Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB266 || HB267 | |
| Budget Overview: Alaska Court System | |
| Budget Overview: Department of Fish and Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 30, 2014
1:36 p.m.
1:36:39 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Austerman called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Doug Wooliver, Deputy Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System; Cora Campbell, Commissioner, Department of Fish and
Game; Kevin Brooks, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish
and Game.
SUMMARY
HB 266 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 266 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 267 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 267 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
FY 15 BUDGET OVERVIEWS:
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
HOUSE BILL NO. 266
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, and making
reappropriations; making appropriations under art. IX,
sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of Alaska, from
the constitutional budget reserve fund."
HOUSE BILL NO. 267
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program."
1:36:39 PM
Co-Chair Austerman discussed the schedule for the day. He
relayed that questions would be held until after the
presentation.
^BUDGET OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
1:36:53 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, introduced his colleague. He provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Alaska Court System: House Finance
Committee Alaska Court System Overview" dated January 30,
2014 (copy on file). He read the department's mission
statement on slide 2:
The mission of the Alaska Court System is to provide
an accessible and impartial forum for the just
resolution of all cases that come before it, and to
decide such cases in accordance with the law,
expeditiously and with integrity.
Mr. Wooliver relayed that like all organizations, there was
significant work done behind the scenes by various
divisions including personnel, human resources, facilities,
and fiscal; however, the department's sole purpose was to
resolve cases. He moved to slide 3 to discuss
distinguishing characteristics of the system. He detailed
that the court system was almost exclusively funded by
state general fund dollars. Additionally, the system was a
unified judiciary. There were only a handful of courts
around the country that were unified; most states had
dozens of county and municipal courts that were all
operated independently. He referenced recent testimony by
the Department of Corrections Commissioner Joseph Schmidt
that there were only about six unified correctional
departments. He explained that a unified system provided
efficiencies within the Alaska Court System and for
everyone else.
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 4 related to the department's
800 employees in 44 communities throughout the state:
· About 800 Permanent (GF-Funded)
· Primarily Clerical Employees
· Five Supreme Court Justices
· Three Court of Appeal Judges
· 42 Superior Court Judges
· 23 District Court Judges
· 51 Magistrate Judges
Mr. Wooliver elaborated that the judge positions were both
full and part-time; some employees were attorneys and
others were not.
1:39:58 PM
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 5 and discussed factors
impacting workload. The majority of the workload related to
caseloads, which were impacted by population, police,
economy, and other. He noted that there was not a direct
correlation between population and caseload, but over time
and in general, cases increased with population growth. He
communicated that growth in law enforcement efforts could
increase caseloads. For example, if the Municipality of
Anchorage received a grant for new police officers, as long
as there were prosecutors to bring additional cases an
increased number of cases would be brought to court. Other
factors such as economy could impact caseloads. For
example, during a booming economy with many people working
there tended to be fewer problems with crime than when
there was high unemployment. He remarked that caseloads and
workloads were not always synonymous.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 6 and addressed caseloads.
There had been an increase in cases in the past year due to
an increase in felony cases and Child in Need of Aid (CINA)
cases. Simultaneously there had been a decrease in district
court caseloads, which had been surprising. He detailed
that minor offenses (generally traffic cases) were down in
the past year. He elaborated that the Anchorage Police
Department had a backlog of written tickets that had not
been transmitted to the court; therefore, there had been a
large decrease in minor offences in the last part of the
year; as the tickets were submitted, a large uptick in
offences had begun to occur. He pointed out that
approximately 60 percent of all cases originated in
Southcentral (Anchorage, Palmer, and Kenai Courts) where
most of the state's population resided. He suspected the
number would increase in the future as more and more of the
department's workload was concentrated in the area.
Mr. Wooliver relayed that trial rates were a good example
of how caseload differed from workload (slide 7). He
detailed that there could be the same number of cases filed
every year, but when more cases went to trial the workload
increased significantly. He communicated that over the past
few years there had been a steady increase in the number of
cases going to trial; fewer people were pleading guilty. He
elaborated that the increase impacted prosecutors, defense
attorneys, and the court. One of the areas that was most
significantly fiscally impacted was jury trial costs. He
shared that most of the time if a person plead guilty (the
vast majority of all criminal cases were resolved by a
guilty plea through an agreement with the prosecutor) to a
case the case could not be appealed. He noted that there
were some exceptions, but the appeal rate for the
exceptions was miniscule. An increase in trial rate almost
always coincided with an increase in cases filed with the
court of appeals. He stated that if the second half of FY
14 looked like the first half of the fiscal year, the
numbers would show a 50 percent increase in cases filed
with the court of appeals since 2011. He summarized that
caseload was one measure of workload, but trial rates were
another; even if cases stayed the same, more effort may be
spent.
1:44:54 PM
Mr. Wooliver moved to a graph on slide 8 that showed the
increase in trial rates. Slide 9 included a pie chart
depicting FY 14 state fund sources; the department
represented 1.4 percent of the overall state budget. Slide
10 included a pie chart showing how the agency's budget was
broken down. The bulk of department costs were associated
with trial courts [79 percent]. Additionally, there were
costs associated with administration, appeals, and
appellate and therapeutic courts. Slide 11 showed an
alternative way to breakdown the department's funding;
personal services accounted for 76 percent; services
accounted for 19 percent and included leases, contracts,
software, and jury fees; supplies and commodities accounted
for 2.8 percent and included paper, computers, printers,
and other basic office supplies; slightly over 1 percent
went to department travel for juries and travel within the
state for judges covering cases in different communities.
