Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
04/09/2025 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB130 | |
| SB135 | |
| SB131 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 131 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 9, 2025
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Matt Claman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to the fisheries product development tax
credit; providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of sec. 2, ch. 31, SLA 2022; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to the sharing of tax revenue from the
fisheries business tax and fishery resource landing tax with
municipalities; relating to municipal reports on the shared tax
revenue; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to the duties of the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute; and relating to the seafood marketing assessment."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 67
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 130
SHORT TITLE: FISHERIES PROD DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF TASK FORCE EVAL ALASKA SEAFOOD
INDUSTRY
03/12/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/12/25 (S) RES, FIN
03/31/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/25 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/25 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/09/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 135
SHORT TITLE: REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF TASK FORCE EVAL ALASKA SEAFOOD
INDUSTRY
03/18/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/25 (S) RES, FIN
03/31/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/25 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/25 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/09/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 131
SHORT TITLE: DUTIES OF ASMI BOARD; MEANING OF SEAFOOD
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/14/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/25 (S) RES, FIN
04/09/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM LAMPKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 130 on behalf of the Senate
Rules Standing Committee by request of the Joint Legislative
Task Force Evaluating Alaska's Seafood Industry.
TOMI MARSH, E.C. Phillips and Son
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 130.
SHANNON CARROLL, Director
Alaska Public Affairs and Fisheries Development
Trident Seafoods
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 130.
SINCLAIR WILT, Vice President
Westward Seafoods
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 130.
TOM ENLOW, President and CEO
UniSea, Incorporated
Unalaska, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 130.
MEGAN O'NEIL, Director of Government Affairs
Canfisco Group
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 130.
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 130.
CHRIS BECKER, Lead Auditor
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 130.
[JULIE DECKER, President
Pacific Seafood Processors Association
Wrangell, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 130.]
TIM LAMPKIN, Staff
Senator Gary Stevens
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 135 on behalf of the Senate
Rules Standing Committee by request of the Joint Legislative
Task Force Evaluating Alaska's Seafood Industry.
SANDRA MOLLER, Director
Division of Community and Regional Affairs
Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 135.
CHRIS BECKER, Lead Auditor
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 135.
ANNA LATHAM, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development (DCCED)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 131 on behalf of the Rules
committee at the request of the governor.
JEREMY WOODROW, Executive Director
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 131 on behalf of the Rules
committee at the request of the governor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:22 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Kawasaki, Wielechowski, Hughes and Chair
Giessel. Senator Dunbar arrived thereafter.
SB 130-FISHERIES PROD DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
3:31:17 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to the fisheries product development tax
credit; providing for an effective date by amending the
effective date of sec. 2, ch. 31, SLA 2022; and providing for an
effective date."
3:31:35 PM
TIM LAMPKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said that SB 130 would extend tax
credit considerations to all fish species. It would also update
and clarify the tax credit qualifiers, components, and
innovation investments that would allow the processing fleet to
qualify and make investments eligible for tax credit
consideration.
3:32:43 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for an example of the technological
innovations addressed by SB 130.
3:32:55 PM
MR. LAMPKIN offered icing technologies and automations as
examples. He added that the processors could provide additional
detail.
3:33:23 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the qualified investments need to
be in Alaska (and Alaska-based).
3:33:39 PM
MR. LAMPKIN replied that the tax credits have historically
applied primarily to shore-based processing.
3:33:57 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for clarification regarding whether the
equipment and technologies need to be in Alaska. He asked
whether the processor could be located out-of-state.
3:34:21 PM
MR. LAMPKIN clarified that the processing must be done in-state,
for fish caught or landed in Alaskan waters.
3:34:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 120.
3:34:51 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR joined the meeting.
3:35:19 PM
TOMI MARSH, E.C. Phillips and Son, Ketchikan, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 130. She gave a brief overview of her work in
the fishing industry and of E.C. Phillips and Son. She stated
that innovation and quality have helped the fishing industry
persevere in the face of adverse market and economic conditions.
