Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/02/2022 09:00 AM House 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 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB90 | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act establishing the Alaska Invasive Species
Council in the Department of Fish and Game; relating
to management of invasive species; relating to
invasive species management decals; and providing for
an effective date."
9:07:13 AM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the committee last heard HB
54 on May 18, 2021.
9:07:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, CHAIR, HOUSE FISHERIES
COMMITTEE, briefly summarized the bill. She explained that
the bill created an Alaska Invasive Species Council housed
in the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The bill
represented a culmination of 5 years of work that initially
centered on a rapid response to the problem. Overtime in
working with professionals across the state she had found
the state was well prepared to stay ahead of the problem.
She shared that the impacts of invasive species were costly
and included impacts to wastewater systems, tourism, and
salmon habitat. She detailed that the council envisioned a
partnership through multi-stakeholder engagement among
private sector professionals, government agencies, and
tribal agencies to develop efficient and effective
responses to the problem. The councils work would limit
the state's spending on invasive species due to the more
coordinated approach that would enhance prevention and
response efforts. She appreciated the time to reintroduce
the bill.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that there was a new updated zero
Statement of Fiscal Impact from the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
9:10:25 AM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy
on file):
Page 5, following line 31:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 16.20.800, 16.20.810, 16.20.820,
16.20.850, and AS 37.05.146(c)(80) are repealed July
1, 2027."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Carpenter reviewed the amendment. The
amendment created a 7-year [Stated in error, the amendment
was for 5 years.] sunset clause for the council.
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1 to make the sunset a 7-year sunset in 2029,
rather than a 5-year sunset. He believed that it would give
the council a longer eradication process and was supported
by the sponsor.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
Representative Carpenter clarified that he misspoke, and
the original amendment was a 5-year sunset clause. He would
not support a 7-year sunset.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the committee would discuss
Conceptual Amendment 1.
Representative Josephson favored Conceptual Amendment 1.
Representative Thompson asked for a discussion of why
either 5 or 7 years was appropriate.
9:14:38 AM
Co-Chair Foster requested that the sponsor respond to the
conceptual amendment and Amendment 1.
Representative Tarr appreciated the notion of a sunset
date. She believed that a sunset offered a benchmark for
completing work and gave the legislature the opportunity
to assess whether the council should terminate or extend.
She referred to pages 5 and 6, of the bill that outlined
the timing for the appointment of the councils members.
She indicated that it would take one to two years for the
governor to complete the appointments. She determined that
the council would need 5 years after the appointments to
complete its work and favored a 7-year sunset.
Representative Carpenter thought a 7-year sunset was too
long and that it would not take up to 2 years to appoint
members. He supported a 5-year sunset.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Representative Ortiz joined
the meeting.
Representative Carpenter MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion. (Conceptual
amendment 1 to Amendment 1)
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Thompson, Wool,
Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Carpenter
The MOTION PASSED (8/1). Conceptual 1 to Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Josephson supported the bill and preferred
that the council would not sunset. He understood that there
would not be a final end to the invasive species problem.
He asked Representative Tarr why she was comfortable with
the amendment. Representative Tarr responded that she
agreed the problem would never end considering the many
ways invasive species entered the state, especially via
shipping. She elaborated that a sunset included an audit
and she felt that an audit would evaluate the work of the
council and recommend any necessary changes. She reiterated
that at times members were not chosen in a timely manner
and it limited the effectiveness of the council. She
believed the audit provided a refresh moment.
Representative Josephson inquired whether Representative
Tarr was confident someone would advocate for the council
in 2029. Representative Tarr responded in the affirmative.
She noted that there was an array of impressive
professionals working on the effort. She believed that they
were a very dedicated group of people, and the state would
benefit from their participation on the council.
Representative Josephson indicated that one of the
repealers was AS 16.20.820, which identified that the decal
fund would be part of the General Fund (GF), which meant
that it was subject to a reverse sweep. He wondered whether
it was a concern. Representative Tarr responded that the
council would recommend how the funds should be spent. She
deduced that if the council was disbanded, she guessed that
the response would revert to relying on special capital
budget appropriations, which was the current funding source
for invasive species response.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1 as
amended was ADOPTED.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to report CSHB 54(FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 54(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do
pass" recommendations and three "no recommendation"
recommendations and with a new zero fiscal note by
Gov/Combined and a new fiscal impact note by the Department
of Fish and Game.
9:23:29 AM
AT EASE
9:24:40 AM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 30 Letter ASPTA Support 4.9.21 .pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 30 Presentation 2.23.21.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 30 |
| HB 54 Amendment 1 051921.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 54 |
| HB 111 Amendment #1 Wool 020222.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 111 |
| HB 54 Amendment w adopted conceptual amendment 020222.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 54 |
| HB 90 Public Testimony rec'd by 020222.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 90 |