Legislature(2017 - 2018)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/23/2018 01:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB267 | |
| HB219 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 267(RES)
"An Act requiring the release of certain records
relating to big game hunters, guided hunts, and guided
sport fishing activities to municipalities for
verification of taxes payable; and providing for an
effective date."
Co-Chair MacKinnon reported that the bill was previously
heard in committee on April 16, 2018 and during the morning
meeting on April 23, 2018.
1:53:23 PM
Senator Micciche relayed concerns over the confidentiality
of log book information. He asked for specifics regarding
log book information and whether the information would
remain confidential when the municipalities received the
data.
TOM BROOKOVER, DIRECTOR, SPORT FISH DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), answered
that the division collected the information through a
program that required sportfishing business owners and
guides to register with the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) and to complete a log book. He delineated that the
program included two guide books; one for salt water
fishing and one for fresh water fishing. He listed the
required information: The Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
boat registration number or the United States (US) Coast
Guard number along with the locations where guide services
were provided; data for the specific angler including the
name or license number, the catch species, and number
harvested. The sport fishing business owner was responsible
for turning the log book over to the division. He furthered
that the program was in place since 2005. The purpose of
the program was to collect data needed for management,
conservation of the resource, and regulation of the
industry. He pointed out that the division conducted an
Annual Statewide Harvest Survey (ASHS) from guided and
unguided anglers and on-site creel surveys (or angler
interviews) at specific sites on specific times in addition
to the logbook program. He indicated that the creel survey
and the logbooks provided detailed information versus the
generalized information collected via the ASHS. The
logbooks were a significant source of data due to the level
of specificity provided. In some cases, it was the only
information collected and the department wanted to ensure
the "integrity and quality" of the data. He related that
the division questioned what purpose the logbook data would
serve the municipalities. The division used the data for
fishery management, conservation, and guided activity
regulation, which was different from the assumed purpose of
verifying municipal tax reporting. He voiced the division's
concern regarding the proposed use of the data and noted
that the division was uncertain about the consequences of
providing the information to municipalities.
1:58:50 PM
Senator Micciche ascertained that the logbook location
information did not require GPS data and the location was
only identified by name of the waterbody. Mr. Brookover
replied in the affirmative and added that the freshwater
logbook requested the name of lake, stream, or river by
area, and the salt water location was identified through
coded areas. The division provided a prescribed list of
locations for both fresh or saltwater.
Senator Micciche informed the committee that the
information was protected through AS 11.56.850, Official
Misconduct statutes, and carried a Class A misdemeanor for
violations and AS 11.56.860, relating to Misuse of
Confidential Information another Class A misdemeanor. He
deduced that the only reason the data would be used was to
determine the number of days of service provided to the
client and if it matched the tax information.
2:00:43 PM
TIM CLARK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, confirmed
that Senator Micciche's statements were correct and
indicated that the consequences for breaching
confidentiality at the municipal level was "serious."
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Brookover if the data the
division would share with a municipality would contain a
warning against misuse. Mr. Brookover responded that the
division would supply the information in a summary format
as opposed to the logbook sheets and was consistent with
how DFG supplied other types of requested information. He
was uncertain how or if a warning in respect to
confidentiality would be addressed.
Senator Micciche understood that the information would be
aggregated and include the total number of trips but not
the exact locations. He asked for confirmation. Mr.
Brookover answered in the affirmative. He noted that the
bill used the words "may release records" and did not
include details about the level of specificity. The
division would initially aggregate the data, but the
specificity depended on the municipalities needs and how
the activities were taxed. However, the bill did not
prohibit the division from responding to more specific
requests, if the tax policy was detailed and taxed items
like the number of anglers, specific location, or time
periods. He summarized that the division would aggregate
the information but provide more detailed information by
request. Senator Micciche emphasized that the state
"protected tax payer information in every other aspect" and
warned that he would "watch" the flow of information. The
legislative intent was not to provide specific information.
