Senate Resources, 4/20/26, 3:30pm

I call the Senate Resources Committee meeting to order. Today is Monday, April 20th, 2026, and And the time is 9:00 a.m. Please turn off your cell phones. Members present today: Senator Kawasaki, Senator Dunbar, Senator Myers, Vice Chair Senator Wielechowski, and I am Senator Giesel. We have a quorum to conduct business.

It's possible that Senator Clayman will be joining us later. Senator Rauscher is excused. Thanks, Heather and Kyla, for running the meeting audio and minutes for us. On the agenda today, House Bill 117, commercial fishing setnet— excuse me, set gillnet cooperatives, I think abbreviations— and Senate Bill 255, municipal land grant, Matsu Borough transfer. Welcome, Senator Clayman.

So first up is House Bill 117. This is a first hearing, and here to present the bill is Representative Louise Stutes, District 5, and Matt Greening, staff to Senator— or excuse me, Representative Stutes. Welcome. Good morning.

Online we also have Adrielle Myrick, Lauren Lehman, Jamie O'Connor, and Kevin Fisher, just for information. Welcome, Representative Stutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate this opportunity. And to the members of the Senate Resources Committee, for the record, my name is Louise Stutes and I I represent Kodiak, Cordova, Seward, and several small coastal communities, and I have the very distinct pleasure of serving as the House Fisheries Chair.

I know you have a very busy schedule, so I am going to thank you and try and take as little of your time as I can. Before you is House Bill 117, an act relating to commercial set gillnet fishing and providing for an effective date. This legislation, which was brought forward by concerned stakeholders from across the state, seeks to preserve the traditional model for salmon setnet operations by continuing to allow small groups, often families in rural Alaska, to work cooperatively, commingle their fish, and have one or several permit holders deliver on behalf of the group. With that, Madam Chair, I will let my staff, Matt Greening, take it from here. Thank you.

For the record, Matt Greening, staff to Representative Louise Stutes and the House Fisheries Committee. Setnetting is unique, is one of Alaska's only shore-based commercial fisheries. Since the inception of the fisheries, setnetters have traditionally fished cooperatively. They've picked their nets cooperatively, and they've been able to deliver cooperatively. This model has existed since before statehood.

However, based on the plain wording of statute and regulation, recent law enforcement efforts would require setnetters who fish cooperatively to account for and hold the salmon for each permit separately, as well as have each permit holder deliver and sign for their own fish. That expectation is not safe or practical, and House Bill 117 seeks to clarify that issue. Keep in mind that these operations involve small skiffs, often operating in rough waters with limited hold space. And permit holders often include the children and the elderly. Requiring setnet permit holders who fish cooperatively to account for and store their fish separately, as well as deliver separately, not only upends the traditional model, but it presents a variety of other new concerns.

The first concern is safety, Madam Chair. Set gillnet skiffs work together on the same net, especially in rough weather, in order to be near each other if a problem occurs. Then they move from net to net, permit to permit. Commingling fish is necessary as a safety precaution for other skiffs and the stability of the vessels themselves, given their small size and lack of hold space. The second concern, which is a safety and a practical concern, as I mentioned before, is hold capacity.

Set gillnet skiffs are small. They don't have the capacity, especially with totes putting fish on ice, to keep fish obtained from each individual permit holder's net separate. A requirement to keep fish separate is simply stated an impractical or an impossible expectation in these operations. The next concern reason with not allowing commingling and cooperative deliveries is labor inefficiency. Not all set gillnet fish— set gillnets fish evenly.

Frequently, one net will have a hit that requires more than one skiff to clean the net. Other skiffs come from their work on other nets and permits to help out. Not having the flexibility to commingle fish by helping clean another permit holder's net would cause significant delays, inefficiencies, lower fish quality, and result in the loss of fishing opportunity. And many setnet operations would not be economically viable any longer. The final concern this bill addresses is the exclusion of multi-generational permit holder participants.

Set gillnet fishing, unlike boat salmon fisheries, allow older and younger permit holders to contribute to the fishing operation by cooking, doing gear work, helping pick the nets of— pick the fish from other nets. And requiring these permit holders to be present every time a tender delivery is made creates a tremendous hardship. Especially in adverse weather or late at night. If House Bill 117 were not passed, fewer permit holders would be able to participate in the fishery, effectively eliminating the family model. Sustaining multi-generational family participation in the fishery is good for the fishery and our rural communities.

This bill is stakeholder-driven, Madam Chair. There is supporting testimony in members' packets from setnetters across the state, including Kodiak, Bristol Bay, Yakutat, Cook Inlet, Port Moller, Kenai, and Prince William Sound. By requiring the bill— by requiring registration with the Department of Fish and Game and directing the Board of Fisheries to pass regulations on how the fish will be accounted for between permit holders, ADF&G will be provided with better data than it has historically, and law enforcement will receive much-needed clarification. Moreover, the bill requires the Board of Fisheries to pass regulations establishing the maximum number of permits that may fish as one cooperative in each area on cycle with that area's finfish meeting to maximize local participation review by stakeholders, ADF&G, and law enforcement. This structure will result in the maximum number of permits per group that fits the unique characteristics of each fishing area.

Based on our conversations with stakeholders, that number will probably be higher in an area like Kodiak and quite a bit lower in an area like Bristol Bay. The board will also pass regulations on how catch accounting will be handled, how liability for violations will work, and many other critical nuances. To be perfectly clear, House Bill 117 does not create a new exception for salmon set gillnet fisheries, but only seeks to allow the existing traditional model that has been in place for over 70 years to continue. This bill, at its heart, is not only about preserving the status quo, but about keeping local multigenerational access to permits in rural communities. In closing, Madam Chair, preserving the cooperative delivery practices that define set gillnet fisheries is essential for their sustainability.

These practices ensure safety, efficiency, economic viability, while supporting the family and community-based structure of the fishery. Um, again, in closing, continuing to allow small salmon set gillnet operations to work together, commingle their fish, and have one permit holder deliver on behalf of the group will preserve the status quo of the fisheries as well as the livelihoods of many Alaskans. And with that, Madam Chair, we are happy to answer any questions the committee might have. Thank you very much, Mr. Greening. I want to first of all acknowledge that we've been joined by Senator Rob Yunt.

Thank you for joining us today. And make members aware that Commissioner of Fish and Game Doug Vincent Lang is available online for questions. So it's a very short bill, so I won't ask for a sectional analysis. It's pretty easy reading. Welcome, Senator Rauscher.

So committee members, questions for the bill sponsor or staff? Senator Kawasaki. Thank you. Thanks for presenting the bill. And I, I asked this just before the committee, but I think it's important to find out if this is how the, the fishery has been prosecuted for a long time.

And I see a quote by Senator Lehman saying over 67 years. Why is it necessary that statute needs to be changed today? And then I'll have a follow-up to that. Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki, it's a little bit of a windy road, but first, the group of senators that became concerned took this to the Board of Fisheries and had a proposal to try to fix this issue, and it was said under— at that time that there was statutory conflicts that needed to be addressed and also that the board did not have the authority under the particular regulations that they were looking to address. They then went to the Commissioner of Fish and Game to address the issue, and ultimately it was determined that the statutory conflict is 16-05-680(b) that says a person may not sell salmon that was not harvested under the authority of the limited entry permit under which the salmon was sold, which essentially just means that you cannot sell fish on behalf of another permit that harvested the fish.

