Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/09/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB256 || HB257 || HB255 | |
| Fy 17 Budget Overview: University of Alaska | |
| Fy 17 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 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 9, 2016
1:31 p.m.
1:31:56 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Dan White, Vice-President, Academic Affairs and Research,
University of Alaska; Michelle Rizk, Associate Vice
President, Statewide Planning and Budget, University of
Alaska; Kevin Brooks, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Fish and Game; Representative Louise Stutes, Representative
Andy Josephson, Representative Liz Vasquez.
SUMMARY
HB 256 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 256 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 257 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 257 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 255 BUDGET: CAPITAL
HB 255 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 256
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, making supplemental appropriations,
and making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 257
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, reappropriations, and other
appropriations; making appropriations to capitalize
funds; and providing for an effective date."
FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Co-Chair Neuman reviewed the agenda for the day. The
current meeting would be the last of the department
overviews.
1:32:48 PM
^FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
1:32:48 PM
DAN WHITE, VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND RESEARCH,
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, introduced himself.
MICHELLE RIZK, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, STATEWIDE PLANNING
AND BUDGET, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, indicated that President
Johnson had some medical conditions to deal with and was
trying to limit his travel.
Mr. White introduced the PowerPoint Presentation: "FY 17
Budget overview: University of Alaska." He began with slide
2: "Our Mission":
"The University of Alaska inspires learning, and
advances and disseminates knowledge through teaching,
research, and public service, emphasizing the North
and its diverse peoples."
Regents' Policy 01.01.01
Representative Gattis wanted to look at the mission
statement. It appeared to her that each of the three
universities within the system had different missions. The
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) was focused on
research while the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) and
the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) had different
focuses. In the past she had wondered why credits did not
transfer and why many things had not merged. She noted that
in looking at the mission statements for the three main
campuses, it appeared there were three different
universities.
Mr. White explained the key positions for the university in
slide 3: "UA Organization Chart." He explained that Dr. Jim
Johnson was the president of the University of Alaska
system. He reported to the Board of Regents which consisted
of 11 members appointed by the governor. Board members
governed the University.
Mr. White explained that he and Ms. Rizk were members of
the president's core leadership team. He was the Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Research, and Ms. Rizk
was the Vice President of University Relations. Other team
members included the vice president of finance, the general
counsel, the chief information technology officer, and the
human resources (HR) officer. He explained that the HR
officer position and the vice president of finance post
were currently filled with interim employees. There was a
chancellor for each of the three main campuses. The
chancellors for the UA system included: Mr. Tom Case at
UAA, Mr. Michael Powers at UAF, and Mr. Richard Caulfield
at UAS.
Mr. White informed the committee the fiscal crisis in 1986
influenced the model of the University in slide 4: "Serving
All Alaskans." He explained that prior to the
reorganization in the 80s there were 11 community campuses.
The reorganization resulted in the current university
system comprised of three main campuses: Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Juneau. Prior to that time the campuses were
separate universities. He relayed that the University was
consolidating many of their universities similar to the
University of Georgia's system. He noted that Alaska had
gone through a consolidation in 1986 which included the 3
universities and 11 community campuses. He added that the
campus in Prince William Sound was not included in the
reorganization. The campus no longer held its own
accreditation; as of the previous July they were part of
UAA and their accreditation.
1:37:43 PM
Mr. White looked at the options presented in slide 5: "One
University or Three? Yes." He pointed out that there were
advantages to all of the models including the hybrid model
currently in place. Some of the advantages of a single
university model included: A common look and feel and an
ability to make decisions that provided central uniformity
across the system. One of the disadvantages of a single
system was a loss of local control and a loss of ability to
be able to work with constituents. He added that another
disadvantage was that decision making was no longer at the
local level.
Representative Wilson asked for the accreditation costs of
each of the 3 universities. Mr. White stated that although
he could not currently provide a number he informed the
committee that a significant amount of the costs associated
with accreditation had to do with developing performance
measures and reporting performance outcomes. He relayed
that even with a single university having its own
accreditation work would be required at each site
delivering curriculum. In essence, it would potentially
reduce one visit of the accreditors. However, the work that
went into accreditation was the same whether it was one
accreditation or three because the performance monitoring
was done either way. He could work up some numbers.
Representative Wilson wanted more information about the
loss of local control over course offerings. She spoke of a
constituent calling about not being able to transfer
credits from one campus to another. Mr. White responded
that he had some information in a slide later in the
presentation. He noted that a common catalog could be used
in a single system. He suggested that South Dakota used a
common catalog.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if all credits could be transferred
from one university to another. Mr. White explained that
any credits could be transferred that had an equivalent
across the system.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if Mr. White's response was no. Mr.
White attempted to explain that any credit that had an
equivalent across the system could likely be transferred.
If a class did not have an equivalent, then it could not be
transferred.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if they would be recognized equally
by all three Universities.
Representative Gattis spoke to her experience as the
previous chairman of the House Education Committee. The
question regarding the transfer of credits had been raised
several times. Students paid formidable tuition costs and
it seemed to her that bureaucracy within the system
perpetuated itself. She suggested that, with the financial
crunch the state was in, things would be more transparent.
She thought it had been possible for the University to hide
money because the state did not drill down far enough. She
felt that injustice had fallen on students. She hoped that
with a laser focus on the budget something could be done.
She supposed people in Alaska did not understand that from
place-to-place the University differed. She thought that
the system was failing Alaska's children.
Co-Chair Neuman instructed Mr. White to get the answer
cleared up about how the transfer of credits worked within
Alaska's university system.
1:43:34 PM
Representative Guttenberg noted that Mr. White's response
to the question of transferable credits was that they had
to be comparable. He provided a hypothetical scenario in
which a community college offered a Basic English course
dissimilar to a basic undergraduate course at UAF or UAS
with a different curriculum designed for a different
program.
Mr. White responded that English was an example of credits
that would transfer easily. He provided an example of
English (111), a class that was the same throughout the
system. He suggested the confusion rested with equivalency.
For example, there might be a math class for a business
degree which would be a different math class than a
calculus math class for engineering. The transferring of
credits became an issue when a student attempted to satisfy
an engineering math class requirement with a business math
class they had already taken. The curriculum for each class
was fundamentally different from each other and would not
transfer. English classes were easily transferred across
the system.
Co-Chair Neuman wanted to make sure to get through the
budget presentation.
Representative Guttenberg just wanted to have the question
answered.
Co-Chair Neuman indicated that the committee would follow-
up on the question.
Mr. White advanced to slide 6: "Building on the Best of
Both":
· Benefitting from the individuality of each university
and campus, meeting unique needs and maintaining
strong ties to local communities
· Improving access and ease for students while reducing
costs through enhanced coordination, consistency and
collaboration
· Promoting unique areas of excellence to build a
university that is greater than the sum of its parts
Mr. White explained that the University enjoyed the
benefits of being 3 universities under 1 system - a result
of the 1986 reorganization. Each university was unique
which allowed for the development of relationships with
constituents and provided an avenue for meeting the needs
distinctive to local communities. He mentioned that the
Ketchikan campus developed a robust welding program which
produced a needed workforce in the community.
Mr. White turned to slide 7: "Strategic Pathways: Guide to
restructuring the UA system":
· The university needs to become more adept at meeting
state needs.
· Regents fully support a hybrid system where the three
universities remain distinct, but are better
coordinated, have less duplication and play on the
unique strengths of the individual universities.
· Areas where there is obvious regional or local
responsibility will not be affected, nor will general
education courses, support disciplines, developmental
or workforce programs.
· The impact on students will be minimized. Streamlining
systems and operations will ultimately benefit them
and allow more flexibility and opportunities across
the system.
Mr. White indicated that President Johnson had a vision of
how to organize the University: a framework that would
build upon its strengths, reduce duplication, and allow the
universities to meet local needs. He furthered that part of
the strategic pathways discussion was the common catalog
which meant that all of the courses would be the same
across the system.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. White not to read the slide
verbatim. He wanted Mr. White to summarize the
presentation.
1:47:49 PM
Representative Wilson asked where she could find
remediation in the strategic pathways. Mr. White answered
that developmental education would continue to be offered
at each of the 3 universities.
