Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

02/02/2016 10:00 AM House FISHERIES

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
10:01:41 AM Start
10:02:54 AM HB251
11:08:06 AM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
        HB 251-ELECTRONIC TAX RETURNS & FISHERIES TAXES                                                                     
CHAIR STUTES  announced that the  only order of business  would be                                                              
HOUSE BILL  NO. 251, "An Act  requiring the electronic  submission                                                              
of  a  tax  return  or report  with  the  Department  of  Revenue;                                                              
relating to  fisheries business  tax and fishery  resource landing                                                              
tax; relating to  refunds to local governments;  and providing for                                                              
an effective date."                                                                                                             
10:02:54 AM                                                                                                                   
KEVIN BROOKS,  Deputy Commissioner,  Alaska  Department of  Fish &                                                              
Game  (ADF&G), Juneau,  Alaska,  introduced HB  251 and  explained                                                              
that it increases  fish tax revenues and also  requires returns to                                                              
be submitted  electronically.   Two taxes  have historically  been                                                              
imposed on the  fishing industry, he pointed out,  a fish business                                                              
tax and  a landing  tax.   The business  tax is  paid by  entities                                                              
processing fish  in, or  exporting fish from,  Alaska.   The basis                                                              
for  the  tax is  the  raw  resource  or the  fair  market  value.                                                              
Development  of  the  tax  began in  1913,  with  the  territorial                                                              
salmon  pack tax,  and  was expanded  over  the  years to  include                                                              
other species.   The first fish  business license was  required in                                                              
1951,  and  in   1962  revenue  distribution  practices   saw  the                                                              
inception  of municipal  sharing,  which  has increased  over  the                                                              
years from the original 10 percent to today's 50 percent.                                                                       
10:05:25 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ asked  for a definition  of fish  processor,                                                              
and the scope of  the term, noting that many levels  of processing                                                              
MR. BROOKS offered to provide further information.                                                                              
10:06:14 AM                                                                                                                   
MR.  BROOKS  continued  to  explain  the  current  tax  structure,                                                              
adopted  and in place  since 2004.   Provisions  include:   shore-                                                              
based  facilities pay  1 percent  for developing  fisheries and  3                                                              
percent  for  established  species;   floating  facilities  pay  3                                                              
percent  for developing  species  and  5 percent  for  established                                                              
species; and  salmon canneries  pay 4.5  percent.  The  department                                                              
utilizes specific  criteria to designate  a fishery  as developing                                                              
or  established,   and  shares  pertinent  information   with  the                                                              
Department of Revenue (DOR) for taxation purposes.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   asked  for  the   origin  of  the                                                              
differential   rate  levied   on   canned   versus  other   salmon                                                              
processing,   and  whether   taxes  are   exclusive  to   floating                                                              
facilities operating  in state waters, or also  include processors                                                              
located in federal waters.                                                                                                      
MR. BROOKS deferred.                                                                                                            
10:08:05 AM                                                                                                                   
TOM  SUTTON,  Fish  Group Manager,  Tax  Division,  Department  of                                                              
Revenue  (DOR),  offered to  provide  further information  on  the                                                              
origin  of  the   cannery  tax  rate.    Regarding   the  floating                                                              
facilities, the bill  relates to operations within  the three mile                                                              
limit;  Alaskan  waters.   He  acknowledged  that  other  floating                                                              
facilities  exist, and said  any products  brought to  shore would                                                              
have a landing tax imposed.                                                                                                     
10:10:11 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   queried  whether   processors  in                                                              
federal waters  tend to  bring their  products to Alaskan  shores,                                                              
or  by-pass  the  state  entirely.    Also,  he  asked,  how  many                                                              
floating  facilities exist  and  the amount  of  tax revenue  they                                                              
MR. SUTTON  estimated 30-40  facilities exist  in Alaskan  waters,                                                              
and the tax  is imposed based on  the species landed.   He pointed                                                              
out  that  pollock  processors  are an  exception.    Pollock  are                                                              
pursued  in U.S.  waters [Exclusive  Economic  Zone (EEZ)],  which                                                              
extend  to 200  miles  off-shore.   A tax  is  imposed on  pollock                                                              
regardless  of  where   the  landing  occurs.     To  a  follow-up                                                              
question,  he  said  the  tax received  on  the  fishery  resource                                                              
landing  receipts  totaled $12.5,  in  2014.   Approximately  $5.4                                                              
million of that  was distributed to municipalities,  leaving about                                                              
$7 million in Alaska's general fund.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS  focused on the pollock  return, and                                                              
noted that  it represents  a one to  two billion dollar  industry.                                                              
The  value of  the pollock  fishery  to Alaska,  he estimated,  is                                                              
about $30-50 million per year.                                                                                                  
MR. SUTTON  said pollock represents  one of the largest  resources                                                              
in the  state, is currently  returning about  $.15 per  pound, and                                                              
he offered to provide further information.                                                                                      
MR. BROOKS  added that floating  processors pay a  slightly higher                                                              
tax rate  as an enticement  to use  shore based facilities,  which                                                              
boosts local  employment.   The direct  marketing license  holders                                                              
pay shore-based tax rates.                                                                                                      
10:14:07 AM                                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS  turned to the fish  landing tax, and said  it's levied                                                              
on the  unprocessed value  of a fishery  resource first  landed in                                                              
Alaska,  but processed  outside  of state  waters.   The value  is                                                              
calculated  by  using  the  statewide  average  price  (SWAP),  as                                                              
compiled  by  ADF&G.    The  tax   applies  primarily  to  factory                                                              
trawlers and  floating processors  and 50  percent of  the revenue                                                              
is shared  with municipalities.   He provided  a brief  history of                                                              
the fish landing  tax, stating that it was first  applied in 1994,                                                              
with  an initial  assessment  of 3.3  percent  of the  unprocessed                                                              
value of the  catch.  Today it's  set at 1 percent  for developing                                                              
species and  3 percent for  established species.   Federal statute                                                              
provides  an  exception  for  pollock, which  is  subject  to  the                                                              
landing  tax  even if  not  landed  in  Alaska,  as per  the  1999                                                              
American Fisheries Act (AFA).                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS  pointed out  that, although it  is considered  a 50/50                                                              
share with  communities, any  tax credits  are extracted  from the                                                              
50  percent that  the state  receives, reducing  the general  fund                                                              
10:16:44 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ asked  if the community  shares are  handled                                                              
through the  revenue sharing  fund structure,  or via  a different                                                              
distribution process.                                                                                                           
MR.  BROOKS responded  that  a similar  but  different process  is                                                              
used, not  the traditional revenue  sharing program,  and requires                                                              
a separate  calculation.   Share  breakouts are  also made  at the                                                              
city/organized  borough  level,  by the  Department  of  Commerce,                                                              
Community & Economic  Development (DCCED), depending  on where the                                                              
processing or landing takes place.                                                                                              
MR.  BROOKS  directed  attention  to  the  department's  22  page,                                                              
committee  handout, titled  "New Sustainable  Alaska Plan,"  pages                                                              
9-10, to  review the three year  history of the fish  business and                                                              
fish  landing tax  revenues, respectively.   He  pointed out  that                                                              
the  state's  share  of  the  business  tax  revenue  is  normally                                                              
smaller than the  municipal share due to the  previously mentioned                                                              
tax credit  reductions.   Turning to pages  11-12 of  the handout,                                                              
he described  the proposed 1  percent increase versus  current tax                                                              
rates, using a  side-by-side illustration for the  established and                                                              
developing  floating, cannery, and  shore-based operations,  which                                                              
will be further reviewed in the sectional analysis.                                                                             
10:20:19 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   asked  how   ADF&G/DOR  determine                                                              
whether a fishery is established or developing.                                                                                 
MR. BROOKS  answered that  specific criteria  is used to  make the                                                              
determination.   In  January,  ADF&G provides  DOR  with a  letter                                                              
identifying those  fisheries that are developing.   Considerations                                                              
include:    established markets,  size  of  the fishery,  and  the                                                              
number  of years  a fishery  has been  harvested.   He offered  to                                                              
provide further information.                                                                                                    
10:21:28 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR STUTES asked  why the charter boat industry  is not included                                                              
in  the  proposal,  considering   that  many  utilize  shore-based                                                              
processors  in order  to  prepare their  catch  for home  delivery                                                              
outside of Alaska.                                                                                                              
MR.  BROOKS  opined  that  charter  boats  are  considered  to  be                                                              
carrying recreational  anglers, and he offered to  provide further                                                              
MR.  BROOKS  pointed out  that  the  proposed 1  percent  increase                                                              
provides  state   revenue  only  and  will  not   be  shared  with                                                              
municipalities.   The  municipal  sharing would  continue for  the                                                              
remaining  revenue.    Also,  the  tax would  be  handled  via  an                                                              
electronic filing method.                                                                                                       
10:23:19 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   FOSTER   questioned   the  requirement   to   use                                                              
electronic  filing,  given  the   technical  challenges  it  could                                                              
represent to rural Alaskans.                                                                                                    
MR. BROOKS deferred.                                                                                                            
MR. SUTTON  said DOR  expects to provide  waivers on  request, and                                                              
will accept handwritten returns.                                                                                                
10:24:45 AM                                                                                                                   
MR.  BROOKS restated  the distribution  of the  proposed tax,  and                                                              
added  that  Washington  is  the  only  other  state  with  a  tax                                                              
specific  to  fish.    The  Department  of  Revenue  estimates  an                                                              
additional  $18  million  per  year  will  be  generated  for  the                                                              
general fund, as a result of adopting the tax.                                                                                  
10:26:04 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   questioned  the  equitability  of                                                              
raising $18  million and asked for  a breakdown of who  will carry                                                              
the burden.                                                                                                                     
MR. BROOKS responded  that the fisheries business  tax carries the                                                              
highest amount,  at 3 percent,  and a comprehensive  revenue share                                                              
list is available for review from DOR.                                                                                          
10:27:00 AM                                                                                                                   
MR.  BROOKS  reviewed  the  implementation  costs,  which  include                                                              
updates  to  the tax  revenue  management  system (TRMS)  and  the                                                              
revenue  online (ROL)  program.   An  estimated one  time cost  of                                                              
$100,000 will  be needed  to develop new  tax forms,  complete the                                                              
reprograming,  and  test  the  new  system.    After  the  initial                                                              
investment,  further  administrative  costs are  not  anticipated.                                                              
He highlighted  the  role the proposed  tax plays  in closing  the                                                              
$5.2  billion budget  gap   Actions  also include  a $140  million                                                              
spending reduction within ADF&G.                                                                                                
10:28:52 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   MILLETT  asked   for   specifics  regarding   the                                                              
programs  and activities ADF&G  plans to  cut, in  FY 17,  to meet                                                              
the $140 million reduction requirement.                                                                                         
MR. BROOKS offered to provide detailed information.                                                                             
10:30:04 AM                                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS  continued to  review the  budget scenario  and pointed                                                              
out how  the increased $18 million,  in revenue from  ADF&G, ranks                                                              
with taxes proposed in other state departments.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  MILLETT maintained  her interest in  understanding                                                              
the specific cuts being made to ADF&G programs.                                                                                 
CHAIR STUTES  asked for the  complete departmental list  that will                                                              
be presented to the finance subcommittee.                                                                                       
MR. BROOKS  said it includes weirs,  counting tours, and  a number                                                              
of projects  throughout every  region and he  agreed to  provide a                                                              
list to the committee.                                                                                                          
10:35:53 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE    MILLETT   inquired    about   personnel    cuts,                                                              
particularly with  regard to the  offices of the  commissioner and                                                              
MR.  BROOKS said  the  legislative  liaison position  has  already                                                              
been  cut,   as  has   the  public   relations  officer.     Other                                                              
administrative  cuts are  being considered,  and consolidation  is                                                              
being underway.                                                                                                                 
10:38:11 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE   ORTIZ  noted   that  the   department  has   been                                                              
subjected  to  reductions in  previous  fiscal  years.   He  said,                                                              
given  the  projection  for  this  year,  are  the  goals  of  the                                                              
department's mission  statement still viable  and able to  be met;                                                              
noting that legislative mandates exist.                                                                                         
MR. BROOKS  explained  how the budget  has been  reduced over  the                                                              
course  of  two  budget  cycles,  from $80  million  down  to  $57                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ  asked  whether the  reductions  impact  the                                                              
ability of the department to fulfill its mission statement.                                                                     
MR. BROOKS  responded:   "Quite possibly."   He said  attempts are                                                              
being  taken to  first do  no harm;  however, without  appropriate                                                              
data collection  the precision  for in-season  management  will be                                                              
compromised.     Additionally,  all   field  projects   are  under                                                              
scrutiny.   Finished the overview,  he stated that the  buyer will                                                              
not be effected by the tax proposal.                                                                                            
10:42:58 AM                                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS provided  a sectional analysis of HB  251, paraphrasing                                                              
from  a  prepared  statement,  which  read  [original  punctuation                                                              
     Sec.  1. Adds a  $25 or  1% tax penalty  for failure  to                                                                   
     file electronically  unless an exemption is  received by                                                                   
     the taxpayer                                                                                                               
     Sec. 2.  Requires electronic submission of  tax returns,                                                                   
     license applications,  and other documents  submitted to                                                                   
     the  Department of Revenue.   This  changes the  general                                                                   
     tax  statutes,  AS 43.05,  and  will  apply to  all  tax                                                                   
     types  administered  by  the  department.    Provides  a                                                                   
     process to request  an exemption if a taxpayer  does not                                                                   
     have the technological capability to do so.                                                                                
     Sec. 3. Increases  three different tax rates  within the                                                                   
     Fisheries  Business Tax  by  one percent.   The  current                                                                   
     rates range from three to five percent.                                                                                    
     Sec.  4.   Increases  tax  rate  within   the  Fisheries                                                                   
     Business  Tax for developing  fish species processed  by                                                                   
     a  floating  processor  from  3  to  4  percent.    Rate                                                                   
     remains  at  1  percent  for   developing  fish  species                                                                   
     processed by a shore-based business.                                                                                       
10:44:57 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  referred  to  Sec. 4,  noting  the                                                              
proposal for  imposing a flat  rate tax on shore-based  processors                                                              
while   increasing  the   rate   by  one   percent  for   floating                                                              
processors, and asked how that policy was decided.                                                                              
MR. BROOKS stated  that he did not participate in  the meetings to                                                              
set  the   taxes,  and   conjectured  that   social  impacts   for                                                              
employment  may come into  play as  shore-based businesses  effect                                                              
the local economies.                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS  maintained  his question  for  why                                                              
the  decision  was  made  to shift  the  tax  burden  to  floating                                                              
MR. BROOKS deferred.                                                                                                            
MR. SUTTON deferred.                                                                                                            
10:47:51 AM                                                                                                                   
KEN  ALPER, Director,  Tax Division,  said a  number of  variables                                                              
were  considered in  the process,  but  the final  decision was  a                                                              
judgement call.                                                                                                                 
10:49:58 AM                                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS continued with the analysis:                                                                                         
     Sec.  5.   Increases  tax  rate  within   the  Fisheries                                                                   
     Business Tax  for direct marketers from 3  to 4 percent.                                                                   
     Rate remains  at 1 percent  for developing fish  species                                                                   
     sold by direct marketers.                                                                                                  
     Sec. 6.  Conforming language related to  the requirement                                                                   
     to  submit  returns  or reports  electronically.    This                                                                   
     section  deletes   the  requirement  for   taxpayers  to                                                                   
     submit their returns to the department in Juneau.                                                                          
     Sec.  7.  Establishes  that  the revenue  from  the  one                                                                   
     percent tax  increase is deposited in the  general fund.                                                                   
     The   remaining    revenue   shall   be    shared   with                                                                   
     municipalities per the currently existing formula.                                                                         
     Sec.  8.   Increases  tax  rate  within   the  Fisheries                                                                   
     Landing  Tax  for  fish species  other  than  developing                                                                   
     fish species  from 3 to  4 percent.   Rate remains  at 1                                                                   
     percent for developing fish species.                                                                                       
     Sec.  9.  Establishes  that  the revenue  from  the  one                                                                   
     percent tax  increase is deposited in the  general fund.                                                                   
     The   remaining    revenue   shall   be    shared   with                                                                   
     municipalities per the currently existing formula.                                                                         
10:51:27 AM                                                                                                                   
CHAIR STUTES confirmed that usage of the term "developing fish                                                                  
species" will be specifically defined under Sec. 8.                                                                             
10:51:47 AM                                                                                                                   
MR. BROOKS continued with the analysis:                                                                                         
     Sec.10.  Establishes  that  the  revenue  from  the  one                                                                   
     percent tax  increase is deposited in the  general fund.                                                                   
     The  remaining revenue  shall  be shared  with  boroughs                                                                   
     per the currently existing formula.                                                                                        
     Sec.    11.   Transitional    language   allowing    for                                                                   
     Sec. 12. Section 11 above takes effect immediately.                                                                        
     Sec. 13.  Effective date of  7/1/16 for the rest  of the                                                                   
     bill including the tax rate change.                                                                                        
CHAIR STUTES opened public testimony.                                                                                           
10:52:58 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   requested  information  regarding                                                              
the specific  companies that pay the  landing tax, as well  as the                                                              
economic character and foot print that each company holds.                                                                      
10:53:58 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER  requested a streamlined, one  page summary,                                                              
or pie  chart  illustration, differentiating  the companies  which                                                              
are and aren't, being taxed.                                                                                                    
10:54:17 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ voiced  interest in  having a definition  of                                                              
certain entities:   taxed processor, untaxed processor,  and other                                                              
10:55:07 AM                                                                                                                   
WES HUMBYRD,  expressed concern  for the  proposed 1 percent  tax.                                                              
The rate actually  becomes a 3 percent tax, given  the other areas                                                              
also being  proposed for increases, such  as fuel.  A  solution to                                                              
the  issue  might be  to  incorporate  a  business model  for  the                                                              
stakeholders,  he  suggested,  and  paraphrased  from  a  prepared                                                              
statement, which read:  [original punctuation provided]:                                                                        
     The  greatest  value  to the  State  from  its'  fishery                                                                   
     resources  will   not  be  realized  until   the  Alaska                                                                   
     Department  of Fish  &  Game (ADF&G)  and  the Board  of                                                                   
     Fisheries  (BOF) incorporate  a business model  approach                                                                   
     to  every   management  policy  and  plan.     Fisheries                                                                   
     management  needs  to  be  focused  on  fully  utilizing                                                                   
     these  renewable resources  with the understanding  that                                                                   
     allocation  and daily management  decisions have  direct                                                                   
     economic  consequences  to  the welfare  of  the  State.                                                                   
     Taxes, licenses  and permit  fees should be  adjusted so                                                                   
     that all resource  users share in the necessary  cost of                                                                   
     To  illustrate these  concepts,  this analysis  examines                                                                   
     the results  of changing taxation revenue,  license fees                                                                   
     and   monetizing   unharvested   surplus  salmon.      A                                                                   
     retrospective  analysis based  on  the fully  documented                                                                   
     2014 UCI  [Upper Cook Inlet]  salmon fishery  was chosen                                                                   
     over  projecting into  an uncertain  future.   The  2014                                                                   
     UCI  salmon  fishery  is  the   latest  year  for  which                                                                   
     harvest data  is complete.  This retrospective  analysis                                                                   
     will provide  the reader an  estimate of State  revenues                                                                   
     resulting from  applying a series of revenue  options to                                                                   
     the  2014  UCI  salmon fisheries.    There  are  several                                                                   
     options  for  additional  revenue  under  consideration.                                                                   
     First,   a   review  of   unharvested   salmon   stocks,                                                                   
     monetizing  the   economic  value  they   represent  and                                                                   
     increasing  the commercial fishery  business tax  to 4%;                                                                   
     second, increasing  the sport fishing license  by $5 for                                                                   
