Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/13/1993 08:30 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 1993
8:30 a.m.
TAPE HFC 93-102, Side 1, #000 - end.
TAPE HFC 93-102, Side 2, #000 - 622.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Larson called the House Finance Committee to order
at 8:30 a.m.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Larson
Co-Chair MacLean Representative Martin
Vice-Chair Hanley Representative Parnell
Representative Brown
Representative Foster
Representative Grussendorf
Representatives Hoffman, Navarre and Therriault were absent
from the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Hudson; Kim Elton, Executive Director, Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute; Dean Paddock, Bristol Bay
Driftnetters Association; Jerry McCune, United Fishermen of
Alaska; Kate Troll, Southeast Alaska Seiners Association;
Cindy Smith, Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault; Marcia McKenzie, Council on Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault; Paul Dick, Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
HB 54 "An Act relating to eavesdropping, telephone
caller identification, and telephone directory
listings and solicitations."
CSHB 54 (L&C) was reported out of Committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal
note by the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, dated 3/17/93.
HB 212 "An Act relating to a factor in aggravation of the
presumptive term of a criminal sentence, and
prohibiting the referral of a sentence based on
application of that factor to a three-judge
sentencing panel as an extraordinary
circumstance."
CSHB 212 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with three zero
fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, dated
4/5/93; Department of Corrections, dated 4/5/93;
Department of Law, dated 4/5/93; and with two zero
fiscal notes by the Department of Administration,
dated 4/5/93.
HB 275 "An Act relating to salmon marketing, a salmon
marketing tax, and the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute; and providing for an effective date."
HB 275 was HELD in Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to a factor in aggravation of the
presumptive term of a criminal sentence, and
prohibiting the referral of a sentence based on
application of that factor to a three-judge sentencing
panel as an extraordinary circumstance."
Co-Chair MacLean explained that the intent of HB 212 is to
insure offenders receive the most serious sentences for
sexual abuse against a minor in cases where the offender is
in a position of authority to the minor or the minor lives
in the same household.
Co-Chair MacLean pointed out that the bill adds an element
of sexual abuse of a minor crimes to the list of aggravators
considered at sentencing. In addition, section 2 of the
bill furthers a similar effort of the 1992 legislature in
adding this crime to the list of crimes not to be referred
to the three judge panel.
Co-Chair MacLean emphasized that an offender would be in an
established trust relationship with a minor. She asserted
that the most serious of sentencing provisions should apply
in this situation. She noted that it is more difficult for
a child to defend him or herself, both physically and
verbally, from someone in a position of authority. She
maintained that it is the vulnerable nature of the
relationship that warrants more severe punishment.
Co-Chair MacLean felt that it is more suitable to add this
form of crime to the aggravator list rather than create an
entirely different crime category. This would ensure that
offenders receive the most severe sentence possible under
the existing ranges for these crimes.
Co-Chair MacLean noted that the Judiciary Committee made two
technical changes to the bill on page 3. On line 16, they
deleted a reference to 11.41. 440 which relates to sexual
abuse of a minor in the 4th degree, a misdemeanor crime and
not subject to felony sentencing. They also removed
language on lines 17-18, which was redundant to other
provisions of this section.
Representative Brown MOVED to report CSHB 212 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 212 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with three zero fiscal notes by the
Alaska Court System, dated 4/5/93; Department of
Corrections, dated 4/5/93; Department of Law, dated 4/5/93;
and with two zero fiscal notes by the Department of
Administration, dated 4/5/93.
HOUSE BILL NO. 54
"An Act relating to eavesdropping, telephone caller
identification, and telephone directory listings and
solicitations."
Representative Brown explained that telephone caller
identification is a new service that will be offered in
Alaska. House Bill 54 mandates that there must be a free
opportunity for consumers that do not want to participate to
block their line. She maintained that the new service
raises privacy implications. She noted that unlisted
numbers would be diverged. She noted that persons involved
in domestic violence, police activities and physicians might
need to have the caller identification blocked.
Representative Brown noted that telephone companies desire
that per call blocking be required. She explained that
callers would be required to dial a series of additional
numbers in order to block the caller identification. She
felt that this process would be burdensome.
