Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/20/2021 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 | |
| HB100 | |
| HB126 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| SB22 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act establishing the sport fishing hatchery
facilities account; establishing the sport fishing
facility surcharge; and providing for an effective
date."
10:09:10 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "fisheries management,"
Insert "sport fisheries management, sport"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "research,"
Insert "research, and"
Delete ", and habitat restoration"
Page I, lines 12 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) the remainder of each surcharge
collected to the department's sport fishing
hatchery facilities, allocated equally to
each facility, for the operations,
maintenance, and sport fishing stock
enhancement projects of the facilities."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 (copy on file).
Strike lines 5-8
On line 13: strike "each facility" and replace with
"the Southeast region hatchery facilities, William
Jack Hernandez Hatchery, Ruth Burnett Hatchery,"
Representative Ortiz requested an at ease to pass out the
conceptual amendment.
10:09:53 AM
AT EASE
10:16:26 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz restated his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
Representative LeBon OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained that his original amendment was
to help put money back. It was specifically designed to put
money where it had been generated - in Southeast Alaska.
Just shy of one-third sport fish license surcharge revenue
($1.9 million) was generated from sport fish license sales.
The first part of his original amendment further specified
that the surcharge was meant to benefit sport fish.
However, given the way his amendment was currently written
he was offering Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. The
conceptual amendment on line 13 would strike the words
"each facility" and replace it with "the Southeast Region
Hatchery facilities: William Jack Hernandez Hatchery and
Ruth Bernett Hatchery." The conceptual amendment would also
strike lines 5-8 of the amendment because upon further
review it was something that was adopted in the House
Fisheries Committee.
Representative Rasmussen asked if currently the surcharge
was only impacting the Southeast fisheries rather than it
being a statewide surcharge on all licenses.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that the surcharge did
two things. First, it paid for the repayment of bonds for
the Fairbanks and Anchorage hatcheries. It also took
$500,000 off the top for enhancement projects in Southeast
Alaska in recognition that the state did not build a
hatchery there. The surcharge ended in the prior December
when the bonds were paid off. When the surcharge went away,
the $500,000 for Southeast Alaska was lost. Currently there
was no surcharge. The bill would reinstate the surcharge at
a reduced rate to pay for long-term state obligations for
the maintenance of the Fairbanks and Anchorage Hatcheries.
It would also reinstate the $500,000 payments to Southeast
Alaska non-profit hatcheries that provided sport fishing
opportunities.
10:20:14 AM
Representative Rasmussen asked if the specific hatcheries
mentioned in the conceptual amendment included Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Southeast Alaska. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
did not have the amendment in front of him.
Vice-Chair Ortiz answered Representative Rasmussen's
question. The conceptual amendment changed the amendment to
a regional distinction because in Southeast Alaska some of
the resources taken from the surcharge went to two
different facilities one in Juneau and one in Petersburg.
He further explained that the original amendment looked
like he was trying to get equal distribution amongst each
facility. That was not his intent. His intent was to give
equal distribution to each region. The original amendment
intent was that each region would receive and equal
distribution since the bonds had been paid in full. Prior
to the amendment, significantly more resources had gone
towards the facilities in Fairbanks and Anchorage to pay
off the bonds.
10:22:38 AM
Representative Rasmussen wanted to double check that the
amendment would distribute one-third to the Southeast
Region hatchery facilities, one-third to the William Jack
Hernandez Hatchery, and one-third to the Ruth Bernett
Hatchery.
Mr. Bullard replied that, if the intent of the conceptual
amendment was to ensure that the funds were distributed
regionally, it would be best for the amendment to provide
that they should be distributed regionally rather than
naming specific facilities. He thought there could be a
potential challenge Under Article 2, Section 129 of the
Alaska Constitution that prohibited local and special acts.
