Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/22/2021 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB92 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act relating to salt water sport fishing operators
and salt water sport fishing guides; and providing for
an effective date."
1:47:03 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that Amendment 1 was adopted
during the prior hearing on April 20, 2021.
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "a new paragraph"
Insert "new paragraphs"
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "Fishing"
Insert "Resident fishing"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "Sport"
Insert "Resident sport"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "Sport"
Insert "Resident sport"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "Sport"
Insert "Resident sport"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
(29) Nonresident fishing services
licenses
(A) Nonresident sport fishing
operator license ........ 400
(B) Nonresident sport fishing
guide license .......... 200
(C) Nonresident sport fishing
operator and guide combined
license .......400."
Page 3, line 26, following "(C)":
Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(B) or (C)"
Page 4, line 2, following "(C)":
Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(A) or (C)"
Page 4, line 3, following "(C)":
Insert "or 16.05.340(a)(29)(A) or (C)"
Representative Rasmussen OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained the amendment. He offered
that the amendment doubled the fee for an out of state
guide, guide operator, or operator for fishing. He
delineated that the amendment paralleled AS 08.01.065
relating to big game hunting that allowed for the state to
charge out of state big game guides double the amount of an
Alaska resident. He had consulted with Legislative Legal
Services regarding a constitutional challenge and shared
that it determined that the provision could be challenged
but so far, the big game fees had not been challenged in
court.
1:48:40 PM
Representative Rasmussen relayed her objection.
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 (copy on file):
Page 2, line 6, following "AS 16.05.340(a)":
Insert "and the nonresident surcharge, if applicable,
under AS 16.40.274"
Page 3, line 7, following "AS 16.05.340(a)":
Insert "and the nonresident surcharge, if applicable,
under AS 16.40.274"
Page 3, line 13, following "AS 16.05.340(a)":
Insert "and the nonresident surcharge, if applicable,
under AS 16.40.274"
Page 4, following line 11:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 16.40.274. Nonresident surcharge. In
addition to the annual base fee required for
a sport fishing guide license, sport fishing
operator license, or sport fishing operator
and guide combined license under AS
16.05.340(a)(28), a nonresident shall pay an
annual nonresident surcharge for the
issuance or renewal of a license under AS
16.40.262 or 16.40.272. The department shall
establish the annual nonresident surcharge
by regulation at an amount that is as close
as is practicable to the maximum allowed by
law."
Representative Rasmussen explained the amendment. She
voiced that during the previous hearing some concerns were
raised regarding the legality of the amendment and the
definition of resident and non-resident. She shared that
she had consulted the Legislative Legal Services and the
Department of Law (DOL). She was offering her amendment to
clear up some of the issues that were raised.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Rasmussen furthered that the new language
replaced Amendment 2 and allowed for the department to
implement a non-resident surcharge as necessary for sport
fishing licenses. She noted that legislative legal and DOL
did not find any constitutional issue with Conceptual
Amendment 1. The language was similar to the language in AS
16.43.160 regarding commercial fishing license fees. She
reiterated that the amendment allowed for a non-resident
surcharge by regulation and used existing Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) language for the residency requirement
and definition.
Representative Wool appreciated the conceptual amendment.
He was unclear whether the conceptual amendment amended the
amendment or the bill. He deemed that Conceptual Amendment
1 was amending the bill and not the amendment.
Representative Rasmussen asked for an at ease.
1:50:43 PM
AT EASE
1:52:32 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Rasmussen explained that the conceptual
amendment was lacking a first line that deleted the
material from Amendment 2 and inserted the amended version.
Representative Wool did not care which amendment was used.
He was only concerned that the fees were doubled for non-
residents, which was the maximum allowed by statute. He
read the following from the conceptual amendment:
The department shall establish the annual nonresident
surcharge by regulation at an amount that is as close
as is practicable to the maximum allowed by law."
Representative Wool wondered if use of the word shall
made it something the department could do in regulation.
1:54:09 PM
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME (via teleconference), read the language from a portion
of the conceptual amendment to Amendment 2 as follows:
In addition to the annual base fee required for a
sport fishing guide license, sport fishing operator
license, or sport fishing operator and guide combined
license under AS 16.05.340(a)(28), a nonresident shall
pay an annual nonresident surcharge for the issuance
or renewal of a license under AS 16.40.262 or
16.40.272. The department shall establish the annual
nonresident surcharge by regulation at an amount that
is as close as is practicable to the maximum allowed
by law."