And so no matter what we we tried to do, we came up against that statutory reference. And also, we're really trying to describe a very specific practice that has been occurring. So when they weren't able to address the issue on the board and they weren't able to address the issue through the commissioner's regulations, we basically, working with the commissioner, had decided that a statutory fix was needed for all those reasons I just stated. Follow-up, Senator Kawasaki. Yeah, thank you.

In Section 4 of the bill, it it starts with Section 680, but it doesn't mention 680(b), and so you're basically adding an amendment on top of 680(b). And is that because there's other fisheries that do something differently then?

Through the Chair, Senator Kawasaki, yes, this is a specific carve-out for just set gillnetting. And so 1680(b) still stands on its own, but just for set gillnetting, we would allow the commingling. And it also says in the bill that fish harvested under the act basically do not need to be stored or delivered separately on account of it being a setnet cooperative. Okay, thank you. Senator Roscher.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize to the committee, I just got here, plane just landed, so if my question is redundant I apologize, but from what I had heard, the commissioner is supportive of this.

Through the chair, Senator Rauscher, yes, he is. Senator Rauscher, the commissioner is online, and I was hoping to hear from him as well. So at this point, why don't we call Commissioner Dungviksen Lang, the commissioner of Department of Fish and Game. Commissioner.

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, quite well. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, my name is Doug Vincent Lang, and I'm the Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. If you could, I'll just kind of give you a few perspectives here. The basic foundation of Alaska's limited entry program, approved by the citizens and implemented through statute, is that the owner of a permit is the person fishing the permit and delivering the catch. This was done to ensure that permits remained with fishermen and that there was accountability. Also, by statute, individual fishermen may have liens held for such things as child support for their earnings using their limited entry permit.

Over time, some of Alaska's set gillnet fisheries have, have operated as multi-permit cooperatives. In some cases, these have operated for decades. Recently, a series of enforcement actions have brought to light the incongruity between actual operations in the field and statute. Current Fish and Game statutes and regulations require fish to be stored separately and delivered under separate fish tickets using individual permit holder listed. Enforcement actions in 2024 require SETNET operations to account for and hold salmon from each permit separately, as well as have each permit holder deliver and sign for their own fish.

I defer any questions on these enforcement actions to the Department of Public Safety, Alaska Wildlife After these enforcement actions, stakeholders submitted an agenda change request to the Board of Fisheries to consider a proposal out of cycle that was taken up in October 2024 work session. The proposal did not meet the board's criteria for an agenda change request. After the work session, I discussed with stakeholders the possibility of amending department regulations to address these issues. After much discussion, I determined ADFMG was not the appropriate entity to take action and that it would be more appropriate for the legislature to address this since it involved redefining CFEC permit holder operations and existing reporting requirements under statute. Stakeholders then approached Representative Stutes, who requested ADFMG work with her to provide technical fisheries management expertise for a bill to resolve this issue.

The bill before you would allow these longstanding practices and fishing operations to continue under new guidelines. The bill authorizes two or more Fishery Sect. Permit holders enter into a cooperative, allowing salmon to be co-mingled and stored together, delivered under one fish ticket, and sold by one member of the cooperative. Key aspects of the bill include: when participating in a cooperative, a permit holder may only operate another member's gear when that person is physically present and actively engaged in the fishing operations, or is absent for a reason already allowed under AS 16-201. 16.05.253(A), such as transporting fish for the sale.

The bill gives the Board of Fisheries authority to adopt regulations to regulate this activity, including but not limited to requiring permit holders participating in a cooperative to register with the Department of Fish and Game, specifying how a permit holder must report fish as part of a registered cooperative, and establishing the maximum number of secuela permits that may be fished as one cooperative for each administrative area with a minimum of 3 permits allowed per group. From a fisheries management standpoint, the department has no concerns with the bill as drafted. The bill allows small salmon set gillnet operations to continue working cooperatively and requires them to register with the department and report harvest as specified by the Board of Fishery. These requirements would provide ADFMG with additional data on multi-permit setnet gillnet operations while allowing these traditional fishing operations to continue. It is up to the legislature to decide whether to authorize sec guild and cooperatives for Alaska salmon fisheries in statute.

ADFMG has effectively managed commercial salmon fisheries for sustained yield under current regulations and would continue to do so under this bill. The department submitted a zero fiscal note as there are no costs to implement this bill. ADFMG already registered sec guild and ventures in Kodiak. We would be able to provide new cooperatives with similar forms to register with the department. Some staff time will be needed to assist the Board of Fisheries in developing and implementing regulations, but no significant programmatic or fiscal impacts are anticipated.

So the bottom line that I'm sure is that we see these as longstanding principles. We can manage these things with this bill, and it will provide some additional clarity, allow these longstanding principles or longstanding fishery management practices to continue. Thank you for the opportunity to present today. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, you know, whenever we deal with fisheries, there's of course wide diversity of opinion about things and, and diverse, diverse conditions all over our state.

Are there— do you identify any unintended consequences in other locations all over the state where setnet fisheries are conducted?

I am sorry, you broke up there, Senator. I apologize. I'm looking at unintended consequences of this bill when applied across the state where setnet fisheries are executed.

Okay, through the chair, Madam Speaker. If I could, I think what it—. I think the ability to kind of design this on an administrative area by administrative area will resolve some of those issues. I too shared concern that you would have a one-size-fits-all as it goes across the state, but I think the statutes that you're looking at right now that would allow the Board of Fish the ability and the department the ability to kind of look at this on a case-by-case basis administrative and fishery-by-fishery area will resolve some of those unintended consequences because there'll be the flexibility to address the issues specific to that fishery. Very good, thank you.

Further questions for the Commissioner? Senator Clayman. Actually, question for Representative Stutes. Yes, of course, Representative Stutes. So one of the questions I see, I recognize with SETNET they're not— they're in one place, but I know that oftentimes there's a lot of small boats that are fishing, and I guess we don't have cooperative for small boats that want to work together?

Is there a reason that setnets should be treated differently than small boat operators? Matt? Through the chair, Senator Clayman, yes, I think that first of all, this is how they've always operated. So there's precedent for this being the case. But also, when I look at, like, say, a drift gillnetter, there really isn't a benefit or a practicality to fishing together.

I mean, for example, you're fishing in a you've got 12,000 pounds of hold capacity, 3 different holds, you're able to store and separate your fish. And really, with, you know, an instance where you're not picking in small open skiffs on set nets, you have a power reel, you have the ability to pull in the net yourself, harvest it yourself, and there really would be not only not an advantage, but a hindrance to working with another boat to try to pick the net, there just really wouldn't be an advantage to it whatsoever. But I think the answer really lies in the traditional nature of the way the fishery has been carried out, and that it is a family and shore-based fishery where a lot of the participants may be mending gear, they might be cooking, they might be helping sort the fish. It's just that it's a different fishery, I think, because it's shore-based than other commercial fisheries, small boat fisheries. Okay.

Thank you. Further questions? Senator Rauscher. Thank you, Madam Chair. So page 2, line— it starts on line 4, and I'll just read it.

However, a permit holder may not operate a unit of gear belonging to another permit holder without the other permit holder being physically present and actively engaged in the operation unless the other permit holder is absent for a reason permitted under AS 16.05253.

Section A. So what are those reasons? Because I have not done my cross-reference homework.

Through the chair, Senator Rauscher, those, those are actually existing requirements. So when we, when we codified having more than one permit holder, right now you're allowed to be absent from the beach or riparian area in a single operation when you're traveling to and from your nets or when you're traveling to and from the sale of fish. And so we had to make a conforming change so that it made it clear that if you were going to be absent from your gear but operating somebody else's gear or selling their fish, that that same existing statutory definition of what physically present and actively engaged means was put to the multi-permit model. But this is the exact wording that's in statute right now, but just conforms it to a more than one permit holder. Because the way, the way the statute read was that a permit holder could only be absent when they were going to and from their own gear or selling their own fish.

And so it makes it clear that they can be absent while they're selling the fish of another member of the cooperative or traveling to that person's net. And in the riparian area essentially means that you can— current laws allow for basically a fishing shack and a cooking area. And so it conforms to that as well. So makes it clear that if one of the co-op members is in the riparian area at the fishing shack, that, that, that other individual can be operating their gear and can be selling their fish legally. All right, thank you.

Senator Rauscher, you can find AS 1605-253A in Section 3 of the bill, further down the page, begins on line 18 through 28. And you see the new exceptions being added by the bill. Further questions for the bill sponsor? We do have invited testimony as well. All right.

Let's move to invited testimony then. I'm going to start with Adelia Myrick. She's the president of the Northwest Setnetters Association. She will be followed by Lauren Lehman. Ms. Myrick, welcome.

If you could identify yourself for the record and give us— and your affiliation and give us your testimony, please.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Resources Committee. For the record, my name is Adelia Myrick and I serve as the president of the Northwest Setnetters Association representing setnet fishermen in Kodiak. I'm a second-generation setnetter helping my three nieces, the third generation, come into the fishery. First, I want to thank you all for the opportunity to meet with many of you or your staff earlier this year in February. I truly appreciated those conversations and your willingness to listen and engage on this issue.

I'm here today to express our association's strong support for HB 117. As you can see in your materials, this bill has support from senators who fish all around the state. It is supported by the United Fishermen of Alaska and has already passed the House unanimously, reflecting broad support across the commercial fishing community. Setnet fisheries are some of the most— of the smallest-scale commercial fisheries in Alaska, and they are also among the most family-oriented. More than 70% of the Northwest Setnetters Association fishing sites are cooperative affairs, often involving multiple permit holders, usually family members, working together to fish multiple sites using shared skiffs and delivering the harvest safely and efficiently.

As they have since before statehood. HB 117 simply provides a clear legal framework that reflects this longstanding informal cooperative model. And that matters because this fishery is about more than how the fish are delivered. The setnet sites are places where multiple generations work side by side, where children grow up on the beach and in the skiffs, where parents and grandparents share responsibility sustainability, and where the fishery is as much about community as it is about harvest. It is a unique and deeply Alaskan way of life.

HB 117 helps to preserve that. It allows cooperative operations to function transparently, ensures all permit holders are actively involved, and supports safe, efficient fishing practices that have been refined over generations. This bill does not expand fishing opportunity or change allocations. It simply clarifies and protects how the fishery has always operated. In doing so, it supports our small businesses, strengthens coastal communities, and helps ensure that the next generation has the opportunity to remain part of Alaska's fishing heritage.

We respectfully ask for your support for HB 117. So that Alaska's fishing families can continue to work together safely and legally as they have for generations. Thank you again for your time and your thoughtful consideration. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Myrick. Next up is Loren Lehman.

He will be followed by Jamie O'Connor. Mr. Lehman, welcome. [Speaker:LOREN_LEHMAN] Well, thank you and good morning, Senator Giesel and other members of the committee. I've been part of a fishing family since statehood, actually. My father operated a fish trap at the Niltik, and we've taken that area and developed it into a setnet operation, and we've operated that for— it's now closing in on 70 years.

And when allowed to fish, which we haven't been for the last several years, but then we run a 6-permit operation and it's all in our immediate family. And when fishing full gear, when allowed to, we would have as many as 20 nets in operation and sometimes as many as 4 skiffs to pick the gear. And you've heard from others who quite well have talked about the impact of how we share duties. And I'll just say that we've always shared duties and nets among permit holders. And it's really important because tide, wind, the availability of the tender, when the fish arrive, and just so many other factors go into how we operate the nets.

And sometimes we may have multiple skiffs and we may have a couple skiffs fishing on a net to clean it out. And to clean out a net— somebody used that term in testimony— for us, that doesn't mean just removing the fish, it's removing anything else that may get in the net, including kelp, sticks, logs, pretty much anything else that floats in water. And so it takes a lot of work to do that. And this issue of citations that were issued in, I believe, in Kodiak. It may be from the creation of overly zealous public safety officers who really didn't understand fishing as well as we do, but doing what they've asked, keeping track of individual fish for permit holders is impractical and perhaps impossible.

And I might add that it provides no benefit, no benefit to the state, no benefit to keeping track of information. I think I'll wrap it up and just say that I submitted a letter of support that should be in your packets about a year ago to the Health Resources Committee, and there's information there And I'd be happy to answer any questions on any of our experiences, but I strongly support this bill. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next up is Jamie O'Connor. She's the board chair of Ekuk Beach Fishermen's Association.

Following her will be Kevin Fisher. Ms. O'Connor.

Good morning, Chair Giechel and members of the committee. Can you hear me?

Yes. Thank you. For the record, my name is Jamie O'Connor. I'm a fifth-generation setnet fisherman from Bristol Bay in Homer with more than 20 years of active harvesting experience and nearly a decade working in Alaska fisheries policy, most recently through my consulting practice, True Tidal Consulting. And I serve as chair of the Ecock Beach Fishermen's Association, a volunteer trade association of more than 80 members organized to advocate for sustainable, equitable, and resilient fishery and community.

As global market volatility and rapidly escalating overhead increase the pressures we face on the fishing grounds, HB 117 would provide the flexibility, accountability, and reliable catch accounting we need to sustain our livelihoods. The shared energy and knowledge of family, friends, and neighbors is and has always been foundational to set-net livelihoods. Our operations are often small and multi-generational, harvesting whatever volume of fish the seas and seas fit to send our way. In practice, that can mean sharing a truck like we do on Ekuk or a skiff to work multiple small production sites and weathering several slow seasons waiting for conditions to shift in our favor. We appreciate the work of Representative Stutes and her staff who collaborated with us and other setnetters across the state to address issues important to our fisheries.

We support the regional approach in HB 117 under which the Board of Fisheries would determine the appropriate number permits per cooperative. For Bristol Bay's operations, we believe a cap of 3 permits per cooperative would preserve the small-scale intent of this legislation and appropriately limit the shared liability that comes with commingling harvest. Rooting fisheries access rights in communities proximate to the resource is a vital pillar of resilience for fishing-dependent regions and people. We look forward to continued collaboration on solutions that disincentivize consolidation and the outmigration of permits from Alaska's rural communities. And we respectfully urge this committee to advance HB 117 and welcome any questions.

Thank you, Ms. O'Connor. The last person in invited testimony is Kevin Fisher, president of Aleutak District Setnet Association. Mr. Fisher.

Good morning. My name is Kevin Fisher. I would like to thank the Senate Resource Committee for allowing me to testify today. I'm president of the Aleutak District Setnetters Association. This will be my 37th year setnet fishing in the Aleutak District.

I'm here today to represent my family and our fishing operation on the south end of Kodiak Island. I'm speaking today in support of House Bill 117, which passed out of the House with a vote of 39 to 0. I recommend listening to the comments from the final vote. Several House members spoke to the importance of this bill and what it would do for setnet fishermen around the state. Starting before statehood, setnet fishermen have worked cooperatively combining fish from multiple nets and delivering combined fish together.

