Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/19/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB216 | |
| HB94 | |
| SB63 | |
| SB93 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 94 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 63 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 93 | ||
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 93(FIN)
An Act relating to commercial fishing permit and vessel
license fees; and providing for an effective date.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that at a previous meeting (4/18/05),
Amendment #1, #24-LS0504\Y.2, Utermohle, 4/15/04, was MOVED
and that Vice Chair Stoltze had OBJECTED. The amendment
remained on the table.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON explained Amendment #1. He noted
that that having large groupings, the fee structure does not
recognize the vast difference between the fishing power of
vessels at the lower and upper end of the class. Thus, the
fee on a 76' vessel is the same as a 149' vessel and a 151'
vessel is charged the same fee as a 249' vessel. The
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) prepared a fee
schedule based on 25' increments, which would generate
approximately the same revenue but would be fairer to the
diversity of the vessels.
FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY
COMMISSION (CFEC), reported that the draft presented to the
Committee was a result of several groups coming together in
consensus regarding the fees. He voiced concern that the
bill would "get lost" because of those changes. The
Commission needs the recommended revenues. Co-Chair Meyer
asked his opinion on the amendment. Commissioner Homan
replied that if it could move through, adding no
resistance, the amendment could generate about the same
amount.
3:50:34 PM
CHERYL SUTTON, STAFF, SENATOR BEN STEVENS, explained the
vessel fees, noting that Senator Stevens does not support
either amendment. The bill attempts to balance the vessel
fee and the license fee to raise sufficient revenues for
CFEC. The vessel fees are operational licenses for vessels.
What gives the vessel fishing capacity is a permit, a
separate license, also raised in the bill.
In response to an analogy given by Vice-Chair Stoltze, Ms.
Sutton pointed out that not all vessels are harvesting
vessels.
3:52:45 PM
Co-Chair Chenault referred to an earlier statement regarding
the amount of fish that could be caught; he questioned how
many have limits. Ms. Sutton responded that there are many
limits to people's capacity to fish in the industry,
including time and size of the vessel. She pointed out that
the bill is not a tax. Fishermen pay a tax on what they
harvest and a raw fish tax to the State. The request is for
fees generated to run CFEC.
Vice-Chair Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment
#1. Representative Hawker OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Kelly, Stoltze, Meyer
OPPOSED: Hawker, Moses, Chenault
Representative Weyhrauch, Representative Holm, and
Representative Joule were not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-3).
3:56:57 PM,
Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-LS0504\Y.1,
Utermohle, 4/15/05. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Seaton explained Amendment #2. He noted that
the amendment would significantly raise fees; he was willing
to WITHDRAW Amendment #2.
3:58:25 PM
Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW the MOTION to adopt Amendment #2.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 93 (FIN) out
of Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HCS CS SB 93 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|