Commissioner Vincent-Lang surmised that the surcharge
could be set by regulation.
Representative Wool related that he was not party to the
drafting of the conceptual amendment. He wondered if it was
something that the department could accomplish easily and
quickly. Commissioner Vincent-Lang indicated that the
change would go through the Administrative Procedures Act
process, and anyone could comment on the proposed
regulatory change.
Representative Wool asked if the issue was debatable with
the word "shall." Commissioner Vincent-Lang understood that
he shall do it, but the change had to go through the
established regulatory process. He indicated that the
outcome of the regulatory process was dependent on the
public comments. He ascertained that his mandate would be
to establish a regulation as close as is practicable to
the maximum allowed by law. He would need to define the
maximum allowed by law and be as close of possible to the
amount.
Representative Wool asked if someone from Legislative Legal
Services was online.
1:57:09 PM
Alpheus Bullard, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services introduced himself and asked Representative Wool
to repeat the question.
Representative Wool reiterated that the conceptual
amendment changed the bill rather than his amendment. He
commented that the conceptual amendment provision was
regulatory and not statutory. He reread the last portion of
the amendment and understood that the maximum was twice the
amount of a residents fee. He was not sure that the
commission could guarantee the outcome due to the
regulatory process. He asked whether establishing the
increased fees was in question if the proposal went through
the regulatory process. Mr. Bullard indicated that the
amendment put the onus on the department to determine what
extra burden non-resident sport fishing guides and sport
fishing operators could contribute. He voiced that the
determination was the legal amount established by the
Alaska Supreme Court. Representative Wool wanted to double
the fees. He referred to AS 08.01.065 that doubled the fee
for non-resident big game guide licenses. His amendment was
paralleling the statute. He was aware that his amendment
could be challenged and doubted anyone would initiate a
lawsuit to save $100 or $200 dollars. He was willing to
accept the risk and go with his amendment rather than the
conceptual amendment. He felt that the amount determined
through the regulatory process would be negligible. He
voiced that the big game statutes simply implemented the
increase through statute. He discerned that the number of
guides was small, and he would rather stick to his
amendment seeing that a statute existed for big game
guides.
Co-Chair Merrick reported that the committee had been
joined by Representative Edgmon. She asked Mr. Bullard for
comment.
Mr. Bullard responded that in terms of the legal analysis
it was irrelevant what else existed in statute, it was the
appraisal of what the court would do if the statute was
challenged that mattered. The language that was used in the
conceptual amendment was the same as the language used for
non-resident commercial fishing guides. The language was
the result of previous legal challenges. He concluded that
the language in the conceptual amendment had a greater
chance of being upheld in court rather than a statute that
simply stated the fee was doubled.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang was concerned with the language
stating the department shall establish the non-resident
surcharged annually. He thought it would require an annual
review process.
Mr. Bullard responded that the fee would be an annual
surcharge. He thought that if the department believed that
nothing had changed regarding the cost posed by non-
residents there was no reason the department would have to
change it. He could not speak to the burden the process
placed on the department.
Representative Rasmussen thought that the burden placed on
the department was being exaggerated. She believed that it
was relatively simple for the department to establish the
fee and mirror the process for the commercial fishing
license fees. She was not comfortable supporting an
amendment that might draw a lawsuit.
2:04:39 PM
Representative Josephson deduced that when the department
established the surcharge as required in AS 16.43. 160, the
test the commissioner would apply would be the Carlson test
from a prior case. He wondered if he was correct. Mr.
Bullard responded affirmatively. Representative Josephson
surmised that DFG needed funding to administer the logbook
program that was obligated under treaties. He asked if the
bill, as amended, provided the amount of funding necessary
to carry out the logbook program. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
replied that it did not entirely. However, the department
had secured federal grants from the Halibut Commission to
make up the difference. He was uncertain whether the
funding was sufficient if freshwater fishing was added to
the program. He was not familiar with how the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) set its fees for non-
residents.
2:07:15 PM
Representative Wool asked about the case challenge that
Representative Josephson was referring to. He wondered if
the case had to do with non-resident fees for licenses. Mr.
Bullard responded that there were three cases regarding
non-resident fees for commercial fishing entry permits and
interim use entry permits. Representative Wool understood
that there were different fees non-resident commercial
fishers established under the CFEC. He deduced that it was
somehow determined that it cost more to administer licenses
to non-residents. He found himself in a quandary, he did
not want to jeopardize the bill, but the big game guide
statute had not been challenged. He believed that
ultimately, every law was subject to potential lawsuits.
