Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/17/2003 01:04 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2003
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cheryll Heinze
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 139
"An Act approving an interim classification by the commissioner
of natural resources closing certain land within the Glacier
Creek and Winner Creek drainages to new mineral entry; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 139(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 163
"An Act relating to an annual wildlife conservation pass and the
fee for that pass; relating to nonresident and nonresident alien
big game tag fees; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 139
SHORT TITLE:CLOSING CERTAIN LAND TO MINERAL ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HAWKER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/28/03 0339 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/28/03 0339 (H) RES
02/28/03 0339 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/17/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 163
SHORT TITLE:NONRES.GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/05/03 0433 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/05/03 0433 (H) RES, FIN
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN1: (DFG)
03/05/03 0433 (H) FN2: (DFG)
03/05/03 0434 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/14/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/14/03 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/17/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 139.
SARA WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Hawker
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 139.
BOB LOEFFLER, Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 139; answered
questions relating to the original closure.
GEORGE CANNELOS, Director
Heritage Land Bank
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 139; suggested
it would provided a real opportunity to partner with the state
and private sector to really test the feasibility of developing
a second major alpine ski resort in the Girdwood area.
BRUCE BUSTAMANTE, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 139, noting that
it allowed for further study of the Glacier-Winner Creek area
with the possibility of further development; testified on HB 163
and expressed opposition to targeting any one sector for
taxation within the tourism industry for general fund purposes
only.
BARBARA KELLY
Alaska Discovery Wilderness Adventures
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns relating HB 163.
JULIE HURSEY, Owner
Alaska Passages Adventure Cruise
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 163;
expressed concerns that the bill would harm small tourism
businesses and said she considered it to be a head tax on
tourists, rather than a wildlife conservation effort.
KENT BREKKE, Owner
Alaska Angling
Petersburg, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 163.
ALAN LeMASTER, President
Gakona Junction Village, Inc.
Gakona, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 163;
suggested that targeted taxes are unacceptable, unfair, and
unwarranted.
DEB AJANGO, Executive Director
Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association (AWRTA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns relating to HB 163;
noted that AWRTA was not opposed to the concept of a wildlife
viewing pass.
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 163.
ROBERT NAUHEIM, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions pertaining to HB 163.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-18, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Fate, Masek,
Gatto, Wolf, and Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
Representatives Chenault, Lynn, and Kerttula arrived as the
meeting was in progress. Representative Heinze was excused.
HB 139-CLOSING CERTAIN LAND TO MINERAL ENTRY
CO-CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 139, "An Act approving an interim
classification by the commissioner of natural resources closing
certain land within the Glacier Creek and Winner Creek drainages
to new mineral entry; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0133
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the sponsor of HB 139, characterized HB 139 as a pro-economic
development bill that requires the closure of a mining area. He
noted that [HB 139] has the support of the Alaska Miners
Association and that it affirms the extension of an existing
closure for mineral entry in Girdwood near the Alyeska Ski
Resort. Approximately 10 year ago, he said, this area was
closed to new commercial mining entry and the existing
commercial claims were purchased outright. The mineral entry
holders supported this closure in order to facilitate the
expansion of the ski resort. During the last 10 years of the
existing closure, he said, the hotel development has largely
concluded. The target for the next 10 years is to continue that
development past the ski facilities and around to the back of
the mountain, which requires the reissuance of a mineral closing
order, to extend the closure for 10 more years, he explained.
The governor has reissued the mineral closing order and due to
AS 38.05.300(c) the legislature is required to affirm the
closure orders within 90 days, he said, and the 90-day window
will end on April 20th.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER directed attention to the committee packet
and the letters of support, which are from associations ranging
from the Alaska Miners Association to the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Heritage Land Bank. Furthermore, he said,
there has been verbal support of this legislation from the
Girdwood Board of Supervisors. Representative Hawker informed
the committee that this area was heavily mined in the later part
of the 19th century and largely played out to commercial mining
in the mid-20th century. Today, its prospects are for
recreational mining. He noted that the committee packet should
include a letter from the Division of Mining, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), that discusses the history of this area
and its limited commercial prospect. Representative Hawker
concluded by urging the committee to forward this legislation in
order to allow it to reach the governor in the timeframe
necessary.
Number 0516
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), labeled 23-LS0644\I, Kurtz, 3/11/03, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version I was
before the committee.
Number 0675
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked whether anybody has received input
from Chugach National Forest regarding support for this.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained that there are letters of
support from DNR and the Heritage Land Bank and that of 5,740
acres, approximately 1,000 acres belongs to the Municipality of
Anchorage, which supports [HB 139]. He offered his belief that
the land in question is state, not federal, property, and that
10 years ago, the land was acquired via a Bureau of Land
Management transfer to the Municipality [of Anchorage] for
transfer to the State of Alaska. He said the Chugach National
Forest had been taken out of this issue about 10 years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF, noting that the Chugach National Forest is
neighboring the property, asked if neighbors had been asked for
comment.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER deferred the question to his staff.
Number 0695
SARA WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Hawker, Alaska State
Legislature, testified. She explained that the Toohey family
owned quite a bit of neighboring land, and that Cam Toohey had
been sent a copy of the legislation and had not been heard back
from.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said the other major adjacent land lessor,
the Alyeska Ski Resort development area, is "very much, as part
of the 'Girdwood 20/20' organization, in favor of this." He
talked about a letter from Chris Von Imhof, vice president and
chief executive officer (CEO), Alyeska Ski Resort, supporting
this development.
Number 0790
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Representative Hawker about the
difference between the bill and the proposed CS.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he thought the change was suggested
by the Alaska Miners Association. He offered his opinion that
it makes it a better bill. He remarked:
In the first draft - this is a moratorium at the
moment - again, it continues a moratorium against new
mineral entry; should tenures come up without having
any commencement of alternate development, this land
will revert and become available for commercial
mineral entry again. In the prior bill, that
reversion required an affirmative action on part of
the administration. ... The CS version makes that
reversion automatic unless -- it puts the burden on
the administration to notify or give notice that there
has been the commencement of development. It was ...
a reversing of the notification process and, frankly,
I believe it makes it a better bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG remarked, "That's in a conditional
effect."
