04/24/2024 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB396 | |
| HB195 | |
| HB114 | |
| SB161 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 396 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 24, 2024
2:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Thomas Baker
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Maxine Dibert
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative CJ McCormick
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 396
"An Act establishing a big game guide concession area permit
program on land in the state; relating to the duties of the Big
Game Commercial Services Board, the Board of Game, the
Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Natural
Resources; requiring the Board of Game to establish an initial
big game guide concession area; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 195
"An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to administrative areas for
regulation of certain commercial set net entry permits;
establishing a buy-back program for certain set net entry
permits; providing for the termination of state set net tract
leases under the buy-back program; closing certain water to
commercial fishing; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 195(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 114
"An Act relating to the definition of 'village' in the Village
Safe Water Act."
- MOVED HB 114 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 161(CRA) AM
"An Act relating to municipal taxation of farm land and farm
structures; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 396
SHORT TITLE: DNR BIG GAME GUIDE PERMIT PROGRAM
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
04/10/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/10/24 (H) RES, FIN
04/17/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/17/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/17/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/24/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 195
SHORT TITLE: COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
SPONSOR(s): RUFFRIDGE
05/08/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/23 (H) FSH, RES
02/06/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/06/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/06/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/13/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/13/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/27/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/27/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/14/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/19/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/26/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/02/24 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/02/24 (H) Moved CSHB 195(FSH) Out of Committee
04/02/24 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/03/24 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) NEW TITLE 3DP 1NR 2AM
04/03/24 (H) DP: CARPENTER, STUTES, VANCE
04/03/24 (H) NR: HIMSCHOOT
04/03/24 (H) AM: MCCORMICK, MCCABE
04/08/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/08/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/08/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/15/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/15/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/15/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/17/24 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/24/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 114
SHORT TITLE: VILLAGE SAFE WATER ACT;VILLAGE DEFINITION
SPONSOR(s): MCCABE
03/15/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/23 (H) CRA
04/18/24 (H) RES REPLACED CRA REFERRAL
04/24/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 161
SHORT TITLE: TAX EXEMPTION FOR FARM LAND/STRUCTURES
SPONSOR(s): BJORKMAN
01/16/24 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (S) CRA
01/30/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/30/24 (S) Heard & Held
01/30/24 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/01/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/01/24 (S) Heard & Held
02/01/24 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/15/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/24 (S) <Above Item Removed from Agenda>
02/15/24 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/22/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/22/24 (S) -- Invited & Public Testimony --
02/27/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/27/24 (S) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/29/24>
02/29/24 (S) CRA AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/29/24 (S) Moved CSSB 161(CRA) Out of Committee
02/29/24 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/01/24 (S) CRA RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
03/01/24 (S) DP: DUNBAR, GRAY-JACKSON, GIESSEL,
BJORKMAN
03/18/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/18/24 (S) VERSION: CSSB 161(CRA) AM
03/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/24 (H) CRA
04/02/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/02/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/02/24 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/04/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM DAVIS 106
04/04/24 (H) Heard & Held
04/04/24 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/11/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/11/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/18/24 (H) RES REFERRAL ADDED AFTER CRA
04/18/24 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/18/24 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 161(CRA) Out of
Committee
04/18/24 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/22/24 (H) CRA RPT HCS(CRA) 2DP 1DNP 3NR 1AM
04/22/24 (H) DP: MEARS, RUFFRIDGE
04/22/24 (H) DNP: MCCABE
04/22/24 (H) NR: MCKAY, BAKER, MCCORMICK
04/22/24 (H) AM: HIMSCHOOT
04/24/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN KEHOE, President
Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
ROB JONES, representing self
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
LYLE BECKER, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
COKE WALLACE, representing self
Healy, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 396.
BEN MALLOT, Vice President of External Affairs
Alaska Federation of Natives
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony in support of HB 396
with one recommended change.
CHRISTIANNA COLLES, Director
Division of Mining, Land, and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, responded to
questions during the hearing on HB 396.
RYAN SCOTT, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, responded to
questions during the hearing on HB 396.
REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIN RUFFRIDGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 195.
