Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/24/2024 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB396 | |
| HB195 | |
| HB114 | |
| SB161 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
2:59:31 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to
administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial set
net entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
set net entry permits; providing for the termination of state
set net tract leases under the buy-back program; closing certain
water to commercial fishing; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 195(FSH).]
2:59:59 PM
CHAIR MCKAY moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 195(FSH), labeled
33-LS0807\B.2, Bullard, 4/23/24, which read as follows:
Page 7, line 10:
Delete "how"
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "will be determined"
Insert "to be offered"
Page 8, line 27, through page 9, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) Participation in the buy-back program
established under this section is voluntary. An
individual qualified under this section may apply
electronically on a form provided by the commission to
have the individual's entry permit purchased under
this section. The commission shall provide each
applicant with an electronic receipt evidencing the
date and time the individual's application was
received. Subject to appropriation and to (c) of this
section, the commission shall buy back not more than
300 unencumbered entry permits in the order in which
applicant names are drawn by a lottery. If an
applicant whose permit has been selected for purchase
is disqualified from participation in the program
under (c) of this section, elects not to participate
in the buy-back program, fails to sign the contract of
sale within a period specified by the commission, or
fails to provide all of the information required under
(a) of this section, the commission shall, subject to
(c) of this section, offer to buy back the entry
permit of the applicant whose name was next selected
in the lottery."
Page 9, line 5, following "applicant":
Insert "whose name is selected in the lottery
under this section"
Page 9, lines 17 - 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) buy back the entry permit of an
applicant selected in the lottery under this section
for $200,000, less administrative costs; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
3:00:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:00:09 PM
CHAIR MCKAY explained that Amendment 1 would mostly return the
bill to its original version. He stated that the original
version of the bill received strong testimony in support, but
offered his understanding that testifiers were unaware the bill
had been significantly altered in the House Special Committee on
Fisheries. He asked Representative Ruffridge to speak on
Amendment 1 and be available for questions.
3:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 195, echoed that Amendment 1 would return CSHB
195(FSH) to its original version, with some changes. He
described the following changes: an increase to the number of
available permits from 200 to 300; a decrease to the permit
dollar amount from $260,000 to $200,000; and the establishment
of a permit lottery program. He primarily supported Amendment 1
due to its provision to establish the lottery program. He
believed the lottery is more effective in accomplishing a buy-
back program where the permit holders can opt in through an
elective process. He said HB 195 would provide the framework
for the lottery program, but fisheries and federal and/or
private partners would be responsible for accumulating the
funds.
3:03:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Representative Ruffridge whether
the support for HB 195 changed after the adoption of CSHB
195(FSH).
3:04:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered that the previous testimony
voiced concerns about CSHB 195(FSH).
3:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that he had heard the same.
3:05:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his belief that the establishment
of an elective process to participate in a buy-back and the
lottery program made it equitable. He expressed his
disappointment in CSHB 195(FSH), as it would remove the permit
lottery program. However, he opined the $200,000 is overpriced.
He offered his understanding that the current average per permit
was approximately $20,000.
3:06:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE stated he agreed with Representative
McCabe regarding the lottery program, so long as the intent was
to operate a fishery. He explained that the dollar amount
[$200,000] was meant to emulate profits that fisheries may have
earned by remaining open instead of electing to give up permits
and shut down business.
3:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what might happen with any surplus
funds/equipment/investments into the fisheries. He voiced
concern that the large dollar amount [$200,000] might result in
the monetization of permits. He also conceded that this concern
may be mitigated by designating the fishermen, and not the
state, to raise funding.
3:09:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE suggested that fishermen who have their
permits bought may decide to auction their equipment or leave
the industry entirely, but that remaining fisherman would have a
vested interest in the area. He reiterated the intent of the
bill to provide framework, not funding, for the lottery program.
3:11:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether CSHB 195(FSH) would pro-
rate the amount of money paid to fisherman who volunteered to
have their permit bought back based on the amount of money
available and the number of fishermen who volunteered. He then
asked for confirmation that Amendment 1 would allot a $200,000
maximum to be paid to fishermen.