He understood that the intent of the bill was for data that
provided "an aggregated cross check" of information.
2:04:40 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon corrected his statement and read from
the bill:
The bill shall make hunting records and activity
reports available to a municipality that levels a tax
on those activities if the information concerned hunts
or activities occurring within the four years
proceeding the date and the municipalities request the
records for the purpose of verifying taxes payable and
the municipality agree to maintain the confidentiality
of the records.
Co-Chair MacKinnon added that the municipality would
receive specific information, which was the only way a tax
audit could proceed.
Mr. Clark relayed that the municipality the sponsor had
been working closely with employed a simple flat tax per
day on the fishing and hunting activities within its
boundaries.
Vice-Chair Bishop referenced testimony that the lost
revenue amounted to between $50 thousand and $100 thousand
in the Lake and Peninsula Borough. He asked whether he was
correct. Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon alerted that a fee would be charged to
the municipality that requested the data. She asked Mr.
Brookover whether the 4-year's prior information was easily
accessible. Mr. Brookover replied that the data was
available, but the division would need to configure the
data base and develop the summary reports to enable
responses to the request. He noted the fiscal note had
identified the implementation costs. Co-Chair MacKinnon
asked whether DFG would have to reenter the data. Mr.
Brookover responded in the negative and reiterated that the
summary reporting function would need to be created because
a municipal boundary did not match the division's location
boundaries but the data itself existed.
2:08:21 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon cited page 1, line 10 under AS 08.54.760
(b) and noted the words, "The department shall make hunt
records and activity reports available She turned to AS
16.05.815(a) on page 2, lines 20 and 21 and read the
following, "The department and the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission may release?" She asked about
the differences between the use of "may" or "shall." Mr.
Clark was uncertain. He guessed that use of the term for
the provision related to sport fishing "fit most logically"
with existing statute and the hunting records provision
was drafted as a new section.
Co-Chair MacKinnon observed that the provision was not
exclusive to sport fishing and read the following from the
bill, "? the landings of fish, shellfish, or fishery
products, and annual statistical reports of fishermen,
buyers, and processors?" She inquired whether the area
where the fish was caught would be provided to the taxing
authority. Mr. Clark responded that when the statute
corresponded specifically to the logbook information, the
answer was in the affirmative. The logbook information was
providing the municipality confirmation that the activity
took place within its jurisdiction. Co-Chair MacKinnon
wondered whether that applied to commercial fishers. Mr.
Clark replied that the part of the provision concerning
commercial fishers was long existing and related to large
regions where the commercial fishery harvest was landed
versus where it was caught.
2:11:13 PM
Senator Stevens listed the three areas in the state that
collected the type of tax; the Lake and Peninsula Borough,
Sitka, and Yakutat. He noted that Yakutat was in his
district and thought that the tax was a per day tax and the
aggregate summary would be adequate. He asked whether Mr.
Clark knew how Yakutat structured its tax. He voiced that
Yakutat only received half of the amount of tax it was
owed. Mr. Clark recalled testimony from Yakutat's manager
that the tax was like a severance tax.
2:13:00 PM
Vice-Chair Bishop MOVED to REPORT CSHB 267(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 267(RES) was REPORTED out of committee with three "do
pass" recommendations and three "no recommendation"; and
with one new fiscal note from the Department of Fish and
Game; one previously published zero fiscal note: FN 1(DFG);
and one previously published fiscal impact note: FN2 (CED).
2:13:25 PM
AT EASE
2:15:55 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB106 Additional Document-HFIN Questions Memo 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sectional Analysis ver D 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Additional Document-SJUD Questions Memo 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Sponsor Statement 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Supporting Document-Letters of Support 2.22.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Updated Sectional Analysis ver D 4.23.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |
| HB106 Updated Sponsor Statement 4.23.18.pdf |
SFIN 4/23/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HB 106 |