HOUSE BILL NO. 155 "An Act relating to fees charged by the commercial fisheries entry commission; repealing an exploration incentive credit; amending the calculation of adjusted gross income for purposes of the tax on gambling activities aboard large passenger vessels; repealing the amount that may be deducted from the motor fuel tax to cover the expense of accounting and filing for the monthly tax return; repealing a provision allowing an investigation expense under the Alaska Small Loans Act to be in place of a fee required under the Alaska Business License Act; repealing the amount that may be deducted from the tobacco excise tax to cover the expense of accounting and filing for the monthly tax return; repealing the discount on cigarette tax stamps provided as compensation for affixing the stamps to packages; repealing the amount that may be deducted from a tire fee remittance to cover the expense of accounting and filing for the quarterly fee return; and providing for an effective date." 10:03:51 AM Co-Chair Thompson indicated he was the sponsor of the bill and that there was a committee substitute for the bill. Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for HB 155, Work Draft 29-LS0715\N, Nauman, 4/8/15. Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED. 10:04:56 AM BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, reviewed the changes to the committee substitute by reading from a prepared statement: Title: Title change removing indirect expenditures referenced in the bill Old Section 1 & 2: Sections deleted referencing Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) fee language. Section 1-9: Renumbered from Sections 3-11 Section 10(Old section 12): Removed AS 16.43.160(d), AS 43.98.025(e), Statutes referencing indirect expenditures related to the CFEC and the tire fee. (Old Section 13): Deleted section referencing regulations related to CFED indirect expenditures. Section 11: Transition language reflects renumbered sections and removed transition language that referenced CFEC indirect expenditures. Section 12-13: Renumbered from Sections 15-16, section language reflects renumbered sections. 10:06:27 AM Representative Guttenberg asked if the Committee Substitute removed Sections 1 and 2 of the old bill. Mr. Anderson responded that the old Sections 1 and 2 specifically dealt with indirect expenditures related to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). He reported that after Representative Edgmon's question in the prior committee meeting, he looked at what the indirect expenditures were for CFEC and determined that they were all related to indirect expenditures for things such as low-income reductions and fee exemptions. In looking further the low-income reference cited federal code for the federal poverty level. It was noted that the low-income applicants truly met the poverty level criteria. After talking with industry and CFEC a more comprehensive look at the fee structures for all of CFEC fees and exemptions might be better utilized and addressed at a later time. Co-Chair Thompson identified additional available Representative Guttenberg asked about removing Sections 1 and 2 and whether they just related to CFEC and not to any other commission. Mr. Anderson responded that the old sections only related to CFEC. There was one other indirect expenditure that was removed from the bill relating to the tire tax fee. It was addressed in previous legislation that was already heard by the finance committee. 10:08:57 AM Representative Pruitt wanted to confirm that the legislation would remove four fees for CFEC. He asked if he was correct. Mr. Anderson stated that all references to any CFEC fee or reduction were removed. Representative Pruitt asked about why all four were removed. He noted that one of the fees had an effect amounting to $17 thousand or $18 thousand. He also referred to a reduced application fee for low-income non-residents that had not been used. He asked if there was a reason for removing all four fees. Mr. Anderson stated that it was cleaner. He elaborated that Sections 1 and 2 of the old bill had language allowing the commission to rewrite regulations, which was not necessarily in the best interest of the state. It was also thought it would be better to look at the fees and reductions in their entirety. Industry suggested that, although some of the indirect expenditures had not been used for the previous 4 years, some might be needed. He cited the example of the expediting transfer fee used only in an emergency. If such an emergency came up low-income poverty families could be negatively impacted. Therefore, they were removed. 10:11:15 AM Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony. Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT CSHB 155(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, CSHB 155(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue. 10:12:18 AM AT EASE 10:15:13 AM RECONVEYNED