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
195.
JULIE MORRIS, Staff
Representative Kevin McCabe
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Read the sectional analysis of HB 114 on
behalf of Representative McCabe, prime sponsor.
KRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Legislative Liaison
Office Of the Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 161.
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented SB 161.
LAURA ACHEE, Staff
Senator Jesse Bjorkman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Senator Bjorkman, prime
sponsor, offered information regarding SB 161.
ADAM JENSKI, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 161.
CHARLIE JEANNET, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 161.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:07:12 PM
CHAIR TOM MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 2:07 p.m. Representatives Rauscher, Baker,
Saddler, Wright, Armstrong, Mears, Dibert, and McKay were
present at the call to order. Representative McCabe arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 396-DNR BIG GAME GUIDE PERMIT PROGRAM
[Contains mention of SB 253.]
2:09:05 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 396, "An Act establishing a big game guide
concession area permit program on land in the state; relating to
the duties of the Big Game Commercial Services Board, the Board
of Game, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of
Natural Resources; requiring the Board of Game to establish an
initial big game guide concession area; and providing for an
effective date."
2:09:20 PM
CHAIR MCKAY opened public testimony on HB 396.
2:32:22 PM
KEVIN KEHOE, President, Alaska Wild Sheep Foundation, testified
in support of HB 396. He said the Sheep Foundation is for
conservation and doesn't differentiate among types of hunters.
He said HB 396 promotes better stewardship of hunting areas. He
said currently all hunters are for themselves and do not have a
vested interest in the areas in which they hunt. He claimed
that HB 396 would prevent overcrowding in areas. He cited a
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) study stating that
overcrowding is the number one issue with resident hunters.
2:36:05 PM
ROB JONES, representing self, testified in support of HB 396.
He said he was a registered hunting guide. He opined that HB
396 is a "good start," as it would reduce congestion of hunters
in specific areas. He said harvest numbers should be managed by
ADF&G.
2:39:01 PM
LYLE BECKER, representing self, testified in support of HB 396.
He imparted that he is a registered guide on National Wildlife
Refuge Land and operates on land that has a guide concession
program in place. He said limited concessions on state lands
are vital to the longevity of the industry. He said HB 396 is a
good start, and over time there may be changes and adaptations.
2:41:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Becker what criteria one would
use to decide between working on federal or state concession
areas.
2:41:24 PM
MR. BECKER answered by listing a couple criteria: how onerous
regulations are in each area and the quality of game in each
area. He stated that federal regulations seem "excessively
onerous," and the hunting operation is only as good as the game
in the area.
2:43:15 PM
COKE WALLACE, representing self, testified in support of HB 396.
He identified himself as a hunting guide in Healy, Alaska, on
Game Management Units 13 and 28. He stressed resources are at
critical levels and there do not need to be as many hunting
guides in the field. He opined that the state is not doing a
good job of protecting its resources.
2:45:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE thanked Mr. Wallace for his testimony.
2:46:23 PM
CHAIR MCKAY, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 396 and went to
invited testimony.
2:47:06 PM
BEN MALLOT, Vice President of External Affairs, Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN), began invited testimony in support
of HB 396 and its companion [SB 253]. He said that there are
currently no rules for hunting guides, creating a burden on
resources, resident hunters, and subsistence communities.
Additionally, he said that a concession program establishes a
vested interest in the guiding areas. He suggested improvement
of the bill by adding concessions for the unaffected areas of
Alaska Native corporations (ANCs). In response to Chair McKay,
he confirmed AFN supports HB 396 with the aforementioned
suggestion for improvement.
2:49:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether ANCs would have additional
consideration and involvement in the program or in developing
the program.
2:49:53 PM
MR. MALLOT reiterated that AFN is in support of HB 396, but with
some additional concessions to ensure protection of Native-owned
lands.
2:51:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about comments claiming that the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is not a land management
agency. He asked what role DNR would play going forward if HB
396 were to become law.
