA student population of non-resident students
was around 3,200; and if 20 percent of the students
purchased the new license type it would be only 1 percent
of the total. He thought that while the concerns were
clear, the bill was geared at getting non-resident students
to engage in mostly Southcentral and Interior fisheries,
which were not as strongly impacted.
HB 120 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Establishing the Joint Legislative Seafood Industry
Task Force.
10:10:11 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that it was the first hearing for
SCR 10.
10:10:33 AM
TIM LAMKIN, STAFF FOR SENATOR GARY STEVENS, relayed that
the bill was a priority among coastal communities. He
commented that the resolution modeled a similar task force
in 2002 as the legislature attempted to find solutions to
offer at a state level. The resolution was a draft, and he
noted that there could be some additional target subject
areas that might want to be added for the task forces
consideration. He discussed the size of the task forces
membership, and noted that the 2002 task force membership
of 15 had to extend its work to two years to complete its
work. He mentioned the prior task forces governance
structure and stakeholders, which included several policy
subcommittees.
Mr. Lamkin spoke to the fiscal impact of the bill, and
shared that the activities of the task force should fall
within the members normal course of duty. He expected an
initial in-person organizational meeting, likely in
Anchorage, presumably in May. He anticipated that the task
force would meet digitally throughout the legislative
interim, with a second potential meeting in Anchorage in
January. He mentioned the final report and presumed that
the cost borne by the task force would be absorbed by
existing operational budgets of the legislature and by the
public members representing their respective organizations.
Co-Chair Stedman referenced Mr. Lamkin's mention of the
previous salmon task force twenty years previously. He
recalled that the previous task force had 16 members and
asked if the resolution proposed to have 7 members.
Mr. Lamkin answered affirmatively, and relayed that the
number was a starting point.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if it was felt that the 16-member
task force was too broad, slow, or cumbersome; and that 7
members would work more quickly. He asked for the reasoning
behind the reduction of membership.
Mr. Lamkin did not recall the conversation regarding the
reasoning for the change. He opined that a task force with
over 15 members was too many. He thought logistics was a
factor. He mentioned the amount of work and the difficulty
of achieving consensus with larger groups. He pondered
whether seven was too few, and suggested having a maximum
of 15 members.
10:14:59 AM
JOHN HANRAHAN, CEO, OBI SEAFOODS, SEATTLE, WA (via
teleconference), spoke in support of SCR 10. He relayed
that OBI Seafoods had operations in Southeast, Prince
William Sound, Kodiak, and Bristol Bay. The company was one
of the largest salmon processors in the state and employed
over 1,500 people each year. He thought the Alaska seafood
industry was experiencing adverse conditions that
negatively affected nearly every fishery. He mentioned high
interest rates, inflation, and Russian pricing. He
discussed efforts by the congressional delegation and
legislature.
Mr. Hanrahan discussed things the state could do to assist
with the problem. He suggested that more support for Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) to increase market
shares. He discussed including Alaska fish purchases in
food banks. He mentioned loan guarantees to reduce the
effects of high interest rates. He thought the creation of
task force would be helpful in coming up with additional
measures to help the fishing community and adjacent
stakeholders. He emphasized working on the makeup of the
task force to ensure the creation of the best possible plan
for all stakeholders.
10:17:48 AM
TRACY WELCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED FISHERMEN OF
ALASKA, spoke in support of the bill. She explained that
the United Fisherman of Alaska (UFA) was a statewide
commercial fishing trade association that represented 36
member groups that participated in state and federal
fisheries off Alaskas coast. She relayed that she was a
harvester and she had participated in Southeast Alaska
fisheries for over 30 years. She emphasized that UFA had
unanimously supported the resolution to form the task
force. She stressed that the states seafood industry was
facing unprecedented challenges in every area of the state.
She discussed affected parties that were faced with low
prices, closed plants, lost markets, and foregone fishing
opportunities.
Ms. Welch discussed the impact on state and local tax
revenue, jobs, and businesses. The estimated loss to the
economy in 2020 was estimated to be over $2 billion. She
thought the Alaska seafood industry was in crisis. She
thought the proposed task force was an important mechanism
to provide recommendations on legislative and
administrative actions to improve the economics of Alaskas
seafood industry. She thought that immediate action was
needed but that the task force would develop long-term
strategy for the industry. She expressed appreciation that
there was a task force seat for a harvester included in the
proposal.
10:20:25 AM
JEREMY WOODROW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA SEAFOOD
MARKETING INSTITUTE, spoke in support of the bill. He read
from a prepared statement:
The Alaska Seafood industry is currently weathering
its worse economic storm in decades. And while the
seafood industry is used to unusual market dynamics
and ebbs and flows in dock prices, the current
situation we find ourselves in is unprecedented. It's
not "just salmon", "pollock" or "sablefish" that are
experiencing these market pressures. It is, in fact,
every Alaska species that is currently facing a large
supply and demand imbalance. For example, while Alaska
experienced a large 2023 pink salmon harvest of almost
200,000 metric tons, it's important to note that
Russia harvested over three times what we brought in.
The sheer size of the Russian harvest and the
significantly lower value of the Russian ruble has
allowed Russia to sell pink salmon and salmon roe to
our shared global customers at historically low
prices, thus driving down the market value for all
salmon species. And while Russia is finally blocked
from the US market, we still must compete against them
in the global market, where, by value, 70 percent of
Alaska seafood and 80 percent by weight goes.