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, in response, said yes; that is exactly
how that reads.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:13 p.m. to 1:14 p.m.
Number 0952
BOB LOEFFLER, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified, noting DNR's
support for the bill. He explained that the closure occurred
about 10 years ago with the agreement of all of the parties. He
said since that time the legislature had passed AS 38.005.300,
which requires closures of this nature to be acted upon by the
legislature. Mr. Loeffler said this is an area with low mineral
value but with a significant potential for the Municipality of
Anchorage. He offered his belief that a 10-year closure to
allow marketing and financing to determine whether [it will
develop into] a significant tourist location is in the best
interest of the state and takes very little from the mineral
industry.
Number 1034
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if DNR had contacted any neighboring
[property owners] or the Chugach National Forest to ask for
their comments on this closure.
MR. LOEFFLER said he expected it was done as part of a
"Turnagain Arm plan" about 10 years ago; the department involved
"absolutely everybody who could possibly be involved" at that
time, and the U.S. Forest Service was on the team. He said the
[department] hadn't redone it because [HB 139] is an extension
of the previous closure.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF expressed appreciation and he indicated it
was his intention to ensure that [the Forest Service] had been
involved initially.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Loeffler if there were any
requirements to ask again if there are any comments.
MR. LOEFFLER said a public notice was posted as part of this
mineral closure. He remarked, "So, the interim closure,
actually, we already did the public notice and received very few
significant comments."
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked for clarification on whether Mr.
Loeffler was speaking about the original [closure] or this
extension.
MR. LOEFFLER said it was also done the last year for the
extension.
Number 1169
GEORGE CANNELOS, Director, Heritage Land Bank, testified, noting
that he was [testifying] on behalf of the Municipality [of
Anchorage]. He thanked Representative Hawker for sponsoring HB
139 and he expressed strong support for the proposed CS; he
suggested the [proposed CS] is a better bill. He said it will
provide [the Municipality of Anchorage] a real opportunity to
partner with the state and private sector to really test the
feasibility of developing Glacier [and] Winner Creek as a major
alpine ski resort area and the second such area in Girdwood. He
talked about the intention later this year, through the Heritage
Land Bank, to issue a [request for proposals (RFP)] to update
the development concepts and economics behind the project. He
expressed hope that by the end of the year, formally solicited
interests from a prime developer can be sought. He explained
that a project of this magnitude would take several phases, and
he offered his belief that 10 years is a reasonable amount of
time to see if this is going to go or not. He reiterated
support for HB 139.
Number 1262
BRUCE BUSTAMANTE, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau, testified. He
expressed support for the bill and talked about HB 139 allowing
for the further study of the Glacier-Winner Creek area with the
possibility of further development. He said the feeling is that
the Alyeska Ski Resort has added tremendously to its portfolio
of offerings to the tourism industry and that it adds greatly to
the quality of life in Southcentral Alaska. He talked about
seeing expansion of that particular area to improve Anchorage's
position as a world-class ski destination and he said it really
"puts us on the map" in attracting more competitions and such.
He expressed support of the city's position to move ahead with
further study and development.
Number 1353
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that he was going to vote for the
bill and commended Representative Hawker for writing it so
clearly.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER gave credit to legislative legal counsel
for good "lawyerly work" in helping to assemble the bill. He
said anybody with any question about the "ins and outs
appearance" [or] a concern about understanding the technical
nature of the legislation should refer to the sectional
analysis, which he noted is particularly well written. He said
the credit goes to his staff and legislative legal counsel for
doing a good job.
Number 1461
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK turned attention to page 1, lines 10-12,
which read:
The legislature finds that the Glacier Creek and
Winner Creek drainages hold significant potential for
the development of a new four season resort in
Girdwood.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked what the rationale was for this
statement to be [included] in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER remarked:
As we've heard testimony today from ... Mr. Bustamante
... with the [Anchorage] Convention and Visitors
Bureau, particularly the support this bill has
received up from ... Mr. Chris Von Imhof, Vice
President and CEO of ... Alyeska [Ski] Resort, and
writing in its capacity as the Girdwood 20/20
organization, recognizing this is a ... continued
implementation of a long-term economic development
plan in the Girdwood valley, we further have the
documentation support in the packets here from both
the ... Municipality of Anchorage at both the
executive level and specifically with the Heritage
Land Bank personnel; ... Mr. Cannelos is the head of
Heritage Land Bank, whose (indisc.). The majority of
the property Heritage Land Bank currently holds and
operates is in the Girdwood valley, and it's a major
mission that they're undertaking, is economic
development for the entire Southcentral Alaska,
specifically, the Municipality of Anchorage.
I truly believe the support of this bill - the reason
we're doing it is for the furthering of the economic
potential of a four-seasons resort development, which
is for the point in the legislation [that] indicates
the legislature finds that these drainages do hold
specific potential for the development of a new four-
seasons resort based on the extremely competent
testimony and well-based research done in preparing
this legislation and having all of the support we've
accumulated behind it.
Number 1609
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked:
If the commissioner certifies that they have followed
the rules and have begun development, it reminds me a
little bit of stranded gas. Once they've passed the
test of beginning development, is there ... any limit
to saying, "Hey, you've got to ... finish something in
some amount of time," or is it just reserved for their
development at that point?
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER offered his belief that there is
sufficient latitude in the language of the bill, particularly
under Section 1 [page 1, lines 13-14, and page 2, line 1]. He
said Anchorage has utilized these land-use and land-development
master plans extensively and he believed it would be a very good
basis for determining if the development is legitimate or not.
He mentioned having sufficient interests on both sides of the
issue in the future to make certain that that development is
viable.