3:12:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered yes.
3:12:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what might happen if the funding
source were insufficient to provide the full $200,000 for all
the lottery winners. He asked if there is a provision for pro-
rating the amount to be paid to the fishermen.
3:12:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered that the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC) would manage the lottery and buy-back
program. He offered his understanding that the election to opt
into the buy-back program would not proceed until there were
funds available to buy all 300 permits.
3:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many fishermen wanted to take
advantage of the buy-back program and give up their permits.
3:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said currently there are fishermen not
allowed to fish, and he believed that there are many people who
would opt-in to the program due to instability of some
fisheries.
3:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 to CSHB 195[FSH], labeled: 33-LS0807\B.2, Bullard,
4/23/24, which read as follows:
Page 9, lines 6
Insert "a maximum of $200,000"
3:15:57 PM
CHAIR MCKAY objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:16:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would allow for more flexibility in the program,
with uncertainty of funds available.
3:16:244 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would affect the "viability of the program."
3:17:26 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, answered there are options on buy-back regulations
that still need to be developed, of which CFEC has not made a
final decision. He clarified there is a specific date for the
election to opt in the buy-back program [April 2025]. He made a
few suggestions, including waiting until there is the necessary
amount of money to conduct all buy-backs, or doing it in rounds
as funds become available. He offered his assumption that the
desired amount for every buy-back would be $200,000. He stated
support for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
3:18:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE shared his understanding that the $200,000
acted as an "artificial" maximum and the language of Conceptual
Amendment 1 already existed in Amendment 1.
3:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE confirmed that was the intent of
Amendment 1, but mentioned he was not opposed to the clarifying
language in Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:19:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared his understanding that the lottery
program would not be pro-rated; instead, every lottery winner
would receive $200,000 until the funds were depleted. He
contended that the $200,000 does not function as a maximum,
should every lottery winner receive $200,000, thus rendering
Conceptual Amendment 1 unnecessary. He asked whether the
program, under Amendment 1, would pay every lottery winner no
less than $200,000 until funds were unavailable.
3:21:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that the amount that a person
might receive from a buy-back would depend on the dollar amount
available, which is an unknown variable, given the prescribed
funding sources. After the election, he suggested, through
regulation, CFEC could go through rounds of buy-backs or put all
available permits out, should those funds be available. Through
regulation, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 would allow a
reduction of the dollar amount, should there be a desire. He
added that reducing the dollar amount would allow for more
permits to be bought back.
3:22:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated the details of the buy-back
program, established by CFEC, would be on the ballot and
"ratified by the people [permit-holders]," according to page 7,
line 9 of CSHB 195(FSH).
3:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE agreed.
3:23:50 PM
CHAIR MCKAY removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
3:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS proposed that a $60 million budget with a
valuation of $200,000 per permit would satisfy program
participants. Furthermore, if $30 million was budgeted with
each permit valuation at $100,000 for 300 permits, that may
still be accepted by program participants. She raised concerns
that a $200,000 limit would render the buy-back program
inaccessible to half the prospective participants and remove
flexibility by having a firm cap. She raised further concerns
on the clarity of the language and reliance on the intent of a
body when words can be more concise.
3:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected [to the motion to adopt
Conceptual 1 to Amendment 1].
3:24:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Armstrong, Mears,
and Dibert voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1 to CSHB 195(FSH). Representatives McCabe, Baker, Wright,
Rauscher, Saddler, and McKay voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3 to 6.
CHAIR MCKAY requested a motion.
3:26:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:26 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.
3:26:45 PM
CHAIR MCKAY inquired about any objections regarding Amendment 1.
3:27:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected to Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wright, Armstrong,
Dibert, McKay, Baker, Rauscher, Saddler, and McCabe voted in
favor of Amendment 1 to CSHB 195(FSH). Representative Mears
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote
of 8 to 1.
3:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report CSHB 195(FSH), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
195(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.