Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
04/02/2025 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB53 || HB55 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 2, 2025
9:12 a.m.
9:12:01 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Josephson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:12 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Alexei Painter, Director, Legislative Finance Division
SUMMARY
HB 53 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET; CAP; SUPP
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the agenda. The committee would
hear amendments to the operating and mental health budgets.
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; 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. 55
"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."
9:13:07 AM
Co-Chair Josephson rolled Amendments 94 through 96 until a
later time. The committee would begin with Amendment 93.
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 93 (copy on
file):
Agency: Commerce, Community & Econ Dev
Appropriation: Community and Regional Affairs
Allocation: Community & Regional Affairs
Transaction Details
Title: Grant to Bristol Bay Science and Research
Institute for Chum Salmon Assessment & Genetics Lab
Section: Section 1
Type: IncOTI
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 500.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
Total: 500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 500.0
Representative Allard OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson explained the amendment that sought to
add $500,000 for the Bristol Bay Science and Research
Institute (BBSRI) to support the chum salmon bycatch
genetics program. The initiative used real time genetic
testing to aid the Bering Sea pollock fishery in avoiding
bycatch of critical western Alaska chum salmon stocks. He
noted that a similar program existed for chinook salmon.
The initiative also helped protect local communities while
keeping the pollock fishery economically viable and
protecting the benefits Alaskans derived from the fishery.
Starting in 2023, the legislature approved and the governor
signed almost $1 million in capital budget allocations for
BBSRI to develop real time genetic tools aimed at
mitigating western Alaska chum salmon bycatch. The genetic
testing program had been successfully developed and was
ready to use. The pollock industry and management agencies
were prepared to work with BBSRI in the 2025 season to
implement real time genetic sampling and inform management
decisions that reduce unintended catch.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that the funding would ensure
BBSRI could conduct genetic sampling in 2025. He stated
that by executing a full season testing regime, BBSRI could
integrate a proven scientific method into real time
management and allow the industry to proactively adjust its
operations. He had heard the work likened to air traffic
controllers in the fishery. He stated that the industry
generated millions of dollars annually for the Alaska
treasury through the fisheries landing tax and provided
tens of millions in economic benefits to coastal western
Alaska communities by the CDQ [community development quota]
program as well as supporting jobs and infrastructure
across the state. The work was the continuation of
something the state had already invested almost $1 million
in. He asked for members' support.
Representative Bynum remarked on the importance of having
targeted goals to eliminate bycatch in Alaska. He
underscored that communities and fishing industries
supported the goal. He referenced Co-Chair Josephson's
discussion of the resources being used and benefits coming
back in the form of landing taxes. He asked if Co-Chair
Josephson was referring to the chum salmon fishery or the
pollock fishery.
Co-Chair Josephson replied he was talking about the pollock
fishery. He was told the fish landing tax covered all
commercial fish operations.
9:18:03 AM
Co-Chair Josephson noted that BBSRI, the science wing of
the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC),
wrote that the project enjoyed widespread backing from a
diverse array of stakeholders including industry, agencies,
the CDQ sector, western Alaska stakeholders, and tribal
organizations.
Representative Stapp noted that BBSRI was a subsidiary of
BBEDC, which was the majority owner of OBI Seafoods. There
were about five other CDQ groups including Norton Sound
Economic Development Corporation, APICDA, Yukon Delta
Fisheries, and the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association. He
highlighted that all of the groups had a substantial
interest in the pollock fisheries. He wondered why the
groups would not be more interested in providing the
funding themselves, given they controlled a majority of the
pollock and crab interests in the special economic zone
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Co-Chair Josephson replied that he did not know.
Representative Stapp asked if any of the community
development quotas or their subsidiaries were actively
engaged in bycatch mitigation.
Co-Chair Josephson replied that the project was hoping for
$1 million in the federal CDS [congressional directed
spending] earmark request in calendar year 2026. He noted
there was money was coming in the last and current calendar
years from the CDQ landing tax program. There was also the
state grant and investment from BBSRI. He remarked it was a
shared [funding] exercise.
Representative Stapp asked about the results of the
original appropriation for bycatch mitigation.
9:21:05 AM
Co-Chair Josephson answered that he did not know. He noted
that the program was operational, but he did not have
further detail.
Representative Tomaszewski was unclear on how the program
got started, how it worked, and what it did. He asked how
immediate genetic testing to control bycatch worked.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that it was real time research
where scientists could look at fish samples within a matter
of days or a week at Port Moller and Dutch Harbor. He
elaborated that scientists were looking at bycatch to
determine whether it was Asian fish or western Alaska fish.
He expounded that if it was western Alaskan fish, trawlers
were advised to move their boats to non-western Alaska fish
areas. He explained it was almost like a crime lab, but
there was no crime, to try to enhance wins for everyone.