She said that equipment that elevates quality encourages full
utilization of resources. She briefly discussed how equipment
can encourage new, value-added products, which in turn help the
industry remain relevant in domestic and global markets. She
said that high quality and value-adding help E.C. Phillips and
Son diversify and access domestic and international markets. She
said SB 130 is crucial for fostering sustainability, innovation,
and economic growth in Alaska's seafood sector. Extending the
tax credit to all commercially harvested fish and shellfish
would allow seafood processers to continue investing in value-
added production, new technologies, and product diversification.
3:38:14 PM
SHANNON CARROLL, Director, Alaska Public Affairs and Fisheries
Development, Trident Seafoods, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 130. He provided a brief history and overview of
Trident Seafoods. He stated that SB 130 would incentivize
investments in new equipment, which would bring higher value and
quality to harvesters, customers, and communities. He pointed
towards rising costs, unfavorable currency markets, and
aggressive harvest and pricing out of Russia as challenges to
Alaska's seafood performance in the global market. He stated
that cutting costs and improving the quality and value of
Alaskan seafood products is imperative to the industry's success
and survival. This requires innovation and investment. He shared
that Trident Seafoods previously used the tax credit to improve
utilization, elevating "waste" into products for pet and health
markets.
3:40:13 PM
SINCLAIR WILT, Vice President, Westward Seafoods, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 130. He provided a brief
overview of Westward Seafoods. He briefly discussed how poor
market conditions are impacting the seafood industry in Alaska.
He stated that SB 130 would provide incentive to create value-
added products, which would have a positive impact on the
industry and local communities.
3:41:52 PM
TOM ENLOW, President and CEO, UniSea, Incorporated, Unalaska,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 130. He provided a brief
overview of UniSea. He stated that SB 130 would provide an
incentive to invest in equipment to create value-added products
in-state. He explained that processing for value-added products
currently happens out-of-state. He said that value-added
products would add production days to shoulder seasons and keep
Alaskans employed in local communities. He briefly discussed how
this would benefit the industry and the state. He emphasized the
importance of diversification to remain competitive. He said the
high-cost equipment required to produce value-added products is
difficult to justify; SB 130 would incentivize those equipment
purchases.
3:44:19 PM
MEGAN O'NEIL, Director of Government Affairs, Canfisco Group,
Petersburg, Alaska, testified in support of SB 130. She gave a
brief overview of Canfisco Group. She briefly discussed the
impacts and benefits of SB 130, which would expand the tax
credit and incentivize new technologies and processes that would
create value-added products while maintaining the 50 percent
cap. She stated that this would benefit fisherman, partner
communities, and the State of Alaska. She briefly discussed raw
fish taxes and explained that SB 130 would enable Canfisco to
modernize its processing plants in Bristol Bay. She explained
that the new equipment would reduce physical labor and improve
conditions.
3:46:16 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on SB 130.
3:46:34 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the tax credit is limited to
Alaska-based companies or if an out-of-state processor would
qualify.
3:47:23 PM
BRANDON SPANOS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), Anchorage, Alaska, said that to qualify for the
tax credit, both the taxpayer and the processing equipment must
be based in Alaska.
3:48:01 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked how the tax law addresses floating
processors.
3:48:38 PM
MR. SPANOS deferred the question.
3:48:54 PM
CHRIS BECKER, Lead Auditor, Tax Division, Department of Revenue
(DOR), Anchorage, Alaska, replied that floating processors can
be eligible for the tax credit. He explained that eligibility is
based on the amount of processing done in state waters.
3:49:08 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for further clarification. He asked whether
floating processors must be docked or home-ported in Alaska. He
shared his understanding that it would be possible for a
processor to complete all work offshore without directly
interacting with local communities. He offered a hypothetical
example to illustrate his question and asked if his
understanding is correct.
3:49:41 PM
MR. BECKER replied that this is correct; however, the tax credit
from that activity would be shared with the local community.
3:49:54 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked about at-sea processors. He shared his
understanding that "qualified investment" means investment cost
to purchase and convert depreciable tangible personal property.
He asked how DOR would determine the portion contributing to the
qualified investment.
