Agencies tell Senate panel HB93 would require system changes; fiscal impact for pilot exemptions "indeterminate"

The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 23 heard agency witnesses about House Bill 93, which would modify residency requirements related to hunting, trapping and fishing and add statutory clarity about allowable absences such as for pilots and potentially flight crew.

Genevieve Watusik, director of the Permanent Fund Dividend division, testified that if the committee adopts amendments adding a pilot exception (or expanding exemptions to flight crew) the change would carry an "indeterminate fiscal note" for programming costs. Watusik said the division is undertaking a system upgrade and that the exact cost depends on final language and whether new position control numbers (PCNs) are required.

Joe Felkel, deputy director for administrative services at the Department of Fish and Game, told the committee the bill would have minimal fiscal and programmatic impact on how the department issues resident licenses. He said proof of residency is not required at the time of application; applicants self-certify in the online and in-person certification and purchasing agreement, and Fish and Game would update that certification to reference any new statutory exceptions.

Major Aaron Frenzel of the Alaska Wildlife Troopers described enforcement and investigation processes for residency complaints. Frenzel said troopers use multiple databases (driver's license history, PFD application history) and coordinate with PFD investigators and other states; residency probes can be quick when objective evidence exists or can become "very large" and resource-intensive when intent and domicile are at issue.

Committee members asked for clarification about how families and dependents would be handled if exceptions expand to flight crews; Watusik said official FAA lists may help for pilots and crew but dependents lack a clear official list, requiring more applicant and agency effort. Staff provided examples of U.S. and non-U.S. airlines to help the committee define "United States airline" in drafting exemptions.

The committee put HB93 aside for further review with no committee vote taken.

What happens next: Committee staff will follow up on fiscal and drafting questions ahead of future consideration; no vote was recorded at this hearing.