Number 1709
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report CSHB 139 [Version 23-
LS0644\I, Kurtz, 3/11/03] out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes, and she asked
for unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHB 139(RES)
was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
[Co-Chair Fate turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Masek.]
HB 163-NONRES.GAME TAG FEES/WILDLIFE TOUR PASS
VICE CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 163, "An Act relating to an annual wildlife
conservation pass and the fee for that pass; relating to
nonresident and nonresident alien big game tag fees; and
providing for an effective date."
VICE CHAIR MASEK noted that the committee had taken public
testimony on 3/14/03 and would continue to take public testimony
for HB 163.
Number 1789
BARBARA KELLY, Alaska Discovery Wilderness Adventures,
testified, noting that Alaska Discovery (AKD) is based in Juneau
and offers guided sea kayaking, river rafting, and canoeing
trips throughout the state. She said philosophically, AKD does
not have a problem with asking its guests who go on its trips to
pay an annual fee as proposed in HB 163. She said that is only
in the case that the funds are put into a separate account in
the general fund, however, and this year's budget proposal
includes an amendment that appropriates a substantial amount of
those funds for the purpose of wildlife viewing, education, and
management programs. She suggested that strong intent language
that clearly directs future legislatures to appropriate a
significant portion of these funds for the purpose of wildlife
programs should also be included in the bill. Ms. Kelly said
it is felt that those programs would be a benefit to AKD's
guests and that AKD would also support some of those funds'
going toward a tourism-marketing program that would draw more
independent visitors to the state.
MS. KELLY expressed concern about the burden this will place on
AKD as an operator, in ensuring that all of its guests have the
wildlife pass in their possession. The most expeditious way to
do this would be to act as a vendor, she said, but this would
require extra time and work on AKD's part to collect and keep
track of the fee. Ms. Kelly expressed concerns about how AKD
would handle the fee for guests who only doing a kayaking day
trip in Glacier Bay National Park [and Preserve] because many of
these trips are booked at the last minute by guests who are
staying at [bed-and-breakfast establishments] in Gustavus. She
said AKD would not be able to sell a pass in advance to these
people.
MS. KELLY suggested this would require extra time and hassle for
AKD's guides to check with each guest to ensure that they have
the pass and to sell them one if they don't. She said AKD would
urge that an exemption be allowed for places such as Pack Creek
that already have a substantial fee in place. Ms. Kelly
explained that AKD also has a concern about the timing of this
bill, which was also expressed by some of the other people who
previously testified. She recommended [HB 163] not take effect
prior to September of 2003, because if it goes into effect in
the middle of the season, it is felt that [the pass requirement]
would create a undue burden on AKD as an operator.
Number 1979
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Ms. Kelly where guests initially
arrive for tours.
MS. KELLY said guests show up for a pre-trip meeting before the
trip goes out into the field, and the guides are dealing with
the guests at that point. She said guides don't collect or
handle money at the pre-trip meetings and it wouldn't be a
workable situation for AKD to have guides sell passes. Ms.
Kelly said that's why AKD would act as a vendor and explain the
pass to guests and tell them that they could purchase the pass
through AKD during the initial sign up. If a guest were
purchasing the pass through somebody else because of multiple
activities, she said, AKD would inform the guest that he/she
didn't need to get the pass through it, but would need to have
it. She said AKD would want guests to have the pass before
attending the pre-trip meeting.
Number 2061
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, noting that AKD had already set its
tour prices for the year, asked Ms. Kelly what percentage of
season trips had already been sold.
MS. KELLY, in response, said a little over 50 percent. She
noted that AKD's prices had already been circulated and
published.
Number 2080
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Kelly how she would verify that
the pass did, in fact, belong to the person presenting it.
MS. KELLY relayed her understanding that the pass would have the
person's name on it. She said she hadn't thought about asking
the person for identification to prove the pass belonged to him
or her and that she would assume that if the guest was going on
a trip and presented a pass, the pass was his or hers.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if guests fly in directly to AKD or
whether there are prior stops before their arrival.
MS. KELLY responded that most of AKD's trips are multi-day
trips, so a lot of times people are just doing a trip with AKD
and not anything else, but not necessarily; guests could be
doing multiple activities with other operators.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if all of AKD's trips are multi-day.
MS. KELLY said the majority of trips are multi-day; AKD offers a
couple of day trips such as to Pack Creek and Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve. She noted AKD also offers three-day
trips.
Number 2145
VICE CHAIR MASEK asked Ms. Kelly if she kept lists of the names
of the guests.
MS. KELLY responded that AKD has a database where it keeps track
of all of its guests that sign up for the trips; at the pre-trip
meeting the guide has a list of all of the names of people who
are on that particular trip.
Number 2172
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that Pack Creek already requires a
fee.
MS. KELLY said yes, a significant fee of $50 per person for the
in-season.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked how that fee is collected.
Number 2183
MS. KELLY said AKD includes the fee in the price of the tours;
the fee is not collected separately. She said AKD pays the fee
to the Forest Service at a later time.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what is given in return for the Pack
Creek fee.
MS. KELLY said AKD has permits to bring from 5 to 10 guests to
Pack Creek on certain days, from early July through mid-to-late
August.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked what is given in return for the $50
fee.
MS. KELLY noted that there are no facilities of any kind at Pack
Creek and the fee gives AKD permission to go there with its
guests and do a guided walking tour and sit for quite a while
and watch for bears and other wildlife in the area. She noted
that there is a viewing tower located in Pack Creek.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the tower is provided as part of
the fee at Pack Creek.
MS. KELLY said yes; [the tower] is the one structure that's
there.
Number 2301
BRUCE BUSTAMANTE, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
Anchorage Convention and Visitors Bureau, testified. Mr.
