Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/09/1999 03:24 PM House L&C
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 136 - ABOLISH TOURISM MARKETING COUNCIL Number 1004 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business is HB 136, "An Act relating to tourism and tourism marketing; eliminating the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council; and providing for an effective date." Representative Beth Kerttula joined the committee just prior to the chairman's announcement. The chairman indicated there was a Version K committee substitute for HB 136. Number 1015 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the committee adopt the proposed Version K CS for HB 136 as a working document. Version K is labeled 1-LS0616\K, Cook, 4/9/99. There being no objection, Version K was before the committee. Number 1044 JOE BALASH, Legislative Secretary to Representative Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present HB 136 on behalf of the bill sponsor. Mr. Balash read the sponsor statement into the record: "House Bill 136 is based on a plan brought forward by the tourism industry and is similar to legislation sponsored last session by the House and Senate Finance Committees. It consolidates the state's tourism marketing efforts, reduces the size and functions of the Division of Tourism, and allows the state to reduce its contribution to tourism marketing over time. "Currently, Alaska's statewide tourism marketing efforts are carried out by three organizations - the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council, the Alaska Visitors Association, and the Division of Tourism in the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. These efforts, under our bill, will be consolidated into a single marketing function that is broadly representative of the various sectors of the visitor industry in the state. This organization will put together a marketing program to address media advertising, visitor inquiries, publishing and distributing ["distribution"] information regarding vacation planning, and establishing and maintaining Internet sites that provide tourism information. "The Division of Tourism will continue to provide inquiry assistance, administer visitor information centers, and plan and advocate for tourism and tourism development in coordination with the private sector, ... municipalities, and state and federal agencies. They will enter into a contract with a single, qualified trade organization for the purpose of planning and executing the state's destination tourism marketing campaign. The contract may include promotion of distinct segments of tourism, such as highway, seasonal, cultural, regional, rural, and ecotourism. This will take the state out of the business of marketing and reduce the number of employees required to carry out the functions of the Division of Tourism. "A central feature of the contract is that the organization awarded it will be required to match the state's effort with 30 percent of its own money in the initial year. It is expected that the organization will grow and its membership collections increase. Therefore, the match will rise to 60 percent in 2002. The benefits of this are twofold: first, the state will be able to reduce its contribution without extreme harm to the industry; second, the private sector will contribute more of its own funds towards the marketing ["marketed"] efforts they benefit from. "The industry is coming forward with more of its own dollars. Coupled with efficiencies provided by consolidation, the marketing efforts to bring more visitors to the state will be more effective. This is a responsible approach to reduce the state's monetary contribution without harming the growth of this vital industry." Number 1222 REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS questioned where they are currently at as far as tourism marketing funding goes if this bill becomes law. MR. BALASH answered that the state will continue the status quo in the fiscal year (FY) 2000 beginning July 1, 1999, as it transitions to this new effort. The total funds spent by the state are approaching $6,700,000. In the year 2000 initial year, the contract from the state is expected to be $5 million, with the industry matching at 30 percent. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the New Millennium Plan people have given fair assurance they will be able to raise that much money at that period of time. MR. BALASH answered in the affirmative. He believes cards went out this week or the past week for the initial charter memberships to create a board that will begin the fund-raising efforts. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS questioned if there is any fall-back plan on the state's part if the amount of money needed in the following years is not raised, or if it will be up to that legislature to decide whether it wishes to provide additional funding. Number 1323 MR. BALASH replied the match rate will be set in statute. This will require the organization to come up with a suitable amount of money if it wishes to retain the full amount appropriated by the legislature. If the organization does not do this, there are provisions allowing the division to enter into an additional or further contract which would not require that same match. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA indicated the legislation has come before the committee suddenly and close examination would be necessary to find out the differences in the proposed CS from the earlier versions. She indicated there were some questions already in terms of the organization to be created. She asked if Mr. Balash had any explanatory literature or a copy of the card that was sent out. MR. BALASH pointed to the copies in the bill packets of "The New Millennium Plan, A Concept for the Future of Tourism in Alaska," [Alaska Travel Industry Association Organizational Outline, revised December 1998] put together by the Alaska Visitors Association (AVA). Mr. Balash did not have an example of the card. He indicated he would happy to explain further if Representative Cissna wished, noting there are industry representatives available to testify to that as well. Number 1430 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would proceed to teleconference testimony. He confirmed Allen LeMaster (ph), Gakona, was no longer on teleconference. The chairman confirmed Valdez was still participating via teleconference and requested Lisa VonBargen's testimony. Number 1462 LISA VonBARGEN, Executive Director, Valdez Convention and Visitors Bureau (VCVB), stated via teleconference from Valdez that she did not have comment at this time. Number 1472 NANCY LETHCOE testified next via teleconference from Valdez. She spoke from a statement faxed to the committee: "My name is Nancy Lethcoe. My husband and I are celebrating 25 years in the Alaskan tourism industry. ... I'm past President of the Alaskan Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association [AWRTA], and a member of the Valdez and Anchorage CVB. However, I am speaking as a private person. "I support the work draft of 4/9/99 ["4/4/9"] ... although I have some reservations about the funding. Here in Valdez, because of budget constraints, we are facing the loss of our community hospital. I'm sure you can appreciate the potential significance of this upon the community and visitors. "So, though I would appreciate (indisc.) state funding tourism as proposed by HB 136, I think as public policy, the state should fund medical services before allocating funds to tourism marketing. "Therefore, I encourage you to consider alternative sources of funding - such as proposed in Senator Elton's bill [SB 122] - even though this means our business would incur increased expenses." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Valdez had copies of Version K. Number 1548 MS. VonBARGEN asked to briefly add one item. Mentioning the existence of legislation which suggested all tourism marketing funding should cease at the end of this fiscal year, Ms. VonBargen emphasized the need to have reduction in state funding come at a graduated level. She indicated complete sudden elimination of funding could be seriously detrimental to the state's efforts to gain momentum in tourism marketing and she noted the necessity of a backup plan. The proposed New Millennium Plan would go through three fiscal years before the goal of $10 million in terms of funding is reached. Ms. VonBargen indicated the gradual funding reduction she thinks is important is represented in the legislation and was outlined after Representative Harris's comments. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no other witnesses on teleconference. The chairman indicated Ms. Fay should come forward to explain the changes in the very recent Version K. Number 1642 GINNY FAY, Legislative Liaison and Acting Director of the Division of Tourism, Department of Commerce and Economic Development(DCED), came forward. She highlighted the most significant changes in Version K from the original bill, as introduced. Ms. Fay indicated there have been some change in section order from the original bill; this could make it difficult to compare the two versions. Section 1, findings and intent, has been simplified to say the intent is that the private and public sectors cooperate and condense it into one marketing effort. Section 2 is unchanged. Section 3 is an exemption from procurement. In the original bill this exemption was only extended to the contract with the qualified trade association (QTA). So that it would be clearer to all the contracted parties, it was decided that even if the QTA chooses not take a portion of the contract with the state and DCED contracts elsewhere, those other contracts would also be exempt from procurement. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Has the ATMC [Alaska Tourism Marketing Council] exempt -- (indisc.) exempt (indisc.)?" MS. FAY replied it is her understanding that they are. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if that was in the repealer. MS. FAY responded that all the ATMC statute is repealed. She questioned in an aside if ATMC is exempted. TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association, answered that ATMC is not exempted; ASMI [Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute] is exempt. Number 1756 MS. FAY referred to Section 4, purposes. She indicated the original bill had deleted purposes (2), (3) and the current (5) from the existing statute, but these have been returned in Version K. These were primarily concerning the purposes to retain benefits in Alaska and to residents of the state. In Section 5, Ms. Fay indicated the primary change was to ensure that research for tourism development, and also assessing the contract, could be done. Section 6 has been the most difficult to reach agreement on. Section 6 of Version K read: * Sec. 6. AS 44.33.120 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) During the term of a contract with a qualified trade association under AS 44.33.125(a), the Department of Commerce and Economic Development may not execute another tourism marketing campaign except as provided under AS 44.33.125(b), (c), or (d). MS. FAY indicated this section was changed from the original bill by adding (b), (c) and (d) to allow the exceptions in the statute for other contracting provisions. Ms. Fay further indicated the portion of this section in the original bill prohibiting promotion of Alaska travel by the department was deleted; the department would be able to continue activities with the contract in place like encouraging "Iceland Air" [Air Iceland?] to land in Anchorage. Number 1833 MS. FAY noted the main changes in Section 7 of Version K. If a contract is to be awarded, the department can review and has to approve the marketing plan before the contract is executed. The department can indicate important components of the contract; those are contained in subsections (a) and (b). If the QTA does not want to do a portion of the contract the department feels is essential, the department can contract with another entity as long as the terms of that contract are essentially the same as what was offered to the QTA. Subsection (c) allows the QTA to have first right of refusal on all subsequent contracts while the contract is in place. The only change here is that this applies to marketing contracts, not to all of the division's contracts. Subsection (c) also basically requires that the terms not be materially different. Subsection (e) is essentially unchanged. Number 1927 MS. FAY explained that subsection (f) relates to use of the materials that would be the joint