Representative Brown emphasized that harassing phone calls
would be better addressed through call trace. Call trace
would alert the police department when a harassing phone
call is made. She added that call reject, priority ring and
call block could be used to prevent unwanted calls.
Representative Brown felt the cost of the service should be
born by those that want the service and not consumers as a
whole.
Representative Martin asked who would pay for blocking a
number out. Representative Brown answered that the charge
for blocking would be covered out of the cost of those that
prescribe for the service. She stressed that knowing the
phone number of the person calling would not necessarily
indicate that the call will be harassing.
Representative Hanley felt that there should be a charge for
individuals that have opted into the service and later
decides to opt out of the service.
CINDY SMITH, DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
AND SEXUAL ASSAULT referred to problems associated with call
identification. She stressed that Ms. Smith diverges the
location of shelters, counselors and sexual assault victims.
It also prevents contact by counselors and volunteers from
contacting victims in their homes. It also affects "safe
homes". She noted that many states that did not institute
regulations have found it necessary to institute
regulations. She stated that the Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault is greatly concerned that
blocking be allowed for Ms. Smith. She clarified, for
Representative Martin, that shelters do not collect numbers
of those that call the shelters.
MARCIA MCKENZIE, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT stated that the Council is
concern that volunteer safe homes would be placed in danger.
She noted that problems have occurred in other states that
have instituted caller identification without offering the
ability to block the service. She did not support the per
dial blocking.
Representative Martin asked if the legislation is needed to
have their number blocked. Ms. McKenzie stated that the
legislation mandates that the service be offered without
charge.
Representative Martin expressed concern that the original
intention of allowing consumers to know the number of
harassing phone calls is being nullified. Ms. McKenzie
reiterated that phone tracing would allow the police to
identify harassing phone calls.
Co-Chair MacLean MOVED to report CSHB 54 (L&C) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 54 (L&C) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the Department
of Commerce and Economic Development, dated 3/17/93.
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
"An Act relating to salmon marketing, a salmon
marketing tax, and the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON explained that HB 275 would
impose a 1 percent salmon marketing tax on all salmon
harvested in Alaskan waters. He emphasized that although
the fishing community is not in complete support of the
increased tax there seems to be a consensus that an
increased, expanded and more aggressive marketing system is
needed. He stressed that farmed salmon production has
increased. He discussed salmon varieties.
Representative Hudson noted that HB 275 changes the Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute Board's composition. Under HB
275 the Board would consist of 12 fishermen and 12
processors. He asserted that HB 275 creates a new emphasize
on world marketing.
Representative Hudson observed that there is a Raw Fish Tax
assessment. He added that fishermen pay a Salmon
Enhancement Tax of one to three percent. He noted that
there has been a request by seiners to allow a reduction of
their Salmon Enhancement Tax from 3 to 2 percent.
Representative Hudson stated that the 1 percent tax on all
permit holders would generate $5.7 million dollars. He
provided members with Work Draft, 8-LSO341\R (Attachment 1).
He discussed provisions of HB 275 as provided in a sectional
analysis by Legal Counsel, dated April 8, 1993 (Attachment
2). He review changes by the work draft (Attachment 3). He
reviewed back-up materials provided to members (copies on
file).
PAUL DICK, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE emphasized that the
Department of Revenue anticipates that $5.75 million dollars
will be collected from the 1 percent tax. He added that the
collection program would be similar to the Salmon
Enhancement Tax which the Department of Revenue already
collects.
Representative Martin asked why the Department of Revenue
needs new positions.
(Tape Change, HFC 93-102, Side 2)
Mr. Dick explained that the Department has requested
positions for data entry and preliminary examinations. He
stated that no new audit positions are requested.
Mr. Dick clarified, in response to a question from
Representative Hanley, that the Salmon Enhancement Tax is
provided for in AS 43.76. He added that HB 275 would add a
new subsection. He explained that the Salmon Enhancement
Tax is a self imposed tax by limited entry permit holders.
Representative Hanley asked if members can vote to decrease
the tax. Mr. Dick thought that they could vote to increase
or decrease the tax.