Bustamante said the organization he represents is opposed to
targeting any one sector for taxation within the [tourism]
industry, for general fund purposes only. He offered his view
that the [wildlife viewing pass] fee falls into that category,
and that it doesn't really bring any added value for the fee
collected to [Alaska's] visitors. Mr. Bustamante expressed
concern about [the state's] image in a very competitive
marketplace in which [Alaska's tourism industry] is up against
very aggressive, well-funded state marketing organizations. He
noted that Alaska's tourism industry is competing against Canada
as well. For the purpose of growing the state's economy,
through growing the visitor industry, [HB 163] is viewed as
really creating an obstacle for the state's tourism industry, he
explained.
MR. BUSTAMANTE suggested that this is not a good message to
convey and that the industry is trying to bring more visitors to
the state; he said the timing for the visitor industry has not
been good for the last couple of years based on world events.
Mr. Bustamante said for those reasons, the [Anchorage Convention
and Visitors Bureau] is opposed to that particular portion of HB
163 as it relates to the wildlife viewing pass.
VICE CHAIR MASEK indicated that several other states are
implementing similar programs. She said the State of Washington
is currently proposing a wildlife stewardship decal of $25 to
encourage donations to fund wildlife viewing activities. She
suggested the wildlife viewing fee isn't really a new concept,
although it is for Alaska. She expressed her view that she
didn't see it as targeting a certain [group] of people.
Number 2466
JULIE HURSEY, Owner, Alaska Passages Adventure Cruises,
testified, noting her and her husband's business entails running
[sightseeing] trips out of Petersburg. Ms. Hursey expressed
concerns at hearing the [governor's State of the] Budget address
about the wildlife viewing pass. The additional cost of $15 per
person added on to one of the trips that she offers could be a
problem, she said. For a family of six, that's going to mean an
additional cost of $90. She explained that Petersburg recently
adopted a local sales tax and the sales tax for one of her
charters is going to be $152 per trip. Ms. Hursey said she had
already sent out many of the invoices and that her [business]
would have to absorb that cost of the [wildlife viewing pass].
She said the [industry] has been trying to recover from the
terrible "slump" in tourism that has occurred since September
11, 2001, and that last season the amount of business was down
considerably because many Americans decided to stay closer to
home.
Number 2510
MS. HURSEY suggested that with the economy the way it is, people
are being more careful with their money and that creating a new
tax could make people think twice about going on one of her
charters. She noted that [tourists] can go to Canada, where the
cost of trips is cheaper, and she offered her belief that Alaska
needs to try to stimulate the tourism economy. She remarked,
"While it may seem attractive to stick outsiders with a tax like
this, it can affect businesses like mine that are run by
Alaskans." Ms. Hursey talked about the terrible downturn of the
salmon industry in recent years and the changes in the Southeast
Alaska economy that have led some people to turn to tourism.
She noted that her local tourist industry is pretty small-scale
and is in the very early stages of development. She said a head
tax like this is going to make [her and her husband's business]
less competitive, and that maybe the big cruise lines from
outside [Alaska] could absorb this kind of expense and lower
their prices to accommodate the tax, but [smaller businesses]
can't do that and don't have that big margin.
Number 2549
MS. HURSEY said she wondered if cruise ship passengers are also
going to be targeted by this tax, but she had heard that it was
mostly going to be the local outfitters. She offered her belief
that it was disingenuous for this tax to be presented as a way
to fund wildlife conservation, because at this time, the revenue
is earmarked for the general fund or put in a special account,
which may or may not be appropriated by the legislature for
wildlife management and education. Ms. Hursey offered her
understanding that it is not constitutional to dedicate funds.
She said she was in agreement with Barbara Kelly that [HB 163]
needs strong intent language if it is to go forward.
Number 2570
MS. HURSEY suggested that the state has done away with much of
the funding for wildlife management that is not directly tied to
hunting or fishing, and she said she couldn't imagine that this
"trend" was going to change suddenly. She offered her
understanding that from what was said by the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) personnel [in the previous meeting],
the CARA [Conservation and Reinvestment Act] funds were to be
used for viewing, education, and conservation of species, not to
hunt, fish, or trap. She asked if that meant the matching money
raised by the wildlife viewing pass will go towards whale
watching education, and she said if the money goes toward the
predator control of wolves, as is being done in McGrath, her
clients would "hit the roof." There's already talk of a tourism
boycott over that situation, she said; [the tourism industry]
was affected by the last tourism boycott over "heavy-handed"
wolf management and Alaska does not need that kind of bad
publicity.
MS. HURSEY asked who would be responsible for administering the
collection of the wildlife viewing pass fee and checking to
verify the [tourists] have the pass. She suggested that
verifying the passes would cost a lot of money, and she asked
what would happen in the case of other types of charters, such
as research or glacier viewing, when wildlife is not the target.
Ms. Hursey told the committee that she thinks of [HB 163] as a
"head tax" and not a way to conserve wildlife. She reiterated
that the money is earmarked for the general fund, and she urged
members to vote against [HB 163] because of her belief that it
would hurt small businesses like hers. She thanked the
committee for the opportunity to testify.
Number 2629
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Ms. Hursey if she was aware of the
age limits that apply to the pass.
MS. HURSEY said yes; however, not everyone has kids under 16
years of age. For example, she said, she anticipated the
charter of a family with three kids over the age of 16, who
would all have to pay for the pass.
Number 2658
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Hursey how many groups [her
and her husband's business serves] every summer.
MS. HURSEY replied that it was between 10 and 12, and that 8
[groups] are already booked for [this year].
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how many people are normally on
those trips.
MS. HURSEY replied that 6 people is the limit.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA offered her understanding that Ms.
Hursey's business was a very small operation.
MS. HURSEY answered in the affirmative.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Ms. Hursey about the local sales
tax she had mentioned previously.
MS. HURSEY explained that a 6 percent sales tax was applied to
charter boats located in Petersburg.