     resident  and  $10  for  non-resident   anglers;  third,                                                                   
     implementing  a new  $30 fee  for  each original  dipnet                                                                   
     In this  analysis, the effects  on direct State  tax and                                                                   
     license revenue from UCI salmon fisheries would be:                                                                        
     Harvesting surplus  salmon for an additional  $1,505,000                                                                   
     at the current tax rate;                                                                                                   
     Applying  a  1%  increase   to  the  Commercial  Fishery                                                                   
     Business  Tax   Rate  for  an  additional   $350,000  in                                                                   
     commercial  revenue and $1,715,000  in revenue  from the                                                                   
     unharvested   salmon,   totaling   $2,065,000   in   new                                                                   
     Applying  a $5  resident and  a  $10 non-resident  sport                                                                   
     fishing  license  fee  increase   for  $900,000  in  new                                                                   
     Applying  a  $30.00 fee  to  the original  personal  use                                                                   
     permit for $900,000 in new revenue.                                                                                        
     Total  of  potential  new tax  and  license  revenue  is                                                                   
     $3,865,000 from UCI salmon alone.                                                                                          
MR.  HUMBYRD  opined   that  ADF&G  allows  resource   waste,  and                                                              
estimated  that  80  percent  of  the 2014,  UCI  fish  runs  were                                                              
10:58:15 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  ORTIZ questioned  the ability  to tax  unharvested                                                              
MR.  HUMBYRD  said an  analysis  has  been  made of  the  up-river                                                              
waste; salmon that  are not captured on the open  fishing grounds.                                                              
An  estimated $60  million  was  lost in  2014  due to  unrealized                                                              
harvest,  he  maintained,  and mentioned  the  availability  of  a                                                              
comprehensive   analysis   ["Analysis   of  State   Revenue   from                                                              
Fisheries,  Upper  Cook  Inlet,  2014," United  Cook  Inlet  Drift                                                              
Association (UCIDA), 2015, 14 pages].                                                                                           
10:59:48 AM                                                                                                                   
RHONDA  HUBBARD stated  concern  for HB  251, and  said the  small                                                              
business  she owns  and  operates  focusses on  processing  bottom                                                              
fish   and    direct   marketing    of   the   products.       The                                                              
catcher/processors,  outside of three  miles, are being  charged a                                                              
3 percent  tax, and  fishermen in  Alaskan waters  pay 5  percent.                                                              
She suggested that  a 4 percent, across the board  tax be imposed.                                                              
Also, introduction of  a bill to tax sport caught  fish would be a                                                              
reasonable   action,   she   opined.     The   electronic   filing                                                              
requirement could  be combined with  the e-landing  report already                                                              
in use, she suggested.   Finishing, she directed  attention to the                                                              
committee   packet    and   her   three-page    memorandum,   with                                                              
attachments, addressed  to the committee chair,  further detailing                                                              
these  comments  [undated,  unnumbered   pages].    She  finished,                                                              
stating that reforming the tax is appropriate and necessary.                                                                    
11:04:32 AM                                                                                                                   
REPRESENTATIVE  KREISS-TOMKINS   asked  for  elaboration   on  Ms.                                                              
Hubbard's  recommendation  to eliminate  the  distinction  between                                                              
developing and mature fisheries.                                                                                                
MS.   HUBBARD  answered   that   the  developing   fisheries   tax                                                              
represents   an   insignificant   amount  and   is   strategically                                                              
unnecessary.    In  response  to  a  request  from  Representative                                                              
Millett, she  advised that further  information could be  found in                                                              
the  aforementioned  memorandum.     She  further  encouraged  the                                                              
committee to  consider that  if there is  going to be  an increase                                                              
in taxes,  then there needs  to be a  dedicated portion  for stock                                                              
assessment needs.                                                                                                               
CHAIR  STUTES,  after  ascertaining   no  one  further  wished  to                                                              
testify, closed public testimony on HB 251.                                                                                     
[HB 251 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB251 Sponsor Statement - Governor's Transmittal Letter.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Sectional.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 ver A.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Fiscal Note DOR.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Supporting Document-DOR Hearing Request Letter 1-20-2016.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Support Tax Presentation.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Kruzoff letter.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Kruzoff Amends.jpg HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Kruzoff Alaska-Seafood-Industry-Taxes-2013.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Kruzoff NMFS AK Raw fish values-2014.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251
HB251 Backup Kruzoff price list.pdf HFSH 2/2/2016 10:00:00 AM
HB 251