1:46:59 PM
Mr. Wooliver addressed increments funded in FY 14 on slide
12. The legislature had provided funding for bandwidth to
increase network transmission speeds, therapeutic courts,
normal lease cost increases, software support, and
accommodation for a judge in Bethel. The current FY 15
budget request included basic utilities, contractual
services; and leases, maintenance, and items related to
increased cost of doing business (slide 13). The request
also included funds for increased bandwidth and expanded
security in several superior court locations with one
judge. He would provide additional information about
bandwidth during the subcommittee meeting.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that other agencies were not as
conversant with their needs. He stated that there needed to
be a greater communication if the budget process was going
to be holistic. He mentioned other entities such as the
Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Department of Law
(DOL), the Alaska Court System, the Department of
Corrections (DOC), and the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
under the Department of Administration (DOA).
1:49:19 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued to address slide 13. The department
had recently become responsible for paying for court
visitors in conservatorship cases. He expounded that a
conservator was appointed by a court primarily when a
person was unable to handle their personal finances due to
age or disability. As part of the process the court
appoints a court visitor to investigate the case and
determine that a conservator was needed. He explained that
for many years OPA had provided a court visitor; however,
the agency determined that it was not statutorily required
to provide the court visitor and was no longer accepting
the appointments. Due to a need, the court continued to
appoint court visitors; therefore, the court system had to
take over the responsibility. The change had occurred in
August of 2013; when the department submitted its budget
request in November the cost had been estimated at $107,000
per year. In recent months the department had revised the
figure to $60,000 per year.
Mr. Wooliver shared that in July DOL had changed its plea
bargaining practices with respect to a variety of different
criminal case types. He explained that plea agreements
included the crime a person pled guilty to and the sentence
that would be given. The department was no longer
negotiating sentence pleas in a variety of cases including
unclassified and Class A felonies and domestic violence and
sexual assault cases. He explained that typically a change
of this type would increase trial rates because one of the
incentives to plead to a case had been removed; therefore,
generally a plea was less likely. The department did not
know with certainty that an increase would occur, but it
had accounted for one in its budget; the $200,000 request
which was essentially a placeholder for the potential
increase and additional jury costs. The department would
continue to look at the issue closely to determine whether
the funds would be needed.
1:53:30 PM
Mr. Wooliver directed attention to slide 14 that included
additional FY 15 funding requests. The slide included
computer replacement funding; the additional increment
would enable the department to have a five-year replacement
cycle for computers. Also included on slide 14 was funding
for interpreter and translation services; the court was
required by federal law to provide foreign language
interpreters in court proceedings. He relayed that the need
for interpreters had continued to rise; the department had
$60,000 in its base funding, but based on recent growth it
anticipated the figure would rise to at least $85,000 in
the coming year. The last increment was for interagency
receipt authority totaling $60,000 for OPA and the Public
Defender Agency. He elaborated that the public defender,
DOL, and OPA received transcripts from the court system for
their appeals; the court system received the transcripts
from private contractors at a good rate. The $60,000
increase reflected what the department was actually paying
for transcripts.
Mr. Wooliver provided information on funding changes from
FY 06 to FY 15 on slide 15. A large portion of the
department's budget growth was associated with personnel
costs including salary and benefit increases, new judges (8
superior court and 3 district court), and 33 clerical staff
as part of the and No Dark Courtrooms initiative (the
department was no longer requesting new personnel in the
areas). He moved to slide 16 showing additional increases
since FY 06 that included inflationary costs related to
leases, public building fund participation, utilities,
maintenance, software support, and therapeutic courts.
Mr. Wooliver discussed a graph on slide 17 showing a line
item comparison between FY 06 and FY 15; the green bars
represented personal services. The graph on slide 18
illustrated the department's share of total agency
operations funded by general fund dollars; the department
had remained between 2 percent and just over 2.2 percent.
He detailed that 10 years earlier the department had
accounted for 2.03 percent and currently it represented
2.21 percent. Slide 19 illustrated that general funds made
up approximately 97 percent of the department's budget. He
looked at slide 20 showing projections for FY 16 and
beyond. The largest project the department had planned in
the near future was an electronic document management (e-
filing) system. The system would impact all justice
agencies; it would allow for electronic filing and
distribution and management of all court records. The
system would have many benefits, but would be expensive to
build; it would allow for future savings, including fewer
staff needs, faster transmission of information between
justice agencies, improved case processing efficiency, and
error reduction. He stressed the benefits of the system and
relayed that it was currently the department's top
priority.
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 21 that showed continued
priorities for FY 16 and beyond. He discussed the potential
need for more judges in various communities. He relayed
that courts in Juneau, Bethel, Palmer were very busy; if
caseloads were to increase in the upcoming 10 years the
department would most likely request new judges.
1:59:32 PM
Mr. Wooliver looked at slide 22 showing a continuation of
FY 16 and beyond. Over the upcoming three years the
department wanted to make improvements in rural courts and
in Palmer. He added that growth in the Palmer area was
likely to increase growth in the court facility.
Additionally, he believed the department would make a
future request for increased bandwidth as technology became
a larger component in operations.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 23 and addressed where the
department would be if it continued on its recent growth
trajectory (represented in green). The black line indicated
where the department hoped to be in relation to growth. He
reiterated his earlier testimony that one of the biggest
drivers of the department's past cost increase related to
additional personnel; the department did not anticipate
needing more personnel in the future. The black line
reflected initiatives planned by the department, which he
hoped would considerable flatten out budgetary needs. He
noted that slide 24 pertaining to all funds looked similar
to slide 23 due to the department's reliance primarily on
general funds.
2:01:14 PM
Co-Chair Austerman pointed to slides 6 and 7 and asked for
clarity. He wondered how district court caseloads could be
down 10 percent, but district court trials were up 47
percent. He observed that felony cases were up 6 percent.
Mr. Wooliver explained that district court numbers were
down due to a decrease in traffic crime filings, which did
not go to trial; however, a larger percentage of cases were
going to trial at the misdemeanor level. He elaborated that
district court misdemeanor were not increasing
substantially, but a higher percentage of the cases were
going to trial.
Representative Edgmon asked if there was a correlation with
plea bargain arrangements discussed earlier. Mr. Wooliver
replied that the department was working to determine the
answer. He detailed that the new plea policy had only been
in effect for a few months and many felony cases took a few
months to move forward; therefore, the data was
undetermined at present. The department anticipated an
increased number of trials as a result, but it did not have
a number at the time.
Representative Wilson discussed the impact jury duty had on
teachers during the school year; when teachers were out of
a classroom in court it took time away from the students
and teaching. She wondered about a possible exemption for
teachers during the school year especially in rural areas
were substitutes were not available.
Mr. Wooliver believed that a provision in statute allowed
teachers to be excused from jury duty. He would follow up
with confirmation. He acknowledged that jury duty was a
huge burden particularly in rural Alaska. He communicated
that jury burnout was a significant problem particularly in
the Bethel area where potential jurors served for one-month
periods. He explained that in some parts of the state
individuals were on jury duty for a year. He relayed that
the chief justice had recently appointed a committee of
judges and jury clerks to determine better ways to manage
juries because as the trial rate went up the burden on
jurors increased.
2:05:23 PM
Representative Wilson asked about driving under the
influence (DUI) offences. She wondered why a person trying
to get their license back had to go through a process with
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in addition to the court
system.
Mr. Wooliver replied that there was an administrative
revocation that DMV issued as well as a criminal case that
could be brought; the two issues were separate. He believed
DOL could provide a better answer. He would follow up.
Representative Wilson restated her prior question. She
asked if the increase in felony and CINA cases was due to
recent laws or other. Mr. Wooliver did not know the reason.
He replied that there were many theories about the reason
for the increase. He explained that it was more complicated
than it seemed to figure out which cases were going to
trial, which were not, or other.
Representative Wilson noted that it was difficult to fix an
issue if the data behind the problem was not known.
Representative Gara heard from lawyers that as sentences
had increased for many crimes, people were more likely to
go to trial because stakes were higher. He wondered if
there was evidence to back up the claim. Mr. Wooliver
answered that an increase in sentences was likely to
increase trial rates because there was more at stake.
However, he did not know whether increased penalties
(particularly for sex offences where penalties were
increased significantly) had resulted in more trials. From
the department's perspective it was interesting to know,
but he observed that from the legislature's perspective it
mattered greatly whether statutory changes had led to the
increase. The department continuing to look at the trial
rate data. He added that increased trial rates meant
increased appeal rates. The department hoped to narrow the
options that could be resulting in increased trial rates.
Representative Gara believed Representative Wilson's
question related to DUI cases was important. He explained
that courts imposed sentences and license revocations for
DUIs, but DMV had a lower evidence threshold; therefore,
DMV often took away a person's license without a conviction
and could suspend a person's license longer than the court
system did. He continued that the situation caused people
to have trouble getting to work. He wanted to discuss the
issue further with DMV.
Vice-Chair Neuman discussed his prior work in 2005/2006 on
the passage of Jessica's law that doubled the amount of
mandatory sentencing for sexual abuse offenders (especially
for crimes involving child victims). He added that the
prior year the governor had passed legislation with his
Choose Respect campaign that further increased mandatory
time for sexual abuse offences. He referred to substantial
fiscal notes tied to the laws that were supposed to help
for increased costs; however, he observed that the
department was requesting additional funds due to increased
costs for sentencing in the courts. He wondered why the
department was asking for more money.
Mr. Wooliver would follow up on the issue.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the court's current drug
offence caseload. Mr. Wooliver stated that he had heard
from judges that most crimes were associated with substance
abuse in some way (e.g. assault and theft crimes). He
explained that the department's database did not track
whether a theft crime was related to drugs.
Vice-Chair Neuman remarked that he would continue to work
with the department on reducing drug cases. He remarked
that the issue effected the state's entire budget.
2:13:11 PM
^BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
2:13:20 PM
CORA CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
(DFG), introduced staff. She provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "Alaska Department of Fish and Game
House Finance Committee Overview" (copy on file). Slide 2
included the department's mission statement and relevant
statutory references. Slide 3 listed the department's core
services including management, stock assessment and
research, and customer service and public involvement. She
relayed that the department's activities and expenditures
were all tied to the core services. An organizational chart
showing the department's six divisions, one section, and
two independent agencies was included on slide 4. Slide 5
included a map of the department's permanent geographical
locations.
Commissioner Campbell relayed that upcoming slides provided
an overview of each division and its relative size. She
turned to slide 6 related to the DFG Commissioner's Office
that accounted for 1 percent of the department's budget.
The Division of Commercial Fisheries was responsible for
management of commercial, subsistence, and marine water
personal-use fisheries; the division accounted for
approximately 34 percent of the total DFG budget (slide 7).
She pointed to a graph on slide 8 showing the "exvessel"
value of commercial harvests and mariculture production in
Alaska; the total value had been well over the target of $1
billion for a number of years. She noted that the graph had
not yet been expanded to include 2013 values. She detailed
that 2013 would have a near record harvest value for both
salmon and shell fish, powered primarily by the record pink
salmon harvest in several areas of the state in the past
year.
2:16:45 PM
Commissioner Campbell discussed the Division of Sport Fish
on slide 9. The division was responsible for managing sport
and several personal-use fisheries; it accounted for
approximately 23 percent of the department's operating
budget. One of the metrics used to evaluate the division
pertained to the sales of fishing licenses; post 2008 there
had been a measurable drop in sales of non-resident
licenses (slide 10). The department had been tracking the
licenses, which had a slight rebound in sales in 2013; the
DFG goal was to increase license sales back to 2008 levels.
Commissioner Campbell addressed the Division of Wildlife
Conservation on slide 11. The division accounted for 22
percent of the department's budget and was responsible for
managing general and subsistence hunting and trapping
opportunities. Slide 12 included a graph depicting the
sales of hunting and trapping licenses from 2008 to 2013;
sales of these licenses had remained steadier. She
explained that resident license sales far outweighed
nonresident sales. She added that non-resident licenses
were also an important component.
Commissioner Campbell highlighted the Division of
Subsistence on slide 13. The division accounted for 4
percent of the department's budget; it was responsible for
research including the collection of information on
customary and traditional use of fish and wildlife
resources. Performance measurement looked at how many of
the department's management plans had incorporated
subsistence information (slide 14). She turned to the
Division of Habitat that accounted for 3 percent of the
department's operating budget. The division was responsible
for issuing permits for activities in fish-bearing,
anadromous, and special area waters; over 4,000 permits had
been issued in 2013. Slide 16 illustrated the number of
permit holders in compliance with permit conditions
designed to protect fish wildlife. The division's target
was 100 percent compliance; the figure had been 99.78
percent in 2013. The Administrative Services Division
accounted for 6 percent of the operating budget. The Boards
Support Section accounted for 1 percent of the department's
operating budget and provided logistical support to the
regulatory processes of the Board of Fish and Board of
Game. She detailed that in FY 13 there had been 49
regulatory meeting days between the two boards; the two
boards had considered over 400 proposals for regulatory
change.
2:20:42 PM
Commissioner Campbell looked at slide 19 related to the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission and the Exxon Valdez
Oil Spill Trustee Council; the agencies accounted for
approximately 2 percent and 1 percent of the DFG operating
budget respectively.
Commissioner Campbell addressed slide 20 that showed the FY
15 budget by division and fund source. The pie chart on the
left illustrated that the bulk of the department's
operating funds went to its three large management
divisions. The chart on the right showed the budget by
funding source; the most important funding sources were
general and federal funds and the Fish and Game Fund. She
elaborated that the federal funding component was made up
of a number of discrete funding sources including federal
excise taxes. She expounded that the excise taxes included
Pittman-Robertson funds that came from taxes on sales of
firearms and ammunition, which funded the Division of
Wildlife Conservation and from Dingell-Johnson funds that
came from the sales of fishing tackle and boat motors,
which funded the Division of Sport Fish. She relayed that
in the past couple of years Pittman-Robertson funds had
increased due to national political events that had sparked
an increase in the purchase of guns and ammunition,
whereas, Dingell-Johnson funds had decreased. Other federal
funds were received through the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) for fisheries
management functions and marine mammal research. She
summarized that the federal funds and Fish and Game funds
made up a significant portion of the budget for the
Division of Wildlife Conservation and the Division of Sport
Fish. The primary funds came from a user-pay system.
2:23:36 PM
Commissioner Campbell pointed to slide 21 showing that the
bulk of the department's staff worked in the three larger
management divisions. The department had a total of 1,683
positions; 930 were full-time. She noted that many of the
department's staff were seasonal fieldwork employees. She
turned to a Legislative Finance Division graph on slide 22
that provided a 10-year look at the department's budget
compared to all other state agencies. She relayed that DFG
had been fairly consistent at 1.7 percent over the past
seven or so years; the figure had increased to 1.8 percent
in FY 14. The graph on slide 23 showed the percent of the
total department's budget by fund group. Unrestricted
general funds were illustrated in purple and designated
general funds were shown in maroon. The portion of the
department's budget made up of federal funds had declined
over the past 10 years; whereas general funds had
increased.
Commissioner Campbell turned to slide 24 showed a pie chart
representing the approximate growth from FY 05 to FY 15.
The graph helped explain where some of the general fund
increases had originated and where they were headed; 50
percent of the growth was due to contractual salary
increases, 34 percent was due to requests for increases in
the governor's budget, and the remaining 16 percent were
legislative additions or reductions. Slides 25 and 26 were
from the Legislative Finance Division and looked at
continued budget growth compared to the 10-year plan. Slide
25 pertained to general funds; the green line represented
the current rate of annual growth of 7.6 percent compared
to the black line representing the department's 10-year
plan. She believed it was unlikely the department would
continue to see annual growth of 7.6 percent. She noted
that the growth had already begun to level out. Slide 26
pertained to all funds and showed a closer correlation
between current growth and the department's annual
management plan.