The practice is the only viable way that setnet fishermen can function in low-volume areas. We have to work together to make it. This practice saves expense, it increases safety, and improves efficiency for everyone, including the processors. In Aleutak, we have traditional sites and special open-air areas. In our traditional sites, our camps are based around a family group that work together to prosecute the fishery.

This often includes grandparents, grandchildren, kids, siblings, married couples, or just people that have partnered up to make it work. We have distance limitations on designated spots held within our shore leases. We usually fish very close to our cabins. In non-traditional or special openers, Alaska Department of Fish and Game has decided that the fish have met an escapement goal for that stream and has built up at the mouth, and that mop-up fishery is needed to minimize the further escapement in a designated time frame. To fish these areas, we have to travel away from where we live.

There's different rules. We don't have shore leases. We don't have distance limitations. Meaning distance between the nets that are allowed to fish. It's a free-for-all.

In these special openers, Aleutak fishermen will work together either in small groups or almost all together. It really depends on how many fishermen show up and it takes a lot of effort even to get to these locations. Not everyone in the district will make the commitment to travel or distract from their home operations. In these special openers, it is hard to get the equipment and resources deployed and maintained. In Aleutak, we have decided it is better to work together and share what is caught than to fight with each other over a limited resource.

To be clear, some fishermen will join with others outside their normal family camp and work together sharing anchors, nets, skiffs, and manpower to better accomplish the goal Fish and Game has decided needs doing. House Bill 117 would allow us to continue to fish as we always have and clarify the intent of regulation. This bill is the result of 2 years of stakeholder input and compromise. It lays the groundwork for the State Board of Fish to set the maximum co-op number per area based on further input from stakeholders in each area. House Bill 117 is needed to clarify in law how setnet fishermen around the state have always fished.

It is simply not viable to keep each fish caught with one permit separated from fish caught in another permit for fishermen working cooperatively. I look forward to House Bill 115 passing without opposition. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your time and consideration today. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Fisher.

All right, at this time I'm going to open public testimony. I have 10 people signed up to testify. We'll be moving around the state. I'm going to base it on when people signed in to testify. So I'm starting with Casey Mapes, Yakutat gillnet fisherman.

After Mr. Mapes, we will go to Thomas Wisher in Kodiak. Casey Mapes, first up. I am limiting testimony for public testimony to 2 minutes, so please introduce yourself for the record and your affiliation and give us your testimony. Welcome.

Thank you. Through the chair, my name is Casey Mapes, 53-year veteran Gillnetter, Yak-Tak, 59-year Alaska resident, lifetime. As has been stated, we are small vessel operators. When we fish together, it is impossible to keep our fish separated. But what I wish to focus on is we're staring down the barrel of possibly $10 a gallon for gasoline for our outboards.

So fishing together allows us to split that cost. And I'd also like to talk about the safety factor. If I fall over the side, I want someone there to pull me back out, please. In addition to that, I have sat as the chairman of the Fish and Game Advisory Committee here in Yakutat for numbers of years. I've been out and represented us at the Board of Fish, and we've personally put this before them several times and asked for it here.

What we saw repeatedly was the Child Support Enforcement Division, was the number one person that stood against us, and ultimately our attempts failed. The reason was that they stated that it was possibly a spot for somebody who owes child support to launder their fishing money and not have to guarantee some of the wages. And what I would point out is that I used to have a processor's said that time. So I would receive the list of people who are on that child support enforcement guarantee list that I was supposed to collect half of the money from if they tried to sell fish through me. At that time, there was exactly 2 people in this community that were on that list.

Well, I don't see the need for all of our 177 gillnet permits in this area to have to suffer for those two possible people who might do something wrong. If this should be an issue, I would recommend that you consider possibly focusing on those individuals that are on that list, maybe exclude them solely and not the rest of us. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Mapes. Your, your two minutes is up. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Uh, next up is Thomas Wisher. Calling in from Kodiak. He'll be followed by Robert Murphy. Mr. Wisher, welcome. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to give this testimony in support of House Bill 117. Uh, I'm a Togiak. My family has, um, cabinet sites and in the central section of the Northwest Kodiak District, and we've been operating since 1976.

This bill really only does one thing. It allows us to continue to do what we've always done since statehood, since gillnet fisheries were allowed in the state.

We, uh, Mr. Wisher, I'm just afraid that if this bill doesn't pass and if the regulation or interpretation of the regulation remains in effect, that not only is my business at an end, but the cherished lifestyle that me and my family have enjoyed for all these many years is over. And I don't think I would be the only one. So I encourage you to really consider this bill as being essential to preserving the setnet fisheries in the state of Alaska. Thank you again.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Wisher. Next up is Robert Murphy in Kodiak. He'll be followed by Abby Howie— Howie— Howie. I'm sorry, I'm mispronouncing that name, but she's also in Kodiak. Mr. Murphy, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Senate Resource Committee, for this opportunity. My name is Bob Murphy. I am a set gillnet fisherman and live in Kodiak, but fish hundreds of miles away in Port Moller, which is located on the Bering Sea side of the Alaska Peninsula in Area M. I am in support of HB 117. This bill will allow set gillnet permit holders that fish as family groups, as I do, and many set gillnet operators also do, to continue operating as they have been since statehood. Adoption of this bill into law will have no change to longstanding commercial salmon set gillnet practices or management of the fisheries by the state.

If the current regulations are not changed, it very well may break up or eliminate some of these family groups, which may force some to no longer find it financially worthwhile to fish, which will impact local communities through lost income to individuals and lost tax revenue to local municipalities, as well the state. I think we could all agree that this is not in anyone's best interest for this to occur. Without HB 117, there are safety issues by trying to keep fish separate in small skiffs by adding additional fish totes, which often have ice or slush ice, and the added weight of this tote, if space is even available, which it isn't often on many skiffs, is a serious concern. There is no biological concern to to the resource the way the fisheries have been managed in the past, and the state will still manage fisheries the same way. These are just a few reasons that support the passage of HB 117.

Many set gillnet fishermen have fished on the Alaska Peninsula during the years without issue as a family group with multiple permits. HB 117 will continue this tradition where family groups have fished often for decades. Please support HB 117, and thank you all for your service to the state. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Murphy. Moving now to Abby Hoffey in Kodiak.

She will be followed, uh, she will be followed by Robin Samuelson in Dillingham. Miss Hoffey.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Abby Boyd. I'm a resident of Kodiak and I sit on the Kodiak Advisory Committee as well as on the board of the Northwest Setnetters Association. I'm a third generation setnetter at a multi-permit operation on the west side of Kodiak. I enjoyed meeting with many of y'all in January to illustrate how this bill affects my family's day-to-day operations.

I support HB 117 as it writes into law the way my family has operated for over 60 years. Commingling fish is a term invented to describe how many have fished for decades. It is essential to family operations and enables safe operation within a profit margin that makes setnetting a viable livelihood. If HB 117 were not to pass, one requisite effect would be an increase in the number of vessels we operate in order to increase the space available for sorting fish. I'm sure you can appreciate our desire as a viable business to avoid wasteful expenditures that produce no legitimate benefit either fiscally or environmentally.

Setnetting is a shore-based operation that encourages lasting family businesses and relationships. As such, onshore work is just as essential as that down the water. Requiring each permit holder to sign an individual ticket at each delivery would detract from the productivity of the shore-based side of the operation. Setnetting builds strong relationships between family and crew of all ages and sustainable stewardship of the land as well as the ocean. To conclude, I strongly support HB 117.

As it preserves the status quo for my family's operation and helps ensure the viability of our livelihood for future generations. I appreciate your work on this bill, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Uh, next up we have Robin Samuelson, uh, calling in from Dillingham, uh, and followed by Eric Graves.

Robin Samuelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Robin Samuelson. I'm a resident of Alaska. I've been in the commercial fishery ever since I could remember.

I started off setnetting. I put 57 years in a drift boat here in Bristol Bay. I'm now retired.

I oppose House Bill 117. I don't think my people at Bristol Bay know what the bill— in the villages. You know, Madam Chair, we've lost over 50% of our drift and setnet permits. This fishery has become a Seattle fishery. And I know permit holders in Bristol Bay that have in excess of 10 setnet sites.

They don't go to the setnet sites. Another guy moved into Bristol Bay a few years ago. He now has a tender outside his site. He's buying sites from villagers right and left. I don't know how many permits, sitnet permits he has, but I'm worried about the consolidation of permits into outsiders' hands.

Our villages are hurting for money, they're hurting for employment. When a permit is sold, that permit is gone for good. And I think this bill has been moving too fast. We need to bring it to our villages and have them testify on it. And I would hope that the committee and the Senate will table this and bring it back next year.

I hear what the The Senate netters are saying, if you're going to make a bill, make it for Kodiak only, not for all the state of Alaska. I know what our Senate netters go through here in Bristol Bay. I've watched them over the years.

And a lot of it is a family operation. Some of the permits now are over $1 million a year. With the owner sitting in the cabin, uh, hiring, uh, crewmen to go and pick it. I've complained to—. Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Samuelson, Mr. Samuelson, thank you for your testimony.

Your 2 minutes is up. I appreciate you calling in. If you'd like to submit written testimony, you can email this, and all of you can send written testimony to Senate Resources, so the word Senate and followed by the word Resources, no dots between, at akleg.gov. I'm going to move on now to Eric Graves calling in from Washington State. He'll be followed by Norm Darch.

Mr. Graves, welcome. Please give us your testimony, your affiliation, and your name.

Good morning, my name is Eric Graves. I'm a set netter in Elga Bay, which is in the Aleutak District, Falconer Kodiak Island. We are a small 2-permit camp that my dad started in 1952. I have been salmon fishing in Elga Bay my whole life. My adult son has been fishing with me his whole adult life, or his whole life, and would like to take over the business.

When I retire. I am in support for House Bill 117 because of 3 main points. One is safety, two, quality of fish, and three, accounting. Safety. We have only one tender to cover a large area.

If each camp has a tender each permit, the tender will take longer with more picks and more paperwork. This will lead to some camps delivering fish in the dark. Dark is not a safe time to drive a skiff around. To fish quality, we have been working hard on improving our fish quality. Getting them on ice quickly is the biggest improvement.

If we have to separate fish by permit, we don't have enough cold storage for that. Fish quality will go down and that would be a major step backwards. And accounting, you know, Why should we separate by permit when all of our fish are going on the same account anyway? Um, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your testimony. Uh, let's see, next up I have Norm Darch. Norm will be followed by Jerry Liboff. Norm, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nolan Darch. I'm the executive director of the Alaska Salmon Alliance. We've previously submitted written comments on HB 117. I'm also a Setnet fisherman in Cook Inlet.

I live in Kenai, Alaska. I operate a family fishing operation that includes multiple permits, and I strongly support HB 117. This bill does not change how we fish, it simply allows us to continue operating the way we have for decades. In my case, our operation includes multiple permits that have always fished together as a family unit. We share labor expenses and equipment, and like many operations across Alaska, we coordinate our fishing and deliveries.

This is how setnet fishery has worked for generations. The issue we're facing now is not a new behavior, it's new enforcement. Recent interpretations would require each permit holder to operate completely independently, keep fish separate, and deliver separately. In reality, it's not workable in a small boat fishery like ours. We fish in open skiffs and often work together for safety and efficiency.

Trying to segregate fish by permit will require every permit holder to physically be present at the time delivered, creates real safety risks, risks and unnecessary logistical challenges. It also reduces efficiency and increases costs with no benefit to management. HB 117 simply provides clarity so we can continue operating cooperatively, safely, and efficiently, just as we always have. It protects family-based operations and helps ensure the long-term viability of the setnet fishery. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next up, as I said, is Jerry Leiboff, uh, in Dillingham. He'll be followed by Fritz Johnson. Jerry, welcome.

Ah, thank you, Senator. My name is Jerry Leiboff. I lived in Bristol Bay and Dillingham for— since 1970. Fished in Bristol Bay all of these years until a couple of years ago when I retired at the age of 77. I am neither in favor nor in opposition to this particular bill.

I saw it for the first time last night, read it, and I find it very confusing. I think, Senator Giesel, your comment at the beginning is something that I would echo, and echo strongly, which is There is some confusion in this, and unintended consequences may pop up that could, could lead this in the wrong direction. I think the proper course of action should be to table this until next legislative session, give a lot of local senators, whom I know lots of because among other things I'm a tax preparer and I do taxes here, for local residents, village, uh, set matters, maybe 50 to 100 or so, uh, tax returns. And none of these people are even aware of this bill. I think the need to get the word out, let people look at it, think about it, talk about it— I found it very confusing, by the way.

I read it, it's a short bill, but it's not clear to me, uh, exactly what it's saying in a number of places. I, I think it needs to be tabled and put off till next session. We have plenty of people have a chance to look, read, and comment on it. Thank you very much. That's it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Liboff. Next up is Fritz Johnson. He will be followed by Larry Bemis. Mr. Johnson, welcome. Senator Diesel, thank you very much, and to the committee.

I'm of You know, the picture of family operations that's presented, I understand that completely. And many of the people who are outspoken in the past, I know personally. But I would defer. I think the previous speaker kind of took the words out of my mouth. I think the potential for unintended consequences here, you know, they're unknown.

And as much as they're unintended. So, but I do like the concept. But I think we need to be a little bit cautious and at least understand what is— how this is likely to develop. There are questions there that then— and in addition to the fact that, as Mr. Lebov spoke, that there are a lot of people within the Bay here who aren't familiar with this at all.

I know many of these people. I've been fishing here for the last 45 years, so—. But [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

That concludes public testimony. Is there anyone here in the room, at least the people online, is there anyone here in the room that wishes to testify on House Bill 117? All right, seeing no one, I will— I'm going to hold public testimony open until tomorrow. At this point, we're going to set the bill aside. Before we go, however, I want to make members aware that Major Aaron Frenzel, Deputy Director, Alaska Wildlife Troopers, is online for questions.

Are there any questions for the state trooper? Seeing none. And Doug Vincent Lang remains— the Commissioner remains online. And actually, I'd like to ask the Commissioner a question. Commissioner Lang?

My question is, you know, we've heard some concern about Bristol Bay. Is it possible in this bill to carve out its application, that is, exempt the Bristol Bay area from this legislation? What are your thoughts, Commissioner?

Is he still online? He is not. All right. He is not available. Perhaps Major Frenzel would— did we not talk to Larry Bemis?

We did not. Okay. Pardon me. Mr. Bemis, I neglected to call on you. You are the last person that had signed up.

Welcome. If you would like to testify and you're still there, I will let you testify. Remember, the time limit is 2 minutes. If you would give us your name and your affiliation. Welcome.