2:51:41 PM
CHRISTIANNA COLLES, Director, Division of Mining, Land, and
Water, Department of Natural Resources, responded that guides
are not directly managed by DNR. Guides go through DNR to
obtain permits and leases for state land on which guides would
like to hunt and build cabins and/or facilities. She said DNR
would have a large role in managing the guides in conjunction
with ADF&G.
2:53:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER called HB 396 a "hybrid program" between
DNR and ADF&G, with DNR managing the land and ADF&G managing the
animals on the land. He asked how DNR and ADF&G might cooperate
with each other upon passage of HB 396.
2:53:58 PM
RYAN SCOTT, Director, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, as an
invited testifier, answered that the primary role of ADF&G is to
provide biological data on species of interest and hunting data.
He believed other divisions, such as the Board of Game or the
Big Game Commercial Services Board, would use data to make
allocation decisions. Historically, he added, some of the
species they will be discussing have not required guides.
2:54:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification regarding the
division of responsibilities between DNR, ADF&G, the Board of
Game, and the Big Game Commercial Services Board.
2:55:27 PM
CHRISTIANNA COLLES clarified that a proposal with land that
requires concessions would come from the public to the Board of
Game, which would decide in consultation with the Big Game
Commercial Services Board whether a concession should be
implemented in that area. Ms. Colles believed that the data
collected by ADF&G would be taken into consideration. After
deciding, the Board of Game would make a recommendation to DNR
on whether to implement a concession program. The department
[DNR] would execute the recommendation. She said that DNR would
need to develop a competitive application process for permits to
decide who would be awarded concessions. Those awarded would be
allowed to use state land for up to 10 years.
2:58:10 PM
CHAIR MCKAY set an amendment deadline for HB 396 for Thursday,
April 25 at 4 p.m.
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 396 was held over.
2:58:30 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:58 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.
HB 195-COOK INLET: NEW ADMIN AREA;PERMIT BUYBACK
2:59:31 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the powers of the Alaska
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; relating to
administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial set
net entry permits; establishing a buy-back program for certain
set net entry permits; providing for the termination of state
set net tract leases under the buy-back program; closing certain
water to commercial fishing; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee was CSHB 195(FSH).]
2:59:59 PM
CHAIR MCKAY moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 195(FSH), labeled
33-LS0807\B.2, Bullard, 4/23/24, which read as follows:
Page 7, line 10:
Delete "how"
Page 7, line 11:
Delete "will be determined"
Insert "to be offered"
Page 8, line 27, through page 9, line 4:
Delete all material and insert:
"(b) Participation in the buy-back program
established under this section is voluntary. An
individual qualified under this section may apply
electronically on a form provided by the commission to
have the individual's entry permit purchased under
this section. The commission shall provide each
applicant with an electronic receipt evidencing the
date and time the individual's application was
received. Subject to appropriation and to (c) of this
section, the commission shall buy back not more than
300 unencumbered entry permits in the order in which
applicant names are drawn by a lottery. If an
applicant whose permit has been selected for purchase
is disqualified from participation in the program
under (c) of this section, elects not to participate
in the buy-back program, fails to sign the contract of
sale within a period specified by the commission, or
fails to provide all of the information required under
(a) of this section, the commission shall, subject to
(c) of this section, offer to buy back the entry
permit of the applicant whose name was next selected
in the lottery."
Page 9, line 5, following "applicant":
Insert "whose name is selected in the lottery
under this section"
Page 9, lines 17 - 25:
Delete all material and insert:
"(1) buy back the entry permit of an
applicant selected in the lottery under this section
for $200,000, less administrative costs; and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
3:00:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:00:09 PM
CHAIR MCKAY explained that Amendment 1 would mostly return the
bill to its original version. He stated that the original
version of the bill received strong testimony in support, but
offered his understanding that testifiers were unaware the bill
had been significantly altered in the House Special Committee on
Fisheries. He asked Representative Ruffridge to speak on
Amendment 1 and be available for questions.
3:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 195, echoed that Amendment 1 would return CSHB
195(FSH) to its original version, with some changes. He
described the following changes: an increase to the number of
available permits from 200 to 300; a decrease to the permit
dollar amount from $260,000 to $200,000; and the establishment
of a permit lottery program. He primarily supported Amendment 1
due to its provision to establish the lottery program. He
believed the lottery is more effective in accomplishing a buy-
back program where the permit holders can opt in through an
elective process. He said HB 195 would provide the framework
for the lottery program, but fisheries and federal and/or
private partners would be responsible for accumulating the
funds.
3:03:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Representative Ruffridge whether
the support for HB 195 changed after the adoption of CSHB
195(FSH).
3:04:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered that the previous testimony
voiced concerns about CSHB 195(FSH).
3:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that he had heard the same.
3:05:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his belief that the establishment
of an elective process to participate in a buy-back and the
lottery program made it equitable. He expressed his
disappointment in CSHB 195(FSH), as it would remove the permit
lottery program. However, he opined the $200,000 is overpriced.
He offered his understanding that the current average per permit
was approximately $20,000.
3:06:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE stated he agreed with Representative
McCabe regarding the lottery program, so long as the intent was
to operate a fishery. He explained that the dollar amount
[$200,000] was meant to emulate profits that fisheries may have
earned by remaining open instead of electing to give up permits
and shut down business.
3:08:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what might happen with any surplus
funds/equipment/investments into the fisheries. He voiced
concern that the large dollar amount [$200,000] might result in
the monetization of permits. He also conceded that this concern
may be mitigated by designating the fishermen, and not the
state, to raise funding.
3:09:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE suggested that fishermen who have their
permits bought may decide to auction their equipment or leave
the industry entirely, but that remaining fisherman would have a
vested interest in the area. He reiterated the intent of the
bill to provide framework, not funding, for the lottery program.
3:11:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether CSHB 195(FSH) would pro-
rate the amount of money paid to fisherman who volunteered to
have their permit bought back based on the amount of money
available and the number of fishermen who volunteered. He then
asked for confirmation that Amendment 1 would allot a $200,000
maximum to be paid to fishermen.
3:12:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered yes.
3:12:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what might happen if the funding
source were insufficient to provide the full $200,000 for all
the lottery winners. He asked if there is a provision for pro-
rating the amount to be paid to the fishermen.
3:12:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE answered that the Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission (CFEC) would manage the lottery and buy-back
program. He offered his understanding that the election to opt
into the buy-back program would not proceed until there were
funds available to buy all 300 permits.
3:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many fishermen wanted to take
advantage of the buy-back program and give up their permits.
3:13:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE said currently there are fishermen not
allowed to fish, and he believed that there are many people who
would opt-in to the program due to instability of some
fisheries.
3:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 to CSHB 195[FSH], labeled: 33-LS0807\B.2, Bullard,
4/23/24, which read as follows:
Page 9, lines 6
Insert "a maximum of $200,000"
3:15:57 PM
CHAIR MCKAY objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:16:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would allow for more flexibility in the program,
with uncertainty of funds available.
3:16:244 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked whether Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 would affect the "viability of the program."
3:17:26 PM
GLENN HAIGHT, Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, answered there are options on buy-back regulations
that still need to be developed, of which CFEC has not made a
final decision. He clarified there is a specific date for the
election to opt in the buy-back program [April 2025]. He made a
few suggestions, including waiting until there is the necessary
amount of money to conduct all buy-backs, or doing it in rounds
as funds become available. He offered his assumption that the
desired amount for every buy-back would be $200,000. He stated
support for Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1.
3:18:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE shared his understanding that the $200,000
acted as an "artificial" maximum and the language of Conceptual
Amendment 1 already existed in Amendment 1.
3:19:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE confirmed that was the intent of
Amendment 1, but mentioned he was not opposed to the clarifying
language in Conceptual Amendment 1.
3:19:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER shared his understanding that the lottery
program would not be pro-rated; instead, every lottery winner
would receive $200,000 until the funds were depleted. He
contended that the $200,000 does not function as a maximum,
should every lottery winner receive $200,000, thus rendering
Conceptual Amendment 1 unnecessary. He asked whether the
program, under Amendment 1, would pay every lottery winner no
less than $200,000 until funds were unavailable.