Representative Wilson had heard that it might be possible,
as an example, to take a computer lab rather than an entire
class to fulfill part of a math curriculum. She wondered if
it was being considered. Mr. White responded that the
University was looking at several different models. The
model Representative Wilson was referring to was called the
Math Emporium which was being piloted at UAA. He provided
examples of scenarios in which developmental education was
needed: 1. Students who had not taken a course such as
Algebra, and returning students who had taken courses but
several years prior. The Math Emporium model was designed
to offer brush up curriculum for students needing a
refresher and to offer developmental education for students
needing courses to qualify for college.
Representative Gara mentioned economizing and the
compromises that had to be made. He wondered if the smaller
road system campuses caused extra administrative costs. He
noted that the University had a number of smaller road
system campuses in addition to the 2 larger campuses.
Mr. White responded that the idea of the 1986
reorganization was to combine the smaller road system
campuses with to UAF and UAA in order to minimize
administrative costs. Costs associated with the facilities
and the faculty were still incurred. He remarked that
having road system campuses and other remote rural campuses
was designed to provide access. It provided opportunity to
those students that were place bound. He commented that the
University was rapidly developing e-learning. Currently,
students with access to a computer and the internet had the
ability to take courses anywhere in the system.
Co-Chair Neuman directed members to stay on the topic of
the budget.
Representative Gara asked if the additional campuses on the
road system were worth the cost. Mr. White responded that
any facility outside of the main campuses costed money.
However, they added value and all had students. He was
unsure if students would travel to the main campuses. The
median student traveled 50 miles. Many students chose to
attend college close to home.
1:52:41 PM
Mr. White scrolled to slide 8: "UA Met FY 16 Budget
Reductions." He talked about the reductions to
administrative costs. All senior administrators were
furloughed. The University reduced contracts and left many
vacancies unfiled. He reported that in FY 15 there were 500
fewer people across the system than there were in FY 14.
About 5 percent to 10 percent of the workforce was reduced.
He noted that academic and occupational certificate
programs were eliminated. He reported that there were
roughly 478 programs targeted for elimination, 50 of which
had already been removed. There were cuts in research
support including the reduction of animal handling
facilities.
Representative Gara clarified that the University had lost
500 employees from FY 14 to FY 15. He wondered about FY 16.
Mr. White responded that the numbers were as of October FY
15.
Ms. Rizk clarified that October 2015 was part of FY 16. The
timeline was from October 2014 to October 2015.
Co-Chair Neuman wanted to know why the Regent's budget
cycle WAS not in sync with the State of Alaska's budget
cycle. Ms. Rizk was unclear what Co-Chair Neuman meant
about the University not being in cycle.
Co-Chair Neuman asked at what point the Board of Regents
suggested its funding.
Ms. Rizk stated that in June they would accept the
appropriation for FY 17 that it received from the
legislature. In November they approved the budget that was
submitted to the governor's office for FY 17.
Representative Wilson asked for clarification about the
University's budget cycle. She wondered if it ran from July
1st through June 30th. Ms. Rizk responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked when the University's funding
commenced and ended. She wondered if it was from January
1st through December 31st. Mr. White explained that the
University had the same fiscal year as the State of Alaska.
He believed the confusion was created based on a single
data point. At the end of the fiscal year, June 30th, the
University evaluated numbers through October, a data freeze
timeline, at which time personnel numbers were counted
relating to the year.
Co-Chair Neuman asked when the Board of Regents approved
the University's budget. Ms. Risk responded, "November."
Co-Chair Neuman asked if it was before the legislature
released its budget for the department. Ms. Risk responded,
"Yes."
Co-Chair Neuman asked, "So they are not in sync?" Ms. Rizk
responded that she was speaking of the budget request for
the governor. The Regents approved the budget in November
of each year. The University then released it to the
governor so that he, in turn, could do his budget and
release it on December 15th of each year. She thought where
it might not have been clear was that in October all of the
University's faculty was hired providing the best number
sample. A count of faculty taken in July might not provide
accurate data because many faculty were off contract in the
summer. The intent was to make a comparison at the same
time each year. The University tracked personnel in October
but it could be done from any point in time.
1:57:23 PM
Representative Wilson asked about when the Regents looked
at the numbers from the legislature. Ms. Risk asked whether
she was talking about what year Representative Wilson was
referring to.
Representative Wilson responded that once the legislature
approved the budget she wondered when the University made
its decisions about reductions. Ms. Rizk relayed that there
was a Board of Regents meeting in June of each year which
was when the Board accepted the legislature's appropriation
and approved the distribution of funds.
Mr. White continued with slide 9: "Revenue Enhancement
Efforts":
· Tuition increase
· Tuition surcharge
· Increased fees
· Fundraising
· Commercialization of intellectual property
· Public-Private Partnerships
Mr. White mentioned that many universities across the
country had different tuition surcharges for different
types of degrees such as engineering degrees. He also noted
that UAF's School of Management had a tuition surcharge
resulting in increased revenues. The University increased
fees including the facility fee. There were also
fundraising efforts for the University centennial. The
University had spent the previous 5 years ramping up its
intellectual property office to provide opportunity to get
technologies out of the University and into the hands of
people who knew how to make money generating economic
diversity and additional revenue. He reported the
University was looking at opportunities of public and
private partnerships such as the wood center at the
University.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how much money was brought in from
fundraising efforts. Ms. Risk responded that $16 million
was raised in FY 15 and $8 million through December.
Co-Chair Neuman asked how it compared to prior years. Ms.
Risk could provide the information to the committee after
the meeting.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the amount was about $16 million
per year. Ms. Rizk thought that for the last 2 years it had
been about $16 million.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that his question came down to
whether the University had increased its efforts in
fundraising for the previous 5 years. Ms. Rizk responded
affirmatively and added that it was one of the president's
performance metrics - to increase engagement of alumni.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for the information to be provided.
Ms. Rizk answered, "Sure."
Representative Guttenberg asked where fundraising dollars
went. Mr. White responded that many of the donations to the
University were for scholarships. A number of donations
were given to specific research. For example, companies
gave money to research foundations promoting research in a
specific area and did not displace GF numbers.
Ms. Risk indicated that when she provided the history of
giving she could also provide a list of categories. The
majority of donations went to academic programs and student
support.
Representative Kawasaki referred to the prior slide
regarding revenue enhancement efforts. He asked how the
surcharge worked. Mr. White explained that the surcharge
was a mechanism to add courses for specific degrees or
programs. For instance, if a student was pursuing an MBA
degree, English courses would be the same costs but upper
level management courses would have an added cost. He
relayed that at the University of Illinois every
engineering course costed 40 percent more than standard
tuition. The engineering programs at UAF and UAA were
looking at an increase for related courses.
2:02:31 PM
Mr. White advance to slide 10: "Challenges":
· Reduced federal funding for research; continued high
energy costs; state population loss; and rise of on-
line, high quality alternatives to UA.
· To continue with reductions in and beyond FY2017 will
challenge UA to recast the entire portfolio of
education and workforce development programs without
compromising the high standard of education and
workforce training that is currently afforded UA
students.
· Must explore longer-term strategic cuts and revenue
opportunities that will help UA preserve and
strengthen its capacity.
Mr. White explained that the strategic pathways framework
proposed by President Johnson was designed to restructure
the University such that it would continue to meet the
needs of the students while doing so in an efficient
manner.
Representative Edgmon mentioned that there were folks from
the Unalaska School District in the audience. He opined
from a rural perspective the satellite campuses were
critical to what was happening in a number of places in his
district. He wanted to hear discussion about the challenges
of keeping the satellite campuses intact. Mr. White
responded that the president had expressed his interest in
keeping the satellite campuses intact and finding ways of
delivering courses in a more efficient manner than the
University did currently. Generally speaking, the
technology for distance education had improved
significantly. More of the courses offered in the rural
communities were being offered by distance delivery. He
added that distance delivery would not solve all of the
challenges but would certainly allow the University to gain
some efficiencies.