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted that the purpose of the conceptual
amendment was to speak regionally rather than to specific
facilities. Representative Rasmussen was confused because
certain hatcheries were named. Vice-Chair Ortiz was fine
with making a change to the wording. He was happy to
reflect equal distribution within the 3 regions. He asked
the department if there were any other facilities in
Anchorage or Fairbanks that the state owned that would
benefit from the surcharge that was being levied.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang clarified that the two primary
sport fisheries in Alaska were the Ruth Burnett Sport Fish
Hatchery in Fairbanks and the Williom Jack Hernandez Sport
Fush Hatchery in Anchorage. In Southeast Alaska there were
state-owned hatcheries that were owned and operated by a
private nonprofit (PNP) in Southeast. Currently, the state-
owned programs at Crystal Lake which produced fish for
sport fishing as well as the DIPAC Hatchery which produced
fish for King Slamon. His intent was to continue to partner
with people in Southeast Alaska to provide for some long-
term maintenance associated with those facilities owned by
the state. In interior Alaska, the state did not have any
other PNP hatcheries in which it was subcontracting out
those services.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang also noted that one of the things
he had discussed with Vice-Chair Ortiz was that the expense
was allocated equally across a timeframe. He provided an
example. The goal was not to distribute equally on an
annual basis.
10:26:56 AM
AT EASE
10:30:54 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz WITHDREW Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
Representative Wool touched on the comments by the
commissioner about the different facilities being managed
differently. He assumed they likely had different fiscal
needs. He asked the commissioner to elaborate.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang offered that the Fairbanks and
Anchorage hatcheries were benefiting sport fishermen at 100
percent. The hatcheries in Southeast Alaska were providing
a mix of sport and commercial opportunities. He used
Crystal Lake as an example, a state-owned facility. The
state contracted with the PNP to provide fish for sport
fisheries that were important in the Juneau area. It was
important since the treaty had become more constraining
with southern bound fish. The department had done a
significant amount of replacement with fish hatchery stock.
The state would use some of the surcharge revenue to
replace the raceways at Crystal Lake which were in bad need
of repair. The state could not keep up its current
production levels up much less expand production levels to
provide those opportunities. The department would continue
to pay to support the PNPs to provide sport fishing
opportunities at the hatcheries.
10:33:01 AM
Representative Wool understood the concept of spreading the
wealth to different regions and not focusing on a single
area. He also understood that the legislature could not
dedicate funds. Even though a fee might be slated for
something specific, it could be used for something else. He
asked if there was a crisis or shortage in which the
department could not pay for maintenance for one facility
because of a constraint of money for another facility. He
asked if there were facilities that were not being
maintained or were being neglected because of regional
funding considerations.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang raised the concern regarding the
verbiage "allocated equally" because a future legislator
might claim that in any given year the legislature did not
give any money to Southeast Alaska. For example, in one
year the department might spend $2.5 million for
maintenance at Crystal Lake exceeding the relative
allocation equally. He was looking for some additional
guidance to ensure that, overtime, the contributions were
based on the number of licenses purchased in a specific
region.
Representative Wool referred to the chart showing the
number of licenses purchased and commented that it had some
relevance. He heard that 80 percent of them came from out
of state. There were also online purchases which did not
show a location, but the information was extrapolated from
previous data prior to heavy usage online. He was somewhat
concerned about using the location where the licenses were
purchased to determine where the money was spent. He noted
the importance of maintaining all of the state's
facilities. He did not want to constrain the department
with any "use it or lose it" parameters.
Co-Chair Merrick set HB 80 aside. She thanked the
commissioner for being at the meeting.
HB 80 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 80 Amendment 1 Ortiz 041721.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| SB22 Amendment 1 Josephson 041721.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
SB 22 |
| HB 79 Amendment 1 Carpenter 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 80 Amendment 2 Carpenter 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 Amendment 2 Wool 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 79 |
| HB 100 Response to Co Chair Merrick 041921.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 100 |
| HB 80 KRSMA Letter 4-19-2021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 80 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 Ortiz 042021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - Employment Effects of Unemployment Insurance Generosity During the Pandemic, 7.14.20.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - NBER Paper, 2021.pdf |
HFIN 4/20/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |