HB 80-SPT FSH HATCHERY FACIL ACCT; SURCHARGE  11:09:51 AM CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 80, "An Act establishing the sport fishing hatchery facilities account; establishing the sport fishing facility surcharge; and providing for an effective date." 11:10:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Section 2 regarding fishing license reciprocity between Yukon [Territory] and Alaska allowing Yukon residents to obtain licensing at resident rates and suggested that Yukon is getting the better deal. He asked Commissioner Vincent-Lang if he had data reflecting the impact of the discount and how many Alaskans take advantage of the reciprocal resident licensing discount. 11:11:27 AM DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, answered that he did not have the requested data readily available. He offered that the topic had come up throughout the years between the premier of Yukon and the governor of Alaska. He stated that the matter had not been addressed by the current administration, and the policy exists as a "good neighbor policy." He offered to provide the requested data and agreed with Representative Kreiss-Tompkins that access to Alaska's saltwater fisheries [by Yukoners] was the more desirable benefit of the policy. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS agreed with the sentiment of a good neighbor policy due to the geography of Southeast Alaska and residents' access to the rest of the state and asked the commissioner to provide foregone revenues to understand the cost benefits of the "good neighbor policy". 11:13:07 AM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled that the reciprocity language had not been included in a previous version of the proposed bill and questioned the value of including such reciprocity given her belief that Alaska was not in a strong position for negotiation and that Alaska was experiencing a lack of reciprocity in other areas affecting communities in Alaska. COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG suggested that a minor change in language had clarified the intent of the bill to ensure that resident rate licensing fees offered to Yukoners would include the surcharge, which may not have been clear in a previous version of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if there exist other areas of negotiation, including treaties, that pose a strong need to offer [Yukoners] a nonresident discount. COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG offered his understanding that those needs are a policy decision between the governor and Yukon, and that he could speak only to the impacts of such decisions. 11:15:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether a hypothetical conceptual amendment to Section 1, on page 1, line 9 changing the words "operation of the department's sport fish hatchery facilities and sport fishing stock", by replacing "fishing stock" with the word "fish" would change the intent of the bill. COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG suggested that there may exist confusion about what a sport fish hatchery does. He exemplified that a sportfish hatchery in Fairbanks produces fish primarily for lakes. He stated that the Jack Hernandez Hatchery in Southcentral produces fish for both lakes and saltwater releases. He stated that Douglas Island Pink and Chum (DIPAC) in Southeast Alaska produces both fresh water and salt water fish. He stated his opinion that including the word "stock" would not affect the intent of the surcharge for the maintenance and operations of hatcheries. REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ clarified his question, which he was asking on behalf of a constituent, whether changing the words "sport fishing stock enhancement" to "sport fish enhancement" [would change the intent of the bill]. COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that he had no problem with the suggested change to the language in the bill. 11:18:10 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to Section 2, which read: "If the commissioner determines that residents of the state are entitled to obtain licenses for sport fishing, including sport fishing for anadromous king salmon, in Yukon, Canada". He stated that currently one may not drive there; therefore, the [reciprocated licensing benefit to Alaskans] would be zero. COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that the determination is vested at his discretion; however, he would request a conversation with the governor regarding policy with our neighbors and that decisions predicated on this policy may have broader implications on other policies. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the commissioner would have an estimate between 500 to 10,000 Yukon residents [benefitting from the policy]. 11:19:28 AM COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG estimated the number to be in the hundreds, not tens of thousands. 11:19:54 AM CHAIR TARR noted that in the committee packet were two amendments. The first was Amendment 1, labeled 32-GH1609\A.4, Bullard, 2/24/21, which read as follows: Page 1, lines 8 - 9: Delete "to ongoing maintenance and operation of" Insert "equally between" Page 1, line 10: Delete "intended to directly benefit license purchasers" Insert "projects for ongoing maintenance and operation and for the direct benefit of sport fishing license holders" CHAIR TARR noted that Amendment 1 had been submitted by Representative Ortiz. 11:20:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ stated his intention to revise the amendment after consultation with the department and offer it at a later time. 11:20:44 AM CHAIR TARR moved on to Amendment 2. 11:20:54 AM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32- GH1609\A.5, Bullard, 3/3/21, which read as follows: Page 2, line 21: Delete "4" Insert "6.50" Page 2, line 22: Delete "4" Insert "6.50" Page 2, line 23: Delete "4" Insert "6.50" Page 2, line 24: Delete "25" Insert "27.50" Page 2, line 25: Delete "20" Insert "22.50"' Page 2, line 26: Delete "10" Insert "12.50" Page 2, line 27: Delete "5" Insert "7.50" Page 2, line 28: Delete "40" Insert "42.50" Page 2, lines 29 - 30: Delete all material. Renumber the following paragraph accordingly. Page 2, line 31: Delete "4" Insert "6.50" CHAIR TARR objected for the purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered a summary description of the proposed amendment as follows: Amendment 2 meets the department's proposal halfway. Instead of reinstating the surcharge with a reduction of $ 5.00, this amendment proposes a reduction of only $ 2.50. This amount is what the committee passed last year, and it remained in the bill until it died in its final committee of referral in the other body. I believe this amendment reflects a delicate balance of reducing the surcharge, as the bonding has been paid for the Ruth Burnett and the ... William Jack Hernandez hatcheries, while still retaining the necessary revenue for enhancement projects. The addition of the $ 2.50 back into this bill will raise over a million dollars in additional revenue that is badly needed to support the activities of sports anglers. I would note that the deletion of the special nonresident military small game and sport fishing license on page 2, lines 10 and 11 of the amendment is a housekeeping measure at the request of the department. They no longer offer this license and request that it be removed from the bill. I would also remind members ... and the public ... that 82 percent of the surcharge revenue is derived from nonresidents. 11:22:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated his interest in Amendment 2, provided that Amendment 1 should not pass. He asked whether Amendment 1 would be revised, stating his view that amendment 1 would blatantly push money to a Southeast hatchery when it is not needed, and that the two larger hatcheries are the facilities most in need due to the larger populations served. 11:23:21 AM The committee took an at-ease from 11:23 a.m. to 11:29 a.m. 11:29:07 AM CHAIR TARR called the meeting back to order and clarified that the committee was still considering Amendment 2, which would "split the difference" in the proposed restoration of the surcharge. 11:29:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ stated that 82 percent of the revenues are [derived] from nonresident fees, and his anecdotal interactions with charter operators and lodges in his region revealed that [nonresident anglers] have no concern whether the surcharge is $2.50 or $5.00, and the guests of operators have traveled great distances to take advantage of Alaska's resources. He asked why the $5.00 should not be maintained when those affected have expressed no concern over the increase. 11:30:52 AM COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that he had participated in the original plan for the bond reimbursement through the surcharge, and it was his view that there existed a commitment to eliminate the surcharge once the bonds had been repaid. He stated that, while he is in a different role currently and now responsible for the maintenance of the hatcheries, he maintained his commitment to the agreement that the surcharge would be eliminated, or that it would not be charged indefinitely. He suggested his agreement with Representative Ortiz' statement that nonresidents would likely not take issue with the surcharge and that a balance of those priorities should be sought. He referenced the ruling in Carlson v. State in which it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to have a full surcharge for nonresidents and a partial surcharge for residents. He expressed his appreciation that the need for funding the programs was one recognized by the maker of the amendment as needing support and cautioned that increasingly restrictive language would result in difficulties in meeting needs in different areas of the state. He suggested that the governor, [as sponsor of the bill through House Rules] should be consulted to arrive at a compromised language to balance the needs. 11:32:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ allowed that there exist complexities in arriving at the best language for the bill and he stated that the department had experienced at least a 32 percent reduction in unrestricted general funds (UGF); however, it had been asked to do the same crucial mandate of managing the resource to the maximum sustained yield. He stated that the funding reduction was a hindrance to that mandate. 11:34:06 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked why there exists a difference in the bill proposed last year which included a list of programs not included in this version. 11:34:40 AM COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated his understanding that this version of the bill contained the same programs as last year, and the legislative process of developing the language had led to what is currently before the committee. 11:34:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES suggested that the list of programs that Representative McCabe had referred to had been left out of the version currently under consideration to allow the department to function with fewer restrictions and to allow the commissioner more discretion in the use of limited funds. She added that the reduction from $5.00 to $2.50 was a compromise to allow for some funds to be collected, while the reduction could be perceived as an act of good faith on the part of the commissioner having reduced the surcharge overall. 11:35:59 AM CHAIR TARR suggested that the bill could be amended further to allow for another sunset on the surcharge, and that could be decided in the bill's next committee of referral. 11:36:20 AM CHAIR TARR removed her objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 11:36:33 AM CHAIR TARR announced that HB 80, as amended, was held over.