Representative Gattis asked about broadband technology. She
asked if the University had broadband and if it was shared
with the local schools and clinics. One of her goals was to
figure out how to consolidate all of the pipelines going
into communities. She asked if the University received an
e-rate with its broadband. Mr. White responded that he
would have to get the numbers from the information
technology folks on how the University's rates were
structured.
Representative Gattis asked for Mr. White to get back to
her directly. She was looking at how the state could share
or consolidate in the funding with different communities.
Co-Chair Neuman asked that the information be provided to
his office for distribution.
Representative Gara asked about broadband and adequate
service in communities. He used Naknek as an example. He
was aware that the highest level of GCI internet was
limited. He wondered if the University was providing
Broadband in communities without a campus. Mr. White
answered that the University delivered distance education
which was not all online. The University continued to have
opportunities for students that did not have broadband in
their communities. There were other alternatives such as
courses taught by videos with telephone follow-ups, for
example.
2:07:19 PM
Mr. White discussed slide 11: "Investments for our Future":
· Discovery: Alaska/Arctic research
· Access and equity: Low-income, first generation, rural
· Workforce: Voc-tech, teachers, health care, arts and
science
· Economic development: Commercialization of research
· Culture of education: Connect with K-12
Mr. White relayed that he had just attended an innovation
summit in Juneau. The gist of the event was that the
University was critical in diversifying the economy. The
University saw key investments in research and discovery
for the Alaska Arctic. The University's job was looking at
how to commercialize the research and to diversify Alaska's
economy. He continued to read the contents of the slide. He
informed the committee that President Johnson had indicated
that the University's greatest competitor was students not
going to college at all.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the University was starting a new
maritime program. Mr. White replied that it was something
the University was looking at.
Co-Chair Neuman wondered why the University would compete
with Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC). Mr. White
explained that there were differences between what was
being offered in Ketchikan and Seward at AVTEC.
Co-Chair Neuman offered that there would be an assumption
to try to consolidate in order to maximize efforts in
vocational education. He thought consulting with AVTEC was
a better approach than starting a new program within the
University. Mr. White indicated there were differences and
he would provide the chairman with additional information.
Co-Chair Neuman requested that Representative Wilson look
further into the issue at the subcommittee level.
Representative Wilson responded affirmatively. She asked
Mr. White if the University had been in contact with AVTEC
first to see about enhancing their program. She wondered if
the University had notified AVTEC. Mr. White would have to
check with the Ketchikan campus to find out about any
coordination. The University had a list of all of the AVTEC
programs to look at the similarities and differences.
Representative Wilson stated that the commissioner was not
notified at all.
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned the redundancy of certain
programs. He thought consolidating efforts was necessary
and a better product would result. Mr. White agreed it was
something to look at.
Co-Chair Neuman added, "I think they certainly are."
Ms. Rizk commented that with the time that was available
and the 30 minute presentation limit she would flip through
the slides and would address questions from the committee.
Co-Chair Neuman instructed Ms. Rizk to highlight the most
important points as well as any changes. Ms. Risk agreed.
Ms. Risk advanced to slide 12: "FY 17 Adjusted Base
Operating." She pointed out that the governor's budget
included a reduction of $15.5 million equal to 4.5 percent.
She also highlighted the current position count.
Ms. Risk scrolled to slide 13: "FY 17 Operating Budget by
Fund Source." She noted that the University's source of
funding came from the federal funds, other funds including
UA interagency receipts and state interagency receipts,
designated general funds (DGF) (student tuitions and fees
were included), and unrestricted general funds (UGF) equal
to $335 million in the FY 17 budget.
2:12:59 PM
Ms. Risk discussed slide 14: "Base Reductions FY 15 - FY
17." She reported that the slide showed a history over
time. The general fund reduction in FY 16 was $19.8
million, and in FY 17 it was $15.8 million. She pointed out
that with UA's fixed costs of $31.6 million the total
budget reduction the University planned for was around $57
million.
Co-Chair Neuman thought there was a $25 million reduction
in the University's budget. Ms. Rizk responded by pointing
to the slide where it showed the reduction but noted that
when it was netted with the increment for contractual
salary increases of $9.8 million the net cut was $15.8
million which matched with Legislative Finance Division's
number.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked, "Something does not feel right
there."
Ms. Risk turned to slide 15: "University of Alaska Share of
Total Agency Operations (GF Only)." She explained that the
Legislative Finance Division's graphs followed. She
wondered if Co-Chair Neuman wanted her to review them.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Ms. Rizk to note anything of
significance.
Ms. Risk advanced to slide 17: "University of Alaska
Appropriations (GF Only)." She remarked that over time the
percent of GF for the University as the Total Agency budget
had declined from 15 percent to 13 percent.
Ms. Risk advanced to slide 16: "University of Alaska Salary
Adjustment Increases and Personal Services Costs (All
Funds)." She noted that the slide reflected salary
adjustments.
Representative Gattis referred to slide 15. She pointed to
the box on the left-hand side. She wondered about the
figure of $2018 per resident worker referring to the
University's total FY 17 budget. Ms. Risk replied that she
was correct.
Representative Gattis clarified that it was approximately
$2 thousand for every worker. She thought it would be
cheaper to get rid of many of the costs and offer a free
education to all Alaskan kids. She was talking about
eliminating costs having to do with the Alaska Commission
on Postsecondary Education (ACPE) and the state's program
for administering loans. She thought it was a significant
amount of money per person. She wondered about the "give
back" to the state. Ms. Risk relayed for every dollar
invested over $4 or $5 was leveraged in return. The
University had a set of performance metrics to review with
the subcommittee. As the state looked to the future over 60
percent of Alaska would require some form of post-secondary
education from its workforce. Currently, the state was at
30 percent. The University provided an educated workforce.
2:17:05 PM
Representative Munoz referred to page 12. She wondered how
to reduce $15 million while retaining the same number of
employees from FY 16 to FY 17. Ms. Rizk needed
clarification about the number of employees.
Representative Munoz responded that she was referring to
4,518. Ms. Risk responded that 4,518 was the current
University position count. As was mentioned earlier the
University had reduced its regular positions by over 200 in
the previous year. If taking into consideration both
regular positions as well as temporary positions the number
was close to 500. At present, the University had not
decided on position reductions for FY 17.
Ms. Risk scrolled past slide 18: "University of Alaska
Appropriations (All Funds)."
Ms. Risk turned to slide 19: "FY 17 Capital Request." She
conveyed that the final slide related to the capital
budget. She reported that the Board of Regents' number one
priority was the remaining funding for the UAF engineering
facility. The second priority was deferred maintenance. She
reported that the governor's budget included $10 million
for deferred maintenance. The Board had requested that the
University continue to look for innovative ways to fund
deferred maintenance recognizing the financial situation
the state was in. A few years previously the University
bonded for deferred maintenance to help offset some of the
funding requirements. The University was also looking for
private giving opportunities and prioritizing space more
efficiently. She reported that the University was also
looking at partnering with communities, school districts,
and technical facilities as well as looking at out-sourcing
opportunities including in the rural areas. The university
was focusing on finding a different way to do business
regarding its facilities. She relayed that looking to the
future the University was evaluating what role e-learning
would play in delivery and the corresponding facility
needs. The University's facilities and land-management
committee was a topic of discussion at every board meeting.
She mentioned looking at what type of user fees should be
assessed when different groups used UA facilities.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about a way to measure performance of
each of the programs offered at the University. Ms. Risk
responded that there was a report card on the University's
key metrics.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the University worked with the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOL) to
provide needed skill sets at the right time to people in
industry. He directed Ms. Rizk to get the performance
measures to Representative Wilson. He also asked about the
University's approach to downsizing. He emphasized Alaska's
huge deficit and the fact that University system funding
had declined at a dramatic pace. The legislature had other
considerations such as public safety and Medicaid. He
requested that the University provide a picture of a
consolidated downsized system. Mr. White responded that the
strategic pathway was a framework that President Johnson
presented to the Board of Regents at a retreat in January.
It was approved by the Board at that time and distributed
in a more detailed way to the University community on
Monday of the present week.
2:21:57 PM
Representative Wilson asked about statistics regarding the
students. There was nothing included about the performance
of students in the University's presentation. She had heard
that student population was shrinking but no detail had
been provided. She wanted information about graduation
rates and degree information. She commented that the slides
were missing such data. She suggested that the following
University presentation should contain such numbers. Her
office had produced some numbers which she would share with
committee members.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Representative Wilson if the
subcommittee was getting the performance measure numbers
needed for it to evaluate the programs effectively.
Representative Wilson responded that her office had done
most of the research using the University's website. The
measures in place showed Alaska's graduation rates to be
some of the lowest in the country and was where the state
spent the most money. She added that Alaska's University
used to be an affordable university but that was changing.
She relayed that it had become more affordable to send
Alaskan kids out of state through the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) program versus
staying in the state. She thought it should be of great
concern to the University of Alaska.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Representative Wilson if the
University had adequate performance measures.
Representative Wilson responded, "No, and we are working on
that."
Representative Kawasaki had a copy of UA's Institutional
Research, Planning, and Analysis key indicators guide. He
suggested committee members should be able to look at the
guide. He reported that the numbers of degrees,
certificates, and endorsements awarded had risen 30 percent
in 5 years from 3,700 to 4,700. He thought it was a good
indicator of the kind of performance he wanted to see from
the University. The high demand job area growth had grown 8
percent in 5 years from 2,731 to 3,146. He reported that
the 150 percent bachelor graduation rate had increased 16
percent over the same time period. He thought the
statistics were consistent, looked good, and should be
something the University could be proud of. He referred to
slide 18. He noted that the slide showed a large increase
in the total amount - in all funds - appropriated to the
University of Alaska's single appropriation. He then
referred back to slide 15 to the total UGF spend of the
legislature it looked flat. He asked about the difference
between slide 15 and slide 18. Ms. Risk referred to slide
13 which showed UGF and DGF and the sources of designated
general funds (DGF). The slide also showed other funds and
federal funds; the two other categories that made up the
other funding sources to reach the total funds.
2:26:28 PM
Representative Kawasaki concluded that even though the
state had not put in more money over the previous 5 years,
it looked as if private contributions, tuition increases,
tuition surcharges, and federal monies had increased. He
wondered if one source was larger than another. Mr. White
responded that the University could provide a breakdown for
the representative. At each Regents meeting he provided a
report on accountability to the state regarding students
and research and he could easily provide those
presentations to the committee.
Co-Chair Neuman asked that the information be provided to
his office.
Vice-Chair Saddler mentioned he had frequently heard
concerns and criticisms about the lack of transferability
of credits. He wondered whether having 3 different
accreditations for the 3 different main campuses was the
best way to organize the UA system. He asked if it was the
University's intention to move towards single
accreditation. Mr. White replied that the accrediting body,
the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, did
not have the authority to accredit systems. There were no
university systems in country that were accredited. The UA
system could become one university and be accredited, or
the UA sys0tem could remain a system with separate
accreditations for UAA, UAF, and UAS. The existing
structure could not have just one accreditation. He relayed
that the president felt the system currently in place was
the best for the State of Alaska. However, the framework
would be changing the way the universities operated within
the system. He mentioned the consideration of a common
catalog, where courses were delivered. He surmised that the
issue of transferring credits did not have to do with
accreditation, but more to do with equivalencies.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if it was possible to have 3
universities with identical accreditations in order to
facilitate the transference of credits. He was looking for
a simple answer. Mr. White responded that the
accreditations were basically the same already.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for a copy of the president's
reorganization plan. Mr. White indicated that he had
brought some with him.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if it contained budget estimates. Mr.
White answered in the negative. It was a 1 page framework.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for some budget estimates for the
reorganization plan. He expected and was waiting for a
budget plan accompanying a reorganization plan. Mr. White
responded, "Okay. Thank you."
2:30:52 PM
Representative Gara commented that he had a difficult time
blaming the University for Student Achievement when it had
offered ideas on increasing student achievement and the
legislature had not funded them. He recalled that over the
prior 2 years the University came forward with proposals to
increase student achievement and graduation rates through
student advisors and student support staff. He wondered if
the University had been denied funding or was only
partially funded. Ms. Risk relayed that student advising
had been a focus of the University and some funding had
been provided by the legislature prior to the previous two
years.
Representative Gara asked if there was a potential for
increased student achievement through increased student
advising. He asked if student advising was being adequately
funded. Ms. Risk stated that it had been shown that
advising had resulted in positive outcomes. As the
University went through the budget reductions it was
looking to vertical versus horizontal cuts in order to
protect areas that were known for helping students complete
their degree programs. Advising was very helpful to a
student's academic achievement.
Representative Gara encouraged advocating those things that
increased outcomes. He asked about the Kodiak Fisheries
Tech Center [Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center]. He
had heard that the money had been diverted to the marine
program in Fairbanks. He asked her to comment or respond in
writing and include the reasons for the change. He would
like to be able to provide an explanation to those who have
asked about it. Mr. White was aware that funding was used
to hire a faculty member. The faculty member had since left
the University and the position remained open. He did not
have the answer as to where the money went but he would
find out and provide the information to the committee.
Representative Gara understood that many of the positions
at the Kodiak fisheries tech center had not been filled. He
wondered if a dedicated appropriation had been transferred
over to the marine center in Fairbanks. He speculated that
there could be good reason for such a diversion but he
wanted to have the answer to his question. Mr. White would
get the answer for Representative Gara.
2:34:56 PM
Representative Munoz asked for more information about the
reformation of the university system and what it would mean
for each of the campuses. Mr. White relayed that within the
framework the University could not do everything at all of
the campuses. Efficiencies were looked at and lead campuses
were identified. He cited examples such as UAF being the
lead campus in science and engineering. The University of
Alaska Anchorage was the lead in economics and social
sciences. He relayed that UAS was the lead in
interdisciplinary degrees and the arts. He also defined
"lead campus." The University of Alaska Anchorage ran the
statewide nursing program, a sole provider model. Nursing
students in Fairbanks were UAA students. Everything was
centralized by UAA for nursing which increases program
efficiency. The University needed to look at budget numbers
and how broadly certain individual programs would be
offered and at what level. The expectation would be
increased efficiencies because of reducing the replication
of programs across the system.
Representative Munoz asked when the University would be
implementing the changes. Mr. White explained that the
president would be meeting with the Board of Regents in the
following week to discuss potential changes. The due
diligence would take place between the present day and June
30th, the end of the fiscal year, to look at which changes
made the most sense. There would be certain things all of
the campuses would need to offer. The University would be
look at where to economize. The University would be
receiving input from students and faculty prior to the end
of the fiscal year and would be implemented over the
following year.
Representative Munoz asked for an update on the power plant
at UAF. She wondered if the University would see a saving
with the new plant. Ms. Risk offered to send a written
update and added that there were anticipated energy savings
from the power plant which would be redirected to offset
the bond payment that UAF was paying as part of the
package.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the project was completed and
funded. Ms. Risk responded that the project was on target
with the funding that was available and looked like it
would be completed on schedule.
Representative Munoz appreciated that the University was
getting closer to the one-to-one between UGF and DGF. She
knew it had been a long time goal. She thanked the
testifiers for their presentation.
Co-Chair Neuman commented, "We started that 6 years ago."
2:39:03 PM
Representative Guttenberg explained that in the
University's history it used to be the University of Alaska
"At Anchorage" and "At Fairbanks." He thought the
University had gone through several reorganizations for the
purpose of being more efficient or because of budget
crunches. Each time there was a restructuring programs were
fractured. He thought reorganization was expensive. He
wondered what results the University expected from another
reorganization. He did not believe it was an efficient move
although it was necessary. He wondered how it would be a
better university for Alaskans. He understood the
difficulty of having smaller campuses off of the road
system. At the end of the day he thought the restructuring
was another exercise that would have to be done in another
10 years. He wondered if he expected a better outcome and
whether the University expected a larger appropriation.
Mr. White hoped that as the universities had grown there
had been misalignments. The strategic pathways was meant to
look at all of the programs, consider a common catalog
concept, get the programs aligned, and to save money.