2:27:24 PM
Commissioner Campbell turned to slide 27 to discuss major
accomplishments in 2013:
· Intensive management and habitat enhancement
· Subsistence harvest surveys
· Near-record value salmon and shellfish harvests
· Operational planning and joint biometrics
· Sport fish hatchery production
· Advisory committee training and support
· New research projects initiated
Commissioner Campbell expounded that significant success
had been shown with the department's intensive management
and habitat enhancement that had produced high numbers of
moose in Unit 20; it had obtained objectives for moose in
management unit 13 and for the 40-mile caribou herd. The
department was pleased with intensive management results
where DFG had access to state lands and the necessary
resources. She added that the department was working
towards additional habitat improvements. She communicated
that substantial work had been done on subsistence harvest
surveys, particularly in communities located on the path of
a future gas pipeline. Additionally, salmon and shell fish
harvests had seen a near-record year in 2013. The
department had implemented a joint operational planning
process between the two fish divisions and biometrics shop,
which would ensure that research projects had an approved
operational plan. The plan would ensure that funds were
spent in the most scientifically sound manner and that the
desired research results were achieved.
Commissioner Campbell was pleased with the way sport fish
hatcheries were producing; releases from 2004 had been
surpassed in numbers and quality (2004 represented a
benchmark the department was aiming to return to). Brood
stock had been collected in 2013 to increase the Chinook
releases in Southcentral; the department was on track to
release more than 1 million smolt, which represented a
large increase. Additionally, significant improvement had
been seen in the size and condition of fish released from
the state hatcheries. Per request, the department had been
providing training to committees responsible for advising
the Boards of Fish and Game; a training session had been
held at a joint board meeting and training materials had
been provided to the committees. She added that a number of
new research projects had been initiated with funding from
the latest budget.
2:30:46 PM
Commissioner Campbell addressed issues and challenges for
the department on slide 28. She addressed challenges with
Chinook salmon abundance and productivity; it had been a
challenge for residents who relied on the salmon, which had
been in a period of low abundance. Subsequently, necessary
restrictions had caused severe hardships. She planned to
discuss projects DFG had initiated in order to address the
problem. She pointed to continued challenges to state
sovereign authority to manage wildlife; there continued to
be endangered species act listings and proposals that
caused the department great concern. She noted that the
department was involved in lawsuits when necessary and had
seen some encouraging victories. The department was also
involved in conducting research and collecting information
for species that would allow DFG to weigh in to prevent a
potential listing. She stated that the DFG was working on
delisting species that had recovered. She relayed that
delisting had not been a strength of the Endangered Species
Act. The state had been successful in delisting the eastern
stock of stellar sea lions and was working on a petition
for the humpback whale. She spoke to preserving fishing and
economic opportunities; it had been working to locate areas
where a significant investment of state resources would
provide a large opportunity payoff for Alaskans. Tighter
budgets made the area increasingly challenging.
2:33:03 PM
Commissioner Campbell continued with slide 28: "Issues and
Challenges." She mentioned that Fish and Game Fund revenues
that accounted for 11 percent of the DFG budget, had been
flat. She noted that DFG tracked license sales in many ways
and multiple factors drove the sales (e.g. national economy
and opportunities provided for hunting and fishing). She
added that several programs saw declining federal funds
such as Dingell-Johnson funds and funds received from DCCED
for the Commercial Fisheries Division including the
implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty and delegated
authority for management of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
crab fisheries. She pointed out that the department had
seen an increase in federal Pittman-Robertson funds from
the environmental conservation department; however, the
funds required state matching funds.
Commissioner Campbell discussed slide 29: "Highlights in
Operating Budget for FY 2015." The department was
requesting an increase in federal receipt authority of $1
million to access some of the increased Pittman-Robertson
funds. She detailed that access to the funds would enable
the department to maintain a wide range of wildlife
resource projects statewide. She communicated that DFG had
eliminated 36 vacant positions and associated funding; the
slide detailed the fund impact on general and federal
sources. She discussed the importance of maintaining
sufficient positions to implement Chinook initiative
research.
2:36:28 PM
Commissioner Campbell continued with slide 30: "FY 2015
Capital Projects Requests." She addressed a $10 million
increment for the Chinook Salmon Initiative's second year.
She pointed to a couple of requests pertaining to wildlife
that leveraged available federal funds. She relayed that
the division had some prior year capital projects that
would expire; DFG wanted to have the ability to continue
intensive management work that had been successful, but
would need resources to do so. She noted that there was a
50/50 match for intensive management programs due to
constraints on what the federal funds could be spent on.
The department wanted to continue work on habitat
enhancement programs it had started in partnership with
some landowners to increase habitat.
Commissioner Campbell discussed the Chinook Salmon Research
Initiative on slide 31. The request represented the second
component of a five year $30 million proposal. The
department had received the first funds on July 1, 2013.
She detailed that there were 12 indicator stocks from the
Yukon to Southeast Alaska. The 2014 projects included adult
and juvenile abundance, subsistence harvests, genetics,
coded wire tagging, and other. She pointed to a web address
included on the DFG webpage that showed a summary of each
river system project.
2:39:44 PM
Co-Chair Austerman referred to slide 20 that showed the
department's budget by division and fund source. He had
received several requests for information related to money
the regional aquaculture association in Kodiak gave to DFG
to do work for it. He wondered where the component showed
up in the department's funding structure.
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, replied that the cost would fall under the
department's general fund program receipts (shown in green
on the right hand side of slide 20); the total was
approximately $1.6 million in program receipts. He added
that the other component was statutory designated program
receipts in the amount of $7.6 million (shown in light
blue).
Co-Chair Austerman asked for verification that the item
could be located in the budget. Mr. Brooks replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Austerman asked how many other areas around the
state had nongovernmental entities giving the department
money to do work. Mr. Brooks replied that the department
had a number of agreements with non-governmental and
governmental agencies where the entities worked
collaboratively. For example, sometimes the department paid
an entity to run a weir or for other work. Revenue
collected by the department appeared in designated general
funds; expenditures showed up as contractual expenditures.
Co-Chair Austerman asked for a list of the entities that
provided the funds in the past. Mr. Brooks replied in the
affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze spoke to changes in policy, the ability
for Alaskan residents to access halibut, and continuing
issues with Chinook salmon. He asked how bad the situation
would get related to licenses as fishing opportunities
diminished. He wondered if licenses would continue to
decrease.
Commissioner Campbell replied that it was difficult to
predict. She referred to a definite decline in king salmon
license sales, which was clearly related to opportunity.
She believed an increased number of people thought it may
not be worth purchasing a king salmon license. However,
resident license sales had been fairly steady over time;
she believed the sales were indicative of a good value.
Non-resident license sales correlated with national
economic and visitor trends. She believed some element was
tied to the perception of opportunity as well. The
department had talked with other state agencies about
improving information provided to visitors about available
opportunities. She relayed that there continued to be many
great sport fishing opportunities in the state. She
discussed that during the past summer when king salmon
restrictions had been in place the department had been
liberalizing sockeye sport fisheries in many areas.
2:45:16 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed 15 percent vendor commissions on
license sales. He spoke to a $9 debt service vehicle for
fish hatcheries. He reasoned that the commission cost for a
combination of hunting, fishing, trapping for in-state
residents would be $9.30 and out-of-state would be
approximately $25. He believed the commission was generous.
He spoke to merchant sales taxes. He opined that there was
an incentive to vendors for selling licenses for the state.
He wondered if the cost needed to be paid. He intended to
pursue the issue with Department of Revenue Commissioner
Angela Rodell as well. He wondered if there could be a cap
per vendor.
Commissioner Campbell agreed that vendors received a
significant benefit. She believed there may have been some
misinformation provided to the committee earlier in the
day. She noted that Mr. Brooks would speak to the
commissions.
Mr. Brooks relayed that there was a different commission
schedule for commercial, crew, and sport licenses. On the
sports side the charge was 5 percent plus $1 per item sold;
a vendor retained the 5 percent commission, remitted 95
percent to the state, and quarterly the state paid vendors
$1 per item sold in accordance with statute. The department
sold approximately 25,000 commercial crew licenses and
approximately 600,000 to 700,000 recreational sport hunting
and fishing licenses. He agreed that vendors would receive
a significant boost at a 15 percent level; at the 5 percent
level, the vendors made their money based on items sold off
their shelves. He communicated that the vendors provided
the state and the public with a service by selling the
licenses. He did not believe the vendors were "making bank"
off of the 5 percent.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that state employees had provided
different information earlier in the day. Mr. Brooks
apologized for the misinformation.
Co-Chair Stoltze continued to discuss fees. He did not want
to make private vendors do an exorbitant amount of work.
However, part of the commission was a user fee and the
other part equated to a tax on the fish hatcheries. He felt
less concerned by the 5 percent than when he had been told
the number was 50 percent. He had less sympathy for large
box stores compared to small independent shops related to
the issue. He discussed that dealing with government from
the perspective of a small business was cumbersome. He
appreciated the clarification [on the 5 percent
commission].
2:51:43 PM
Mr. Brooks responded that there were over 1,000 license
vendors statewide; the largest vendor was the state's
online store. He relayed that there was no commission on
sales on the website. He discussed the convenience of the
online store.
Representative Holmes referred to a problem she had
experienced related to the distribution of king salmon
stamps in the current year. She wondered if the incident
was isolated. Mr. Brooks replied that the incident was
isolated; there had been no problem with supplies and
distribution. He offered to follow up with the specific
vendor.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the status of the
state's treaty with Canada over king salmon. He believed it
seemed the status may change because Canadians felt the
situation was dire.
Commissioner Campbell surmised that he referring to the
treaty related to the Yukon River. Representative
Guttenberg replied in the affirmative. Commissioner
Campbell replied that DFG had heard significant
dissatisfaction from individuals on the Canadian side of
the border that for multiple years the border passage
objective had not been met. She detailed that t
he border passage objective was a negotiated number between
the two countries. She believed there was substantial
misunderstanding on the Canadian side of the border about
restrictions on the US side. She did not believe Canadians
were fully informed about the extent to which Alaskan
fisheries had been restricted in an attempt to pass fish
across the border and meet the border passage goal.
Additionally, she did not believe Canadians were aware of
the magnitude of subsistence restrictions in the current
year. The department had spent time the past fall talking
with Canada about what management actions in Alaskan
fisheries had looked like. She communicated that Canadians
remained upset about the status of king salmon stocks, as
were users in Alaska. She communicated that the harvest was
roughly half the size it had been a decade earlier. She
added that the run did not provide harvest opportunity for
either side of the border. She did not know that the treaty
status would change; however, there would continue to be
ongoing discussions between Alaska and Canada about harvest
sharing and management actions.
2:56:15 PM
Representative Guttenberg believed communities along the
Yukon River were attentive and cooperative to the reports,
restrictions, openings, and closings; however, sometimes
they challenged assumptions made by DFG. He stated that
Yukoners were very frustrated; he did not know if the
frustration was justified or not. He noted that there had
been some challenges related to the state's handling of the
harvesting. He recalled when former Representative Bud Fate
had a large commercial operation on the Yukon; the
commercial opportunity no longer existed in the area.
Commissioner Campbell agreed. She elaborated that the lower
Yukon had relied on a commercial fishery for Chinook salmon
in the past, which was no longer available. Additionally,
subsistence fishing was no longer available. She relayed
that some innovations in the past summer had allowed chum
salmon fishing with dip nets. She acknowledged that a great
deal of concern existed, which she believed was justified.
Representative Gara believed fishing was crucial to the
state. He spoke to the importance of protecting the state's
abundance of fish in order to prevent disputes between
various types of fisheries. He pointed to slide 29 and
noted that historically the state had been losing
biologists who worked to protect the state's fisheries
because federal positions paid an extra 25 percent cost of
living adjustment (COLA) that the state could not match. He
wondered if any of the eliminated positions were
biologists.
Commissioner Campbell replied that all of the eliminated
positions had been vacant for quite some time. She did not
currently have the description detail on the eliminated
positions. There had been some vacant fish and wildlife
technician positions on the elimination list.
Representative Gara understood that the department had not
laid the employees off. He believed some of the positions
were empty because the federal government paid higher
wages. He was concerned about losing more biologists. He
reiterated his question about how many biologist positions
had been eliminated.
Commissioner Campbell would follow up with the detail.
3:01:09 PM
Representative Gara remarked that he had received a
multitude of emails over the year related to the Kenai
River dip net fishery. He understood that the issue was
volatile between various groups. He believed the department
aimed for an 800,000 sockeye escapement; however, the river
could handle much more. He noted that 1.3 million fish had
returned in the current year, which was positive. He was
concerned that if DFG aimed at a number that was too low
the fish were caught before they reached the river, which
prevented dip net fisherpersons from catching any. He had
heard many stories about people who did not catch anything
dip netting in the current year. He wondered if DFG had
influence over the issue.
Commissioner Campbell did not believe it was accurate to
say that the department was shooting for 800,000. She
expounded that due to user dissatisfaction DFG had taken a
look at the fishery in the current year. She detailed that
it was possible to track sockeye numbers compared to the
past several years. She explained in the past several years
sockeye entering the river had coincided with weekend days;
however, that had not been the case in 2013. Subsequently,
people had not been present at the time the fish had poured
into the river. She expounded that the low catch related to
timing and was not caused by a lack of abundance. The 2013
harvest had been around 350,000 fish, which was low
compared to prior years. The reason was not related to
aiming at a number that was too low. She communicated that
it was not possible to have complete control over all of
the things that influence how fish enter the river. She
believed the Board of Fish would talk about management
measures for the fishery at its upcoming meeting.
3:05:19 PM
Representative Gara remarked that there were individuals
who did not have the luxury of owning an expensive boat to
fish on. He hoped the department would look at options that
were fair to all user groups. He remarked that individuals
fishing from shore were not successful on days where there
was a commercial opening. He did not know why hostility
existed between user groups, but wondered if DFG had any
control over the boat speed in the area in order to reduce
wake in areas where people were fishing from shore.
Commissioner Campbell replied that the issue would most
likely fall under the purview of the Department of Public
Safety (DPS).
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that DPS and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) had jurisdiction over state boating
laws.
Representative Gara noted he would speak to DNR about the
issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the issue further. He told a
story related to fishing tensions in the area.
Representative Gara agreed that the issue was obnoxious and
offensive.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the situation was also
life-dangerous.
Representative Gara continued that people without boats or
set net licenses only had the opportunity to fish from
shore. He stated that it was not funny when individuals
were forced to spend one quarter of their time out of the
water because they were swamped by boats. He understood the
department did not have jurisdiction over boat wakes;
however, he requested that DFG work with the commissioner
of DNR to address the problem. He stated that a limited
fish supply combined with mistreatment by boat users was
not right.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the committee would also
address commercial enforcement actions with DPS. He could
not believe that there were zero offences. He referred to a
constant demand to have troopers check every person. He
spoke to the importance of user compliance.
3:09:49 PM
Representative Edgmon addressed cost recovery. He spoke to
fisheries in Bristol Bay and Southeast that were faced with
"fishing" for some of their budget. He spoke to a situation
that occurred during a prior year Senate Finance
Subcommittee. He wondered if the situation arose at the
behest of the department.
Commissioner Campbell replied that DFG had been working for
several years to get away from test fishing or revenue
fishing. She elaborated that DFG conducted test fishing
when working to learn something about abundance or what it
could set a quota at. She detailed that DFG had been trying
to get away from harvesting fish that could otherwise be
harvested by a user-group to fund the operations of the
department; the decision had been made in subcommittee. She
added that neither the governor nor the department had made
the request.
Representative Edgmon relayed that he planned to work with
the subcommittee chairman on the issue. He underscored that
the issue had created angst and anxiety in his region. He
stated that $200,000 represented a large portion of the
local budget in Bristol Bay.
Co-Chair Stoltze invited committee members to sit in on the
DFG subcommittee hearings.
3:13:06 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman referred to fishing license sales on
slide 10. He remarked that a large portion of the DFG
budget depended on user-pay and federal Pittman-
Robertson/Dingell-Johnson funds. He believed factoring in
population growth combined with a flat rate of resident
fishing license sales indicated negative growth on a per
capita basis. He shared that he had not bought a king
salmon stamp in the current year because there had not been
any salmon available. He communicated that in the past
couple of years Mat-Su had estimated an economic loss in
excess of $100 million due to the lack of salmon. He
discussed the governor's declaration of disaster in the
state's fisheries. He noted that people continued to buy
fewer and fewer licenses due to actions taken by DFG. He
asked the department to talk about efforts by the federal
government to absorb Pittman-Robertson funds to fund
federal government management "takeover" in all states. He
wondered if the department had examined how it made fish
management decisions. He stated that there was a general
belief in the department (specifically by the lead
biologist) that over escapement was a negative thing in
tributaries. He opined that the view was objective and not
shared by many other marine biologists. He detailed that
the idea was that if there were less fish, increasing the
number of spawning fish would help with the problem. He
stated that very few of the Mat-Su tributaries receive
minimum escapement goals set by DFG. He reiterated his
question about the department's internal management
practices. He noted that DFG had committed to conducting
economic viability sport fishing surveys every five years.
He stated that the surveys had not been conducted in the
past five years and wondered if one would occur in the
current year.
Commissioner Campbell replied that the department often
asked for outside expertise to review management practices,
escapement goals, sonar projects, and other. Additionally,
DFG frequently used outside expertise on new or
controversial projects. The department had requested funds
the prior year to repeat the sport fishing survey at the
five-year interval; however, the request had not been
funded by the legislature.
Vice-Chair Neuman requested copies of the [outside
expertise] peer reviews related to over escapement
practices.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed a Wasilla meeting where a
biologist had expressed more concern about nonattainment
than over escapement. He had not heard the comment from
state biologists prior to the meeting; he had felt a sense
of relief at the meeting when the comment had been made. He
discussed nonattainment and threats to mixed stocks and
reaching a point of irreparability.
Vice-Chair Neuman agreed. He commented that there were
plenty of Alaskan families who would love to eat the fish
if DFG was worried about over escapement.
Commissioner Campbell agreed that generally the view
throughout the department was that nonattainment was a
greater concern.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that the view was not heard
very often. He stated that the concern typically discussed
by DFG pertained to over escapement. He referred to a
reciprocity statute that had passed related to the Yukon
and Alaska for equal license treatment. The deal had looked
good for Alaskans (less than 50,000 people in the Yukon
versus 700,000-plus in Alaska); however, Southeast
residents had reported "floods" of individuals coming in
from the Yukon. He wondered if the state should reassess
the issue or consider a sunset date.
Commissioner Campbell would be interested knowing whether
the legislature had an interest in continuing the
agreement.
Co-Chair Stoltze needed further information from the
department on whether the agreement had been a good deal.
He stated that the legislature was interested in an opinion
from the department.
Commissioner Campbell answered that the Upper Lynn Canal
Fish and Game Advisory Committee, which was the most
affected group, had requested that the program be repealed.
Subsequently, DFG had looked at the cost of the reciprocal
licenses and had determined that the benefit to Alaskans
was limited. She stated that opportunity on the Alaskan
side of the border was much greater; therefore, the benefit
had been to Canadians fishing in Alaskan waters and not
vice versa.
Co-Chair Stoltze did not want to get into a dispute with
the Yukon; however, he believed sometimes policy was
enacted without thinking it through. He did not believe the
department had advocated for the reciprocity program, which
had preceded Commissioner Campbell. He asked the department
provide its opinion.
3:22:46 PM
Commissioner Campbell replied that DFG had conducted
analysis on the participants and cost of the program. She
would provide the committee with the information.
Co-Chair Stoltze referenced the department's testimony that
it had received $7.5 million of a $10 million request for
Chinook research efforts. He believed the legislature had
funded the full $10 million for a more general salmon
research category.
Commissioner Campbell agreed. She detailed that there had
been an interest in broadening research beyond Chinook
salmon; the full amount had been appropriated for the
broader range of research.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that the request had been fully
funded. Commissioner Campbell agreed.
Representative Gara mentioned the dwindling king salmon
population. He referred to an "odd" federal subsistence
rule. He discussed a former constituent living in the rural
community of Emmonak who had wanted to barter when
subsistence fishing had been allowed. Had been told that
she could only barter with rural Alaska where costs were
much higher. He wondered if the state subsistence fishery
had the same bartering limitation.
Commissioner Campbell replied that the rules on customary
trade and barter were complex and had a long history. She
detailed that the state subsistence law did not
differentiate between rural and non-rural residents; the
rule was a federal construct.
Representative Gara asked for verification that it would be
allowed if someone from Emmonak could barter with someone
in Anchorage who went to Costco.
Commissioner Campbell would need to look into the issue.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked that Mike Smith, a former member
of the Board of Fish and of the federal fish subsistence
federal board was present in the room. He suggested
Representative Gara speak with him after the meeting.
Representative Gara asked DFG to follow up with a written
answer to his question related to state subsistence law.
Commissioner Campbell replied that she would follow up.
3:27:50 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the Board of Fish process and
its challenges.
HB 266 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 267 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:29:07 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:29 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska Court System House Finance Overview 1 30 14 Final.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |
Court System Overview HFIN |
| ADF&G FY2015 Budget Overview.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |
DFG Overview HFIN |
| Courts Overview Response HFIN .pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |
Courts Response HFIN Overview |
| DFG-H Fin. Response Letter.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |
DFG Overview Response HFIN |
| DFG Attachment C - Reciprocal Licenses.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DFG Attachment B - SDPR, GFPR Projects.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DFG Attachment A - Deleted PCN Detail.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2014 1:30:00 PM |