3:21:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE clarified that the amount that a person
might receive from a buy-back would depend on the dollar amount
available, which is an unknown variable, given the prescribed
funding sources. After the election, he suggested, through
regulation, CFEC could go through rounds of buy-backs or put all
available permits out, should those funds be available. Through
regulation, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 would allow a
reduction of the dollar amount, should there be a desire. He
added that reducing the dollar amount would allow for more
permits to be bought back.
3:22:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated the details of the buy-back
program, established by CFEC, would be on the ballot and
"ratified by the people [permit-holders]," according to page 7,
line 9 of CSHB 195(FSH).
3:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE agreed.
3:23:50 PM
CHAIR MCKAY removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
3:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS proposed that a $60 million budget with a
valuation of $200,000 per permit would satisfy program
participants. Furthermore, if $30 million was budgeted with
each permit valuation at $100,000 for 300 permits, that may
still be accepted by program participants. She raised concerns
that a $200,000 limit would render the buy-back program
inaccessible to half the prospective participants and remove
flexibility by having a firm cap. She raised further concerns
on the clarity of the language and reliance on the intent of a
body when words can be more concise.
3:24:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected [to the motion to adopt
Conceptual 1 to Amendment 1].
3:24:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Armstrong, Mears,
and Dibert voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
1 to CSHB 195(FSH). Representatives McCabe, Baker, Wright,
Rauscher, Saddler, and McKay voted against it. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3 to 6.
CHAIR MCKAY requested a motion.
3:26:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:26 p.m. to 3:26 p.m.
3:26:45 PM
CHAIR MCKAY inquired about any objections regarding Amendment 1.
3:27:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected to Amendment 1.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wright, Armstrong,
Dibert, McKay, Baker, Rauscher, Saddler, and McCabe voted in
favor of Amendment 1 to CSHB 195(FSH). Representative Mears
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote
of 8 to 1.
3:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report CSHB 195(FSH), as
amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
195(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
3:29:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:29 p.m. to 3:32 p.m.
HB 114-VILLAGE SAFE WATER ACT;VILLAGE DEFINITION
3:32:18 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 114, "An Act relating to the definition of
'village' in the Village Safe Water Act."
CHAIR MCKAY noted that this is the bill's first hearing in the
House Resources Standing Committee.
3:32:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 114,
which he stated would improve public health in rural communities
by upgrading sanitation facilities. He stated that access to
clean water is fundamental to avoid disease, improve community
well-being, and increase environmental sustainability. He also
highlighted that the Village Safe Water Program is a way that
communities can follow pre-existing environmental laws by
upgrading the sanitation infrastructure. He remarked that the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has an
application and scoring process that would still need to be
followed. He opined that HB 114 would expand the definition of
"village" to include census designated areas of up to 1,500
people. This would ensure that a broader range of communities
can have access to vital grant funding. This would support
underserved communities and foster an environment of
inclusivity. He emphasized the importance of updating statutory
definitions and population limits to reflect current realities
in Alaska. He noted that the last update in 2011 failed to
include these definitions during the legislative process.
Example communities that would benefit from proposed legislation
could include Sutton, Talkeetna, Funny River, Buffalo, Tok, and
Prudhoe Bay. He emphasized again that even given the definition
change, the communities would still be required to meet DEC
requirements and controls. He reiterated that this proposed
bill would merely change the definition of a "village" to a
community of up to 1,500 people. He stated that previous
village requirements of 1,000 did not currently support many
communities that would benefit from grants. He reiterated the
tangible outcomes that would support public health goals.
3:36:00 PM
JULIE MORRIS, Staff, Representative Kevin McCabe, Alaska State
Legislature, read the sectional analysis of HB 114 on behalf of
Representative McCabe, prime sponsor. The sectional analysis
[included in the committee packet] read as follows:
Section 1 amends AS §46.07.080(2)( E) to include: 1) a
"census-designated place"; and 2) increases the
population limit from 1,000 to 1,500 within this sub-
section.
Section 2 adds a definition of "census-designated
place" to AS §46.07.080.