Number 2698
KENT BREKKE, Owner, Alaska Angling, testified, noting that he
also a small charter boat operator and does weeklong trips. He
said he had just returned from promoting his business down south
and was surprised to learn about HB 163. Mr. Brekke noted that
he had not had time to do the research and submit a "nice write-
up" like Ms. Hursey had, but that he did have questions. He
suggested that it is obviously mandatory for people to purchase
the pass, because when people go out on a charter, they are
going to be viewing wildlife even if it is not the [intended]
activity. He asked, if some members of a [charter] group were
purchasing a fishing license and others did not, whether those
that did not purchase the license would be required to buy the
wildlife viewing pass even if they were pretty much just reading
their books and sitting on the boat.
Number 2736
MR. BREKKE noted that he has some clients that fly directly out
to his boat and he indicated [obtaining wildlife viewing passes
would be problematic for those clients]. He said he questioned
some of the [revenue generated from the wildlife viewing pass]
being used for predator control. He remarked, "If people are
paying to view a wolf and then knowing that that money is also
being used to kill a wolf, I think that's definitely setting
some question." Mr. Brekke said he thought the timing of the
bill was definitely an issue and that he had already priced his
trips for this coming year and received deposits and some full
payments for those trips. He remarked, "I definitely think
there are a lot of questions, and I think there's a lot of us
that are opposed to this tax."
Number 2790
ALAN LeMASTER, President, Gakona Junction Village, Inc.,
testified, noting that he was a small-business operator in the
Copper Valley. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify on HB 163, and he said for years, small businesses in
the visitor industry have tried to explain that targeted taxes
on individual segments of the industry are unacceptable, are
unfair to separate sectors of fellow business, and really are
unwarranted. There are better, more comprehensive, more
equitable ways to accomplish these goals, he suggested. A user
fee targeted at those visitors that wish to simply look at
wildlife is hard to understand, he said. He suggested that many
questions have arisen from the debate [over the bill] in the
last few days. He asked, "Who is required to pay such a fee;
what conditions does the fee kick in; who will be responsible
for the collection of fees; how much of the dollars collected
will be earmarked for marketing of the state's visitor to the
world so people will come and view our wildlife ...."
MR. LeMASTER suggested that neither the governor nor the
legislature can dedicate funds collected from any special tax or
fee system, so there's no guarantees that the funds will be used
for the purposes intended, which is the reason "targeted taxes
give us pause." He suggested that the legislature had
alternative choices to implement [for revenue-generating
purposes], such as converting the permanent fund to an
endowment, establishing a broad-based seasonal sales tax, or
taxing the permanent fund dividend.
MR. LeMASTER encouraged the committee to pay close attention to
assessing a seasonal sales tax on retail commodities and
services statewide. A seasonal sales tax equitably addresses
several issues, he said. It would spread the burden of payment
to all of the buyers of business and services in commodities
according to their level of use. A broad-based seasonal sales
tax could collect far more dollars than fragmented users fees,
he suggested. He said retail outlets, for compensation, could
be responsible for collecting and paying the tax to the state,
thus eliminating special collection programs like the "mess"
created with the sales and collection of fees for fishing
licenses and salmon stamps. The visitor industry marketing
program should share in the bounty to use a portion of those
funds to build visitation numbers for the future through a good
comprehensive marketing program, he suggested.
Number 2896
MR. LeMASTER said a portion of the seasonal sales tax collected
by businesses in the visitor industry could be earmarked by an
addendum to the millennial agreement for marketing the state to
potential visitors. He suggested that about half of the
seasonal sales taxes collected by the [tourism] industry be
reinvested in the state's marketing program currently being
administered by the Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA).
Mr. LeMaster suggested that since 9/11 [September 11, 2001]
businesses in the [tourism] industry are struggling and, in far
too many cases, failing. He asked, "With little assistance from
the legislature to date, isn't it now time to step up to the
plate and do your share to ensure that the largest industry in
the state, after oil, survives and grows?" Mr. LeMaster said he
prays that the committee would consider the options to HB 163
and opt out of a target-tax plan in favor of a broad-based
program that spreads the burden across the board, and benefits
all of the players in the game and residents of the state alike.
Number 2948
VICE CHAIR MASEK noted that Mr. LeMaster's point on the sales
tax is not a resource issue, and that the committee is
addressing the resource aspect [of the bill] regarding wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO highlighted Mr. LeMaster's comment that
since 9/11, the [tourism] industry had been suffering. He
talked about the suggestion that because of 9/11, more people
aren't going on vacations that are overseas, and he noted that a
previous testifier had mentioned that [her business] was nearly
two-thirds booked for the season. He said it seems to him that
it isn't a loss of business that seems to be the effect, and yet
that is what he'd been hearing. Representative Gatto asked, "Is
there some way to say that ... we have taken a hit because of
events of the world and therefore we should be excused, but
we're not; do you know?"
MR. LeMASTER said one of his businesses distributes brochures
across Alaska and Canada for about 100 pretty-well-based tourism
companies.
TAPE 03-18, SIDE B
Number 3016
MR. LeMASTER suggested [that many businesses] are engaged in
getting ready for the season and that most people would agree
that businesses had experienced approximately a 20 percent
reduction in sales last year as a result of 9/11. Mr. LeMaster
offered his belief that this year, it does not appear at this
time that [businesses] would see an appreciative increase in
sales over last year. He remarked:
I think, when you talk to somebody that says they're
three-quarters booked for the season, two or three
things are at play here that you have to be aware of,
and one is that those people who are directly
connected with the cruise ship industry seem to, ...
in some cases, be having a little better year than
they may have had last year. But when you get away
from that particular direct connection to the cruise
ships, I think for the most part, most of us are
beginning to see that this year is going to be
significantly down from two years ago, and may be down
from last year.
Number 2958
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented:
No one knows what the future holds; everybody knows we
are on, probably, the brink of hostilities with Iraq.