3:50:50 PM
MR. BECKER answered that the credit in SB 130 applies to the
fisheries business tax. He explained that processors liable for
the fisheries resource landing tax are not eligible for the
credit unless the processing is done in state waters.
3:51:13 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL invited Julie Decker, president of Pacific Seafood
Processors Association, to comment.
3:51:24 PM
[JULIE DECKER, President, Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, Wrangell, Alaska,] said that her understanding of
the questions corresponds with that of the Department of
Revenue.
3:51:53 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 130 in committee.
SB 135-REFUND OF FISH BUSINESS TAX TO MUNIS
3:52:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to the sharing of tax revenue from the
fisheries business tax and fishery resource landing tax with
municipalities; relating to municipal reports on the shared tax
revenue; and providing for an effective date."
3:52:25 PM
TIM LAMPKIN, Staff, Senator Gary Stevens, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained that SB 135 would revisit
a 2012 policy related to the fisheries business tax and the
landing tax. SB 135 would not change the taxes; instead, it
would adjust how the taxes are allocated between the State of
Alaska and municipalities. The intent of SB 135 is to encourage
municipalities to improve their fisheries infrastructure (e.g.
docks and harbors). He reiterated that SB 135 would shift the
tax revenue allocation and added that a sunset is included.
3:53:44 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether SB 135 includes requirements for
how municipalities can use the additional funds. Specifically,
she wondered if municipalities must use the funds on harbor
related purchases.
3:54:15 PM
MR. LAMPKIN said that outside of intent language, it is
difficult to create this type of qualifier. He noted that SB 135
also includes a reporting requirement. He expressed uncertainty
about whether the legislature could require municipalities to
spend the money in a particular way.
3:54:49 PM
SENATOR HUGHES pointed out that the cruise ship tax includes a
requirement that those funds be used to enhance the areas where
the cruise passengers disembark. She wondered if there was
anything preventing a similar requirement in SB 135. She
indicated that the intent language is not sufficient to ensure
the money would benefit the fishing industry. She said that, in
a time when the State of Alaska's budget is limited, it would be
reassuring to know the money would go to the industry (and not
be spent in other ways). She asked if there is any legal reason
preventing this.
3:55:29 PM
MR. LAMPKIN noted that he does not have the expertise to answer
this question. He hypothesized that collecting the tax would
create a feedback loop of a kind, and communities would likely
reinvest that money into the infrastructure that would allow
them to continue to harvest the resource and collect the tax.
3:56:02 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the sponsor of SB 135 would object
to adding a spending requirement.
3:56:15 PM
MR. LAMPKIN expressed confidence that the sponsor of SB 135
would be happy to improve the legislation.
3:56:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said she would support the addition of a spending
requirement.
3:56:54 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR recalled previous invited testimony from Alaska
Marine Lines (AML) regarding inland communities that receive the
tax but do not have harbors. He said that he supports giving the
communities flexibility, as what improves the lives of the
fishing community is not always straightforward. He shared his
understanding that AML was seeking this flexibility. He asked if
the sponsor would be open to amendments - particularly those AML
proposed at the previous hearing of SB 135. He shared his
understanding that one amendment would remove the intent
language while the other addressed the reporting requirements.
He briefly discussed how the reporting requirements could be
made more reasonable. He indicated that it is responsible to
know how the money is spent; however, if a community receives a
de minimis benefit, it should not be subject to the reporting
requirement.
3:58:36 PM
MR. LAMPKIN shared that he does not generally support intent
language, as there is no force of law. He noted that, in this
case, the intent language simply makes clear that SB 135 was
intended to incentivize the way the monies are spent. He agreed
that the fisheries taxes do not solely benefit coastal
communities and inland communities should retain the flexibility
to invest in things other than direct seafood industry
infrastructure.
3:59:22 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if Mr. Lampkin has any thoughts on the
reporting requirement.
3:59:27 PM
MR. LAMPKIN indicated that changing the reporting requirement
would be reasonable. He stated that the current requirement
reflects the original intent of SB 135 and implied that further
discussion and change is expected.
3:59:38 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked Chair Giessel about the timeline for
amendments to SB 135 or a possible committee substitute (CS).
3:59:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL replied that the amendment deadline is Friday
April 11, 2025, at 8:00 am. She stated that there is no CS at
this time.
4:00:10 PM
SENATOR HUGHES requested an example of a non-coastal community
receiving the tax benefit.
4:00:39 PM
MR. LAMPKIN recalled from previous testimony that Houston,
Alaska assists the fishing industry but is not based on the
coast. He surmised that the assistance could involve
transportation from the airport or gear support. He indicated
that his knowledge related to the question is limited. He
deferred the question.
4:02:08 PM
SANDRA MOLLER, Director, Division of Community and Regional
Affairs, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED), Anchorage, Alaska, said she would
investigate this and provide the answer to the committee.
4:02:59 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL invited representatives from the Department of
Revenue to answer the question.
4:03:08 PM
CHRIS BECKER, Lead Auditor, Tax Division, Department of Revenue
(DOR), Anchorage, Alaska, explained that the fisheries business
tax is based on the location of the processing - or the
unprocessed exports. He explained that if a resource was
transported to a non-port city for processing, that non-port
city would receive a portion of the tax.
4:03:34 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for confirmation of her understanding that
if the product was transported to an inland community for
processing, that community would benefit from the tax credit.
4:03:51 PM
MR. BECKER confirmed that this is correct.
4:04:14 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 135; finding none,
she closed public testimony.
4:04:39 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 135 in committee.
SB 131-DUTIES OF ASMI BOARD; MEANING OF SEAFOOD
4:04:46 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 131
"An Act relating to the duties of the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute; and relating to the seafood marketing assessment."
4:05:37 PM
ANNA LATHAM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED), Juneau, Alaska, said
SB 131 would allow the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI)
to market aquatic farm products (e.g. kelp and oysters). She
said that Alaska has an ideal environment for mariculture
industry growth and highlighted the long coastlines and history
of maritime activity in the state. The mariculture industry also
has federal and state support. She stated that Alaska produces
more than half of the seafood in the United States.
MS. LATHAM opined that expanding mariculture as a renewable
resource is a natural progression. The State of Alaska has shown
its commitment to developing the state's mariculture industry
over the past decade, which creates year-round jobs and supports
communities that have experienced a decline in harvest volume
and revenue. This expansion would also diversify Alaska's
economy. She stated that ASMI has done well in its task of
developing an international brand for Alaska's seafood industry.
Expanding ASMI's scope to include shellfish could incentivize
growth in that emergent sector. SB 131 aligns with the
administration's food security initiatives, as successful
marketing efforts would allow for the increased production of
shellfish. She stated that this would ultimately lead to an
increased availability of fresh food in local markets.
4:07:20 PM
JEREMY WOODROW, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, Juneau, Alaska, paraphrased the sectional analysis of
SB 131:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SECTIONAL ANALYSIS
SB 131: Duties of ASMI Board; Meaning of Seafood
Version A
Section 1: Technical change amending AS 16.51.100(3)
to include "or harvest" related to the development of
quality specifications and handling of Alaska seafood
"from the moment of capture" under duties of the ASMI
board.
Section 2: Amends AS 16.51.180(7) to include "aquatic
farm products" in the definition of "seafood" in
ASMI's chapter of statute.
MR. WOODROW said that "aquatic farm products" are defined in AS
16.41.099. He explained that current statute prohibits ASMI from
marketing mariculture products. He said SB 131 is not tied to SB
108 (which relates to fin fish farming). He emphasized that,
should SB 108 pass, SB 131 would not give ASMI the powers to
market farmed fin fish. He said ASMI is supportive of two
nascent industries in Alaska: farmed shellfish (primarily
oysters) and farmed kelp. He stated that in a recent board
meeting ASMI unanimously passed a motion in support of changing
ASMI statutes to include powers to market Alaska's mariculture
products. If SB 131 passes, ASMI would immediately begin to
include those products in its global marketing efforts. He
briefly described those marketing efforts. SB 131 would also
allow ASMI to pursue grant funding for those marketing efforts,
on behalf of the mariculture industry. He said that he is not an
expert in Alaska mariculture. He added that he anticipates ASMI
would adopt a structure that would include Alaskan mariculture
experts in ASMI activities and committees. This would ensure
that ASMI's actions align with the needs of Alaska's mariculture
industry.
4:09:56 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR directed attention to SB 131, page 2, line 11,
which refers to "aquatic farm" and commented that this term
brings to mind farmed fish. He asked whether "mariculture" would
be a more accurate term. If so, he wondered if the committee
should amend SB 131 and replace "aquatic farm" with
"mariculture."
4:10:40 PM
MR. WOODWROW shared his understanding that "mariculture " and
"aquatic farm" are often interchangeable. He added that there
may be nuances with those definitions when used outside of the
legislative process.
4:11:04 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR said he has heard the term "mariculture" many
times; however, he has not heard the term "aquatic farm." He
wondered if someone involved in drafting SB 131 could address
the question.
4:11:30 PM
MR. WOODROW clarified that the term "aquatic farm" is defined in
AS 16.41.99. He said the term has been in statute for many
years. He shared his understanding that "mariculture" is a newer
term and surmised that changing "aquatic farm" to "mariculture"
would require changes to other areas of statute. He added that
"aquatic farm" seems to be the preferred term in Alaska Statute.
He said that "aquatic farm products" refers to products in a
controlled environment.
4:12:21 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted that oysters are grown in a semi-controlled
way that often involves open water. He said he does not think of
this as "farming" but acknowledged that it is farming of a kind.
He opined that, in this case, "mariculture" would be a better
term. He expressed his support for SB 131.
4:13:03 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI directed attention to the following definition
of "aquatic farm" in AS 16.40.199:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sec. 16.40.199. Definitions.
In AS 16.40.100 16.40.199,
(1) "aquatic farm" means a facility that grows,
farms, or cultivates aquatic farm products in
captivity or under positive control;
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that this definition is also used in SB
108 (which relates to fin fish farming). He expressed concern
about this overlap and emphasized that he does not want farmed
fish to be considered "seafood" - even if it is farmed "under
positive control." He noted that some farmed fish are raised in
tanks rather than in bodies of water and are therefore not
considered "seafood" by the State of Alaska.
4:13:58 PM
MR. WOODROW indicated his understanding and suggested that this
definition may need additional consideration if the legislature
does not want seafood and farmed fish to intersect.
4:14:21 PM
SENATOR HUGHES returned to an earlier comment on adjusting the
ASMI board to include mariculture expertise. She asked if ASMI
has the authority to add board members and/or change board
member qualifications - or whether a statutory change is
required.
4:14:41 PM
MR. WOODROW replied that ASMI does not have authority to change
the board. The board membership is set in statute, and members
are chosen by the governor. He explained that the ASMI board is
authorized to create advisory committees. He explained that
advisory committees increase inclusivity, and members are from
various sectors of the Alaska seafood industry. He shared his
vision (which the ASMI board has discussed) that these
committees would expand to include mariculture experts - or
perhaps the ASMI board would create a mariculture committee.
This would enable the mariculture sector to advise the ASMI
board and ensure that decisions made by ASMI are aligned with
that sector's needs.
4:15:37 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked about the current composition of the ASMI
board.
4:15:42 PM
MR. WOODROW said the board has seven voting members. Five of
those are seafood processors (including one small processor).
The remaining two members are harvesters. He noted that the
harvesters must be engaged in commercial fishing in Alaska.
4:16:50 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 131.
4:17:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held public testimony on SB 131 open.
4:17:25 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 131 in committee.
4:18:51 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:18 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 130 - Support Letter - RDC.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 - Support Letter - Trident - 4.8.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Fiscal Note DOR.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Seafood Product Development Tax Credit.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 - Support Letter - PSPA - 3.27.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 131 Transmittal Letter 3.13.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Sectional Analysis version A 3.17.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 version A 3.14.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Fiscal Note DCCED-ASMI 3.13.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 131 Fiscal Note DCCED-DCRA 3.13.25.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 131 |
| SB 135 Fiscal Note DCCED.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 135 |
| SB 135 Fiscal Note DOR.pdf |
SRES 4/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 135 |