3:37:00 PM
CHAIR MCKAY offered his understanding that there is no fiscal
note associated with this proposed legislation. He asked for
reaffirmation that the cost to the state would be zero.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE acknowledged that there was no cost to the
state. Additionally, he noted that there are about 43 villages
that still need sanitation infrastructure installed and around
half of which would qualify for this program. He also
highlighted that several dry cabins in Talkeetna have no access
to water and consequently collect water from other sources. He
emphasized that in the wintertime this can create a safety
hazard. He stated that this is his attempt to leverage a pre-
existing program to support examples such as this. The proposed
bill outcomes could include the development of a public well-
house for accessibility for those living in dry cabin
accommodations without running water. He also stated that this
program would not take away from any communities focused on
other sanitation/clean water objectives.
3:38:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked Representative McCabe about
populations increasing over time and whether he had investigated
changing the qualifying criteria for first-class cities and
municipalities.
3:39:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE answered that larger municipalities were
excluded because the bill was specifically designed for the
Village Safe Water Act and first-class cities fell outside the
scope of the Act's designed target groups.
3:39:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS said that these are definitions for the
Village Safe Water Act and therefore the definitions would apply
only to the Act.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS described the definitions and iterated that
it may be worth looking at other communities that may benefit
from revised population caps that pertain to grant funding
requirements.
3:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE told Representative Mears that the intent
of HB 114 was to resolve the lack of clean water and sewer
systems. He stated that most of the places she was referring to
already qualify for programs or were covered by preexisting
sanitation infrastructure. He noted that one of the focuses of
Senator Stevens on previous bill development was to address
diseases stemming from a lack of clean water and sewage
management practices in villages off the road system that were
not affluent enough to purchase necessary sanitation
infrastructure. He said that the Village Safe Water Act was a
way the state could help address these issues. He stated that
this bill proposal was a way to address other communities that
have the same sort of water/sanitation needs but do not qualify
for grants.
3:43:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked Representative McCabe whether
this proposal would increase federal money available to the
Village Safe Water Act or expand the pool of qualifying
communities while federal allocations remain the same.
3:43:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that he was unsure whether it
would change federal grant availability and deferred to Krystal
Koeneman with DEC to provide elaboration.
3:43:59 PM
KRYSTAL KOENEMAN, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that if the policy
decision is approved to change the population threshold, then
DEC would work with federal partners to add prospective
communities to the list of those eligible for federal funding.
She noted that funding would not increase with this piece of
legislation but [the bill] would increase the population
requirements.
3:44:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked whether the program was fully
meeting the needs it was designed for and whether the proposed
legislation has the risk of creating competition amongst
communities for federal grant availability.
3:45:03 PM
MS. KOENEMAN answered that she thinks Alaska struggles with
ensuring proper sanitation and clean water throughout different
areas of the state. She thinks that anything to help different
communities with whatever money is available to leverage is
beneficial to the state.
3:45:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked Ms. Koeneman to elaborate on the
criteria for grant money. She asked whether grant money is
delivered based on public health or safety concerns and what
these criteria look like.
3:45:44 PM
MS. KOENEMAN explained there is a priority level that is not
just with the state but also an agreement with federal partners
to delineate ranking priority for grant recipients.
3:46:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked Ms. Koeneman how much state funds go
into matching pre-existing priority lists outlined by groups
such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development or Indian Health Services (IHS).
3:46:53 PM
MS. KOENEMAN did not have the specific dollar amounts but said
she could get them to Representative Mears.
3:47:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Koeneman whether there are
federal limits that may apply to communities qualifying for
grants. He asked whether this proposal could "foul up" any
federal caps.
3:47:21 PM
MS. KOENEMAN replied that there is a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with federal partners and DEC would work with them to
update any documentation if the community were to qualify. She
highlighted that there is a process of requirements for
qualification. Furthermore, she stated that work with federal
partners is necessary and would not run afoul any federal
requirements.
3:48:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked Representative McCabe whether he was
aware of any other projects that would be sought in addition to
the Talkeetna Project.
3:48:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE was not aware of projects other than
Talkeetna's. He stated that Talkeetna has not even applied for
it yet, but he thinks that DEC would be willing to work with the
community. He stated that Talkeetna has borough money and last
year it helped address an outdated sewer system. He also
highlighted that some communities that had pre-existing
infrastructure installments from the Village Safe Water Act need
updates due to failing systems. He reiterated that HB 114 was
not designed to take money away from any other communities that
are in need but to update the Act which has aged since its
inception.
3:50:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS noted that there are dozens of projects on
the list for funding. She wanted to get an idea of how HB 114
would impact other pre-existing projects. She asked
Representative McCabe whether he explored additional project
candidates in addition to just Talkeetna.
RESPRESNTATIVE MCCABE acknowledged that his focus on HB 114
stemmed from Talkeetna's municipal needs.
3:50:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT reviewed the list of village safe water
(VSW) projects in her district and noted that there are roughly
30 communities of interest. She asked Representative McCabe
whether he had reached out to the Tanana Chief Council (TCC) and
inquired about how the council feels about the proposed bill and
how it would impact these 30 communities on the list.
3:51:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE answered that he did not reach out to TCC.
He noted that last year there were several presentations from
DEC related to the Village Safe Water Act and that these
projects fluctuate. He noted that each of the projects noted by
Representative Dibert may not even qualify following
qualification scoring.
3:52:16 PM
MS. KOENEMAN affirmed that Representative McCabe was correct
regarding the qualification process. She noted those currently
on the shortlist would not be affected until the qualification
process is completed.
3:53:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report HB 114 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected.
3:53:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Saddler, Wright,
Armstrong, McCabe, Baker, Rauscher, and McKay voted in favor of
the motion to report HB 114 out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives Mears and Dibert voted against it. Therefore,
HB 114 was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 7-2.
3:54:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:54 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.
SB 161-TAX EXEMPTION FOR FARM LAND/STRUCTURES
3:57:47 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 161, "An Act relating to municipal taxation of
farm land and farm structures; and providing for an effective
date."
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented SB 161 and its accompanying PowerPoint [hard
copy included in the committee packet]. He stated that the
heart of the bill is to provide tax relief for farmers by
reducing fixed costs and increasing farming profitability. By
doing so it attempts to encourage more people to grow food for
Alaskans. He highlighted that SB 161 would extend current
mandatory exemptions from farm-use land to include farm-use
buildings. He stated that these buildings would be taxed at the
farm rate as opposed to the standard rate. He stated that
additionally the bill would change the qualification tax-break
standard from showing 10 percent of total income and move the
standard to showing $2,500 in sales on a Schedule F. He also
said SB 161 would change the optional portion of the law, which
would allow municipalities by ordinance to allow tax breaks for
farm-use buildings all the way down to zero. By doing so, he
highlighted, municipalities could dictate farmer tax breaks on
farm-use buildings even when deviating from standard farm-use
rates. He also highlighted that these buildings would require
exclusive use for farming activities. He mentioned that the
types of farming activities that would be included in these
mandatory section deferments would be for food production only
while the optional tax exemption would include all farming
activities.
4:01:21 PM
LAURA ACHEE, Staff, Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Senator Bjorkman, prime sponsor of SB
161, added that under current statutes the mandatory exemption
is open to all agricultural operations. She noted that in
attempt to balance out taxes needed by both municipalities and
boroughs and to address the need for both farmers and food
production in Alaska, the legislation would narrow the scope of
mandatory exemptions.
4:02:23 PM
ADAM JENSKI, representing self, as a Matanuska-Susitna farmer
working in agriculture ("Ag"), testified in support of SB 161.
He mentioned that although representing self, he sits on both
the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Agriculture Advisory Board and the
State Board of Agriculture & Conservation. He stated that he
has been involved with farming since he was 16. He noted that
he does a lot of deferments to the Mat-Su Borough and
understands its benefits to farmers and adding the buildings is
a "huge deal." He believes this bill addresses one of the many
hurdles that farmers face which is the high taxes. He mentioned
that many farms in his life that have been on the annual
chopping block are outside the Delta area and have a differing
tax structure. He noted that the tax codes have detrimentally
impacted retiring and aging farmers looking to pass off their
business. He said that this bill would support all food
producers regardless of size. He highlighted that 1 percent of
farmers in Alaska produce 57 percent of the food. He noted that
if these 1 percent go under, then it would create food security
issues. He claimed that these taxes benefit larger producers
like him, even more so than anyone else. He mentioned that his
Ag operation currently encompasses 2,000-3,000 acres depending
on lease agreements. He mentioned that Point MacKenzie is a
large issue right now regarding deferments. His example was
old, out-of-use dairy buildings that are causing too much tax
burden for owners and prompting owners to sell their land, and
these sales are often to developers that pull land out of AG
use. He opined that deferment adjustment can keep farmers from
selling out Ag property because of the tax burden. He estimated
certain instances where tax savings could amount to $30,000 a
year. He emphasized that another important part of the bill
would allow incentives for landowners to add land into new Ag
related processes and operations. He noted that a strategy for
farming is to open new tracts to AG. He mentioned that Nenana
is one such example but may not be feasible for some farmers due
to its distant nature. He noted that this bill would allow
smaller acreage parcels to roll into Ag easier and allow an
easier tax burden on the development of new farms. He said that
the bill would substantially increase land designated for
agriculture in Alaska. He remarked that as a Southcentral
farmer who has seen the sale of many farm properties, SB 161
would help keep players in the game with tax incentives.
4:07:20 PM
CHARLIE JEANNET, representing self, introduced himself as a
farmer operating a small farm called Porcupine Ridge Farm. He
noted that the previous testifier shared many of his same
sentiments and that they are a common concern amongst other
farmers across the state. He noted that he operates a smaller
scale farm than the previous testifier, around 80 acres total
with about 50 dedicated to hay production. He noted that he has
been struggling in recent years and SB 161 would go a long way
to help him and others maintain their ability to farm or enter
farming. He noted that he had submitted a letter in support of
SB 161 prior to the hearing. He emphasized that farming and
sustainability is important. He claimed that interest in farms
is waning largely due to increasing costs and the inability to
turn a profit. He noted that most farmers in his area have a
day job and as farming becomes more of a challenge, people are
placing more focus and reliance on those day jobs. He opined
that given the current 10 percent tax rule, it has become harder
to hit that qualification standard. He noted that the
application pool for deferments in the area has gone from around
150 to less than 30 and only about one-fifth of local farmers
are still in the deferment program for the Fairbanks area. He
said that these numbers are indicative of current issues in
farming. He remarked that more and more land has been abandoned
for farm use and that his current Ag operation used to
accommodate over 300 acres. In summary, he said that he thinks
SB 161 is important and hopes that it will encourage greater
participation in farming. He noted that the Alaska State Fair
lacks the farming related entries that it once saw, and the
current trend is not good for Alaska.
4:12:02 PM
CHAIR MCKAY invited questions.
4:12:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Senator Bjorkman how it is
determined that a structure on a farm is farm-related. He asked
whether it be with an inspector or an affirmation from the
farmer.
4:12:30 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN answered that the Office of the State Assessor
is responsible for making the determination whether a structure
qualifies for farming use. He then stated that a structure is
assessed by portion, what percent of the building, and what time
of year the building is used for farming. He made the example
of home office tax write-offs as a similar means in which
farmers could claim Ag-related buildings. He noted that farmers
receive tax breaks based only on proportioned building use.
4:13:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Senator Bjorkman if assessors make
annual trips to verify that buildings currently are used for
agriculture.
4:13:58 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN replied that in his experience, most
assessments are done on a cyclical basis and often in two- or
three-year cycles. He noted that assessors have the discretion
to assess more often than that. He noted that there is an
assessor online that can answer these questions.
4:14:43 PM
CHAIR MCKAY inquired about any additional questions and thanked
Senator Bjorkman, his staff, the testifiers, and Chair Sumner
for the additional time to complete the work.
CHAIR MCKAY announced that SB 161 was held over.
4:15:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.