No one can predict whether there [will] be another
9/11-equivalent terrorist event here or even something
half or a fourth of what that was. These are
unknowns. I fear that this anticipation that this
might happen ... from terrorist attacks ... and
sundry, plus all this including 9/11 itself, is going
to be a big hit on the tourist industry coming up, and
that some of the people who already booked these
wonderful tours may pull out if things start going
downhill as far as hostilities are concerned, and any
future terrorist activity. ... That's just an
observation.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. LeMaster if he cared to comment.
Number 2914
MR. LeMASTER remarked:
I did have a conversation with one of my clients just
two days ago, and he made a very interesting
observation about his business. He said early on,
last fall, business seemed to take hold and he thought
he had ... real good feelings about what was going to
happen this year because it took off .... And then
when we got into this situation regarding the war, and
as it got more serious, all of the sudden the phones
quit ringing again. And I hadn't really given that
much thought, but you know, after I did think about
it, I went back and looked at my bookings a little
bit, and that happened to me too.
I just assumed that because I was traveling and I
wasn't paying that close attention to some of my
bookings early on in the season - I do most of my
bookings a little bit later in the year due to the
marketing that I do - I just assumed maybe that was
part of the impact. But it's true that we're seeing a
very slow movement on bookings at this time and we're
praying that that will turn around when, and if the
war happens and the war is quick -- but like you say,
there's no guarantees, but any impact on a specific
area of our industry, in these times, when things have
been as bad as they have for the last year and a half,
is going to be crucial.
Keep in mind that many of our businesses in the
visitor industry, too many of them - not a great
number, but too many of them - have actually failed
over the last year. And ... some of these businesses
have been around for a while. And this is a struggle;
we have a struggle. We're not saying we don't want to
pay the taxes or don't want to pay our share; we're
just saying we want to have a broad-based payment
schedule that will affect everybody equally and not
just pick on one section or another.
And it seems like not only this bill, but there are
several items on this plate that do exactly that,
they're picking on ... wildlife viewing, they're
picking on education for $100 here ... [or] there, and
by the time you get all done with it, we've collected
something around one hundred million dollars. Why not
have a single tax that will tax everybody in the state
equitably and raise the same kind of funds, and do it
at a time of the year when the visitors will pay part
of the bill. That's my point.
Number 2802
VICE CHAIR MASEK pointed out that this [bill] would not affect
residents of Alaska. She offered her belief that [residents of
Alaska] have been "picking up the tab" time and time again, and
that as a lifelong resident of the state, she felt that people
that visit Alaska should pay "their fair way too."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked Mr. LeMaster for his analysis
and for his concern about taxation. She talked about voluntary
[wildlife contribution] programs in other states and she asked
Mr. LeMasters if he thought tourists might be interested in
buying a special tag to support wildlife conservation.
MR. LeMASTERS remarked:
As was mentioned a moment ago, anything is possible.
We can't predict the future, but that seems a little
farfetched to me if I am sitting here thinking of my
... king salmon fishing clients and they're going to
come in here and they're going to be asked to
voluntarily [donate] money so that they can go and
watch wildlife.
One of our problems in this state is whereas wildlife
abounds in Alaska, the worst person you can ask about
wildlife viewing is the highway traveler. He doesn't
see much wildlife; he's consistently asking me where's
the wildlife ... and, of course, I keep telling him,
well, you've got to get up a three o'clock in the
morning and get them before the motor homes do. ...
So, I don't know that they would be very inclined,
since they haven't seen too much to begin with, my
clients, ... to voluntarily step up to the plate and
start paying a fee on a voluntary basis.
Number 2679
DEB AJANGO, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness Recreation &
Tourism Association (AWRTA), testified, noting that AWRTA has
approximately 200 business members and is a trade organization
that supports wilderness-dependent businesses. Ms. Ajango said
this bill would certainly affect most, if not all, of AWRTA's
members, and that AWRTA is not against the concept of this type
of pass. She suggested [the bill] needs a little work to be
successful, and she noted that AWRTA was in agreement with those
who provided previous testimony. She said she thought the key
to this would be to include some strong intent language and that
she didn't think people who come to Alaska, who have values that
embrace the wilderness and wildlife, would have a problem paying
$10 or $15 for this type of a pass if they thought that money
was going back into wildlife conservation.
MS. AJANGO said if the money goes straight into the general
fund, however, and there's any [indication] that [the money]
could go towards predator control or something [similar], then
she didn't think it would be successful. Businesses will have a
lot of very angry customers, she suggested. Ms. Ajango said it
would be unreasonable to try to implement [the wildlife viewing
pass] this year; it's very fast-tracked, and she suggested that
businesses would have to pay [the wildlife viewing fee] for
people who had already signed up for [trips], or there would be
very upset customers who have signed up and are now having an
additional fee added [to the cost of the trip]. She remarked,
"So, it's a lose-lose proposition." Ms. Ajango suggested that
this bill would stand a chance of being a successful source of
revenue to be used towards wildlife conservation if the time is
taken to do it right; if it is explained to people what this
[wildlife viewing pass] is for; and if there was a way to funnel
this [money] into ADF&G's [Division of Wildlife Conservation].
Number 2541
VICE CHAIR MASEK, upon determining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
VICE CHAIR MASEK offered her belief that based on the testimony
that was heard, there are a couple of areas that are troubling
to the industry that this bill would affect. She noted
testimony voicing opposition to targeting tourists and the
desire [to include] strong intent language regarding the way
money is going to be handled once it's collected and put into
the general fund. She also highlighted concerns regarding the
timing of the legislation, and she indicated there would be some
amendments offered.
Number 2450
GORDY WILLIAMS, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, testified. Mr. Williams
said in regard to concerns about a targeted tax, it is the
expressed intent of the governor that this bill apply to
nonresidents and exempt Alaskans to the extent allowed by law.
He said as far as trying to get most of the nonresidents that
would take advantage of what's defined in the bill as a
"commercial service provider of an opportunity to view
wildlife," the [department] believes the bill addresses a pretty
broad range in the definition of what those providers are. Mr.