Representative Allard wondered about the results from the
last study. She asked how it helped the bycatch industry.
Co-Chair Josephson did not believe there was a bycatch
industry. He explained that the work was about avoidance of
Alaskan fish bycatch. He would address the first question
as he heard from other members.
Representative Allard remarked that her questions were not
thoroughly answered. She noted that the amendment would add
to the budget. She asked where the cut would be taken to
include the $500,000 increment.
Co-Chair Josephson replied that setting aside executive
branch requests, funding for collective bargaining
agreements, and some one-time funding for education in the
House Finance Committee room, members' personal amendments
had cut the government by almost $1 million.
Representative Allard commented that the budget had been
increased by $41 million. She asked for verification that
there was not a cut elsewhere in the budget to make room
for the addition.
Co-Chair Josephson clarified that when including a cut
proposed by Co-Chair Schrage, the committee had cut the
budget by closer to $40 million. He stated it was likely
more than that when discounting governor asks.
9:25:04 AM
Representative Hannan referenced Representative Stapp's
question about why the industry was not paying for the
work. She noted that in 2023 when the legislature had
provided funding, there was a perception the research may
be biased if an industry was doing its own research. She
remarked that there had been some concerns from the state
over pollock versus chum bycatch; therefore, the state had
put money into a grant for real time genetics to know
whether the bycatch was there. The grant to develop the
pilot project was given in 2023 and testing had begun in
2024 to see whether genetic data could be returned in time
to adjust decisions about where fishing could take place.
She relayed that it had been determined results could be
received in a timely fashion to provide to fisheries
managers. The funding in the proposed amendment would
provide for active daily science input in the 2025 season
to reduce bycatch of chum to western Alaska. She supported
the amendment.
9:27:09 AM
Representative Johnson applauded Co-Chair Josephson for
taking up the bycatch issue, but she was not familiar with
the institute or clear on whether the funding was on a
priority list from the Board of Fish or the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG). She hoped it was. She remarked there
was an education budget that needed to be funded and she
wanted to ensure there was enough space for education
funding. She did not support the spending on the amendment
without more information on the group. She would like to
see the research directed through DFG so the state would
have access to all of the data when it paid for a study.
9:28:46 AM
Co-Chair Josephson replied that the idea came from the
Alaska Bycatch Review Taskforce from chapter 7.1.2 of the
Western Alaska Salmon Committee.
Representative Jimmie stated that the item was a priority.
She relayed that often times research did not match with
actions and change, but in the current instance, it would.
She explained that the funds protected food security in her
district, which heavily relied on subsistence. She
supported the amendment.
9:29:51 AM
Representative Bynum stated that bycatch was a big topic.
He was glad to see there was an opportunity to have some
research money put towards the issue. He was struggling
with the connection between the ability for the research to
stop bycatch. He was not certain whether there was the
ability to stop the bycatch through the program or state
authority. He stressed, if the legislature had the ability,
it should do so immediately. He noted that the impact
extended beyond chum salmon to king and other species. He
stated that if the legislature could fix the problem
through an amendment, he would propose a $10 million
increment. He asked how they were stopping the bycatch with
the program. He was not indicating his opposition. He was
merely trying to understand the connection between the
funding in the amendment and what DFG and the federal
government were doing to solve the problem.
9:31:44 AM
Co-Chair Josephson referred to the wide variety of
supporters including processors, CDQs, tribes, and other
western Alaska stakeholders. He explained that it almost
sounded like a cooperative agreement where processers would
be willing to move their fleet if the genetic testing
results suggested they should do so. He read from
preliminary results on the BBSRI website:
The results from the 2024 season show that the
proportions of many chum genetic stocks that were
bycaught in the pollock fishery fluctuated
significantly throughout the sampling period, between
June 13 and October 5. The E. Gulf of Alaska/PNW
constituted the largest proportion of chum caught
throughout the season (34.5%), and ranged in
proportion from a high of 69.8% of total catch in
Statistical Week 24 to a low of 17.0% in Statistical
Week 30. Similarly, SE Asia stocks increased from 9.2%
in Statistical Week 24 to 33.1% in Statistical Week
27, remained high through Statistical Week 31...
Co-Chair Josephson believed it fundamentally showed that
the research was resulting in the needed data in order for
more salmon to return upriver and to know whether they were
Asian hatchery fish or wild fish bound for the Yukon
Kuskokwim and north of Norton Sound into the Kotzebue
region.
Representative Bynum appreciated the information. He
believed it was an important topic and he was glad the
amendment had been brought forward. He hoped the
legislature could work together to find better solutions
for fixing the bycatch problem in the state. He viewed the
amendment as potentially a step in the right direction.