However, the list of economic challenges the Alaska
seafood industry is facing goes on. There are a
multitude of other geo-political obstacles affecting
trade. Global inflation has left consumers carrying a
massive amount of debt. In the U.S. alone the average
cost of groceries has increased 30 percent in the last
year and, in turn, has forced consumers to leave
seafood out of the shopping cart and replace it with
less expensive proteins such as chicken and ground
beef.
On top of all that, interest rates have climbed and
remain high making it financially impractical for
fisherman and processors alike to restructure debt,
carry inventory and invest in new capital projects or
even just maintain the assets they have.
All that said, the Alaska seafood industry is
resilient, but it does find itself at new crossroads.
Over the last several months, I have heard numerous
ideas and possible solutions to both help solve our
current crisis and strengthen the industry for the
long-term. However, I believe we all agree that even
the best ideas need to be vetted.
There is no silver bullet to solve the challenges we
face, and this situation certainly will not turn
around overnight. This is why ASMI supports SCR10 as
the vehicle to further investigate and collaborate
amongst key stakeholders and chart new opportunities
for the long-term economic health of Alaska's Seafood
Industry. Thank you to the members of the committee
for seeking a practical solution toward finding a way
out of this crisis. ASMI looks forward to continuing
to partner with you every step along the way.
Co-Chair Stedman referenced page 2, line 20, item 3 of the
bill, relating to improvements of the coordination of
harvesting, processing, and marketing seafood. He thought
it would be beneficial not to wait until the conclusion of
the task force, but rather for ASMI to come forward to the
Senate Finance Subcommittee for the Department of Fish and
Game and discuss marketing or commerce plans. He queried
how ASMIs relationship going with Alaska Travel Industry
Association (ATIA) and marketing/revenue through collection
from the industry. He wanted the subcommittee to bring the
information to the full committee, at which time ASMI could
come before the committee for discussion.
Mr. Woodrow relayed that ASMI was happy to present on its
activities at any time and speak to what it was doing to
help the industry.
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that his comment was less of a
question and more of a directive from the chair of the
operating budget.
Co-Chair Olson asked Mr. Woodrow to respond.
Mr. Woodrow affirmed that ASMI was happy to provide the
resources that the committee needed.
10:25:05 AM
GLENN HAIGHT, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION, spoke in favor of the resolution. He affirmed
that the commission was ready to help in any way. He
recounted that the current situation was reminiscent of
what happened with salmon more than twenty years
previously. He mentioned farmed salmon and processing
closures. He recounted working at the time as a fisheries
specialist with Congress. He mentioned a large-scale effort
including from the legislature and salmon industry task
force, that passed laws that were still in effect. He was
encouraged that the legislature was looking at seafood,
which was an important part of the state's economy.
Mr. Haight relayed that the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) was involved in the harvesting side of
the issue. He considered maximizing the value of the
industry for the harvesters. He considered socioeconomic
factors such as the aging of the fleet, getting young
people into the industry, and the loss of fishing
communities. He thought there were multi-faceted issues
that required a lot of people to be involved, and he though
the task force was the kind of forum that would work.
10:27:42 AM
JULIE DECKER, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. She relayed that she lived in Wrangell and had worked
in the industry for 30 years starting in 1994 when she came
to Alaska to work in a cannery. She relayed that the
Pacific Seafood Processors Association (PSPA) was a trade
association that represented 11 major seafood processing
companies operating over 30 facilities in the state. The
member companies bought 100s of millions of pounds of fish
from thousands of independent commercial fishermen for
processing before moving it to market.
Ms. Decker discussed the economic conditions that brought
about the situation. She emphasized that the conditions
came together and depressed the market much faster and much
more dramatically than anyone had predicted beginning in
2022, and in 2024 the downturn was still happing. She
thought that while some problematic market conditions would
improve over time, the seafood industry also had systemic
challenges related to competitiveness and fairness,
especially on a global scale. She noted that PSPA had been
advocating for a number of state and federal actions that
would help the seafood industry during the downturn,
although the challenges were larger than any one sector of
the industry and region of the state.
Ms. Decker thought the issue impacted more than just the
industry, and directly impacted coastal communities and
state revenues. She thought the task force would help bring
together people from across the state from various sectors
and policy-making groups, with a focus on the economic
challenges in the seafood industry. She thought the task
force would help better understand the problems, while
allowing a broad variety of solutions to come forward and
providing a roadmap to a resilient Alaskan seafood
industry. She noted that PSPA was in conversation with
other stakeholders about optimum representation on the task
force.
10:29:53 AM
SCOTT ARNDT, MAYOR, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the resolution. He
spoke to the importance of commercial fishing in the Kodiak
and Western Alaska. He cited that fishing provided a
significant portion of revenue to all the communities on
Kodiak Island, both directly and indirectly. He mentioned
the possible closure of Trident's plant in Kodiak, and
noted that Kodiak Electric Association was raising rates
for the first time in 30 years. The 12.5 percent increase
was partly due to a major reduction in sales to processors
since 2023. He commented that there was stress on all
fisheries species and all markets.
Mr. Arndt asked for consideration of expanding the
membership of the task force to include two additional
members that would represent communities directly affected
by the seafood industry.
SCR 10 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:32:06 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:32 a.m.