Larry Bemis, Yakutat, Alaska, and I'm also an AC member. I'm calling in on House Through the chair, excuse me. I'm calling in on HB 117. We used to have this 50/50 split on our fish for years. It goes far back as the 1900s when our fishery first started in the Akdat area.

There were pickup boats and there were deliveries. There are different ways they got to fish. But most of the people fish together. Not too many people fish by themselves because you're in a river and it's, uh, it's family orientated or it's individuals partnering up. Uh, we're talking about a large river and they fish the mouth of the river and the breakers, uh, and where the tide lets you.

So the thing is, we've had this 50% for a long time. The state decided to come up and, and change it out for reasons of other areas. Uh, and from listening to the testimony, there's a lot of controversy between what goes for them and what goes for others. And what I'm asking is I've been 60 years fishing and 46 years with my wife, and we've always worked together. And even when I didn't fish with her, I was always having somebody in the boat.

So it makes it tough to separate the fish. And in a small boat like 20-foot boats, like what we use, or smaller. And I'm in support of this bill. And I'd like to have our 50% split like we used to have and our— [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Mr. Bemis, for your testimony.

All right, I think we've covered everyone now. I do wonder if Major Frenzel is online. And if so, you could discuss your view of potential unintended consequences for different areas of the state related to enforcement of this legislation. Major Frenzel, are you there?

Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. Did you hear the question?

I did. Chair Diesel, for the record, this is Aaron Frenzel, Deputy Director of Alaska Wildlife Troopers. The unintended consequences, um, kind of depends on the location and how the group is set up. We have seen locations where, um, either for, as previous testifiers mentioned, there could be a case of child support something like that where a person might sell product or commercial fish under someone else's permit, so that's not trackable. Other ones could be the stacking of permits into a co-op owned by one person essentially, and then permit fraud.

That's stuff that could bleed over into this. That's our— those are some of the things we look at. Other than that, currently there are methods of doing this through fish transporter permits that allow people to sell fish on behalf of others who have transporter permits. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Major Frenzel?

Seeing none, thank you very much, Major Frenzel. Are there any additional questions for the bill sponsor or Staff. Senator Kawasaki. Thank you. Just a couple questions and you can get the answers to me later.

The first question is on— I heard somebody testify that there were a maximum number of co-ops in a particular area or unit or whatever the language was. I'm just curious if that is the case and then is there also a minimum number of cooperatives? The reason why I'm asking is, can a, can a person who wants to fish want to be part of cooperative and then just not be allowed to be part of that cooperative? And then secondly, what was the other question? Had to do with— oh, could a person have a permit but not live in Alaska?

And then if we extend some of these things in 253(a), could they also not be in Alaska at the time that fishing is happening. Excuse me. And I could take it off— I could take it offline too. So, um, Senator Kawasaki, through the chair, um, no, they must be on grounds if and when they are a permit holder. Each permit holder must be there, all as it is now.

The only thing this this legislation is doing is allowing the commingling of fish. I also heard some concern about consolidating these permits. Frankly, that's a— that can happen now, and people are doing that now. This legislation prevents that. You have to register with the Department of Fish and Game in order to participate in one of these co-ops, fishing this, which also leads to the child support issue.

If you— and the department, or excuse me, the Board of Fish will determine the number of permits per area. That was one of the issues that took us quite some time to resolve. When we started this legislation, we had a one number that was uniform for the state. We decided that one size did not fit all, and we involved every area's fishing groups, set net groups, and came— everybody was on board with the idea. Great, we'll have the Board of Fish determine the maximum number of permits per co-op per area.

So if it's 3 in Kodiak per co-op per area, it might be 5 in Bristol Bay, or it might be 2. It's just— and I think Mr. Greening has something to add. Thank you, Madam Chair, through the chair. I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. I just wanted to clarify a few things that were said as well, which which is this is not a Kodiak issue, this is a statewide issue.

We have support from setnetters across the state. You can see in, in the packet, and we have not heard opposition from a single setnetter in any area. And we, through 6 committee hearings, we engaged with the public, we amended this bill. And as the representative said, it used to have a cap of 10 permits, and we decided let's leave it up to the Board of Fish in each area because each area is different. And to be fair, there is a concern in Bristol Bay, as Jamie O'Connor testified to, that the number be smaller than in some of the other areas where the economics are just a little different in the fishery.

The, there's less fish volume-wise, and so you will tend to get larger groups. Um, and I wanted to point out, as the rep said, that this will actually, in an area like Bristol Bay, because we crafted the bill to where the Board of Fisheries is going to establish the cap on cycle in Bristol Bay We did exactly what the testifier Robin Samuelson said, which is that we want the folks in Bristol Bay to be able to weigh in themselves on what the maximum number is going to be. And that's going to include drifters, that's going to include setnet permits, that's going to include every person that lives in that area that wants to come and provide input. Um, regarding the child support issue, as the representative mentioned too, it directs in the legislation to have the Board of Fisheries establish regulations on how these fish will be accounted for on each permit within the group. So we bring an issue into light that has existed since before statehood with this issue.

And I would note that, like I said, we really, we started with the number of 10. We worked with every user, every setnetter group across the state to get to where we are now. And to the extent that there may be some opposition in Bristol Bay, it's not from the setnetters. I think that there may be some sort of a, a gear dispute here, potentially between the drifters and the setnetters. But the only thing the bill is trying to do is maintain the status quo for the setnetters.

And it even says in the intent language in the beginning of the legislation that we want the, the board to, to work with people, maintain the status status quo and not, you know, increase or reduce the number of permits. So it's really going to be adaptive to what the people have done and what the people want in the area. But I think by drafting the bill with the regulation package and specifying what the board is going to pass, they're going to talk about how to deal with violations. They're going to set how to deal with child support, all the different issues that may or may not have been occurring over time will be brought to light in a regulatory and statutory process through this bill. Thank you.

Further questions? Seeing none. Very good. So we will set this bill aside. I am setting an amendment deadline for the bill for this afternoon at 5 PM.

Next up—. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. Next up, we're hearing Senate Bill 255. Municipal Grant Land— Municipal Grant Land— Matsu Borough Transfer. This is a bill that we're hearing for the first time, brought to us by Senator Yunt.

Uh, he is here with his staff, uh, Ryan McKee. Welcome, Senator Yunt.

Thank you. For the record, Senator Rob Yunt from Wasilla, Meadow Lakes, and North Lakes area. We are here today to discuss Senate Bill 255, as mentioned before by Chair Giesel. This is a bill that would transfer some land from the state of Alaska back to the Mat-Su Borough. And I want to get— I would like to say before I get into the sponsor statement, or Ryan possibly offers the sectional analysis, that I do hope to see this bill grow.

I think what we're going to discuss today today is an opportunity that all communities, all senators in Alaska could use to possibly work on getting lands transferred from the state back to their communities as well. So keep that in mind as we go. So Senate Bill 255 authorizes the conveyance of specific state-owned land parcels to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The transfer advances both local and statewide interests by placing land into the stewardship of the level of government best positioned to manage it efficiently, responsibly, and in a manner consistent with the long-term community needs. The parcels identified in this legislation are intended for uses that support economic development, infrastructure planning, recreation, and community services.

