Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
03/23/2005 08:30 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB192 | |
| HB174 | |
| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 174-FISHING PERMIT AND VESSEL LICENSE FEES 8:48:57 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 174, "An Act relating to commercial fishing permit and vessel license fees; and providing for an effective date." REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 174 as bill sponsor. He stated: In 2001, the [Carlson v. State of Alaska] decision found that the method of charging nonresident commercial fishing permits three times the resident permit was discriminatory, and legislation in 2003 replaced the 3:1 formula as determined by the court. The permit fee structure that we currently have since the Carlson decision has a steady decline in value in some of the fisheries around the state. It's caused a steady decline in funds to [the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC)]. [House Bill] 174 will help fund CFEC by removing the arbitrary $300 cap and allowing the permit renewal fees [to be] based on true value of the fishery. Some of the points of it are: it changes the nonresident fee differentials on a per person rather than on a per permit basis. It charges nonresidents who qualify for the reduced permit fee by meeting low-income standards the full allowable nonresident differential. ... It increases the annual fees for commercial vessels beginning in 2006 by various length categories, and it authorizes CFEC to charge reasonable fees for the initial issuance and replacement of stickers for display of the [Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)] numbers. 8:50:56 AM FRANK HOMAN, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), Alaska Department of Fish & Game, reiterated that the bill was formulated in response to Carlson. He noted that the CFEC has recently had a decline in revenues and therefore it would like to adjust the permit fees and the vessel license fees. He continued: Because CFEC is a receipt-supported agency, it has no general funds. Our outlook with declining revenues is that in [2006], we wouldn't be able to cover our budgetary obligations. ... We have been talking to a number of the fishing associations and ... our proposal is that with the passage of the bill, we would have a public hearing process to establish new fee categories.... COMMISSIONER HOMAN noted that his letter to Representative Samuels, which is in the committee packet, discusses the public hearing process. A new fee structure would be required if the cap was lifted, and he remarked that the [CFEC] would determine that structure in cooperation with the fishing community. 8:54:31 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there is proposed fee schedule out now. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that a list of proposed fees is included in the committee packet. He stated, "Those fisheries that are economically healthy would be in a higher fee class; they wouldn't artificially be held to the $300 cap as they were previously." REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER remarked that she is pleased to see that the proposed fee schedule is based on a sliding scale. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the current minimum [permit fee] is $60 and the minimum would rise to $75 under the proposal, but "because we're going to a public hearing that could also be modified." He noted that there is a poverty category for those who are on federal assistance, which costs half the regular fee. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked Commissioner Homan if he would consider referring to it as anything other than "poverty." COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied, "Certainly." 8:58:09 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked at what increment the sliding scales go up. COMMISSIONER HOMAN responded that he could get that information. He added, "Where there is a limited fishery, the value is established by the permit value, and where it's an unlimited fishery, it's by the gross earnings in that fishery." 8:59:07 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented on longline fisheries in outside waters that have Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) that [the state] can't assess. He opined, "It's too bad that we can't somehow ... figure out how you tap into that ... big resource." COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied: We do issue halibut and black cod permits, and they are based on the same principle of permit value or gross earnings, and so we do try to recognize the differences in those fisheries by that method, but ... in the public hearing process we'd be looking also at those blocks of IFQs that are very small [that] are sometimes lumped into the larger blocks. ... We're trying to come up with a mechanism that recognizes that difference. CO-CHAIR THOMAS clarified that he was referring to the "IFQ gulf fishermen" which is inside Alaskan waters. He remarked that the CFEC doesn't assess those fisheries by volume of fish caught; everyone pays the same amount, regardless of how many pounds they have. 9:01:33 AM COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that this was an issue that the CFEC was aware of and plans to look at during the public hearing process. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the largest increase resulting from this bill would be $90. COMMISSIONER HOMAN pointed out that this was for the vessel license. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked by how much the permit fee would increase. COMMISSIONER HOMAN referred to a spreadsheet contained in the committee packet. 9:03:57 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further clarification regarding the bill. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that there are two parts to the bill: a permit fee increase and a vessel license fee increase. He explained that for a limited fishery, the permit fee would equal 0.4 percent of the value of the permit, and for an unlimited fishery, the fee would equal 0.4 percent of the gross earnings. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if the formula was "adjusted depending on what CFEC is looking at for their [fish] tickets from the previous year." 9:05:38 AM COMMISSIONER HOMAN reiterated that the fees are adjusted each year based on either permit values or gross earnings from fish tickets. REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked how the CFEC assesses the gross value of a permit. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the value of the limited permit is a marketplace reflection of the fishery. 