President Johnson had stated numerous times that he was not
interested in continuing to cut every single program on a
pro rata basis. It would reduce all of the University
programs to mediocrity. He suggested that was needed was to
allow the campuses to emphasize in areas of strength and
deemphasize in other areas. The only way to build
excellence at individual universities was to reduce
somewhere else within the construct of the system. The hope
was to build excellence at each of the universities while
at the same time living with the budget.
Representative Guttenberg spoke about the issue of climate
change and the changing Arctic. The University of Alaska
Fairbanks had been at the center of the changes being one
of the foremost Arctic universities in the world. He
wondered if the University would be hampered in advancing
the effort. Mr. White relayed that the expectation was that
the University would grow areas of excellence. Arctic
Research was an area of excellence at UAF. It would
continue to be an area of strength. President Johnson has
stated that he saw it as a halo program of UA overall.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the University obviously
faced some challenges. He hoped a better project would
emerge.
2:45:03 PM
AT EASE
2:46:16 PM
RECONVENED
^FY 17 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
2:47:16 PM
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, introduced the PowerPoint Presentation: "FY 17 Budget
Overview: Department of Fish and Game." He relayed that
Commissioner Cotton was weathered in in Seattle on his way
home from a meeting and was sorry to miss the meeting.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that questions would be held until
the end of the presentation.
Mr. Brooks addressed slide 2: "The Constitution of the
State of Alaska, The Alaska Statues, Mission Statement":
· The Constitution of the State of Alaska
Article 8 - Natural Resources
4. Sustained Yield
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenishable resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses.
· The Alaska Statutes
Title 16. FISH AND GAME
Sec. 16.05.020. Functions of commissioner.
(2) manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the
fish, game and aquatic plant resources of the state in
the interest of the economy and general well-being of
the state.
· Mission Statement
To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and
aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their
uses and development in the best interest of the
economy and the well-being of the people of the state,
consistent with the sustained yield principle.
Mr. Brooks explained that the mission statement was derived
via Article 8, Section 4 of the State of Alaska's
constitution. The sustained yield was the primary focus
when it came to the management of state resources. He
pointed to Title 16, Section 15.05.020 of the Alaska
statutes which directed the department to manage, protect,
maintain, improve and enhance the fish, game, and aquatic
plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy
and general well-being of the state. By combining the two
things the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) came up with
its mission statement.
Mr. Brooks moved to slide 3: "ADF&G Core Services." He
relayed that there were three core services to accomplish
the department's mission. The department managed the
resources to provide a harvestable surplus for sport,
sustainable use, or commercial interests. It also met its
mission through stack assessment and research. Counting
fish, counting populations of animals on the landscape, and
similar activities were conducted by the department to
ensure a sustainable yield. Customer service and public
involvement were key to making improvements through the
board process and the advisory committees - there were 83
statewide. Interactions with the public through licensing
and permitting were key to the department's mission.
Co-Chair Neuman recognized Representative Louise Stutes and
former Representative Bill Thomas in the audience.
Mr. Brooks moved to slide 4: "Alaska Department of Fish and
Game Department Leadership." He noted that the structure
was represented on the slide. The department leadership
consisted of the commissioner, two deputy commissioners
including Mr. Brooks and Mr. Charles Swanton responsible
for the Pacific salmon treaty. The department also had a
special assistant and 6 division directors. He noted that 5
of 6 directors were new to their positions in the previous
year. There were two executive directors; one for the Board
of Fish and one for the Board of Game. There were also two
related entities within the department for budgeting
purposes only; the Exon-Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council
and the Limited Entry Commission. These entities did not
report to the commissioner.
Mr. Brooks turned to a color coded map on slide 5: "Alaska
Department of Fish and Game Department Regional and Area
Offices." He reported that core to the department's
services was a statewide presence. The department was in
over 40 locations around the state. The chart clearly
showed the distribution of DFG offices around the state.
The department added to its presence with 100's of field
camps during the summer camps, most of which were in remote
locations.
Mr. Brooks briefly addressed each of the department's
divisions beginning on slide 6: "Division of Commercial
Fisheries":
· 296 permanent full-time positions
· 426 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $65,109.8 FY2017 Operating Request
· $35,707.9 UGF Request
· 32% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
Protect, maintain, and improve the fish,
shellfish, and aquatic plant resources of the
state, consistent with the sustained yield
principle, for the maximum benefit of the economy
and the people of Alaska
Mr. Brooks noted that the Division of Commercial Fisheries
was one of the department's largest divisions. The division
more than doubled its workforce in the summer months. The
division made up 62 percent of the department's UGF.
2:52:10 PM
Mr. Brooks addressed slide 7: "Ex-vessel Value of
Commercial Harvests and Mari culture Production in Alaska."
There were a couple of things the division measured, one of
which was the ex-vessel value of harvests in Alaska. In the
previous several years the division had exceeded $2 billion
in ex-vessel value. The division contributed to the success
of the seafood industry through the scientific management
of the various fisheries resources. Ex vessel value was a
reflection of volume and prices but was also an indicator
of participation and contribution in the economy. It was
something the division monitored closely.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Brooks how many salmon had been
harvested and whether harvest rates were declining or
increasing. He referred to the price of fish. Mr. Brooks
noted that the information was broken out by species. The
state's salmon harvests had been very large the prior 2
years. The previous year had been one of the largest
harvests on record. The commercial fisheries were driven by
pink and chum salmon - species with the largest numbers of
fish harvested. Sockeye salmon was third on the list.
Co-Chair Neuman indicated that questions would be heard at
the end of the presentation.
Representative Gattis asked for a definition of ex vessel.
Mr. Brooks replied that ex vessel values were calculated
using a combination of aggregated price point per species
derived from the commercial operators' annual report,
referred to the core report. The numbers were derived from
fish tickets provided by fishermen.
Mr. Brooks slide 8: "Escapement Goals Achieved." He shared
that the department had 295 escapement goals statewide. The
goals were set by the Board of Fish to reach a minimum
escapement to provide for a sustained yield. It was usually
described in a range. He reported that of the stocks with
goals 256 were adequately assessed in the past year and 225
met or exceeded their escapement goal. There were years the
department could not get out to innumerate the counts. He
mentioned the challenges of doing aerial surveys and
potential other events such as a flood that might knock out
a weir. There were things from year-to-year that prevented
the division from doing counts at a rate of 100 percent.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for a statewide map on regional
escapement goal achievements. Mr. Brooks replied in the
affirmative.
2:56:08 PM
Mr. Brooks addressed slide 9: "Division of Sport Fish":
· 186 permanent full-time positions
· 163 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $47,776.0 FY2017 Operating Request
· $4,061.5 UGF Request
· 23% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Protect and improve the state's recreational
fisheries resources
Mr. Brooks reported that the Sport Fish division was the
second largest management division within the department.
He noted that the staff nearly doubled in the summer
months. He mentioned that less than 10 percent of the
division's total funding came from GF. The division's
primary funding source came from federal Dingell-Johnson
funds matched by DFG licensing revenue that was deposited
in the Fish and Game Fund.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Brooks to explain the Fish and
Game Fund. Mr. Brooks answered that the fund was license
revenue derived from the sale of hunting and fishing
licenses.
Co-Chair Neuman wanted to make sure the public understood
where the money came from. Mr. Brooks explained that the
Division of Sport Fish worked closely with the Division of
Commercial Fisheries. They had similar mission but focused
on different publics. The Division of Sport Fish was
responsible for managing Alaska's sport fisheries as well
as many personal use fisheries and some subsistence
fisheries. The division also operated the 2 state-owned
fish hatcheries; The William Jack Hernandez Sport Fish
Hatchery in Anchorage and the Ruth Burnett Sport Fish
Hatchery in Fairbanks.
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 10: "Sales of Fishing Licenses."
He noted that one of the metrics the department used for
tracking sport fishing was the license sales. He
highlighted non-resident sales were significantly higher
than resident sales as shown on the graph. Non-residents
were paying a larger portion of the revenue that went into
the Fish and Game Fund. Resident and non-resident sales had
been flat for a few years but over the prior 3 years there
had been a slow but steady uptick in sales. He thought the
numbers reflected opportunity and an improved economy in
the Lower-48. He also thought the numbers correlated with
visitor numbers in the tourism industry.
Mr. Brooks highlighted slide 11: "Division of Wildlife
Conservation":
· 216 permanent full-time positions
· 54 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $47,784.7 FY2017 Operating Request
· $4,259.2 UGF Request
· 23% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Conserve and enhance Alaska's wildlife and
habitats and provide for a wide range of public
uses and benefits
Mr. Brooks reported that the department's third largest
management division was the Division of Wildlife
Conservation. He highlighted that the division received
less than 10 percent of its funding from UGF. The source of
funds for the division were Pittman-Robertson funds -
federal funds derived from excess tax on guns and
ammunition and Fish and Game licensing revenue derived from
the sale of hunting licenses.
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 12: "Sales of Hunting and
Trapping Licenses." The division tracked the sale of
hunting and trapping licenses. There were more resident
hunters, about 100 thousand, compared to just under 20
thousand non-resident hunters. He furthered that because of
the state's pricing schedule, non-resident hunters paid
more in total revenue. There had been a slow steady growth
in the previous 3 years. Prior to that sales had remained
flat.
Mr. Brooks addressed slide 13: "Division of Subsistence":
· 26 permanent full-time positions
· 23 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $7,213.2 FY2017 Operating Request
· $2,591.4 UGF Request
· 4% ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Scientifically quantify, evaluate and report
information about customary and traditional uses
of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources
Mr. Brooks elaborated that the department used the
division's information in a number of venues, the biggest
was providing the amounts necessary for subsistence to the
Board of Fish and Game for their allocation deliberations.
3:01:21 PM
Mr. Brooks moved to slide 14: "Management Plans
Incorporating Subsistence Information." He relayed that the
department was currently incorporating subsistence
information into 50 of the department's management plans.
He noted the increasing trend of using the subsistence
information in management plans.
Mr. Brooks addressed slide 15: "Division of Habitat":
· 43 permanent full-time positions
· 2 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $6,172.1 FY2017 Operating Request
· $3,567.1 UGF Request
· 3% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Protect Alaska's valuable fish and wildlife resources
and their habitats as Alaska's population and economy
continue to expand
Mr. Brooks explained that the primary function of the
division was to issue permits under Alaska Statute Title
16.
Mr. Brooks discussed the chart on slide 16: "Number of
Permits Issued." He highlighted that the number of permits
issued had been reduced by about 1000 in the prior year. He
had requested that the division look into the reasons for
the drop. He reported that the decline was attributed to
the state issuing longer term permits and a general
slowdown in the economy.
Mr. Brooks turned to the last division listed on slide 17:
"Division of Administrative Services":
· 68 permanent full-time positions
· 11 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $12,015.9 FY2017 Operating Request
· $2,484.3 UGF Request
· 6% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Provides administrative support for the department;
coordinates development of the annual operating and
capital budget; and manages the fish and game
licensing program
Mr. Brooks explained that the 11 permanent part-time,
seasonal positions primarily did data entry for the
licensing program.
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 18: "Boards Support Section":
· 6 permanent full-time positions
· 5 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $1,836.3 FY2017 Operating Request
· $1,685.5 UGF Request
· 1% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Ensures that the public process for the state's fish
and wildlife regulatory system operates efficiently
and effectively
Mr. Brooks noted that the Board Support Section was a very
small but important piece of the department's overall
structure. The section supported the Boards of Fish and
Game to meet in the joint boards. He reported having about
40 regulatory days of board meetings over the previous year
considering nearly 500 proposals.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 19: "Commissioner's Office":
· 8 permanent full-time positions
· $1,628.8 FY2017 Operating Request
· $753.6 UGF Request
· 1% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Provide support and policy direction to departmental
programs
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 20: "Independent Agencies":
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
· 26 permanent full-time positions
· 2 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $4,310.2 FY2017 Operating Request
· $0 UGF Request
· 2% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Controls entry into Alaska's commercial fisheries to
promote conservation of Alaska's fishery resources and
economic health of commercial fishing
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council
· 4 permanent full-time positions
· $2,503.5 FY2017 Operating Request
· $0 UGF Request
· 1% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Works toward restoring the environment injured by the
Exxon Valdez oil spill to a healthy and productive
ecosystem, while taking into account the importance
and quality of life and the need for viable
opportunities to establish and sustain a reasonable
standard of living
Mr. Brooks informed the committee that the independent
agencies did not report to the commissioner and did not
have any UGF in their budgets. He concluded the overview of
the structure of the department and indicated he would be
providing highlights from the budget in the next slides.
3:05:12 PM
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 21: "FY2016 Budget Cut
Highlights":
· $14.7 million UGF reduction from FY2015 Management
Plan, 29 positions
· $7.3 million cut in Governor's Budget
· $7.4 million cut through legislative process
· Revenue Offsets
· $3,500.0 in Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC) Receipts
· $500.0 Commercial Crew Receipts (DGF)
· $1,200.0 in federal Pittman-Robertson funds in
Division of Wildlife Conservation
· Cuts to Division Programs - $9.1 million
Mr. Brooks reported that the department's budget starting
point was about $80 million. The department found about $5
million in revenue offsets. The department shifted about
$3.5 million of limited entry receipts into the Division of
Commercial Fisheries and had an even cut of UGF. He
furthered that with the revenue offsets the net cuts to
division programs equaled about $9.1 million. The lion's
share of $5.6 million consisted of projects in the
department's Division of Commercial Fisheries. All of the
other divisions within the department cut their budgets as
well.
Mr. Brooks explained that as the department approached its
reductions it first looked at administrative efficiencies.
There was an effort within the department of consolidating
and centralizing administrative functions. The department
reduced staff from 20 to 12 positions with savings
throughout the smaller divisions. In the following summer
the department would initiate a similar effort with its 3
large management divisions.
Mr. Brooks discussed slide 22: "Highlights in Operating
Budget for FY2017":
· $7.5 million UGF reduction from FY2016 Management
Plan, 36 positions
· Revenue Offsets
· $1,300.0 in Test Fish and Commercial Crew
Receipts (DGF) in Division of Commercial
Fisheries
· $1,500.0 in Fish and Game Funds and Statutory
Designated Receipts in Sport Fisheries
· $641.8 in federal Pittman-Robertson funds in
Division of Wildlife Conservation
· Cuts to Divisions - $4.0 million
· Restructure and Rename Budget Components for Habitat
and Statewide Support Services
· Transfer Habitat to Statewide Support Services
· Rename Administration and Support to Statewide
Support Services
Mr. Brooks reported that in the budget before the committee
the department had cut an additional $7.5 million proposed
in the governor's request which included 36 positions. The
Department of Fish and Game's strategy was to identify some
revenue offsets where possible. The offsets were identified
in the Division of Commercial Fisheries for a total of $1.3
million - $800 thousand in test fish receipts and $500
thousand in crew member license revenue. The department cut
$1.5 million in UGF and replaced them with $1 million in
Fish and Game funds and $500 thousand in statutory program
receipts. He relayed that in the Division of Wildlife
Conservation the department replace $641.8 thousand of UGF
with federal funds. After the offsets the department had
another $4 million in programmatic cuts to the divisions.
The department had undertaken a review of all
administrative functions to try to limit the impact on its
programs in the field. The department had also done some
restructuring within the appropriation structure moving the
Division of Habitat into the Statewide Support Services. It
was reflective of administrative efficiencies and common
staffing to forward that function.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 23: "FY2017 Operating Budget
by RDU Department of Fish and Game." He explained that
there were 4 appropriations within the department. He
pointed to the upper left of the slide from FY 16
management plan to the department's FY 17 request moving to
the right. He highlighted the 4 appropriations, Commercial
Fisheries, Sport Fish, Wildlife Conservation, and Statewide
Support Services. The relative share of UGF, DGF, other
funds, fish and game funds, and federal funds provided the
total. He pointed to the right of that the same information
was provided in the FY 17 governor's request budget. He
noted that on the far right in red the changes were listed
by appropriation. There was some netting that went on
because it was "All Funds". The changes were summarized in
the lower right corner. There was a GF reduction of $2.7
million. There were unallocated cuts equal to $1.3 million.
There were also fund source changes equaling about $3.4
million. At the bottom of the page the UGF reflected a
total of $7.5 million with the offsets of the revenue
sources discussed earlier in the meeting.
3:10:56 PM
Mr. Brooks discussed the pie chart on slide 24: "FY2017
Budget by Division ($203,981.3)." He noted the total
overall budget was just under $204 million. The
department's GF equaled $57.6 million. He relayed that the
Division of Commercial Fisheries had a budget of $65.1
million and the Division of Sport Fish and the Division of
Wildlife Conservation were just under $48 million. He
commented that 80 percent of the department's funding was
tied up in the three large management divisions. The
smaller divisions made up the final piece of the pie.
Mr. Brooks scrolled to slide 25: "FY2017 Budget By Fund
Source ($203,981.3)." He explained that the department had
3 large sources it relied on. General funds represented 28
percent of the department's funding. Designated general
funds equaled about 7 percent and consisted of limited
entry, test fishery, and crew member license receipts. The
department also received federal funds which accounted for
about one-third of the budget. Fish and Game funds equaled
about $25 million and represented 12 percent of the budget.
The remaining balance of funding was made up of a series of
much smaller sources.
Mr. Brooks reviewed slide 26: "FY2017 Budgeted Positions."
He reported that the department had 879 full-time positions
and 739 seasonal positions. The department nearly doubled
its workforce in the months of summer. Approximately 80
percent of the seasonal positions were within the 3 largest
management divisions.
Mr. Brooks moved on to slide 28: "Department of Fish and
Game's Budget Compared to All Agencies' Budget (GF Only)."
He explained that the Legislative Finance Division slide
reflected GF only with a 10 year lookback. He pointed out
that growth was fairly steady for about ten years. For the
prior 3 years there had been a significant decline. He
noted that there was a decrease of about $14 million in FY
16 and about $7.5 million in FY 17.
Mr. Brooks scrolled to slide 29: "FY2017 Governor Budget -
Budget Growth Analysis: Department of Fish and Game
Budgeted Positions." He reported that the department had
reduced its positions by 100 over the prior 3 years. There
had been talk in the committee about whether they were
filled or vacant positions. He relayed that the department
had succeeded in making reductions by attrition in FY 15
and FY 16. The department did not lay anyone off but rather
brought on fewer seasonal people reassigning them different
projects. He highlighted that in the FY 17 budget the
department had notified over 30 employees since the first
of the year that their positions were slated for
elimination by June 30th. The department was spending the
following 5 months trying to place them in different
positions. Some people were choosing to retire. It was an
important step, as the department had to work with human
resources to establish seniority pools. He explained that
each of the labor unions had seniority clauses within their
contracts. There were bumping rights and other factors to
be considered. The department's goal was to avoid anyone
being laid off. He reiterated that the department had been
proactive in notifying employees of pending position
deletions.
3:14:45 PM
Mr. Brooks continued to slide 30: "Appropriations within
the Department of Fish and Game (GF Only)." The line graph
showed the department's general funds by appropriations.
The Division of Commercial Fisheries took the largest
portion of total GF. He noted that the lower 2 lines
represented the Division of Sport Fish and the Division of
Wildlife Conservation. They equaled around $4 million in
the FY 17 budget at the far right of the graph. The
department's Statewide Support Services (comprised of 3
divisions, boards, and other sections) was represented by
the middle line. He highlighted that the lines trended up
for about 10 years followed by a steep decline over the
last few years of budgeting cycles.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 31: "Appropriations within the
Department of Fish and Game (All Funds)." He pointed out
that the chart showed all funds. The Division of Commercial
Fisheries was the largest division. The Division of Sport
Fish and the Division of Wildlife Conservation were the
second largest divisions when factoring in all of the
federal funds and fish and game funds equal to about $50
million. The bottom line represented the compilation of all
of the other divisions.
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 32: "FY2017 Capital Projects
Request":
Projects and Initiatives
· Fairbanks Regional Office Electrical, Telephone
System, and Repairs: $350.0 GF
Recurring Capital Projects
· Sport Fish Recreational Boating and Angler
Access: $2,250.0 Federal, $750.0 GF
· Facilities, Vessels and Aircraft Maintenance,
Repair and Upgrades: $1,000.0 GF
Mr. Brooks was aware that he was presenting an operating
budget overview but mentioned that the department had 3
capital projects. Two of the three projects were for
deferred maintenance. The third request was for boater
access and had been an annual request seen by committee
members in the past. It was a $3 million request that was
three quarters federal funds and one quarter of GF - a
state match. He also pointed out that there were two bills
that were before the legislature. The first was HB 137 that
would raise fees on fishing and hunting licenses on the
sport side. It was a bill that would potentially generate
additional revenue that could be used for the Division of
Sport Fish and the Division of Wildlife Conservation where
there was a remaining $4 million of UGF. He also mentioned
HB 251 which was a fisheries tax bill that assessed an
additional one percent of tax on the commercial fishing
industry. The fiscal note on the bill reflected an
additional $18 million in revenues which would go into the
UGF. He made himself available for questions from committee
members.
Co-Chair Neuman referred to slide 21. He expressed his
concern about the revenue offset of $1.2 million in federal
Pittman-Robertson. He asked if the department had returned
any available federal funds. Mr. Brooks replied that the
department had not returned any of the funding to-date. He
relayed that coupled with its operating budget the
legislature had given the department a capital project
request in the previous year for $11 million of additional
Pittman-Robertson funds. At a national level the program
had seen a steady growth. He reported that 2 years prior
the department's allocation went from $21 million to $31
million in a single year. He elaborated that the Pittman-
Robertson program was tied to excise tax on guns and
ammunition. The department's challenge was to match the
funding. The department's challenge was to match the
funding. The department was also keeping an eye on a
sustained revenue level which was anticipated to plateau.
It might be at a higher level than in the past but not at
the same rate of growth as the exceptional single year of
growth.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about any unused Pittman-Robertson
funds. Mr. Brooks reported that the state had 2 years to
use the funds, to obligate them with the federal
government. It was not the same as having an encumbrance or
order, but rather having an approved project with them. The
department had been doing its best to find partners to help
the state match the federal funding. Currently, the
department estimated that at the end of September 2016 it
could be in a position to revert back $2 million to the
federal government.
Co-Chair Neuman wanted additional information about how
Pittman-Robertson funds were used. He thought they were
primarily used for access. Mr. Brooks responded that access
was one of the uses. The funds had to benefit recreational
hunting.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Brooks to explain how $1.2
million of federal Pittman-Robertson funds to offset
revenue. Mr. Brooks answered that it was one of the primary
finding sources for all of the department's management
program activities such as aerial surveys of caribou and
other undertakings having to do with hunted species in
Alaska. The department was using Fish and Game Funds to
match federal dollars. He furthered that the department was
experiencing increasing difficulty matching federal funds.
Co-Chair Neuman wanted an additional explanation of why the
department was using Federal Pittman-Robertson funds to
offset revenue in the department's budget. He did not
understand how it worked. Mr. Brooks was happy to review
the subject later.
3:20:16 PM
Representative Gara mentioned a historically struggling
King Salmon run on the Kenai. Both the early and late runs
had been some of the best. However, in current years the
runs were terrible. After a year of a good late run, the
department opened it up to bait fishermen substantially
increasing the take of a nearly endangered fishery. He
asked why and wondered about the department's management
direction for the fishery in the upcoming year. It was
unknown whether the state would have sustainable runs of
the fishery in the future. He relayed that many people on
the Kenai Peninsula were angered by the department's
management decision. Mr. Brooks would provide a more
detailed answer at a later time. He was aware that there
were good numbers from the late run. He indicated that the
Division of Sport Fish was trying to balance raising the
return beyond the low end of the escapement range and
providing opportunities late in the season. He surmised
that any action taken by the division would likely be
controversial. He was happy to provide a more thorough
response.
Representative Gara did not expect Mr. Brooks to have an
immediate answer. He emphasized that it had been the first
decent return in years. He claimed that the department
seized the opportunity to open up bait fishing right away.
He conveyed that the fishermen in South Central did not
want that to happen. He wondered if the same action would
be taken before the run was stabilized. He did not believe
that one decent run in several years did not justify the
division taking such an action. Mr. Brooks relayed that the
department would get back to the committee with a response.
Co-Chair Thompson referred to the Division of Habitat. He
wondered about the invasive species, Loche, in the Northern
and Central regions of Alaska. He wondered if the state was
getting financially involved in fighting the epidemic of
invasive species. Mr. Brooks responded that the Division of
Habitat and the Division of Sport Fish were working on the
issue. The Department collaborated with the Department of
Natural Resources. He could provide specific information on
related projects.
Co-Chair Thompson was just curious and indicated he did not
require an additional response. He asked about how the CFEC
determined permit prices. He asked if boat size and tonnage
were factors in permit pricing. Mr. Brooks responded that
there was a range of fees set in statute from $30 to $3000.
There was also a formula the commission employed to set the
rates. Size and other factors were considered. The range
was established by the legislature and the fees were set by
regulation.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the cap was $3000. Mr. Brooks
responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Thompson understood that there were about 260
permits very few of which were Alaskan owned. Most permit
holders were from Seattle, took hundreds of tons of fish
out of Alaska, and brought their catch back to Seattle. He
added that the majority of their fishing crews were from
out of state. He thought that the cap was something that
needed to be addressed because of "out-of-staters" taking
Alaskan jobs and Alaskan fish. He considered it a problem
that he hoped would be addressed during the session.
3:25:50 PM
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the conversation had been
started. Mr. Brooks responded that the Limited Entry
Commission had done some analysis on the fee structure and
the cap. He would provide the information to the committee.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that the larger vessels would be
the focus. He would distribute the information to members
of the committee and would address the issue at the
subcommittee level.
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to slide 20. He asked about the
Exxon Valdez Spill Trustee Council. He wondered why the
state was spending $2.5 million on a spill disaster that
happened 27 years ago. He asked about the responsibilities
of the council, how long it would last, and when the state
could divest itself from it. Mr. Brooks remarked that DFG
was chosen to house the council. The council was made up of
3 federal and 3 state representatives. There was a couple
of staff as well. The council was responsible for a science
panel that continued to meet and some ongoing monitoring.
He believed the $2.5 million was a "not-to-exceed" amount.
He did not believe that the council had come close to the
budgeted amount in recent years. He did not have an answer
about an end date but noted it was a minimal ongoing effort
that existed.
Vice-Chair Saddler thought the council might find an
administrative home within the university system or the
marine science facilities in Juneau or Valdez. He thought
it was a holdover from a previous crisis and was
unnecessary.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about CFEC's budget for research. Mr.
Brooks reported that CFEC generated about $7.8 million in
funds. There was about $4.2 million in the CFEC budget. The
Division of Commercial Fisheries had about $3.5 million in
its budget. Out of the $4.2 million budget there was a
section with 3 positions: an economist, a fisheries analyst
(responsible for doing economic research and different
types of analysis), and an empty position.
Co-Chair Neuman asked about the yearly budget. Mr. Brooks
would have to look at the positions. He guessed that with
salary and benefits it could be about $300 thousand.
Co-Chair Neuman thought the cost of their research was in
the millions. Mr. Brooks responded, "No."
3:29:40 PM
Representative Edgmon referenced HB 112 [Legislation
introduced in 2015 - Short Title: Repeal CFEC; Transfer
Functions to ADFG], Representative Stutes' bill that would
essentially reorganize and downsize CFEC. He reported
receiving conflicting stories from fishermen along the
coast. It was a very important issue for fishermen in
Bristol Bay who recommended the department move slowly and
judiciously around the downsizing of the commission. He
invited Mr. Brooks to comment. He also wondered, in light
of the review and audit that took place, if the department
had plans to transition CFEC into DFG while the legislation
was making its way through the process.
Mr. Brooks had personally testified on HB 112. He thought
there were efficiencies that would result from the bill. He
remarked that the legislative audit pointed to some of the
changes in the workload over time. He added that the types
of things the commission did currently compared to 20 years
prior were significantly different. It did not diminish the
commission's excellent work and advocacy for the industry
over the years. He believed there were administrative
functions within the commission that DFG also performed
such as computer support and accounting functions that the
department could do for CFEC. He reported that there had
been discussions about the licensing function. The
department licensed individuals, crew members, and sport
hunters and fishermen. The Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission licensed skippers and vessels. In the end, it
amounted to doing a transaction with the public charging a
fee, and collecting money. He estimated that some of the
business functions of CFEC could be done regardless of what
division or department they were under. He did not believe
the commission's adjudication role would be compromised.
The commission was responsible for making decisions and
conducting hearings on transfers and different issues. He
asserted that the challenge was finding the balance between
the administrative functions that could be done outside of
CFEC and the adjudication functions and legal types of
issues needing care and attention within CFEC that he
thought could be done with a smaller footprint. The
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission had statutory
authorities that they did not report to the Department or
the Commissioner of Fish and Game.
Representative Munoz commented that the audit had
recommended maintaining the autonomy of the commission. She
asked if DFG had assigned any DFG staff to CFEC duties in
the current or previous year. Mr. Brooks replied in the
negative. He stated that the department's Information
Technology (IT) staff collaborated and interacted with CFEC
but there had not been an assignment of duties.
Representative Munoz asked if he was aware of the intent
language included in the FY 16 budget recognizing CFEC's
autonomy. Mr. Brooks was absolutely aware of the intent
language. The department was operated accordingly.
3:34:29 PM
Representative Munoz referred to Attorney General Tom
Katter's opinion regarding the autonomy and the
continuation of that autonomy. She asked if he was familiar
with Attorney General Katter's opinion. Mr. Brooks had not
seen the opinion but would like review it.
Representative Munoz would make sure to provide Mr. Brooks
with a copy. She wondered about the Dingle-Johnson funds.
She asked if he could provide an estimate of the projected
federal and state funds anticipated to be received by the
department. Mr. Brooks responded that the Dingle-Johnson
funds were associated with the Division of Sport Fish. The
department had some history of projects. He added that the
Pittman-Robertson funds matched with license revenue would
affected by HB 137 [Legislation passed in 2016 - Short
Title: Hunt/Fish/Trap:Fees;Licenses;Exemptions]. The
department used license revenues to match both federal
allocations. He would provide the information to the
committee.
Representative Wilson referred to slide 18. She asked about
a sheep working group, how it was being funded, and how
much had been spent to date. Mr. Brooks replied that there
was an allocation set aside for the sheep working group. He
referred to an $11 million capital project from the
previous year. There was a portion of that money set aside
for sheep management. He thought the funding for the work
group was included. He would follow-up with the cost
information.
Representative Wilson understood that there was a moderator
for the working group. She asked for the name of the person
and where they were from. Mr. Brooks could not recall the
name or location but would be happy to provide the
representative with the information. He thought the
moderator was from Canada.
Representative Wilson clarified that the person was from
Canada. Mr. Brooks was unsure. He would provide the
information before the end of the current day.
Representative Wilson confirmed that the person was from
Canada and that she already had their name. She wondered
why the department was not using advisory councils from
within. She was more concerned as to why the state was
using someone from Canada to help the state manage its
resources. She thought the subcommittee chair for DFG would
clear up the issue.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke to Representative Wilson's point. He
thought that there had been intent in the previous year's
budget directing all departments to use the university
system first for any research.
Representative Wilson remarked that they were not from
Canada.
Co-Chair Neuman would check on the issue. Mr. Brooks
relayed he would have an opportunity to discuss it with the
division soon.
Co-Chair Neuman thanked committee members for their
attendance. He reviewed the agenda for the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:38:42 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DFG House Finance Committee Overview FY2017.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| UA FY17 HFIN Overview - 2.5.16.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| UofA Strategic Pathways HFIN Overview.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2016 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DFG Response HFIN Overview.pdf |
HFIN 2/9/2016 1:30:00 PM |