CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 267(RES) "An Act requiring the release of certain records relating to big game hunters, guided hunts, and guided sport fishing activities to municipalities for verification of taxes payable; and providing for an effective date." Co-Chair MacKinnon reported that the bill was previously heard in committee on April 16, 2018 and during the morning meeting on April 23, 2018. 1:53:23 PM Senator Micciche relayed concerns over the confidentiality of log book information. He asked for specifics regarding log book information and whether the information would remain confidential when the municipalities received the data. TOM BROOKOVER, DIRECTOR, SPORT FISH DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), answered that the division collected the information through a program that required sportfishing business owners and guides to register with the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and to complete a log book. He delineated that the program included two guide books; one for salt water fishing and one for fresh water fishing. He listed the required information: The Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) boat registration number or the United States (US) Coast Guard number along with the locations where guide services were provided; data for the specific angler including the name or license number, the catch species, and number harvested. The sport fishing business owner was responsible for turning the log book over to the division. He furthered that the program was in place since 2005. The purpose of the program was to collect data needed for management, conservation of the resource, and regulation of the industry. He pointed out that the division conducted an Annual Statewide Harvest Survey (ASHS) from guided and unguided anglers and on-site creel surveys (or angler interviews) at specific sites on specific times in addition to the logbook program. He indicated that the creel survey and the logbooks provided detailed information versus the generalized information collected via the ASHS. The logbooks were a significant source of data due to the level of specificity provided. In some cases, it was the only information collected and the department wanted to ensure the "integrity and quality" of the data. He related that the division questioned what purpose the logbook data would serve the municipalities. The division used the data for fishery management, conservation, and guided activity regulation, which was different from the assumed purpose of verifying municipal tax reporting. He voiced the division's concern regarding the proposed use of the data and noted that the division was uncertain about the consequences of providing the information to municipalities. 1:58:50 PM Senator Micciche ascertained that the logbook location information did not require GPS data and the location was only identified by name of the waterbody. Mr. Brookover replied in the affirmative and added that the freshwater logbook requested the name of lake, stream, or river by area, and the salt water location was identified through coded areas. The division provided a prescribed list of locations for both fresh or saltwater. Senator Micciche informed the committee that the information was protected through AS 11.56.850, Official Misconduct statutes, and carried a Class A misdemeanor for violations and AS 11.56.860, relating to Misuse of Confidential Information another Class A misdemeanor. He deduced that the only reason the data would be used was to determine the number of days of service provided to the client and if it matched the tax information. 2:00:43 PM TIM CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, confirmed that Senator Micciche's statements were correct and indicated that the consequences for breaching confidentiality at the municipal level was "serious." Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Brookover if the data the division would share with a municipality would contain a warning against misuse. Mr. Brookover responded that the division would supply the information in a summary format as opposed to the logbook sheets and was consistent with how DFG supplied other types of requested information. He was uncertain how or if a warning in respect to confidentiality would be addressed. Senator Micciche understood that the information would be aggregated and include the total number of trips but not the exact locations. He asked for confirmation. Mr. Brookover answered in the affirmative. He noted that the bill used the words "may release records" and did not include details about the level of specificity. The division would initially aggregate the data, but the specificity depended on the municipalities needs and how the activities were taxed. However, the bill did not prohibit the division from responding to more specific requests, if the tax policy was detailed and taxed items like the number of anglers, specific location, or time periods. He summarized that the division would aggregate the information but provide more detailed information by request. Senator Micciche emphasized that the state "protected tax payer information in every other aspect" and warned that he would "watch" the flow of information. The legislative intent was not to provide specific information. He understood that the intent of the bill was for data that provided "an aggregated cross check" of information. 2:04:40 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon corrected his statement and read from the bill: The bill shall make hunting records and activity reports available to a municipality that levels a tax on those activities if the information concerned hunts or activities occurring within the four years proceeding the date and the municipalities request the records for the purpose of verifying taxes payable and the municipality agree to maintain the confidentiality of the records. Co-Chair MacKinnon added that the municipality would receive specific information, which was the only way a tax audit could proceed. Mr. Clark relayed that the municipality the sponsor had been working closely with employed a simple flat tax per day on the fishing and hunting activities within its boundaries. Vice-Chair Bishop referenced testimony that the lost revenue amounted to between $50 thousand and $100 thousand in the Lake and Peninsula Borough. He asked whether he was correct. Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative. Co-Chair MacKinnon alerted that a fee would be charged to the municipality that requested the data. She asked Mr. Brookover whether the 4-year's prior information was easily accessible. Mr. Brookover replied that the data was available, but the division would need to configure the data base and develop the summary reports to enable responses to the request. He noted the fiscal note had identified the implementation costs. Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether DFG would have to reenter the data. Mr. Brookover responded in the negative and reiterated that the summary reporting function would need to be created because a municipal boundary did not match the division's location boundaries but the data itself existed. 2:08:21 PM Co-Chair MacKinnon cited page 1, line 10 under AS 08.54.760 (b) and noted the words, "The department shall make hunt records and activity reports available She turned to AS 16.05.815(a) on page 2, lines 20 and 21 and read the following, "The department and the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission may release?" She asked about the differences between the use of "may" or "shall." Mr. Clark was uncertain. He guessed that use of the term for the provision related to sport fishing "fit most logically" with existing statute and the hunting records provision was drafted as a new section. Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that the provision was not exclusive to sport fishing and read the following from the bill, "? the landings of fish, shellfish, or fishery products, and annual statistical reports of fishermen, buyers, and processors?" She inquired whether the area where the fish was caught would be provided to the taxing authority. Mr. Clark responded that when the statute corresponded specifically to the logbook information, the answer was in the affirmative. The logbook information was providing the municipality confirmation that the activity took place within its jurisdiction. Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether that applied to commercial fishers. Mr. Clark replied that the part of the provision concerning commercial fishers was long existing and related to large regions where the commercial fishery harvest was landed versus where it was caught. 2:11:13 PM Senator Stevens listed the three areas in the state that collected the type of tax; the Lake and Peninsula Borough, Sitka, and Yakutat. He noted that Yakutat was in his district and thought that the tax was a per day tax and the aggregate summary would be adequate. He asked whether Mr. Clark knew how Yakutat structured its tax. He voiced that Yakutat only received half of the amount of tax it was owed. Mr. Clark recalled testimony from Yakutat's manager that the tax was like a severance tax. 2:13:00 PM Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT CSHB 267(RES) out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 267(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with three "do pass" recommendations and three "no recommendation"; and with one new fiscal note from the Department of Fish and Game; one previously published zero fiscal note: FN 1(DFG); and one previously published fiscal impact note: FN2 (CED). 2:13:25 PM AT EASE 2:15:55 PM RECONVENED