9:34:28 AM
Representative Galvin viewed the situation as a crisis
based on her experience visiting the region. She detailed
that when she visited in 2022 there had been no fish camps
all summer because of the absence of fish going up the
river. She was hearing mixed messages about whether the
research funded by the amendment was the answer, but she
spoke about how the bone of a fish ear indicated precisely
where a fish came from. She viewed the program as a real
fix. She would have loved to see it in the subcommittee,
but it was not available at the time. She recognized the
importance of vetting items and appreciated Representative
Johnson's comments about the need to stay laser focused on
funds going to education; however, the funds would go to a
different kind of crisis also occurring in Alaska. She
highlighted that it was not a high ticket item comparative
to other things. She underscored that the research would
potentially lead to a change in the current year. She
supported the amendment.
9:37:09 AM
Representative Johnson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual amendment
1 to add language directing the information to be provided
to DFG annually. She was uncertain whether the increment
was multiyear. She did not know how the program would be
set up in time for the fish runs in the current year. She
explained that ensuring the information was provided to the
department meant the legislature would know where the money
was being spent. She wanted to be able to support the
amendment, but wanted to ensure the data was available.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Josephson asked to hear from the Legislative
Finance Division (LFD).
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
asked for a repeat of the question.
Representative Johnson complied. She explained that the
conceptual amendment would mean the data derived from the
funding would be made available to DFG. She noted that the
multiyear appropriation piece would be up to the co-chair.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that Amendment 93 was a numbers
amendment. He asked how to write the language
[Representative Johnson was proposing].
Mr. Painter replied that it would need to be a language
item to be multiyear appropriation. Given that the ongoing
research project had multiple fund sources, he was not sure
it necessarily needed multiple years to accomplish the
work. He noted there was a pilot program the previous year
and an outstanding capital appropriation. He relayed that
the amendment could be converted to a multiyear
appropriation as a language amendment.
Representative Johnson was amenable to not doing that, but
she did want to know more about being able to get the data
to DFG. She wondered if DFG already received reports.
Mr. Painter replied that he was not familiar with the
specifics of the program.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if a conceptual amendment was in
order. He noted he was not indicating opposition to the
conceptual amendment. He asked if it would track with
Amendment 93 in the language section specifying the
legislature's intent for data to be shared with DFG.
Mr. Painter replied that the intent language could be added
to the numbers section specifying that the data was to be
shared with DFG.
Representative Johnson clarified her desire to include the
conceptual amendment directing data to be shared with DFG.
9:41:34 AM
Co-Chair Schrage WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1
was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the same research money had been
in the budget and vetoed in past years.
Mr. Painter replied that he was uncertain about a veto.
There was a capital appropriation made for the program in
2024.
Co-Chair Foster supported the amendment. He supported
subsistence users and small commercial fishermen in
villages along western Alaska and up the Yukon and
Kuskokwim Rivers. He remarked that it had been a crisis for
users in the region. He was surprised that everyone was
supporting the amendment including the trawling industry,
the Pacific Seafood Processors Association, CDQ groups, and
tribes. He stated that each of the groups wanted the data
to go their way. For example, the subsistence users wanted
data to indicate that the industry was catching chum bound
for western Alaska. He remarked that no one knew which way
it would go, but all of the user groups were wanting it to
go in their direction. He reiterated that tribes supported
the program. He supported the amendment.
9:44:08 AM
Representative Stapp asked if all of the capital funds
previously appropriated for the program had been spent.
Mr. Painter responded that he did not know.
Representative Stapp observed that the program was
anticipating a bridge funding need of $500,000 for calendar
year 2025. He noted it did not necessarily align with the
budgetary year. He asked if the money could be spent in the
first half of FY 26 to align with the program's needs.
Mr. Painter replied that assuming there was still some
capital appropriation remaining, the program could fund the
first part of the season with the capital funds and the
remainder of the season with the operating funds. He was
unfamiliar with the program's specifics.
Representative Stapp remarked there was an expected earmark
from the federal government of $1 million in the next year.
He thought it appeared to be the program's main funding
source. He was not certain the federal earmarks would come
to fruition. He did not want to try to make it a multiyear
appropriation in the event it did not happen. He thought it
would be best to revisit the item the following year.
Representative Allard WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment
93 as amended.
Co-Chair Schrage OBJECTED for discussion.
9:46:31 AM
AT EASE
9:46:49 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Stapp remarked that he did not think he had
a conflict but noted he had done a lot of work for a
specific company for many years. He noted that the money
did not go to that company but to be on the safe side he
declared a conflict and asked to be excused from the vote.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Schrage WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 93 as
amended.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 93 was ADOPTED
as amended.
9:47:28 AM
AT EASE
9:47:56 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the schedule for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:49:03 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|