property of the QTA and the state. If these materials are sold or leased, they have to be used for the promotion of Alaska. Subsection (i) requires the contracted QTA to provide notice of availability and consider the responses when it goes to subcontract. This new subsection was requested by the House Special Committee on Economic Development and Tourism (EDT) subcommittee. Ms. Fay indicated the list of major sectors of the visitor industry had been expanded to include some of the smaller operations. This was by the addition of "bed and breakfast enterprises, wilderness lodges and outfitters, and charter operations" in subsection (j), which was subsection (h) in the original bill. Ms. Fay indicated Section 8 is the same as Section 7, subsection (a), but the percentage has been increased to 60 percent. Ms. Fay continued, "Section 9 adds an amendment that was agreed upon by the parties but did not get addressed earlier in Senate Labor and Commerce that makes it so in the granting provisions that the Division of Tourism has, that those grants cannot be used for tourism marketing." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for clarification on the effects of Section 9. MS. FAY answered that the repealer section, now Section 10, had originally repealed AS 44.33.135 because of AVA's concern that the matching grant provision would be used a means to provide tourism marketing money to competing entities. However, that repeal would have removed the department's ability to provide its matching grant to the Rural Tourism Center. Ms. Fay indicated AVA realized it wanted to restrict the Division of Tourism from providing marketing grants, not delete the division's granting ability. Number 2067 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA questioned that there is no specific entity which would really supervise, monitor and evaluate this. MS. FAY explained, "Currently what happens with our contract with the AVA that is used to - for the matching grants for the matching - the required match for the ATMC program, is the contract is between the department and the AVA. In this situation, ... the Division of Tourism would be involved in administering this but the actual contract would be between the department through the commissioner and the qualified trade association." REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA questioned if they were currently going out under competitive bid, under contract, and if they still had procurement code requirements in that contract. MS. FAY replied their contract with the AVA is not covered under procurement. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that was something the special committee had been concerned about. Referring to subsection (i) on page 6 of Version K, Representative Kerttula asked if that is the same as a competitive bid or in what way does the department envision that working. Subsection (i) read: (i) A qualified trade association may, pursuant to the performance of a tourism marketing contract awarded under (a) or (c) of this section, award a subcontract only on a competitive basis after providing adequate notice of the availability of the subcontract and considering all responses. MS. FAY answered that this entity would not fall under state procurement. She thinks a private right of action would occur if someone protested this; the probable remedy would be legal action if they did not feel there was adequate notice. Ms. Fay indicated it would be the responsibility of the qualified trade association to set a standard it felt reflected the legislature's intent in requesting this. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Ms. Lindgren had to leave soon. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed the wish to have Ms. Lindgren join the committee at the table, noting this might assist Representative Kerttula. Representative Halcro indicated there are certain functions the QTA would perform, as does the current organization now, that would be difficult to bid. He indicated it was the subcommittee's intent with subsection (i) to require the QTA to provide notice of subcontracts and have a competitive format criteria so that subcontracts would be open to more than one bidding party, without tying the QTA's hands with regards to weighing proposals differently for creativity. Representative Halcro provided an example concerning advertising. Advertising agency A's proposal for a television commercial using a star would be more expensive than advertising agency B's proposal using an unknown actor. He indicated Ms. Lindgren should comment where she felt necessary. Number 2249 TINA LINDGREN, Executive Director, Alaska Visitors Association, answered that Representative Halcro is exactly right. She indicated "bid" was interpreted to mean that the only weighting would be for price. In the marketing field there are some things where price is not the only consideration. However, the subcommittee had wished to make sure it was done competitively and that that was spelled out in the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if this is the only place in the statute where competitive basis and adequate notice is discussed. She questioned if there is any attempt to "flesh it out at all," noting she did not recall if there is any discussion in the New Millennium Plan itself about how that would work. Her underlying concern is still the large amount of state money coming in and ensuring that it is monitored. MS. LINDGREN responded that "competitive basis" does not appear anywhere else in the statute. Ms. Lindgren indicated another way to achieve this monitoring is through the contract. The department's responsibility to oversee the contract and terms gives it a lot of leeway to examine how the QTA is operating. However, it is necessary to keep in mind the entire attempt was to privatize this effort and work with the private sector, as opposed to it remaining a state agency. She understands the concern. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Lindgren if she wished to make any general comments at this juncture. Number 2342 MS. LINDGREN indicated many of the members present were on the EDT subcommittee which reviewed the legislation on April 6, 1999. She emphasized the years' worth of work that has gone into bringing the plan forward at the request of the legislature, and the approximately two years it took to bring the legislation itself forward. Ms. Lindgren noted Version K is supported by the AVA and the Administration. She added she believes AWRTA [Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism Association] has not seen the competitive bid clause but, with that exception, supports the bill as written. Ms. Lindgren, therefore, does not think they will ever be able to do much better than this. She hopes the committee will pass the legislation out as written to the House Finance Standing Committee, indicating it is the result of serious effort and has been closely examined. The legislation sets up a mechanism for the new organization to contract with the state; it does not contain other items that are part of what the new organization will have to create. In addition, there are funding challenges ahead for that organization. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO thanked Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren for their patience and efforts on this. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she understands the legislation provides a right of first refusal for every other tourism marketing contract offered by the department. However, she believed Ms. Fay had commented this would not include something like encouraging Air Iceland to come in. Representative Murkowski sought clarification on what the QTA has the full right of refusal to. Number 2434 MS. FAY answered that the QTA would have had the first right of refusal on every other tourism contract offered by the department in the earlier draft, in what is now subsection 125(c) [Section 7]. She noted, for example, the organization would have had to be offered first right of refusal for printing letterhead. Ms. Fay said, "We requested and they accepted changing it to marketing because the idea behind the bill is to consolidate tourism marketing, not to consolidate all the tourism-related functions..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] [From tape log notes: 'government to government' 'in terms of airline routes'] TAPE 99-36, SIDE B Number 0001 MS. FAY continued, "...(indisc.) things of that nature that are not marketing, but they're maintaining sort of the foundation of the tourism industry and tourism development, especially on public lands in Alaska, and we wanted to be able to maintain our ability to do that." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented it was approaching 6:00 p.m., inviting the last witness forward. The chairman announced the committee would not be moving the legislation at this hearing because the fiscal note has not been received and because of the chairman's commitment to Representative Kerttula. The committee will take up HB 136 as the first order of business at the next meeting. Number 0048 PHIL GREENEY came forward to testify. He is a bed and breakfast (B&B) operator in Juneau and his wife is past president of the Alaska Bed and Breakfast Association, chair of the INNside Passage Chapter. He is present on his own behalf, indicating he also speaks for some of the many people in his business who are extremely concerned with the effects of the most current version of HB 136. Mr. Greeney stated, "Mr. Chairman, if you're going to completely change the process of destination marketing for the state of Alaska, I suggest you must do so only with a concrete plan, and certainly with secure funding. And so far, with HB 136, it appears you cannot guarantee the level of funding, if any at all from the state. ... What then happens to marketing if all the funding's coming from the industry? Doesn't this then invite the question of why the industry should allow any controls under that scenario? And please ask yourselves where that then leaves the thousands upon thousands of smaller tourism businesses. B&Bs were mentioned frequently in earlier testimony as representative of one end of the economic scale in the tourism industry." MR. GREENEY continued, "As a representative of that component, I can confirm that it appears that AVA has already begun to march away from small businesses and their needs and concerns, pricing themselves, perhaps out of necessity, out of our market. There are signs that JCVB [Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau] is following, and, according to a spreadsheet I believe compiled by JCVB, we can see some of the reasons for that concern. They're projecting some near future increases in the participation, say from Anchorage CVB [Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau] - that would increase, I believe, 830 percent. Juneau's increase is projected at 541 percent, and Homer's increase ... will be 4,445 percent." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed this was from the spreadsheet in front of the committee and he asked if Mr. Greeney was referring to the figure of $135,000 from Homer. Number 0141 MR. GREENEY indicated the bottom of the spreadsheet gives the dollar amounts and the percentage increases they represent. Mr. Greeney further indicated all of the increases are substantial - in the three and four digit range - with the possible exception of Wrangell at 9 percent. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the spreadsheet is from the Alaska Society of Convention and Visitors Bureaus. He sought clarification as to whether these percentage increases are the budget projections to meet the commitment. MR. GREENEY replied he believes so. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested assistance from Ms. Lindgren. MS. LINDGREN indicated this spreadsheet was prepared by all of the convention and visitors bureaus at the AVA's request. It was prepared for a board meeting where the CVBs could discuss current programs, expenditures, and the relationship of this to some of the budget numbers in the plan. Homer is in support of the plan; it has mentioned it knows the city has been receiving a "free ride" for a long time and is very willing to come to the table with more money. Ms. Lindgren indicated the amounts on the spreadsheet are not necessarily reflective of what these organizations will end up paying; it was against one set of numbers. She explained this was an informational piece and there were problems with some of the information because different CVBs reported differently. Ms. Lindgren noted many of these organizations currently use the statewide program and marketing to fulfill their own information: in other words, these organizations receive names generated by the statewide program and base their own entire programs on this. She indicated the lack of a statewide program puts some of these organizations in serious trouble because, with the possible exception of Anchorage, they cannot generate visitors on their own. Ms. Lindgren noted, therefore, this is very useful information in speaking with the CVBs but it is ongoing discussion. Number 0253 MR. GREENEY continued his testimony, commenting that their concern with these figures is higher convention and visitor bureau fees because of the increased necessity for participation from these organizations. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if that means bed tax. MR. GREENEY answered not necessarily, indicating he was speaking of the fees to belong to these organizations. He related he had recently had a conversation with two other small business operators, one the operator of a flying service and the other a guide service operator. Mr. Greeney commented all three of them had had to drop out of AVA because AVA had priced itself out of their market. He noted advertising in the state planner has become prohibitively expensive as well. Mr. Greeney said, "These things are very, very difficult, and we're looking at a time when only big business will be able to afford these organizations, and receive the benefits of these organizations." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how the JCVB is funded, questioning if it is a bed tax, a percentage of sale tax, or what. Number 0306 MR. GREENEY answered that Juneau has a 7 percent bed tax in addition to a 5 percent sales tax, equaling 12 percent on every room night they sell. In response to the chairman's further question, Mr. Greeney confirmed the 7 percent goes into the CVB, noting he believes much of that goes to finance Centennial Hall and the other JCVB functions. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, it is an allocation formula. MR. GREENEY replied to the best of his knowledge, commenting he is not fairly versed in that. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated the breakdown shows none of the sales tax Mr. Greeney's customers pay goes to support the JCVB. MR. GREENEY noted he does not believe that is the case. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated the spreadsheet shows 70 percent of JCVB's budget comes from the bed tax and 0 percent comes from sales tax. He asked if the 7 percent bed tax all went into JCVB and some to Centennial Hall. MR. GREENEY replied to the best of his knowledge. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted, then, the 5 percent would go to the city for roads, tourism, (indisc.). Number 0368 MR. GREENEY continued his testimony, stating, "Our fears [are] that if HB 136 passes without a secure funding source, we can anticipate that within a relatively short time funding may well dry up due to lack of matched industry funds or state funding, and we'll be back to square one, leaving Alaska with no tourism marketing for a few years while those involved try to put something else in place ... Meanwhile, the state's second largest industry will be left with no destination marketing. The impact would be devastating. And, on a personal note, I mean I have to struggle to comprehend the reasoning of those who want to take the state out of the business of tourism marketing, marketing the cleanest industry we could have. ... Whether or not we like the idea, we must compete with states and nations who have the foresight to vigorously promote their own tourist industries, and in view of that, I have to ask you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, to please put the brakes on HB 136. ... At least give us time to review the different committee substitutes, which I believe we're now up to Version K, and put the brakes on long enough to firm up a stable and secure funding source. I have to ask, 'What is the rush?' I mean, true, the New Millennium Plan has been discussed for years, but HB 136 has not and I - and certainly the committee revisions have not. And I ask you to allow this bill to follow due process, take it off the fast track, and let the system work. And again, I thank you for your time." Number 0438 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented HB 136 does have another committee of referral so he would not say the legislation is rushed. However, he explained the reason for the legislation's pace is that tourism funding has been zeroed out, and the only funding the state is going to provide for tourism is with a fiscal note attached to this bill. To Representative Halcro's knowledge, if this legislation does not pass, there will not be any tourism dollars for FY 2000. He indicated the legislation's intent is to reduce the state's contribution to tourism marketing in the next three years while gaining contributions from the private sector. Representative Halcro asked Mr. Greeney to expand on the request to slow HB 136's progress to shore up funding sources. He commented, "If you're a company and I'm going to come to you say I have this plan, you're going to need to make an investment, that to my knowledge that would be how you'd shore up funds, but it sounds like it's a concern to you and I just wanted to know..." MR. GREENEY noted it was a concern, certainly in his own thought and in what he heard expressed at, he believes, the previous meeting. Mr. Greeney indicated there are two current pieces of legislation on this topic, HB 136 and SB 122. He commented, "We need some solid funding and certainly Senator Elton's bill provides some mechanism for that." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, "On top of your 12 percent?" Number 0528 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO requested to follow up. Noting he is in the tourism industry, he said, "When I saw SB 122, I immediately started crunching the numbers in ... the estimates - and I know that's not the bill we're discussing here - but his revenue estimates are way out of line. ... His forecasts for tax revenue are so overly optimistic there is no way you're gonna achieve 14 and a 1/2 million dollars in three years. (Indisc.) there's just no way. I come from Anchorage, we have an 8 percent bed tax. Last year ... there was $100 million in room and bed revenue in 12 months, so 8 percent of that was split 50/50 between the ACVB and the city, out of 100 million. With his projections you'd have to do - I think it is - it came out to like $280 million in 6 months. I mean, there's absolutely no way that those figures would work. And what his bill does, is his bill simply shifts the costs to the larger hotels and larger operators, so they're gonna be paying ... more of the share. And so, it's not a pay as you play, it's if you're a big hotel with 600 rooms, you pay more. And to me, ... that seems unfair rather than going out and saying, if your - if you want to invest in tourism, you're gonna have to invest in tourism. So I mean, and I've heard a lot of testimony on this ... and a lot of comments over two public hearings over this SB 122, and I'm gonna tell you, I've run the numbers and they don't work out at all." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed that concluded Mr. Greeney's testimony and thanked him for his patience. The chairman indicated to both Ms. Fay and Ms. Lindgren that he is concerned over the concept of the first right of refusal. He has used this concept in business for many years and it is not a favorite of his. He mentioned another method, a first right of offer. The chairman expressed that his concern with the first right of refusal is it requires a bonafide third party. He commented, "Because when you have a first right of refusal, you have to have a bonafide third party that's standing in place. (Indisc.) which -- in this instant, the department would say to the qualified trade association, 'If you want to do this,' and I'm not sure they would do that - they'd have to go out and find a third party, do an RFP [request for proposal] and then go back to the qualified trade association to say (indisc.) give you the first right of refusal after they have already made the deal out over here, and then you have to say yes or no. So, ... under a first right of offer, they would just offer, 'Do you want to do this deal?' and you say, 'No,' and then they go get somebody else. ... That may be a problem because of the concern about what the substantially similar terms are, and that may have been part of the history of the problems of reaching an agreement, so, I'm just kind of curious about some feedback from both of you around the concept of what you mean and how the first right of refusal would operate." Number 0664 MS. LINDGREN responded she believes their intent is to consolidate marketing, as Ms. Fay had said. The reason that was added was in the event of a serious disagreement about what should be done to promote Alaska. It is the hope that clause never "kicks in." However, Ms. Lindgren indicated this would, if there is a disagreement, provide another option besides complete refusal of the contract by the QTA or complete refusal to contract by the department. Ms. Lindgren further indicated the concern and part of the difficulty with the previous year's bill had been that if it was offered to other organizations, these organizations were not on the same terms - there wasn't a level playing field. Therefore, that language was added so that if there was a component and there was a disagreement, the department had the latitude of contracting elsewhere as long as the terms were the same, so that one organization wasn't penalized compared to others. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he wanted the record to reflect that if one goes through a traditional first right of refusal, there has to be a bonafide third party. He noted there is an avenue (indisc.) that but he thinks in this instance using the traditional interpretation of first right of refusal may be most beneficial. He noted, "Because it would smoke out the basic terms that you'd have to live with, and I think that was part of point of contention ... in the previous negotiations, is that not correct? That's what you just testified to, so rather than try to tweak with this ... I think we should leave the first right of refusal in there, but ... I want to make sure everybody understands what that means in having the bonafide third party. " He asked Ms. Fay if that was her understanding of Ms. Lindgren's comments. Number 0753 MS. FAY answered in the affirmative. She indicated she thinks the department was actually the one that came up with the notion of first right of refusal. Ms. Fay commented on the recognition that the industry has to raise funds if it is to receive this match and that it is not a very homogeneous industry. It is probably worse than the fishing industry in terms of different sizes and interests. Ms. Fay indicated the department understood the industry's concern about splinter groups that would not want to contribute to the whole well-being. She further indicated giving the qualified trade association the first opportunity on a contract offered by the department was intended to be an encouragement, an incentive for all the players to work together in their industry to reach an agreement on things that satisfied everyone's needs. Number 0815 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Lindgren and Ms. Fay each explain what Section 6 means to them. [Both Ms. Fay's and Ms. Lindgren's responses were transcribed verbatim per the chairman's request.] MS. FAY answered, "What Section 6 means, okay. I think this is -- I think throughout - throughout the bill in almost every single section that you have in here is the intent that tourism marketing be consolidated and conducted primarily by - or entirely by one contract that the department has with a single qualified trade association. I think that's in the findings and intent, and as you work through, every - all signs are pointing you to Rome, and I think this is one more place where it's basically saying that while this contract is in effect, you cannot execute any other tourism marketing campaign except for these exceptions that we've allowed for you. And that's our understanding of it, and so if we want to do tourism marketing, we will contract with the qualified trade association in order to do it, unless there's something they don't want to do." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG addressed the question to Ms. Lindgren. MS. LINDGREN responded, "Our intent in this section is that while there is a contract in place for tourism marketing - if there's no contract the department does it - but while there is a contract, the department is not doing tourism marketing." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested both responses and the follow-up questions on this issue be transcribed verbatim for the record. He asked, "If I might then - to both of you - one of the points of contention as I understand it, has been the fear that if you do go out, or if the department's allowed to go out after the (indisc.) right of refusal provision is denied by the qualified trade association and the department awards another contract which requires the contractor to - the contractee to go out and get additional funding from various other tourism-related businesses in that particular niche, let's say, it's been my understand that was one of the fears, that there'd be competition for funding outside of the depart[ment] -- in other words, non-state funds. Is - is that a fear? And I direct this question to Ms. Lindgren. Was that - was that one of your fears (indisc.)?" Number 0961 MS. LINDGREN replied, "Mr. Chairman, I'm not maybe - I'm not following quite the way you're stating it, but one of the fears was that in an effort to consolidate what we didn't want to do was start breaking it up into lots of pieces and many contracts. The intent language now still reads a tourism contract with the ability if there's a disagreement to have some other contracts, but, as Ginny said, the intent is to have a single contract. There is a fear that if - exactly as you stated - that if it's split up into multiple contracts, this new organization will not be able to raise these kinds of funds because many people will be out there trying to raise funds for different purposes, and also, rather than having a cohesive tourism marketing program for the state, we'll have different people doing different things, so that is a concern that we both have, I think." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "And Ms. Fay, do you think the department on July first of this coming year will go out - assuming this bill passes - and be interested in expanding beyond the single contractor out of the get-go?" MS. FAY questioned, "I'm not sure I understand (indisc.) - would we [be] interested in expanding beyond a single contractor?" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "Right, initially. In other words - in other words we're - you're going - the department will generate the actual contract with the specific discrete elements of it - of different marketing goals, and if - if I take it correctly, the qualified trade association would then bid on it and then if they refused to do or did not want to do a certain provision of that contract, could they turn down a portion of that contract?" Number 1060 MS. FAY answered, "That's correct, the - if - if there was an element that the department perceived to be essential in marketing Alaska as a destination, and the qualified trade association did not want to do that portion of it, or did not want to provide match for that portion of it, then we would have the option of going out and letting a contract for that component. I think, though, it is still, when you -- as an example, if there was a group of sportfishing lodges in Western Alaska who thought there should be more marketing towards rural sportfishing in Alaska and they were ready - they were willing to put up match for it, then it would still probably work better for them to work through this new trade association to let them know that this is an area of niche marketing that's critical for the industry, and work with them to get this money leverage, and have it be part of an overall coordinated package. In a sense though this - this bill contains a safety valve that if - if they - if it was really considered to be important, people were willing to pay for it and the qualified trade association was not willing to be responsive to the needs of those businesses, then we could potentially contract with them. I think our interest as a department, though, is when this legislation passes is to - is to encourage every single business in Alaska to become a member of this organization because every single business will have a vote on who the - who the - will be on the board of directors and how the marketing plan will unfold and so it would be -- if we want it to be truly representative of all the needs in Alaska, the best thing that could happen is all the businesses who are - who stand to benefit from this organization would join and become involved in it." Number 1183 Chairman Rokeberg asked, "And then, if you'll allow me, if - if this contract and this bill had passed last year and it was already in place, and we had a circumstance like we have with the unfortunate situation in the Mediterranean, which to me seems to be a - a marketing opportunity here, where you wanted to appeal to Mediterranean cruise passengers who are canceling their trips and the potentiality of the cruise lines to relocate vessels that were going to Mediterranean cruises into the Alaska traffic, how would you be able to generate any funding? Or how would that work? Would you have a - an additional addendum to the contract with the qualified group or would you go out your own or how would you handle it under this bill?" MS. FAY answered, "Well, my understanding that the - the bill allows for us under section d to be - to be able to allocate additional funds for that kind of special situation - this is page 5, d, - and that we could amend the contract and specify the work that would be done, but that we would not have to have the matching requirements be identical to the original contract. In the case in point that you're talking about now, I'm not sure there would be any problem getting the cruise industry to put in extra money to take advantage of the situation, there -- we wanted to have this be flexible because there may be circumstances like similar to when the Malaspina blockade occurred, that it might not be possible for the - for those funds to be immediately generated because the people who see the most benefit from that might not be able to - to put in - raise that additional funds on - on that quick a basis." Number 1290 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "And finally from the Chair, one of the key problems, or one of the key things that always seems to (indisc.) have been control of the - the finances and the whole process. Is the department satisfied with their level of control over this legislation, and I'll ask the same question to the - to Miss Lindgren. Miss Fay?" MS. FAY responded, "Well, I think that throughout our whole negotiations we have been doing a very balancing act between -- I mean I think some of our obstacles have been in balancing out that - that level of control because both parties will come to the table with substantial investments of resources and want to have - each of us want to make sure that the other side can't, you know, blow the money, (indisc.) sense. I think I feel fairly comfortable now with - with the - the terms that we recently worked out, where even though we're limited to only having one contract, being able to approve the marketing plan and to be able to specify what needs to be in it is helpful for us because we didn't feel - without those provisions we didn't feel that we really could -- if you can only negotiate with one party and you can't say what's the terms of the contract, then you aren't really negotiating a contract, but now that we have a little more leeway about being able to specify some of the terms of the contract we feel fairly comfortable with that." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Tina?" Number 1382 MS. LINDGREN answered, "Mr. Chairman, I - I would have to believe that the - the members of the tourism industry have the most to gain or lose by what happens, I don't think that - that the Department of Commerce probably has any more at stake than members do of the industry, and so there's a - there is a concern that they have enough control over their destiny to use the funds that they see fit and that they not be regulated as to how those funds are used, but they also recognize that there are substantial state dollars involved, and that that money comes with strings and that what you see in the bill are the strings that are attached to those." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked, "... The qualified trade association has the right to refuse - or not - not the right to refuse, but if there's a component in the contract that they don't want to do -- let's say we (indisc.) are handling it, they can opt out of that and the state goes somewhere else. Is there any provision that the state could say, 'We don't want you as the qualified trade association to do this aspect of it.'" MS. LINDGREN replied, "Yes there is because they approved the marketing plan in advance." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, "So that's where it is at the very get-go. And then, let's see what else was I going to ask you?" Number 1472 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA commented, "Could - could I ask a question about that, though in my mind it kind of raises - but they can't then..." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG recognized Representative Kerttula. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied, "Pardon me, thank you, yeah, just on that point. But if they don't have it in the plan to begin with they can't just go out to another group to do something, right? I mean, it's either in the plan or it's not, and if it's not in the plan, they can't go to another group to market, it has -- all the marketing has to be through this one group unless you refuse it, is that right?" AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER responded very softly, "Correct." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented, "And then, if in fact..." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG recognized Representative Murkowski REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI continued, "Thank you - and this is my last question - if in fact your - your - your QTA says, 'I don't want this component, I don't want this component, I don't want this component,' at what point do you say, 'Wait a minute, this contract isn't working because we're having to look elsewhere to handle all these aspects of what we had agreed to be our - our plan. I - I don't know enough about this to say how do you get out of it if it - if it's not working." Number 1532 MS. FAY confirmed Representative Murkowski was referring to either party and answered, "Well, I think the way this whole system is set up - and I think it's a good thing - is that we both have a great deal of incentive to work these things out with each other. I mean, ultimately, both of our objectives is to support and promote tourism in Alaska. Where - I would guess that where our differences might come in is that our mission at the Department of Commerce is especially directed towards Alaska-based businesses, Alaska jobs and protecting small businesses in Alaska. So, I think from our standpoint, as long as their marketing plan addresses those basic elements and missions that Department of Commerce has, we probably should - we probably won't have very many disagreements. That's - that's where we see our - sort of our oversight role (indisc.)." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were further questions from committee, recognizing Representative Cissna. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA responded, "Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I guess that - for either of you - there is, in at least what I saw, was no specified time of the contract. Is there a standard time period that contracts are normally let for with the state, or how does that work?" MS. FAY replied, "Through the Chair, Representative Cissna, (indisc.) basically the - the legislation states that on August 1 of each year, so we - there would be one-year contracts." Number 1646 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no more questions from the committee. He complimented the department, the industry members, and the House Special Committee on Economic Development and Tourism subcommittee for their work on the legislation. He personally is much more comfortable with this now. The chairman indicated the public hearing would be kept open and the legislation taken up as the first item of business on April 12, with the intention being to move the legislation at that time.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|