Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/13/2016 09:00 AM Senate 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 | |
| HB137 | |
| HB222 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 13, 2016
9:10 a.m.
9:10:57 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Eddie Grasser, Safari Club International, Alaska Chapter,
Juneau; Rod Arno, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau; Ron
Somerville, Territorial Sportsmen, Juneau; Thor Stacey,
Alaska Professional Hunters, Juneau; Matt Robus, Self,
Juneau; Representative Dave Talerico, Sponsor; Joshua
Banks, Staff, Representative Dave Talerico; Kevin Brooks,
Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game; Juli
Lucky, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker; David Teal,
Director, Legislative Finance Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Al Barrette, Self, Fairbanks; Charles Derrick, The Chitina
Dipnetters Association, Fairbanks; Doug Vincent-Lang, Self,
Anchorage; Bruce Dale, Director, Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Fish and Game; Tom Brookover, Director,
Division of Sport Fish, Department of Fish and Game;
Bernard Chastain, Major, Alaska Wildlife Troopers,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSHB 137(FIN)am
HUNT/FISH/TRAP: FEES;LICENSES;EXEMPTIONS
CSHB 137(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CSHB 222(FIN)
INCREASE OF APPROPRIATION ITEM
CSHB 222(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 137(FIN) am
"An Act raising certain fees related to sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping; relating to the fish and game
fund; providing for the repeal of the sport fishing
surcharge and sport fishing facility revenue bonds;
replacing the permanent sport fishing, hunting, or
trapping identification card for certain residents
with an identification card valid for three years;
relating to hunting and fishing by proxy; relating to
fish and game conservation decals; raising the age of
eligibility for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping
license exemption for state residents; raising the age
at which a state resident is required to obtain a
license for sport fishing, hunting, or trapping; and
providing for an effective date."
9:12:48 AM
AL BARRETTE, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the bill, until the issue of the
low income licensed was addressed. He felt that those that
were low income could handle an increase in their license
fees. He spoke out in opposition to the Chitina dip netting
fee, and felt he did not need to pay the fee because he
paid taxes that were used for road maintenance. He felt
that subsistence fishermen should be required to have a
fishing license. He thought that the language, "immediately
upon capture", on Page 5, line 17, should be changed to,
"before leaving the kill site".
9:16:35 AM
EDDIE GRASSER, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, ALASKA CHAPTER,
JUNEAU, shared that many groups had recently come together
to support the increase in licensing fees, among them
Territorial Sportsman, Alaska Professional Hunters
Association, Alaska Outdoor Council, and Safari Club
International Chapter. He spoke in support of the licensing
fees, and felt that the money should be spent to benefit
those that were paying the fees. He shared that sportsmen,
hunters, and anglers paid for the majority of the
conservation efforts in the state. He hoped that the
legislation would provide the department the resources to
manage the wildlife in the state, and counteract federal
overreach.
9:19:03 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the group had problems with
aspects of the bill other than what Mr. Grasser had
mentioned.
Mr. Grasser replied that Safari Club International Alaska
Chapter supported the legislation as it was written, but
recognized that there were questions about some language
added in Senate Resources Committee; particularly the
Sockeye salmon stamp, which he understood had not been
supported by the sport fishing community.
9:19:56 AM
Senator Olson requested that Mr. Grasser speak to the
previous testifiers suggested language change on Page 5,
line 17.
Mr. Grasser responded that his organization agreed with the
suggested language change. He noted that "punching a tag"
immediately upon capture was not practical in some
situations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon welcomed Senator Bishop to the table.
9:21:26 AM
ROD ARNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA OUTDOOR COUNCIL,
JUNEAU, testified that the most pressing issue concerning
the bill was related to game. He noted that due to the
massive sale of firearms in the country there was plenty of
money available to the state for wildlife restoration
through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Act. He lamented that federal land managers
were moving to mandate a restriction of predator/prey
management, which created conflict on state lands to
provide a harvestable surplus.
9:23:06 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the organization had any
concerns with the legislation.