Conveying this land to the borough enables more timely development decisions, which are difficult to achieve under continued state ownership. This transfer promotes sound land management by reducing administrative burdens on the state and allowing the Department of Natural Resources to focus resources and time on broader statewide priorities. Local ownership improves land use efficiency, enhances coordination with existing infrastructure, and supports responsible development aligned with adopted local plans and processes. This bill also advances a long-recognized state policy of empowering municipalities to govern local land use. The conveyance encourages economic activity, expands the local tax base, supports job creation, and enables community investments.

Local management of these lands will ensure decisions are made with full awareness of local conditions and priorities. And I think if If I may, I'd like to mention too now that we have some invited testimony on. It's our borough manager, Michael Brown, and then our borough attorney, Nick Saropoulos, for any questions that anyone may have. Thank you, Senator Yount. I would like your staff to go through a sectional analysis, please.

So, Mr. McKee, if you could do that.

Ryan McKee, staff to Senator Yunt. Yes, so Section 1 amends Section 2965.50(b) by adding, or upon director's receipt of notice from the municipality that it will accept the land without a survey under AS 2965.70(a). Section 2 adds one new subsection, Section 2, to AS 2965.56. Specifying when a patent shall be issued to the municipality for land selected in satisfaction of a general land grant entitlement vested under AS 2965-10 through 2965-30. Section 3 is amended to change the survey and land patent requirements under AS 2965-70.

Section 4 amends AS 3804-045B removing the requirement of a survey as provided in AS 296570. Section 5 adds a new section to the Uncodified Law of the State of Alaska specifying the details of transferring the 6 specific parcels in Section 5. And then Section 6 sets an immediate effective date under AS 0110070C. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McKee.

Questions for the bill sponsor? Or his staff.

I'll ask some questions then. Why— I assume you're— are you removing the requirement for surveying it because of the cost? Through the Chair to Senator Giesel, yes, that is the biggest reason. The surveying requirements right now, as they've been for a long time, are very, very, very difficult for local government to justify spending the money it takes to meet those requirements in order to make it even worth the time for a local community to chase down the land. Meanwhile, title companies statewide every single day insure properties that are described with meets and bounds.

These are often used at the government level, private level. There are better ways to do this or more efficient ways to do this than necessarily going out and surveying remote properties. As you know, that can be very expensive. Alaska is a very big and broad place. I mean, even in our communities that are represented today, you know, on this committee, it makes it rather difficult, right?

So meets and bounds is, I think, a much better way to do it. As I mentioned before, title companies in Alaska insure properties like this daily and weekly.

Thank you, Senator Yunt. Further questions? Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually have a question for you.

Do we have someone from DNR or DCCED online for questions? We have neither. We have two people from the Mat-Su Borough only. Okay. I'll just say then, I'm sure this isn't going to be the only hearing.

I can't— I can't make a decision about this bill until I hear from DCCED and DNR because, well, it's their land and they're mentioned here a number of times and I want to hear their thoughts on this bill. But I'll hold my questions until we have the opportunity to hear from them. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Dunbar. We will certainly make sure they're here for the next hearing.

In the meantime— yes, Senator Clayman. Question for Senator Young. Are there size limits in in this bill about how much property? Because I guess I tend to think the state wants to give— I'm thinking something in the 5 or 10-acre land to a municipality, and there's a fairly specific purpose, and it meets— that transfer makes sense sort of for both parties and the public. But I could imagine one could get to a size of property that is way, way, way too big to reasonably make that sort of transfer without more more investigation.

Does the bill have any property size or property value limits on what they can transfer? For the record, through the chair, Senator Yunta to Senator Clayman, no, it does not. What I was really concerned with was properties that create revenue for the state, and I was careful to make sure that we did not select any of those. I do think that would be a much different piece of legislation if they were plans that the state was currently leasing to others or making money off of, so we avoided those and just focused on ones that our community, that our planning department, our manager thought were the ones that would be best. So—.

Senator Dunbar. I'm sorry, I said I wouldn't ask questions, but there is one. I guess at a very basic level, is the expectation here that— the word convey can mean several things. Usually it means just sort of a you are giving something to someone else without compensation. Is that the case here?

Would this be just sort of the state transferring lands without compensation to the Matsu Borough, or would it be some sort of sale but without the requisite surveys we would usually need? Through the chair, to Senator Dunbar, right now it would be done without compensation. And it, you know, this is our first hearing. As mentioned earlier, I would hope that, I would absolutely love to see a committee substitute in the future where all of your communities and every other senators could reach out to their planning departments and work on finding land similar to these ones that don't take revenue away from the state of Alaska, but that may be valuable to your communities such as these would be to ours. Follow-up, Senator Dunbar?

No, that's fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kawasaki. Thank you, and thanks for bringing this forward. There's several of us who've served on local boroughs and cities, and I just want to say how, you know, how difficult it is sometimes to get these land transfers to happen.

I had a question, though, just sort of generally on what happens if these lands are particularly useful, like we're talking about a natural gas line, for instance. If this were to be— I don't know if these 251-acre, 640-acre, the ones that are in Section 5 of the bill, are those areas. But, um, you could see where if we're not doing survey, if it looks like it's pretty much just pass a bill and then the land goes over to the, to the municipality, then, you know, the states, the state might lose something there. And I'm just curious, are there any— is there anything that would say the state could revert back to the state? For the record, Senator Young, through the chair to Senator Kawasaki, we did everything in our power to avoid those types of lands.

Now, that's not to say that it couldn't be perceived that way by somebody, or maybe there's something that we didn't take into consideration. I would feel more comfortable letting our borough manager speak to these ones. But yeah, there was a great question. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Very good. I will go to invited testimony now. Mike Brown is the borough manager of Mat-Su Borough, and he is lined up for invited testimony. Mr. Brown, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Mike Brown, borough manager for the Mat-Su Borough. I want to thank Senator again as well for bringing this bill forward to have a conversation about this. Really briefly, our goal is twofold. Number one is to identify state parcels with proximity to infrastructure that would support growth and development, and number two is to revisit the surveying requirements for land transfers in general.

And for context, you know, obviously it's no secret that the Massu has been growing for many years, but within our borough are over 15.8 million acres of land. Of this land, nearly 94% is owned by the State of Alaska, 1% by the borough, and only 3% is privately held. So current surveying requirements make it uneconomical to survey remote, lower-value land for transfer. And I'll just provide two, two examples or for context is recently we had about 2,000 acres of land up for transfer that cost $87,000 to survey. And another example, 3,200 acres cost over $204,000 to survey.

So when you look at land in more remote areas of the borough, it truly is cost prohibitive to do what is defined in statute today. Additionally, the borough has very little land remaining near road infrastructure and utilities, and that is largely developable. And so as the senator mentioned earlier, Senator Young mentioned earlier, these changes really do encourage economic activity and, and really commercial community investment. And, and this bill specifically just identifies 6 very specific parcels that we thought were in close proximity to infrastructure that would be useful for our community. Um, but the surveying requirement is, is kind of a larger conversation in general around what those requirements would be and what the cost is.

So thank you for your consideration, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Senator Wilkowski has a question. Thank you, appreciate your testimony. Would it be possible to get a map of the parcels that are identified in this bill?

And that's, I guess, either for you or for the state when the state comes before us, or for the bill sponsor. Thank you.

Yeah, through the chair to Senator Wilkowski, absolutely, we can we can make that happen. Very good. Senator Kawasaki. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question for you.

So if the state were to transfer these lands, would the— I mean, I'm guessing at some point in time, the borough would have to do its own surveys of the land to make sure if you're going to be platting it or going through a planning process that you're actually getting the land and you're actually— like, the land is going to the right area. So you're going to have to survey the land anyways, isn't that right?

Hi, this is Nick Sporopoulos. I'm here with Manager Brown. I was also on the invited testimony list. I'll take this one through the chair to Senator Kawasaki. The concept is that The parcels could be described either in aliquot parts or meets and bounds, you know, and if the borough was going to further transfer perhaps less than the whole parcel, we might subdivide it.

But again, with other government agencies, with cities, with, you know, potential development, we might survey it, we might not. It would depend on the exact situation.

Okay, thank you. Uh, Mr. Spiropoulos, uh, my record indicates you were here for questions only, so that's why I didn't call on you for invited testimony. Senator Myers now has a question. I, I had the same question as Senator Kawasaki, so I'm good. Thank you.

All right, further questions either for the borough attorney, Mr. Spiropoulos, or Mr. Brown, the borough manager? Senator Rauscher, did you have your hand up? Thank you, Madam Chair. So I was just wondering, how does the state know where it is that they— the land that they're losing, and how does the borough know exactly where the land is that they're gaining without survey? And I'm just trying to understand how the process works, because whenever I've bought a piece of land through, uh, through, they've always required a survey so we know exactly where it begins and where it ends.

And so I'm just trying to figure this out. For who is your question? I don't know. I imagine somebody—. How about Mr. Brown, the borough manager?

Hi, this is, uh, Nick Spravitz again, uh, through the chair to Senator Rauscher. I'll take that question. Again, you know, the state is divided up into sections, right? A section is a square mile, 640 acres, and you can describe properties by saying, you know, Section 42 of Township whatever, Range whatever, north, south, meridian, and then look at the maps and figure out exactly where that is. And with modern GPS and GIS technologies, there's lots of ways to describe land rather than, you know, have a surveyor go out and tromp— literally tromp through the woods, find caps, and, you know, make measurements, uh, down to the exact inch.

We all know what it is when you transfer by, uh, aliquot part because it's described. And, and as Senator Young mentioned previously, it, it is something that is accepted in the private industry, and it does happen. So we Like when, um, uh, Senator, uh, was it Wilkowski asked for a map? That map we're going to give you is most likely going to be from our GIS department, which is simply going to look at basically the adequate parks and then come up with a map and shade those for you so you'll know exactly where it is. And we're going to be able to do that without going out and again physically, you know, walking through the land because it incredibly expensive.

Follow-up, Senator Rauscher? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm fine. All right, Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, um, for either of the folks from the MATSU.

I was just trying to do some rough math here. I came up with 1,265 acres is what we're being asked to hand over. Um, perhaps I might be a little off there, but what is the approximate value of those 1,265 acres? Is how much— so it's got zero fiscal note because we only sort of deal in cash, but if this were to be sold, how about how much is— how much is this 1,265 acres worth?

Yeah, through the chair to Senator Dunbar, I— this is Mike Brown speaking again. Um, I don't think we have a number for that today. That's something we can take a look at. But we do not have a value assigned to the 6 parcels being discussed. Follow-up, Madam Chair?

Follow-up, Senator Dunbar. Yeah, I would love to see that by the next session. And it doesn't have to be— I'm sorry, the next hearing. It doesn't have to be exact. And I mean, what we're talking about here is it's not surveyed, so I don't expect it to be exact.

And it hasn't— it's never paid property tax because it's in state hands. So I understand you don't have as much data on it. But yeah, a value for the total, but also, as you indicated, sort of a value parcel by parcel, because it might be that some of these parcels are a little more dear than others. Um, and it just would be useful for us to know at least the rough order of magnitude. Are we talking about millions?

Are we talking about tens of millions? Um, you know, I, I don't know how much— 1,200, 1,265 acres in, uh, Midtown Anchorage, for example, would be extremely valuable. But I, I assume that some of these parcels are a little bit further out. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Dunbar.

Senator Myers. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So this question for the borough attorney, um, so in the, uh, one of the fiscal notes that we got from DNR, they talked about concern over future lawsuits if we didn't survey the property beforehand, concerned about, you know, clouded title and things like that. In, in your experience with the borough Um, is that a significant concern that you're worried about moving forward with unsurveyed land?

Uh, hi, this is Nick Spravos again, Borough Attorney, Matsuburo, through the chair. Um, no, it's not a big concern of ours because if there's ever a lawsuit over any property and property lines, um, for those of us who've kind of dealt with that, one of the first things you're going to do is get a resurvey anyway, or you're at least going to get that, that particular line that's at issue surveyed. Again, we see things transferred by, you know, aliquot part descriptions all the time where, you know, if you transfer 40 acres, you say the southeast one-quarter of the southeast one-half of Township Range Section, and, you know, everybody knows where that is. And if you get down to the actual you know, well, if it's 3 feet this way or 3 feet that way, you're going to have to resurvey it anyway, even if an initial survey is done. I don't think we've ever been involved in any type of dispute over property lines that hasn't been surveyed.

And, you know, we've done things like condemnations, and, you know, we've had during COVID neighbors suing each other and pulling the boroughs in about right-of-way lines and things like that. And it's It's one of the first things you have to do anyway in terms of if there's litigation, there's going to be a new survey. There's going to be a survey done for that particular piece anyway. Follow-up, Senator Myers. Yes, I understand you're saying that there's, you know, litigation means you're going to do a survey anyhow.

So I guess the question is, is a lack of survey going to lead to more litigation in the first place?

No, we don't believe so. Um, again, when you look at like our personal lives and our personal transfers, you know, you get lot 4 of a subdivision and, you know, you look at the plot, you see what that is. I suppose you could go out and look for stakes and whatever. Um, but, uh, if you look closely at the bill, it actually says that the transfer would be allowed if and when the municipality says they're not going to do Survey. So the risk of that and the risk of, you know, the boundary line being in a certain spot or not being there really falls on us because we would become the new owner of the land and where the line is in the event there's litigation.

And most of these, you know, municipal entitlement land, it kind of leads into a little bit Senator Dunbar's question. Municipal entitlement land under 29 65, those transfers are, are without cost to the borough anyway. The boroughs don't pay the state for the municipal entitlement lands. And for us anyway, a lot of these lands are more remote. You know, they may be used for recreational purposes.

Obviously there are some that are— will be used that may be subdivided and sold further off. But a lot of these lands are not in places where we would expect large boundary issues and disputes. Thank you.

Any further questions for either the borough attorney or the borough manager? Seeing none, any questions for the bill sponsor? Do you have any closing remarks today, Senator Yunt? Uh, yes, ma'am. Senator Yunt, for the record, I just wanted to say thank you.

Those are a lot of wonderful questions. We'll get back to you on the answers for a few of them. Technology is becoming more advanced. There are ways to describe properties that have existed for over a century, actually. But as technology gets better, this is something that we're going to want to look at, I think, that will help get lands back in the hands of all of our local governments.

And as I mentioned before, for a long time, title companies, even on the private sector side of property sales, has been offering title insurance for description-based property rather than actual surveys. So it— again, appreciate everybody's help, and we'll look forward to having it heard again in the future when we have answers to your questions. Thank you, Senator Yunt. Yeah, I have questions related to the map, the value of the land, and hearing from DNR and DCCED for a future hearing. So at this time, we'll set this the bill aside.

This concludes our meeting. The next meeting will be this afternoon at 3:30, at which time we will hear Senate Bill 280, Oil and Gas Property Tax Municipal Tax. The meeting will stand adjourned. Let the record reflect the time is 10:29 PM— excuse me, AM.