2:09:01 PM
Representative Carpenter asked how many out of state guides
were licensed in 2019 or 2021. He deemed that the
information would help determine the amount of potential
revenue raised by increased fees. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
reported that in 2020 the number of resident licenses by
businesses was 90, the combination was 904, and the guides
amounted to 922. He specified that for the same year for
non-residents there were 29 businesses, 133 combinations
and 726 guides. The average over 5 years was 103 resident
businesses, 950 combination and guides were 1,153. In terms
of non-resident licenses, there were 33 businesses, 150
combinations, and 976 guides.
2:10:58 PM
AT EASE
2:14:45 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter referred to a document provided by
Commissioner Vincent-Lang [copy of an email to the
commissioner (copy on file)] and pointed to the chart
titled Non-Resident Licenses/Registrations Issued by Type
and Year, 2016 - 2020 and noted the total revenue amount
of $268,240 thousand. He calculated that the increase would
be 50 percent because it reflected the $400 fee contained
in the bill.
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 2.
2:15:44 PM
Representative Edgmon determined that the committee could
not determine what the legal risk could be, even if more
legal entities were consulted. He thought that Alaska would
not be the only state that has a resident versus non-
resident differential. He voiced that he was willing to
take the risk of adopting Amendment 2. He asked whether the
commissioner could comment on other states having a
resident versus non-resident licensing structure.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that other states had
differential rates. He guessed that if the law was
challenged that the non-resident portion would be repealed.
Representative Edgmon recalled that the Carlson case
required the state to reimburse the licensees.
2:17:57 PM
Representative Wool cited the document distributed by the
commissioner and asked whether the charts were accurate or
if it was a projection of what it would be under the
legislation. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that it
reflected what the amount would be under the legislation at
a 2 to 1 ratio. Representative Wool deduced that the
difference was $60 thousand and as high as calculated in
the prior discussion. He indicated that the Carlson Case
denied a three times higher non-resident surcharge, not a
twice higher surcharge. He wanted to offer his amendment
since it asked for a doubling of the resident fee.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Rasmussen thought that her amendment was
more appropriate, and the committee should consider the
legality of the statute and avoid any risk of a lawsuit.
Representative Wool appreciated the comments made by
Representative Rasmussen. He worried that it was unknown
how the department would justify the surcharge and that it
could be less than 50 percent. He believed that it was
simpler to double the fee and that there was precedent
for his proposal.
Representative LeBon asked the commissioner whether he had
stated that there were sufficient revenues to administer
the program without a fee increase. Commissioner Vincent-
Lang answered that he stated there would be insufficient
revenue without any surcharge and if the differential was
eliminated, he would need to make up the difference with
federal funding sources.
2:21:58 PM
Representative LeBon surmised that the commissioner had
federal funding to fall back on and guessed that the need
for the additional revenue included in the amendments was
not compelling. Commissioner Vincent-Lang agreed only if
it applied to the saltwater program. The authority to add a
surcharge for a freshwater logbook program was contained in
the bill. Representative LeBon wanted guidance from the
commissioner and asked if the commissioner wanted the
amendment. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that it was
entirely the legislatures decision. He refused to provide
a definitive answer.
Representative Wool commented that he was surprised to
learn that there were almost equal numbers of resident and
non-resident guides. In addition, the amendment would
authorize a surcharge for a freshwater logbook program,
therefore both reasons compelled him to offer his
amendment.
Representative Edgmon asked about the impacts of non-
resident participation with the passage of the amendment.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that when the licensing
fees were raised for sportfishermen, licenses declined by 5
to 10 percent. He thought that the impact to the guide
license would be negligible, since it was a profession, and
the licenses were paid for by their service fees.
Representative Carpenter asked how close Amendment 1 came
to fully funding the logbook program for non-residents.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that it got the
department much closer; almost fully funded.
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2
was adopted.
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW Amendment 3.
2:26:28 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSHB 79 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Merrick, Ortiz, Carpenter, Edgmon,
Josephson, Rasmussen, Wool, LeBon, Thompson
OPPOSED: Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (10/1).
CSHB 79 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Fish and Game.
2:29:54 PM
AT EASE
2:33:40 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 80 Amendment 3 Ortiz 042221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 SEAGO Comment Wool Amendment 2 042221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 042221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 DFG Backup to Amendments 2 3 022221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |