CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 93(FIN) An Act relating to commercial fishing permit and vessel license fees; and providing for an effective date. Co-Chair Meyer noted that at a previous meeting (4/18/05), Amendment #1, #24-LS0504\Y.2, Utermohle, 4/15/04, was MOVED and that Vice Chair Stoltze had OBJECTED. The amendment remained on the table. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON explained Amendment #1. He noted that that having large groupings, the fee structure does not recognize the vast difference between the fishing power of vessels at the lower and upper end of the class. Thus, the fee on a 76' vessel is the same as a 149' vessel and a 151' vessel is charged the same fee as a 249' vessel. The Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) prepared a fee schedule based on 25' increments, which would generate approximately the same revenue but would be fairer to the diversity of the vessels. FRANK HOMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ENTRY COMMISSION (CFEC), reported that the draft presented to the Committee was a result of several groups coming together in consensus regarding the fees. He voiced concern that the bill would "get lost" because of those changes. The Commission needs the recommended revenues. Co-Chair Meyer asked his opinion on the amendment. Commissioner Homan replied that if it could move through, adding no resistance, the amendment could generate about the same amount. 3:50:34 PM CHERYL SUTTON, STAFF, SENATOR BEN STEVENS, explained the vessel fees, noting that Senator Stevens does not support either amendment. The bill attempts to balance the vessel fee and the license fee to raise sufficient revenues for CFEC. The vessel fees are operational licenses for vessels. What gives the vessel fishing capacity is a permit, a separate license, also raised in the bill. In response to an analogy given by Vice-Chair Stoltze, Ms. Sutton pointed out that not all vessels are harvesting vessels. 3:52:45 PM Co-Chair Chenault referred to an earlier statement regarding the amount of fish that could be caught; he questioned how many have limits. Ms. Sutton responded that there are many limits to people's capacity to fish in the industry, including time and size of the vessel. She pointed out that the bill is not a tax. Fishermen pay a tax on what they harvest and a raw fish tax to the State. The request is for fees generated to run CFEC. Vice-Chair Stoltze REMOVED his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment #1. Representative Hawker OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Kelly, Stoltze, Meyer OPPOSED: Hawker, Moses, Chenault Representative Weyhrauch, Representative Holm, and Representative Joule were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (5-3). 3:56:57 PM, Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-LS0504\Y.1, Utermohle, 4/15/05. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. Representative Seaton explained Amendment #2. He noted that the amendment would significantly raise fees; he was willing to WITHDRAW Amendment #2. 3:58:25 PM Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW the MOTION to adopt Amendment #2. Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 93 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CS SB 93 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a new fiscal note by the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.