Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/17/2021 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 | |
| HB41 | |
| HB117 | |
| SB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 117 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 41(FIN)
"An Act relating to management of enhanced stocks of
shellfish; authorizing certain nonprofit organizations
to engage in shellfish enhancement projects; relating
to application fees for salmon hatchery permits and
shellfish enhancement project permits; relating to the
marketing of aquatic farm products by the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute; and providing for an
effective date."
9:10:14 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing of HB
41, however the committee had already heard public
testimony on, and passed, the companion legislation, SB 64.
Senator Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for CSHB 41(FIN), Work Draft 32-LS0291\G
(Bullard, 5/13/21).
9:11:04 AM
AT EASE
9:11:30 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Hoffman MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for CSHB 41(FIN), Work Draft 32-LS0291\G
(Bullard, 5/13/21).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
9:12:05 AM
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, spoke to the
proposed Committee Substitute (CS). She spoke to the
changes from version I to version G:
Deletes Sections 7-12 from Version I
Removes the promotion of aquatic farm products from
the purview of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
Ms. Shine added that the bill also made technical and
conforming changes pertaining to the effective date
section. She added that version I had previously provided
additional powers to the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
(ASMI) board to market aquatic farm product, in addition to
commercially harvested seafood from Alaska. She stated that
ASMIs current seafood marketing activities were funded
from the Seafood Marketing Assessment under AS 16.51.120,
which was not collected from aquatic farms. She furthered
that it was therefore appropriate for the aquatic farmers
of fisheries such as kelp, crab, and oysters to first be a
stable market and overtime be able to establish a self-
assessment to contribute towards marking of their products
via ASMI before the removed provisions of the previous bill
version became law.
9:13:24 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the sponsor agreed with the
proposed changes to the legislation.
9:13:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAN ORTIZ, SPONSOR, commented that HB 41 had
the ASMI provision as a part of the bill. He shared that
ASMI was currently charged with marketing wild-caught
Alaskan seafood and was currently prohibited from marketing
aquatic farm products. He said that without a change in the
statute, ASMI could not market farm products such as
oysters and kelp. He noted that the bill included sunset
language that limited how long ASMI could market aquatic
farm products, which incentivized the industry, the
Department of Revenue, and ASMI to determine a feasible way
for the industry to buy in to the marking. He thought it
was a key point that the bill would allow for mariculture
industry to seek grants and other non-state funds that
could be used to cover marketing costs.
Representative Ortiz relayed that when he had spoken to a
representative from ASMI and had been assured that ASMI had
no intention of using money donated by people or groups to
market traditional products. He stressed that the intent
for ASMI was to gain access to federal resources that were
specifically for the marketing of mariculture products.
9:16:51 AM
Senator Hoffman requested information about which parts of
the state contributed to the ASMI budget. He did not
believe the testifier had answered as to whether he
supported the CS.
Representative Ortiz asserted that he would like to see the
passage of HB 41.
9:17:44 AM
Senator Olson commented on the multi-management of the
industry. He aske whether the commercial crab industry
would be solely managed by the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (DF&G).
Representative Ortiz was not sure he understood Senator
Olson's question.
Senator Olson asked who would be managing the crab industry
in the Bering Sea.
Representative Ortiz stated that he did not have an answer
to the question.
9:19:03 AM
Senator Olson restated his question. He thought, looking at
the current bill version, it appeared there had been
consolidation of shellfish management in his district to
DF&G.
SAM RABUNG, DIRECTOR, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference), did not think that the bill referenced
fisheries management. He relayed that the bill pertained to
the permitting of the shellfish enhancement projects, which
would be managed as shellfish were currently managed.
Senator Olson understood that there was no change in the
management system within the crab industry.
Mr. Rabung said that was correct.
Senator Olson asked the sponsor whether enhancement of
shellfish farming included crab.
Representative Ortiz replied in the affirmative.
9:20:43 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the department had a
preference between the proposed CS and the original version
that came to the senate from the other body.
Mr. Rabung replied that the CS did not affect the work of
DF&G. He revealed that he was a member of the governor's
Mariculture Taskforce, and one of the goals had been to
find a way to allow ASMI to market all seafood and not only
commercially harvested seafood.
9:21:56 AM
Senator Olson asked the sponsor whether he had been in
contact with any of the participants of the Community
Development Quota (CDQ) program in the affected areas.
Representative Ortiz had not specifically been in contact
with those groups. He noted that United Fishermen of
Alaska, who represented those groups, were in support of
the bill.
9:22:40 AM
Senator Wilson supported the legislation. He wondered
whether there was additional language that could be added
to allow for federal receipt authority or additional
grants.
9:23:25 AM
Senator Hoffman thought there was a way to do what Senator
Wilson suggested. He thought while the bill wanted to use
ASMI as a marketing agent, the bill did not allow for
collection of taxes from aquatic farms. He thought there
might be a way to include a tax that would fund the ASMI
marketing activity.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 41(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 50 06 - Supp ProjectDetailByAgency.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 05 - SCS1 ProjectDetailByHD.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 03 - SCS1 Cap AgencySummary UGF.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 02 - SCS1 Cap AgencySummary All Funds.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 04 - SCS1 ProjectDetailByAgency.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 50 |
| SB 50 01- SB 50 Version N, 16 May 2021.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 50 |
| HB 41 Explanation of Changes ver I to G 5.13.2021.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 41 |
| HB 41 Work Draft ver. G 5.13.2021.pdf |
SFIN 5/17/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 1/31/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 41 |