Williams remarked, "Certainly, have heard some other discussion
about additions or subtractions to the list of providers."
MR. WILLIAMS highlighted the March 14, 2003, committee hearing
on [HB 163], during which Representative Wolf had expressed
interest in [applying the pass] to people who drive to the state
in their own vehicles and are viewing wildlife. Mr. Williams
said it is difficult to find a mechanism to collect [fees] from
people [who drive to the state], and as Mr. Robert Nauheim,
Assistant Attorney General, had testified to during the meeting,
commercial providers are the method or the collection entities
for this fund, and it's hard to capture those people who will be
driving here. However, he explained, it is felt that a large
number of those people, while they're here, are either going to
be purchasing a hunting or fishing license, which then exempts
them from this fee and does make a contribution. He offered his
belief that a large number of those people who are coming up
independently will probably end up participating an activity
requiring the [wildlife viewing pass] one way or another. He
said it was the purview of the legislature to consider intent
language.
VICE CHAIR MASEK called attention to previous legislation that
she had sponsored regarding snow machine registration; she
talked about the success of the bill, and she explained that a
lot of fees had been collected from the registration portion and
had been going to DNR [the Department of Natural Resources],
which in turn has been awarding the funding in grants to help
with access [and] trail maintenance. She remarked, "So far, the
money's been going through the program." Vice Chair Masek said
she wondered if this bill could be put together so [the revenue
generated from the wildlife viewing pass] could be put back out
to the public in the form of grants. She suggested looking at
access and she indicated that Alaskans have very limited access
to the resources. Vice Chair Masek said she would like to see
more access opened up, especially in fishing, because fishing is
such an important [resource] for the state during the summertime
for the sport enthusiasts that come to Alaska to fish.
Number 2271
MR. WILLIAMS said in regard to funds coming in, it would be up
to the legislature to appropriate those funds, but there's
certainly roads, waysides, and things like that which do
contribute to opportunities to view wildlife. He indicated
ADF&G envisions a portion of those funds' being used to match
federal CARA funding, or other funding that might be available
for grants for rural communities or others who want to get into
the wildlife [viewing] business, and that might involve some
forms of access. Mr. Williams said he thought there may be a
grant program along the lines that Vice Chair Masek had talked
about.
Number 2220
VICE CHAIR MASEK brought attention to concerns about the timing
of HB 163; she said if it is implemented to take effect
immediately, vendors will have trouble collecting the [wildlife
viewing pass] fee.
MR. WILLIAMS mentioned that as ADF&G had testified to at the
last hearing, it would do its best to get this into place. If
the bill was to take effect July 1, ADF&G would do its best to
meet that deadline by getting those [wildlife viewing passes]
printed up and out to vendors. He noted that ADF&G currently
has 1,600 vendors, but he anticipated that there would be a
significant new number of vendors - people who run the tours -
that would want to participate in being able to sell [the
wildlife viewing passes] for a convenience. He explained that
[vendors] are able to retain a portion of the sales, plus $1 per
transaction, so there is a little bit of compensation that comes
to people who sell the [wildlife viewing passes]. Mr. Williams
reiterated that ADF&G would do its best to meet the effective
date of the bill.
Number 2153
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked what the plan is for the money
that's "over and above what would be used to leverage the CARA
funding." She said the testimony indicates [the amount] may be
as much as $5 million more than what would be needed for the
CARA leverage.
MR. WILLIAMS, in response, said it was an appropriation into the
general fund and it's up to the administration or the
legislature to make suggestions; the legislature holds the
ultimate appropriation powers for those funds.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned attention to AS 16.05.420, which
read:
Sec. 16.05.420. License, tag, and permit violations.
(a) A false statement of a material fact in an
application for a license, tag, or permit issued under
AS 16.05.330 - 16.05.430 voids the license, tag, or
permit for which the application is made.
(b) A person may not make a false statement, or
omit a material fact, in an application for a license,
tag, or permit issued under AS 16.05.330 - 16.05.430.
A person who without any culpable mental state makes a
false statement as to the person's identity or
residency in an application for a license, tag, or
permit issued under AS 16.05.330 - 16.05.430 is guilty
of a violation and upon conviction is punishable by a
fine of not more than $300. A person who knowingly
violates this subsection is guilty of a class A
misdemeanor.
(c) A person to whom a license or tag has been
issued under this chapter may not alter, change, loan,
or transfer the license or tag. A person may not use a
license or tag that has been issued under this chapter
to another person.
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said it seemed onerous to her that there
is either a $300 fine or a class A misdemeanor for this kind of
a permit. She asked if there had been any policy discussion
about that in the department.
MR. WILLIAMS noted that the issue had been discussed, and he
said [AS 16.05.420] talks about making a false statement of fact
on the license, and in this case, it added the wildlife
conservation pass to that. Mr. Williams indicated ADF&G did not
anticipate requiring the amount of discrete data that is
required with a hunting and fishing license. He remarked, "I
don't how much this would actually apply to the fee the way we
have it now." Mr. Williams suggested Mr. Robert Nauheim,
Assistant Attorney General, could speak about penalties for "not
holding one of these, which is not addressed directly in the
bill, but ... since it's ... issued under Title 16, it's covered
under the penalties section."
Number 2023
ROBERT NAUHEIM, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law,
testified. Mr. Nauheim explained that the intent in drafting
the bill was to integrate the conservation pass in a way that's
analogous to hunting and fishing licenses, to sort of "fold it"
in to the way hunting and fishing licenses are treated,
including the penalty provision, so there's really no
distinction there. Currently, he said, the offense of hunting
or fishing without the required license is in the nature of a
civil penalty under [Alaska Rules of Court] Administrative Rule
43.2 and carries a $200 fine. Mr. Nauheim said if these passes
were going to be treated in a way that is analogous to hunting
and fishing licenses, that kind of penalty structure would also
be appropriate. He said that's the best answer he could provide
for why it's structured the way it is at the present time.