Mr. Arno replied in the affirmative, and related the
concerns voiced by the previous testifier about the changes
made to the bill in Senate Resources Committee;
specifically, the Sockeye salmon stamp. He argued that the
public should not be burdened to provide the funds to
restore and already abundant population.
9:24:11 AM
RON SOMERVILLE, TERRITORIAL SPORTSMEN, JUNEAU, referred to
two documents, "Hunting/Sport Fishing License Increase
Compromise Proposal, Updated 4/12/16" and "Wildlife
Restoration - PR Funds for Alaska FY02-FY15 (Projected for
FY 16-FY 17)" (copies on file). He related that there was
approximately $10 million of available federal dollars that
the state was not able to obligate because it did not have
the matching funds. He said that the state had the
potential of reverting $2 million federal dollars in FY17,
and $6 million in FY18, if DF&G funds did not increase. He
relayed that wildlife populations in the state were not
intensely managed, but were selectively managed in areas
where those involved felt would be most successful. He said
that those management efforts had resulted in more moose
and caribou available for the hunt. He reiterated the idea
of increasing fees for low income Alaskans. He emphasized
the importance of DF&G money to the continuation of the
sport fish and wildlife programs. He opined that federal
aid money could not be used in intensive management
programs, which required the use of General Fund dollars or
DF&G funds. He stressed that if the DF&Gs contribution did
not increase the state would be forced to cut back on the
intensive management program.
9:27:55 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed committee attention to the
document, "Hunting/Sport Fishing License Increase
Compromise Proposal", and asked whether the testifier
agreed with column D.
Mr. Somerville replied in the affirmative. He said that the
column contained the compromise position that had been
crafted by the four groups mentioned by Mr. Grasser.
9:28:29 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the documents could be
located on BASIS.
9:29:30 AM
THOR STACEY, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL HUNTERS, JUNEAU, testified
in strong support of the legislation. He said that hunting
guides recognized that the resource was owned by the
general public, and that it was a privilege for their
businesses to have access and to profit commercially from
the population. He stated that the bill listed substantial
increases for non-resident hunter's licenses and tags,
which would come out of the bottom line of members
businesses and were appropriate and within a fair market
value for the resource. He expressed the concern for the
potential reverting of federal funds. He envisioned that
the money could be spent by the department to support the
public process, which he believed was an important and
well-intended commitment by the department. He said that
the intensive management surcharge benefitted the state
because it assured that intensive management was a priority
to the department, regardless of politics. He believed that
the fees contributed to a strong and robust department that
would be able to resist federal overreach and encroachment,
and would result in data driven decisions in court. He
shared that his organization was constantly fighting
against federal permitting on federal lands, which was one
of the core missions of his group in order to maintain
access to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge and park
preserves. He believed that the bill would help to provide
state sovereignty.
9:33:09 AM
CHARLES DERRICK, THE CHITINA DIPNETTERS ASSOCIATION,
FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified that the
association had wanted money from the $15 fee earmarked for
garbage and toilet services, as well as Department of
Transportation road maintenance from Chitina to Haley
Creek. He said that while the annual cost for toilet and
garbage contract should have remained steady, the amount
needed annually for the road maintenance between O'Brien
Creek and Haley Creek could vary depending on new
landslides or terrain. He stated that for these reason CDA
wanted the Chitina permit fee money placed into a special
account with in DF&G, where money left over from one year
to fulfill the three services could accumulate and be used
in subsequent years. He expressed appreciation that the
language in the bill had been tightened up, but requested
that the special account be set up in the department for
the Chitina dip net fee money.
9:34:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that the garbage problem was
being discussed.
Mr. Derrick stated that the Chitina dip net fee was its own
dip net permit and was separate from the Southcentral dip
net permit.
9:35:37 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered whether the Chitina dip net
permit was indicated by a stamp on the license.
Mr. Derrick replied that the permit would be physically
handed to the person who paid the $15 fee.
9:37:00 AM
MATT ROBUS, SELF, JUNEAU, emphasized the importance of
raising fees in order to bring in money to allow the
department to retrieve all of the sportsman money that was
held and passed through the federal government. He stated
that the Pittman-Robertson funds were used to perform
"bread and butter" wildlife management, every day of the
year, and that the fees had not been increased in over 20
years. He noted that the intensive management that was
required by state law, coupled with diminishing General
Funds, highlighted the departments need for the federal
funds. He pointed out to the committee that under the
current version of the bill the combination hunting and
fishing license would cost more than buying the two
licenses separately. He did not suggest a decrease in the
price of the combination license, but advocated for
coalition level pricing.
9:39:37 AM
Senator Olson remarked that there had not been an increase
in fees for 23 years, and wondered why the department had
not pushed for a fee increase earlier.
Mr. Robus replied that he could not speak for the
department because he did not work at the department, but
he indicated that the department supported the fee
increases.
9:40:11 AM
Senator Olson noted that Mr. Robus had worked for the
department for 13 years.
Mr. Robus responded that he was with the department for 27
years.
Senator Olson asked why Mr. Robus had not advocated for an
increase before he retired.
Mr. Robus replied that the reversion of federal funds had
sparked the interest in the fee increase, which had not
been an issue when he was employed with the department.
9:41:10 AM
Senator Dunleavy felt that the Pittman-Robertson funding
had increased under the Obama Administration and had
contributed to the need for the fee increase.
9:41:53 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the legislation. He felt that the
increased fees were necessary in order to match the
Pittman-Robertson. He suggested that the language that had
been added in the previous committee, related to the
intensive management surcharge as a dedicated fund, should
be retained. He felt that the commitment to phase out the
hatchery surcharge should be honored.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
9:44:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He relayed that the inspiration for the bill
had been to raise certain fees related to sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping licenses, a large portion of which
was non-resident big game tax. He noted that the state was
facing a financial crisis and that the bill could maintain
the opportunity for people to fish and hunt in the state.
He said that as funding disappeared, the department would
be required to manage more conservatively, which would cut
into hunting and fishing seasons for Alaskans. He spoke to
the low income license, which had been set using the
poverty guideline of $8,200 per year. He believed that the
number needed to be adjusted for inflation. He noted that
the poverty guideline contained a loophole which allowed
those receiving any type of public assistance to purchase a
license at the low income rate, and offered an anecdote
related to misuse of the rate. He noted that he had paid
$49 for his current license, which would cost $121, were it
adjusted for inflation. He said that Alaska had rates
higher than tag fees in other states.
9:49:02 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether the sponsor supported the
amendments made to the bill by the previous committee.
Representative Talerico expressed concern regarding the
affordability of the fees. He said that the addition of the
intense management fee should be halved for residents, or
that a savings should be built into the resident's license
fee.
9:49:48 AM
Senator Olson noted the fee schedule on Page 5 of the bill.
He queried why the fee for wolf hunting had not been
adjusted to reflect the intense management fee.
Representative Talerico said that he supported intensive
management. He asserted that he had wanted the fees to
remain reasonable.
9:50:45 AM
Senator Olson noted that the fee for wolverines was $350,
while the fee for wolves was only $30.
Representative Talerico responded that hunting wolves was
less of a challenge that pursuing wolverine.
9:51:28 AM
Senator Olson shared that he was a pilot for resident and
non-resident hunters. He turned to Page 4, which spoke to
tagging the animal immediately upon capture. He found that
the requirement was cumbersome, particularly when it became
time to haul the meat, which was easier if the carcass was
dismembered. He wondered why the requirement had been added
to the bill.
Representative Talerico said that he was unaware of the
suggestion to tag upon capture. He believed that the
language suggested by Mr. Barrette would be more
appropriate.
9:52:28 AM
JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO,
discussed the Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1 - AS 16.05.130
Creates a new subsection that creates the sustainable
wildlife account as a subaccount in the fish and game
fund to deposit money obtained through the intensive
management surcharge. Requires this fund to be used
for intensive management programs under AS
16.05.255(e).
Sec. 2 - AS 16.05.251(a)
Amends this section to conform to Section 25 (raising
resident license requirement age to 18 and the
exemption age to 65) of this bill.
Sec. 3 - AS 16.05.340(a)(1)
Amends this section to raise the resident sport
fishing license fee from $15 to $20 and raises the fee
for residents who are blind from $0.25 to $0.50.
Sec. 4 - AS 16.05.340(a)(2)
Amends this section to raise the resident hunting
license fee from $25 to $35.
Sec. 5 - AS 16.05.340(a)(3)
Amends this section to raise the fee for a resident
hunting and trapping combination license from
$39 to $60.
Sec. 6 - AS 16.05.340(a)(4)
Amends this section to raise the resident trapping
license fee from $15 to $25.
Sec. 7 - AS 16.05.340(a)(5)
Amends this section to raise the fee for a resident
hunting and sport fishing combination license from $39
to $60.
Sec. 8 - AS 16.05.340(a)(6)
Makes multiple amendments to this section including
raising the fee for a resident hunting, trapping, and
sport fishing combination license from $53 to $80.
Changes low-income license eligibility so that a
person receiving federal or state welfare assistance
is not eligible unless they meet the income
requirement. Also sets the maximum annual family gross
income to match the federal poverty level for the
individual's household size in Alaska.
Sec. 9 - AS 16.05.340(a)(7)
Amends this section to raise the four nonresident
sport fishing license fees.
14-day license from $50 to $75
Seven-day license from $30 to $45
Three-day license is raised from $20 to $30
One-day license from $10 to $15
Sec. 10 - AS 16.05.340(a)(8)
Amends this section to raise the annual nonresident
sport fishing license fee from $100 to $150.
Sec. 11 - AS 16.05.340(a)(9)
Amends this section to raise the nonresident hunting
license fee from $85 to $130.
Sec. 12 - AS 16.05.340(a)(11)
Amends this section to raise the nonresident hunting
and trapping combination license fee from $250 to
$375.
Sec. 13 - AS 16.05.340(a)(15)
Amends this section to raise the following nonresident
big game tag fees.
Black bear from $225 to $450
Brown or grizzly bear from $500 to $1,000
Bison from $450 to $900
Caribou from $325 to $650
Deer from $150 to $300
Elk and goat from $300 to $600
Moose from $400 to $800
Sheep from $425 to $850
Wolverine from $175 to $350
Musk oxen from $1,100 to $2,200
This section also amends a citation to AS 16.05.255 to
more specifically point to subsection (e) of this
section.
Sec. 14 - AS 16.05.340(a)(17)
Makes multiple amendments to this section by raising
the exemption age for a resident engaging in waterfowl
hunting without a waterfowl tag from 16 to 18 and from
60 to 65. This section also raises the waterfowl
conservation tag from $5 to $10.
Sec. 15 - AS 16.05.340(a)(19)
Amends this section to increase the small game hunting
license fee from $20 to $30.
Sec. 16 - AS 16.05.340(a)(20)
Amends this section to increase the nonresident alien
hunting license fee from $300 to $600.
Sec. 17 - AS 16.05.340(a)(21)
Amends this section to raise the following nonresident
alien big game tag fees.
Black bear from $300 to $600
Brown or grizzly bear and bison from $650 to
$1,300
Caribou from $425 to $850
Deer from $200 to $400
Elk and goat from $400 to $800
Moose from $500 to $1,000
Musk oxen from $1,500 to $3,000
Sheep from $550 to $1,100
Wolverine from $250 to $500
This section also amends a citation to AS 16.05.255 to
more specifically point to subsection (e) of this
section.
Sec. 18 - AS 16.05.340(a)(22)
Amends this section to reinstate a $15 Chitina dip net
fishing permit fee.
Sec. 19 - AS 16.05.340(a)(23)
Amends this section to raise the resident anadromous
king salmon tag from $10 to $15. This section is also
amended to conform to Sections 3 (raising resident
blind fee) and 25 (raising resident license
requirement age to 18 and the exemption age to 65) of
this bill.
Sec. 20 - AS 16.05.340(a)(24)
Amends this section to raise all six nonresident
anadromous king salmon tag fees.
One-day tag from $10 to $15
Three-day tag from $20 to $30
Seven-day tag from $30 to $45
14-day tag from $50 to $75
Annual tag from $100 to $150
Annual nonresident military tag from $20 to $30
Sec. 21 - AS 16.05.340(a)
Creates new sections to establish fees for an
anadromous sockeye salmon tag for the Kenai and
Kasilof rivers' watersheds. Section (a)(27) creates a
resident tag fee of $15 and exempts a person who is
blind, under the age of 18, a resident 65 years or
older, a disabled veteran, or qualifies for the low-
income license from being required to have a tag.
Section (a)(28) creates nonresident anadromous sockeye
salmon tags and exempts a person under the age of 16
from being required to have a tag.
One-day tag is $15
Three-day tag is $30
Seven-day tag is $45
14-day tag is $75
Annual tag is $150
Annual nonresident military tag is $30
Sec. 22 - AS 16.05.340(i)
Amends this section to delete a reference relating to
the hatchery surcharge that will go into effect under
Section 35 when the hatchery bonds are paid in full.
Sec. 23 - AS 16.05.340
Creates a new section to establish the intensive
management surcharge that must be paid in addition to
each fee for a hunting license. The fee for a resident
is $10 and the fee for a nonresident is $30. This
section also creates an exemption for a person
eligible for a low-income license from being required
to pay the surcharge.
Sec. 24 - AS 16.05.352
Adds a new section that creates an annual voluntary
fish and game conservation decal that the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) will produce and
make available to the public. This section also
directs the Department to provide for the selection of
design for the conservation decals and that the
commissioner may produce the quantity of decals
considered appropriate. The fee for this decal is $20
per person and the Legislature may appropriate these
funds to fish and wildlife conservation programs.
Sec. 25 - AS 16.05.400
Amends this section to raise the age required for a
resident to have a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping
license from 16 to 18. Provisions in this section
regarding nonresidents are not amended. Also amends
this section to raise the age from 60 to 65 for a
resident to obtain an exemption from paying a fee for
a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license. Creates
a requirement that residents that obtain this
exemption must renew it every three years.
Sec. 26-30 - AS 16.05.403-16.05.415
Makes amendments to AS 16.05.403, 16.05.405, and
16.05.415 to conform with the change made in Section
25 regarding the license exemption for residents over
the age of 65.
Sections 27 and 28 amend the fishing and hunting
by proxy statute by allowing a resident to hunt
or sport fish on behalf of a person with a
developmental disability.
Sec. 31 - AS 16.10.570
Amends this section by amending the title and add new
requirements under this section. ADF&G with the
Department of Transportation and the Department
Natural Resources will need to maintain and improve
state-owned land used to access the Chitina dip net
fishery and maintain and operate sanitary facilities
for people using the dip net fishery.
Sec. 32 - Repealed Statute
Repeals the two sections regarding the intensive
management surcharge in AS 16.05.130(g) (Section 1)
and 16.05.340(k) (Section 23) after the sunset date
set in Section 37.
Sec. 33 - Repealed Statute
Repeals sections in statute relating to the fish
hatchery bonds under AS 16.05.100(2), 16.05.130(e),
16.05.130(f), 16.05.340(j), and AS 37.15.765 -
37.15.799.
Sec. 34 - Uncodified Law
Adds a new section to the uncodified law of Alaska to
ensure that residents that are eligible for a sport
fishing, hunting, or trapping license exemption under
AS 16.05.400(b) before the effective date of this bill
will continue to be eligible for the exemption. This
section also requires residents currently eligible for
this identification card to renew the card by January
1, 2020, and that ADF&G must notify a current holder
of the card that they must renew the card.
Sec. 35 - Uncodified Law and Conditional Effect
Adds a new section requiring the commissioner of fish
and game to notify the revisor of statutes when all
costs associated with the fish hatchery bonds issued
under AS 37.15.765 - 37.15.799 are paid and all
obligations are fully met and discharged. This section
also establishes that Sections 22 and 33 will only go
into effect if the notice is given to the revisor of
statutes.
Sec. 36 - Effective Date
Adds a new section stating that the effective date for
Sections 22 and 33 will be January 1 of the calendar
year following the year of notice under Sec. 35 of
this bill.
Sec. 37 - Sunset Date
Creates a sunset date of December 31, 2022 for the
intensive management surcharge language in Sections 1
and 23.
Sec. 38 - Effective Date
Creates an effective date for the bill, except as
provided in Sections 36 and 37, to be January 1, 2017.
10:00:31 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon expressed concern with certain areas of
the bill. She relayed that amendments would be due by noon
the following day. She said that the combination fishing
license fee needed to be resolved, as well as the Sockeye
salmon stamp. She added that the committee would also
discuss the kill site tagging issue and the Chitina dip
netting matter.
10:01:16 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered why seniors were required to renew
their licenses every 3 years.
Representative Talerico responded that people were moving
out of state after they retired, while keeping ahold of
their permanent licenses. He said that people who were no
longer residents were using these licenses on a regular
basis, the renewal would put a stop to that misuse.
10:01:57 AM
Senator Olson asked what the current law allowed.
Representative Talerico replied that the current law
allowed for a permanent license to be issued after the age
of 60.
10:02:09 AM
Senator Hoffman said that, under current law, if the senior
could not prove residency the license would be void.
Representative Talerico responded that once the license had
been established as a permanent license, whether or not the
person lives in the state, as long as they had the physical
license it would be identified as a permanent license.
10:03:03 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether grandfather language
existed in the bill to protect the licenses that had
already been issued. She queried how the seniors would be
informed of the 3 year update requirement and whether their
license needed and update.
Representative Talerico assumed that already established
licenses would be grandfathered in, but he believed that a
new license would need to be created that would require a
renewal; he believed that the permanent licenses that had
been issued did not have an expiration date. He lamented
that he was not exactly sure how the issue would be
handled.
10:03:48 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asserted that the committee would craft
language that resolved the issue.
10:04:22 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered how the transition from the 60
year age limit, to the 65 year age limit, would be handled.
Representative Talerico said that everyone that had already
received the license would be grandfathered in, and on the
effective date the 65 year age limit would be employed.
10:05:29 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the terminology of the word
"capture" in the language of the bill.
Senator Olson believed that "capture' was a federal term
for killing an animal while hunting.
10:06:08 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked whether schedules could be provided
that detailed the variety and costs of commercial fishing
permits.
Representative Talerico replied that he had not looked into
commercial fishing permits.
10:06:32 AM
Co-Chair Kelly requested the information before noon that
day.
10:06:41 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated that the committee would
objectively examine the issue and would remain neutral on
the "fish wars".
10:07:03 AM
Co-Chair Kelly interjected that when sport fishing rates
were substantially raised, and commercial fishing rates
were not, neutrality on the issue was questionable.
Co-Chair MacKinnon appreciated the conversation. She
understood that the issue was a sensitive one, and that the
committee would work toward parity moving forward.
10:07:47 AM
Co-Chair Kelly suggested that the bill should strictly
pertain to game hunting, in order to avoid the fish wars.
10:08:07 AM
Senator Bishop requested a meeting with the sponsor to
discuss the wolf tag fee for non-residents.
10:08:45 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to understand the considerations
that resulted in the amendments from the prior committee.
10:09:07 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche explained that there had been
excitement surrounding the groups that had come together in
agreement over the fees. He believed that more work needed
to be done on the fish related issues. He relayed that the
working groups had largely worked on the game issues. He
hoped that work could be done with a fisheries working
group to arrive at a similar level of agreement.
10:09:50 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the spreadsheet outlined a
reduction in sports residency increases, a reduction in
musk oxen take, and an increase in the intensive management
surcharge.
Representative Talerico replied that he had not been a
large supporter on intensive management. He understood why
it had been added to the bill, but thought that the figure
was high for his residents. He stated that he would prefer
that the figure be cut in half for residents, or that the
resident hunting license fee be lowered.
10:11:03 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon spoke of raising the age from 16, to 18,
from current statute. She understood that non-resident
hunters were being treated differently on the age
requirement than residents. She wondered whether this could
present an equal rights issue.
Representative Talerico responded that he could not speak
to the issue.
10:11:36 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Page 2, lines 19 and 20:
(B) residents under 18 years of age and nonresidents
[PERSONS] under 16 years of age to participate in
sport fishing;
Vice-Chair Micciche explained that there had been a lot of
changes made, and referred to the summary of changes in
member files (copy on file).
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that she wanted members to
have as much information as possible, concerning why the
prior committee made the changes, when crafting amendments
to the legislation.
Vice-Chair Micciche noted the legal services memorandum on
the Carlson case (copy on file). He did not believe that
the memo dealt with the differences between resident and
non-resident fees.
Co-Chair MacKinnon solicited further concerns from the
committee. She added that her staff would work with the
sponsor to craft a workable bill for all sides involved in
the use of the resource.
10:14:55 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether there could be a
consideration made for someone for an elder by proxy.
10:16:08 AM
BRUCE DALE, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), explained that current
statute provided for proxy hunting for anyone 65 years of
age or older.
10:16:38 AM
TOM BROOKOVER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPORT FISH, DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), was available for
questions.
10:16:54 AM
BERNARD CHASTAIN, MAJOR, ALASKA WILDLIFE TROOPERS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), was available to answer
enforcement related questions.
10:17:13 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there was not a
representative from the Department of Law present.
Mr. Brooks offered to expound upon several issues raised by
the committee. He spoke to the prior committee's addition
of the Chitina dip net permit language. He said that there
would be a charge for the documents, which were currently
free, and that they would be accounted for autonomously in
the Fish and Game fund. He suggested a future conversation
related to how much money was generated by the fees, how
the expenditures occurred; all of the funding that went
into the Fish and Game fund was subject to appropriation by
the legislature, and he believed that there was a process
in place to track for Chitina dip net permits, Sockeye
salmon stamps, or anything that the legislature moved
forward. He said that the fund was dedicated and that the
dip netting fee would be separately accounted for in a sub-
account of the fund.
10:18:27 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon corrected that the fund was
"designated", and not "dedicated".
Mr. Brooks rebutted that the Fish and Game fund had been
established at the beginning of statehood, was required for
the federal match, and was appropriately termed
"dedicated".
10:19:01 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether the department had
accounted for families consolidating payments for dip
netting fees.
Mr. Brooks replied that the criteria for "a household"
would apply to families. He estimated that there was
approximately 12,000 people that fell under the criteria.
He said that the numbers had not been refined in
anticipation of how people might attempt to consolidate
their fees.
CSHB 137(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 222(FIN)
"An Act relating to increases of appropriation items."
10:20:37 AM
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, explained
that the legislation aimed to protect the legislatures
constitutional power of appropriation by allowing the
legislature to now only decide what additional money was
accepted during the interim, but more importantly, to
specify what would not be accepted. She relayed that all
appropriations had to be authorized by lay, meaning that
they must be included in a budget that was voted on by the
full body during legislative session. She said that for
some appropriation items, the full amount was unknown
during the budgetary process, which meant that additional
funds could become available during the legislative
interim. She related that in order for the Executive Branch
to accept the additional funds, the legislature had
codified the Revised Program Legislative (RPL) process, a
two-step process that appropriated money contingent upon
the governor following AS 37.37080. She elaborated on the
RPL process. She explained that the spirit of the RPL
process was to allow the Executive Branch to efficiently
accept funds in a timely fashion when the legislature was
not there to approve them, and if the process did not
exist, all funds would be delayed until the next
legislative session. She noted the RPL would not be
considered new funds, but new programs could be added using
an RPL if allowed by appropriation language approved in the
budget. She related that the bill would allow language to
be written into the budget that would expressly prohibit
the use of the RPL process for a specific appropriation
item. She furthered that items would need to come before
the full legislature, either during a special session or
the next budget cycle. She relayed that the bill would
increase the waiting period from 45 to 90 days. She
highlighted that the legislation would not change the
legislative budget process. She asserted that the bill did
not present a Constitutional problem because it would stop
an appropriation before it occurred, rather than
controlling the expenditure after the legislature had
appropriated the money to the executive branch.
10:25:40 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill assumed that
mandates would be attached to any accepted funds.
Ms. Lucky understood that the legislation would not alter
how RPLs were vetted.
10:27:05 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon invited David Teal, Director,
Legislative Finance Division, to the table for further
clarification. She offered her understanding of the RPL
process.
10:27:21 AM
DAVID TEAL, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
clarified that the RPL process differed between the Capital
and Operating Budgets. He said that because the legislature
could not delegate its power of appropriation to a
committee, any new capital project would be viewed as an
independent appropriation; only existing capital projects
that were already on the books could go before the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for the RPL process.
He explained that the appropriation for the Operating
Budget were more broad, and were granted to an agency in
order to meet its mission; as long as an RPL fell between
the mission or responsibility of the agency, it could be
for a brand new purpose.
10:28:40 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the bill would curb the
encouragement, written into certain legislation, for
departments to seek federal funds.
Mr. Teal replied that he was not sure. He said that the
primary language was, "unless expressly prohibited by the
language of the appropriation", which he interpreted to
mean that a department could prohibit certain programs or
allocations from participating in the RPL process. He said
that there could even be language in the annual
appropriation bill that said that specific departments
could not use the RPL process.
10:30:33 AM
Senator Dunleavy spoke to the Department of Education and
Early Development. He relayed that the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) had been developed in 1965
because the federal government wanted to bypass
legislatures, whom they believed were not implementing the
Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Teal responded that Alaska was one of several states
that appropriated federal money. He siad that there were
states where federal money went directly to education, and
was not appropriated by the legislature, the legislature
appropriated only General Funds. He contended that it did
not work that way in Alaska; and agency could not accept
federal dollars, and spend it, without legislative
authority. He stressed that even if the federal government
was trying to give the Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development money to do something, the legislature
retained control over whether the department could accept
the funds.
10:33:11 AM
Senator Dunleavy warned that it was "important to read the
fine print" when the federal government offered Alaska
money.
Mr. Teal agreed that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee would be responsible for paying attention to
potential mandates attached to federal dollars.
10:33:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the bill addressed the RPL
process of the whole legislature. She noted that there were
other sections in statute that addressed how other funds
were accepted.
Ms. Lucky commented that the bill would allow the
legislature to put a statement in the budget that
restricted the use of the RPL process for particular
programs. She noted that the legislature already possessed
the power to restrict the RPL process by fund type; HB 222
would hone that restriction by specific appropriation
level.
10:35:50 AM
Senator Olson asked whether there were other states that
had implemented similar restrictions.
Ms. Lucky replied that information was still being gathered
on what other states had implemented.
10:37:13 AM
Senator Bishop hoped that the bill would not limit the
governor's ability to accept federal funds in the event of
an emergency.
10:38:01 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the bill would not change
how often LB&A could convene. She believed that in the
event of an emergency the committee could convene quickly
and respond to an emergency.
10:38:11 AM
Ms. Lucky remarked that the issue had been researched. She
deferred further response to Mr. Teal.
10:39:15 AM
Mr. Teal said that once the governor declared a disaster,
LB&A would not be involved at all.
10:39:33 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered whether the sponsor had discussed
the legislation with members of the Executive Branch,
specifically, the issue of the 90 day provisions.
Ms. Lucky replied that the sponsor had not had a discussion
with the Executive Branch.
Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that amendments were due at
noon the following day.
CSHB 222(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:41:50 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:41 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 137 Public TEstimony Vincent-Lang.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Public Testimony Hansen.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 SCS CSHB 137(RES) Responses to Questions for Senate Resources 3-28-16.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB222 Background Information.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 222 |
| HB 137 Hunting-Sport Fishing License Increase Compromise Proposal - Sommerville.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 Wildllife Resoration - PR Funds for Alaska FY02 - FY15.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |
| HB 137 SCS CSHB 137(RES) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/13/2016 9:00:00 AM |
HB 137 |