Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/06/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB73 | |
| SB157 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB286 | |
| HB98 | |
| HB218 | |
| SB157 | |
| HB147 | |
| HB218 | |
| SB46 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 275 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 46 | ||
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 218(FIN)
"An Act relating to cost recovery fisheries for private
nonprofit hatchery facilities."
11:00:10 AM
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
IAN FISK, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, stated that this
bill would address the method through which private non-profit
hatcheries in the State recover their operational expenses.
Representative Thomas, who was instrumental in the development of a
hatchery in Juneau, has been a long time supporter of the hatchery
system. Historically, these hatcheries have contracted with a
single processor and typically "only a couple of vessels actually
harvest" the fish. This operation typically would occur in the area
in front of the hatchery. "The rate of the total run that is
actually harvested by hatcheries varies greatly around the State."
The alternate cost recovery method being proposed in this
legislation would allow a hatchery to elect to have a variable rate
assessment imposed on fishermen were it "to open up their process".
He emphasized that the proposal would be optional; a hatchery could
impose it were it deemed to be in their best interest.
Mr. Fisk stated that were a hatchery to elect to implement this
proposal, it would "work with representatives of the commercial
fishing fleets to develop a process by which they could do this."
11:01:54 AM
Senator Stedman asked whether there is "unanimous support" for this
proposal.
11:02:03 AM
Mr. Fisk voiced that fishermen's support for this bill would be
"about as close to unanimous support as you would get on any
fishing industry bill." The lone opposition that has been received
to this bill has been from the Board of the Northern Southeast
Regional Aquacultural Association (NSRAA). He noted that "some
findings" language was removed from the bill is response to some
concerns that had been raised by the Valdez Hatchery.
Senator Stedman understood that the impetus behind this bill was
the cost recovery needs of the Hidden Falls Hatchery.
Mr. Fisk affirmed. The Hidden Falls Hatchery, which is a member of
NSRAA, "is one of the most successful hatchery programs in the
State". It was anticipated that that hatchery would be one of the
first that would elect to impose the cost recovery option being
proposed in this bill because "they actually don't take that much
for their cost recovery." In other words, because they had paid
their debt down, they were in a better position to take this risk
than other hatcheries. The risk involved would be that this
hatchery would allow "their cost recovery to be collected through
an assessment and not by simply hiring a couple of boats."
Senator Stedman ascertained therefore that the Hidden Falls
Hatchery is in support of this legislation.
Mr. Fisk clarified that the Hidden Falls Hatchery is not in support
of this bill.
Mr. Fisk stated that substantial effort was made to work with the
director of NSRAA throughout the development of this bill. Numerous
changes were made in response to his suggestions, including the
adjustment of the ceiling on the rate and the removal of certain
findings. The process "is indicative of the general lay of the land
here in this hatchery cost recovery issue. That even if we were
presenting them with an option, I think part of the concern is that
they are afraid that it's not going to be optional in the long run"
as something would change that would make this a mandatory bill. He
assured "that that is absolutely not the intent."
Co-Chair Green intoned being unfamiliar with fisheries issues.
Continuing, she voiced concern as to whether additional legislation
might occur that could evolve this relatively "benign" program to
becoming more active or "be the start of something bad or
different."
11:05:42 AM
Mr. Fisk characterized this legislation as being "the start of
something good." It would be "the first step" in providing
fishermen the ability "to access more fish". "Hatcheries were
created during times of low abundance to enhance our runs of fish
for the benefit of the common property users." There was no intent
for the hatchery to be the primary harvesters of the fish. However,
as the result of the need to recover costs, the Department of Fish
and Game allowed hatcheries "to harvest fish under the current
method". This legislation would widen Statute to include this
optional cost recovery method. It would not be deemed proper to
require this method to be implemented due to the fact that
hatcheries "have different financial situations and different
species of fish".
11:06:44 AM
Senator Stedman recognized that fact that numerous fishermen, and
probably fish processors, support the concept being proposed in
this legislation. However, it should be noted that NSRAA does not
support the legislation. To that point, he asked for further
information regarding the makeup of the NSRAA Board.
11:07:31 AM
Co-Chair Green interjected to say that, due to time constraints,
the bill would be HELD in Committee. Further discussion of the bill
would occur when the Committee reconvened.
[NOTE: This bill was readdressed later in the meeting. See Time
Stamp 4:46:24 PM.]
RECESS TO CALL OF THE CHAIR: 11:08:15 AM / 4:37:15 PM
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 218(FIN)
"An Act relating to cost recovery fisheries for private
nonprofit hatchery facilities."
This bill was again before the Committee.