[Vice Chair Masek turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Fate.]
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if [Fish and Wildlife Protection
Troopers] are responsible for enforcing Title 16, and whether
they would also be responsible for enforcing the wildlife
viewing pass requirement.
MR. WILLIAMS said he believed that was correct; that enforcement
was primarily under the Department of Public Safety.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, noting the expense of sending a Fish
and Wildlife Protection Trooper to a remote location, asked why
[Title 16] is under ADF&G and not under the Department of
Revenue.
MR. WILLIAMS said he thought the intent was to add this to the
list of licenses and permits similar to hunting and fishing
licenses; it's another user group of wildlife, so the decision
was made to incorporate that into the mix of licenses and
permits.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Williams what he thought the
timeline was for writing regulations for the [wildlife viewing
pass]. He said the variables built into this bill for having to
come up with regulations seem "pretty wide and sweeping" to
cover all situations. He asked Mr. Williams if he thought
regulations could be completed and in place by this season.
MR. WILLIAMS said he had not spoken with "our regulations
people" and that he didn't know what the complexities would be
to get the program underway. He indicated that he couldn't
speak to the timing.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked about the increases in tag fees
for big game. He asked, "What we're facing now would be ... a
silly decision; if an appropriate time, why are we justifying
raising the fees to begin with?"
Number 1783
MR. WILLIAMS said he thought this was a recognition of the fact
that fees are in kind of a mid-range for those tags for
nonresidents; a lot of the Western states are charging
significantly more money for similar species. So, he said,
recognizing the quality of the experience in Alaska, [ADF&G]
felt this level of increase was justified.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said the state was facing a
multimillion liability case.
MR. NAUHEIM, in response to a question from Representative
Guttenberg, said the timing issue is really not a legal question
and that his understanding is that the fee increase on the game
tags was initiated by the governor's office and ADF&G. He
mentioned Carlson v. State, CFEC, to the extent it's seen as
poor timing, given the Carlson case. There are really some
important distinctions to be made from the case of imposing
nonresident tag fees and the Carlson case, which was a license
fee in the commercial fishing industry, he explained. Mr.
Nauheim said [the state] has very good law from the U.S. Supreme
Court analyzing a Montana statute that allowed for a game tag of
25 times as large as the resident fee, and the U.S. Supreme
Court, in a landmark decision, held that that was constitutional
under the privileges and immunities analysis.
Number 1641
MR. NAUHEIM continued, saying the court didn't consider the
commerce clause, but since that time and even well before, it
has been the "conventional legal wisdom" that it's okay to
charge nonresident hunters a higher fee because the activity
that is being engaged in isn't so important that it threatens
constitutional interests. Mr. Nauheim said in terms of the
Carlson case, he wasn't sure that the timing was bad in any way
because he thought the Carlson case really doesn't address the
question of higher tag fees for nonresidents. He said he
thought it was important to recognize that even without these
increases, the tag fees are already quite a bit higher for
nonresidents. He offered his understanding that the intent was
to increase these fees a little bit, in keeping with what is a
fairly moderate position among the other states.
Number 1564
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed that there was a different
position with respect to hunting in terms of resident and
nonresident. She said she hadn't heard any information about
what the necessity is for raising the fee, such as an increase
in costs to the department or some increased patrolling -
anything to justify [the increase]. Representative Kerttula,
noting that the [increase had been targeted towards]
nonresidents, asked why it had not been applied to both
residents and nonresidents.
MR. NAUHEIM said he really didn't have an answer for that, and
that he thought that was a policy call from ADF&G and the
governor's office.
Number 1476
MR. WILLIAMS said he wasn't aware of a one-to-one tie into
increased costs. He explained that [the department]
periodically reviews fees and that in the course of that, he
thought the governor's office and the department discussed
whether big-game tag fees were in line [with other states'
fees], and that it was decided that those particular tags could
use a small [fee increase] to be more in line with what other
states were charging. Mr. Williams offered his understanding
that some other state's [fees] were over $1,000 for a sheep,
although it may not be exactly the same species. He said [the
fees] were in the mid-range and the policy call was made that
these [fees] could bear some additional [increases]. Mr.
Williams noted that this money goes into ADF&G's fund and that
there are things that the Division of Wildlife Conservation
could do with additional revenues.
Number 1423
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if the state still charged a fee for
state park use.
MR. WILLIAMS said he believed so, but that was overseen by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and he wasn't exactly sure
of its fee structure.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if [charging a fee for state park use]
would [present] an opportunity to have the wildlife viewing pass
fee collected from [recreational vehicle] users. He noted that
a tremendous amount of [recreational vehicles visit] the Kenai
Peninsula and that to target one particular [user group] seems
very limited. He suggested reviewing the issue.
Number 1327
CO-CHAIR FATE suggested that recreational vehicles users consume
a lot of fuel and pay fuel taxes.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his belief that it was not atypical
for states to discriminate against [nonresidents]. He called
attention to out-of-state tuition; he said it is [practiced]
commonly and is acceptable, even though occupying a seat in a
classroom costs the same amount of money. Representative Gatto
remarked, "Now, I recognize the states very often subsidize the
universities, but it even seems to be true in private
universities." He suggested that charging more for [wildlife
viewing] is essentially the same thing; the state has a certain
ownership that it tries to reserve for [residents] and then
charges extra for [nonresidents].
Number 1262
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, suggesting that exports from Alaska needed
to be increased, said the top "export" should be taxes and
exporting taxes to nonresidents wherever possible.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:28 p.m. to 2:31 p.m.
CO-CHAIR FATE, noting the four pages of [proposed] amendments
that were before the committee, said the [amendments] would be
given to [Legislative Legal and Research Services] and to the
administration to consolidate into a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for the purpose of saving time.
CO-CHAIR FATE indicated HB 163 would be held for further review.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|