9:07:55 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if the maximum fee for the permit fee would be $3,975, as listed in the spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the numbers were not set, but were an illustration to show how the fee would reflect the economic return of a fishery. He explained that the new fee schedules would be produced during the public hearing process. CO-CHAIR LEDOUX commented that the fees would then have nothing to do with each individual fisherman's receipts. She remarked on another concern, that "the trawlers in Kodiak can conceivably be paying as much for their permits as the big at-sea processors out west." 9:09:32 AM COMMISSIONER HOMAN noted that he had discussions with fishermen from [Kodiak], and said, "We can make those distinctions in the public hearing process ... [to ensure that] the fishermen would be in a class with like fishermen and not in a class with significantly different [sized boats]." 9:10:28 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS asked if the CPEC had considered putting a 1 percent tax on top of the raw fish tax to be used as a revenue source. He noted that this type of tax would "hit the people who are making more on the top end." COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied: "I think that might be a reasonable approach. I think it's a more complicated approach for us right now, but I think it's something that the state [should] certainly look at as a way to ... consolidate the various fees." CO-CHAIR THOMAS pointed out that this type of tax would hit each fishery in a different way, based on their income. 9:12:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked for further clarification of the nonresident fees. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that there is a nonresident differential which doesn't show in the bill because "all the fees, resident or nonresident, are the same in the same fisheries, but for the nonresident we add a $115 differential." He stated that each nonresident would pay one $115 fee regardless of how many permits they hold. This would bring in less revenue than before, he noted. 9:15:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked if there is a way to attach a sliding scale to nonresident fisherman. COMMISSIONER HOMAN responded that there is not. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that there is never enough money in the budget for Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) to "do what they need to do." She pointed out that under this bill, the largest increase any boat would have to pay in vessel fees would be $90, and the smallest increase would be $15. She remarked that she thought this would be a worthwhile fee raise. 9:17:31 AM COMMISSIONER HOMAN stated that the CFEC budget "has been fairly flat for years." He commented, "[In the past], fees that have been collected have first gone to fund CFEC and then there have traditionally been excess funds that ... the legislature has appropriated to the [ADF&G] for commercial fisheries support activities and projects." REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the fiscal note shows that the fees would bring in another $300,000. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that the proposed vessel fees would indeed bring in an additional $300,000. He noted that the permit fees would generate an additional $2 million, and therefore the bill in total would generate about $2.3 million. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the $2.3 million would be allocated to CFEC. COMMISSIONER HOMAN replied that that was a legislative decision, but traditionally that has been the case. 9:21:00 AM JERRY McCUNE, Lobbyist for United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA), testified in support of HB 174. He commented that the fishermen are prepared to negotiate the higher fees. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Mr. McCune if he had received any complaints regarding the vessel license fee. MR. McCUNE replied that he had not heard any complaints. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the fishermen plan to negotiate permit fees to a lower price; however if the vessel fees were eliminated, the CFEC would have to raise the additional $300,000 via the permit fees. Mr. McCUNE replied that as he understood it, if the permit fees were imposed as written in the bill, the CFEC would be over budget even without the vessel fees. He concluded, "There's room for negotiations still without the increase in the vessel fees." 9:23:40 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON responded that this bill is a chance for the CFEC to increase its budget. She commented, "I understand where the fishermen are coming from, but this is for their benefit. ... These are little increments that might make a difference for the [CFEC}." She reiterated that the largest fee increase would be $90. CO-CHAIR THOMAS pointed out that the bill would increase vessel fees 40-60 percent. He noted that he represents a lot of small- vessel owners to whom this increase would be considerable. 9:27:10 AM CO-CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony. CO-CHAIR THOMAS remarked that he would like to omit the vessel fee. He commented that the fee would adversely affect hand trollers in several of the communities that he represents. 9:28:21 AM CO-CHAIR THOMAS moved to adopt [Amendment 1], which read [original punctuation provided]: P.2, Line 5: Delete Sec. 2 P.3, Line 17: Delete Sec. 4 REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected for discussion purposes. She asked Co-Chair Thomas how large the [hand troller] boats are. CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied that the boats are 25-50 feet long. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON pointed out that the increase in fees for those boats would be $30. CO-CHAIR THOMAS commented that a lot of the hand trollers gross about $5,000-$6,000 per year, and they already have high fuel costs to contend with. 9:29:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked what kind of permits the fishermen with the 25-50 foot boats have. CO-CHAIR THOMAS replied that most of them would fall under the [currently] $180 fee range, which by this bill would be increased to $225, and therefore the increase would be $45. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON summarized that with both the vessel fee increase and the permit fee increase, these fishermen would be paying a total of less than $100 additional each year. CO-CHAIR THOMAS noted that this would be true if a fisherman has only one permit; however, if a fisherman owns several permits, he/she would pay a different fee for each permit. He remarked that the insurance rates for fishing vessels have gone up almost 100 percent in the last four years. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew her objection. 9:31:47 AM There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 9:31:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER moved to report HB 174, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 174(FSH) was reported from the House Special Committee on Fisheries.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|