KATE TROLL, SOUTHEAST ALASKA SEINERS (SEAS) stated that SEAS
does not support the one percent tax. She felt that seiners
cannot afford an additional 1 percent. She observed that an
average seiner skipper nets $11,000. She maintained that
the tax represents 8 - 10 percent of the net. She asserted
that the seiner fleet is struggling. She stressed that some
boats could be tied up if the tax is added.
Ms. Troll was in support of the marketing aspect of HB 275.
She discussed the possibility of decreasing their Salmon
Enhancement Tax. She maintained that permit holders would
have to be a vote to terminate the tax and then hold a new
vote to establish a tax at the lower level. She stressed
that if marketing works for the fishermen that it will also
work for the aquaculture associations. She asserted that
hatchery programs will recoup their immediate loss in
revenues.
Ms. Troll suggested an amendment to allow the Commissioner
of Department of Commerce and Economic Development to
guarantee loan collateration (Attachment 4).
Representative Martin noted that other tax increases to
fishermen will result in an over all tax increase of 16
percent. Ms. Troll added that the tax paid by processors is
passed on to the fishermen.
Ms. Troll clarified, in response to a question from
Representative Martin, parity of the Board is the primary
concern of fishermen, in regards to the Board's make-up.
KIM ELTON, DIRECTOR, ALASKA SEAFOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE
(ASMI) spoke in support of HB 275. He anticipated that the
bill would have resulted in revenues of:
* $3.1 million dollars in 1991 and;
* $5.75 million dollars in 1992.
Mr. Elton estimated 1993 revenues at $3 - $5.5 million
dollars. He noted that an average of $400 hundred dollars
would be paid by a harvester grossing $40,000 thousand
dollar. Revenues will be used to supplement processing
revenue. The 1 percent tax will be used in the domestic
market exclusively for salmon. He noted that section 5
provides that marketing data will be provided to fishermen
groups. He added that ASMI will provide information to all
groups.
Representative Brown asked if the 1 percent tax would
displace currently used general fund dollars or be an
increase of the current level of state support. Mr. Elton
stated that he envisioned that general fund dollars would be
supplemented rather than supplanted. He stressed that the
fishery resource is owned and managed by the state. He felt
that there is a state obligation to participate in the joint
marketing of the common resources.
Representative Brown noted that there is no insurance that
additional funds will be appropriated. She asked if the tax
would be collected once. Mr. Elton thought that it would be
collected only once. Representative Brown expressed concern
that that processors would have to pay the tax when fish are
transferred a second time. Mr. Dick stated that the tax
would only be collected once. He felt that the legislation
would be clear as to the collection of the tax. Members
further discussed the tax collection process.
JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA (UFA)
clarified that only individuals can own a permit. He stated
that floaters that freeze fish on board and leave the state
would still be responsible to pay the tax. He observed that
the Enhancement Tax is collected the same way.
DEAN PADDOCK, BRISTOL BAY DRIFTNETTERS ASSOCIATION spoke in
of HB 275. He stressed that fishermen are willing to put
money in support of marketing. He reviewed taxes paid by
Bristol Bay fishermen. He concluded that they pay 10
percent in tax. He felt that the 1 percent tax for
marketing would do more good than all the other taxes. He
noted the affect of Russian and farmed salmon on the market.
He emphasized that the Raw Fish Tax is collected from the
processors but paid by the fishermen. He indicated that
markets need to be expanded. He stressed that if fishermen
are going to pay they want to play an important role in
deciding how the money they contribute will be spent.
Mr. McCune stressed that UFA is split on the legislation.
Representative Hudson recommended that the amendment
suggested by SEAS be considered. Representative Hudson
added that the effective dates of section 8 and 9 of the
work draft should be changed to 1998 and 1999 respectively.
Representative Hanley MOVED to ADOPT Work Draft, 8-LSO341\R.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Hanley MOVED to delete "1999" on page 6, line
3 and insert "1998"; and to delete "2000" on page 6, line 7
and insert "1999". There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
Representative Hanley discussed the amendment proposed by
SEAS. He felt that further drafting was needed.
Representative Brown MOVED to insert "to the public" on page
3, line 30. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 275 (FIN) was held in committee. Representative Hanley
noted that he is a fishermen.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|