4:46:27 PM
IAN FISK, Staff to Representative Bill Thomas, the bill's sponsor,
responded to Senator Stedman's earlier question regarding which
entities were represented on the Board of the Northern Southeast
Regional Aquaculture Association (ASRAA). The Board is comprised of
15 commercial fishermen who represent equal components of the
"three predominate gear groups": trollers, seiners, and
gillnetters.
Senator Stedman acknowledged.
4:47:51 PM
PETE ESQUIRO, General Manager, NSRAA, testified via teleconference
from Sitka in opposition to the bill. He noted that the
organization testified at each hearing of the bill and had worked
with the bill's sponsor in an effort to improve the bill by
providing "some more reason for any hatchery operator to elect to
use the assessment option" proposed in this bill. However, NSRAA
has determined that discussions must continue in regards to other
major issues such as whether "the assessment would be enforceable";
its affect on the net value of the fishery resource as compared to
now; how the program would be implemented, where the money to
support the first year of operation would be derived, or where
funding might come from in years when assessments provided lower
income than required. In addition, such things as whether the
effects of the program would be equal on all fishermen, and how
this assessment program would affect other gear groups outside of
the seine fishery should be considered.
Mr. Esquiro continued that the NSRAA Board currently has a formula
that it applies to cost recovery. This formula would allow for
those times when one of the programs might not harvest the
anticipated amount of fish; in that case, one of the other cost
recovery programs could assist in providing the required
compensation. Removal of one program from the overall program would
have an impact on the total program. Other concerns would include
the unintended harvesting of other species of fish. These are
examples of the many important issues that must be discussed.
4:51:41 PM
Mr. Esquiro opposed the inclusion of another level of bureaucracy
in the hatchery program as being proposed in Section 1(d) on page
two line 30 through page three line 11. The determination of such
things as the reasonableness of maintenance expenses should be made
the hatchery corporation's board of directors rather than the
Department of Community and Economic Development or the Department
of Revenue. A hatchery's board of directors has the complete
judiciary responsible for the hatchery corporation. Years of
successful hatchery operations are testament to the NSRAA Board of
Directors' ability in this regard.
4:52:33 PM
Mr. Esquiro stated that, due to the fact that this bill is
permissive, there might be a question as to reason that the NSRAA
Board would oppose it. While few options have been developed
through which to address hatchery cost recovery needs, the fact
that numerous issues are yet to be resolved is the reason for the
opposition.
Mr. Esquiro declared that it was apparent from the onset that the
reason for this bill was an endeavor to manage the Hidden Falls
chum salmon fishery. There are numerous views among seine fishermen
in regards to how openings should occur. There are continuing
variables and moving targets. "Nothing is guaranteed" when managing
a fishery; the endeavor would be to manage a fishery as well as
possible. "The paramount goal" of NSCRAA would be to continue "to
provide as many fish as we possibly can to the common property
fisheries."
4:53:54 PM
Senator Stedman and Co-Chair Green thanked Mr. Esquiro for this
testimony.
Mr. Fisk pointed out that many details are included in the proposed
plan in order to allow each hatchery to develop its own plan. Those
details should be developed outside of this legislative body. Each
hatchery has its own unique situation.
4:54:52 PM
Mr. Fisk stated that fishermen throughout Southeast Alaska have
expressed interest in changing the cost recovery system. The seine
fishery group in Southeast Alaska was the first group to forward
such an attempt. However, the bill was developed to allow
hatcheries in other areas of the State to implement the proposed
process.
Mr. Fish noted that Mr. Esquiro would be able to develop plans that
would work in the hatcheries he was involved with. He noted that
the bill would not change the judiciary responsibly of a hatchery's
board.
Senator Stedman pointed out that this Committee is the only
committee of referral for this bill. Noting that the legislation
was not time dependent and determining that NSRAA did not desire
the cost recovery system to occur at this time, he requested that
the bill receive a referral to the Senate Resources Committee. That
committee could address the concerns of the hatcheries and the
stakeholders.
AT EASE 4:56:21 PM / 4:57:52 PM
Senator Stedman moved to report the bill from Committee with the
recommendation that it be referred to the Senate Resources
Committee for additional review.
Co-Chair Green clarified that the Committee's recommendation would
be that the bill be referred to the Senate Resources Committee.
Senator Hoffman objected and suggested that the bill should instead
be sent to the Senate Rules Committee.
AT EASE 4:58:48 PM / 4:59:48 PM
Senator Hoffman removed his objection.
Co-Chair Green stated that the intent of the Committee was to
return the bill to the Senate with the recommendation that the
Senate President add a Senate Resources Committee referral to it.
There being no further objection, the CS HB 218(FIN) was RETURNED
to the Senate with a Memorandum from Senator Green to Senate
President Ben Stevens, dated May 6, 2005, [copy on file] requesting
that a Senate Resources Committee referral be added to the bill.
AT EASE 5:00:21 PM / 5:09:51 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|