Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/22/2021 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 | |
| HB92 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act establishing the sport fishing hatchery
facilities account; establishing the sport fishing
facility surcharge; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-Chair Merrick called the meeting back to order. The
committee would take up HB 80. There were 3 amendments for
the bill.
2:33:49 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz WITHDREW Amendment 1 (copy on file).
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW Amendment 2 (copy on
file).
2:34:28 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file):
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "shall allocate"
Insert "may use"
Delete the first occurrence of "to"
Insert "only for"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "to fisheries management,"
Insert "for sport fisheries management, sport"
Page 1, lines 12 - 14:
Delete all material and insert:
"(2) of the remainder of each surcharge
collected, (A) 30 percent to be deposited
into a subaccount within the sport fishing
enhancement account to be known as the
Southeast sport fishing enhancement
subaccount; money in the subaccount may be
used only in the Southeast region of the
state for sport fishing stock enhancement
projects and the maintenance and operation
of hatchery facilities; and (B) 70 percent
for use in other regions of the state for
sport fishing stock enhancement projects and
the maintenance and operation of state
hatchery facilities."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz reviewed the amendment. He indicated that
the amendment was a good faith effort to try to address
the concerns raised by committee members and the
commissioner. The amendment changed language in Section 1,
line 8 of the bill from shall allocate with may use.
The change was requested by the department and provided DFG
more flexibility with account funds. He added that the next
part of the amendment specified that funds generated by
sport fish license sales would benefit sport fishery
management and research. He elaborated that the final part
of the amendment created a subaccount within the sport fish
enhancement account that set aside 30 percent of the
surcharge after the $2.50 was taken for invasive species
management research and habitat restoration and would be
deposited for use in the Southeast Region. The remaining
amount would be available for other regions of the state.
The provisions alleviated the concern DFG had regarding
being prohibited from using the funding elsewhere. The
legislature maintained the authority to change the
distribution of the surcharge in the future.
2:36:13 PM
Representative Wool asked if the charge was the additional
$4.00 surcharge. He wondered if the allocation would
inhibit DFGs traditional spending pattern of moving money
to different regions as needed.
2:37:21 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz replied that the intent of the amendment
changing the language was to afford more flexibility for
the department. He deferred to the commissioner for further
answer.
Representative Wool asked if that was the reason for the
choice of the word "may." Commissioner Vincent-Lang
responded in the affirmative. He pointed to the following
amendment language and the maintenance and operation of
hatchery facilities; and state hatchery facilities" and
informed the committee that DFG could only spend money for
hatcheries that supported sport fisheries.
2:38:52 PM
Representative LeBon referred to the bottom of the
amendment where it referenced 30 percent deposited into the
subaccount and concluded that it was targeted for the
Southeast region and 70 percent was for other regions. He
wondered if Fairbanks and Anchorage were the other regions.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded in the affirmative.
Representative LeBon inquired whether it was up to the
commissioner to decide how the 70 percent was divided among
hatcheries and it left 30 percent dedicated to Southeast,
which was not subject to change. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
interpreted the amendment to mean that 30 percent from the
subaccount would be spent on Southeast Alaska. He
communicated that currently, DFG spent roughly $860
thousand in Southeast Alaska between the existing surcharge
and Pittman-Robertson (PR) and Dingell-Johnson (DJ) funds.
The department would pay with the surcharge and would be
able to build up enough over time to have funding to pay
for the maintenance of the hatcheries that were producing
the fish. Representative LeBon asked if the amendment
should be 35 percent to the Anchorage Hatchery and 35
percent to the Fairbanks. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
responded that he would like the language to remain as it
was written reflecting 70 percent for Anchorage and
Fairbanks. He noted that there were different maintenance
and operational costs. He indicated that the 30 percent
number was derived from the percentage of licenses
purchased by Southeast residents from the total number of
sport fishing licenses sold. He reported that the license
holders in Southeast were not getting a direct benefit from
the two hatcheries as those in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Representative LeBon thought the amendment was to protect
the interests of Southeast. He clarified that the
commissioner would allocate the remaining amount comingled
from one pot between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke to the intent of the amendment. He
recounted that the original fees that were charged for the
licenses were set to repay bonds for construction of the
two facilities in Anchorage and one in Fairbanks. He
elucidated that the historical spending of the fees went
mostly to the Fairbanks region. Since the bonds were
repaid, the reasoning was to direct close to one third of
the revenue to the region where one third of the license
sales originated.
2:43:40 PM
Representative LeBon asked about the commissioner's
confidence level regrading the split. He wondered whether
the 30 percent was locked into the Southeast Region.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang replied that he interpreted the
provision to allow the funding in the subaccount to be used
in other areas if it was not needed in Southeast. He
emphasized the use of the word may. Commissioner Vincent-
Lang ascertained that currently DFG was spending about $800
thousand a year and 30 percent was $1.4 million per year.
The remaining $400 thousand in the subaccount each year
could grow and be directed towards the $2.5 million
deferred maintenance need at Crystal Lake. The subaccount
would be used to pay for maintenance of the infrastructure
used to produce the fish. He believed that the percentage
was the right amount and would address longer term deferred
maintenance needs.
2:45:52 PM
Representative LeBon voiced his concerns over the breakdown
in the amendment. He noted the Fairbanks hatchery was in
his district and the sport fishing interest of the Interior
was supported by the hatchery. He wondered how he could
protect the sport fishing interest of Interior Alaska also
without dedicating a certain amount to the Fairbanks
hatchery. Commissioner Vincent-Lang responded that
Representative LeBon needed to rely on the commissioners
assurances that DFG would maintain the hatchery and the
infrastructure. He added that the Fairbanks hatchery was
the most complicated in maintaining water quality and he
was aware of the short and long term maintenance needs of
the facility. Representative LeBon felt that there was a
little bit of "Apples-to-Oranges." He reiterated that there
was no dedication of funds to the two remaining regions.
2:47:54 PM
Representative Johnson was attempting to envision how the
split would work. She wondered whether the split would
result in excess money in one fund that would be unable to
be used for another region. Commissioner Vincent-Lang
answered that the difference had to do with how fish was
produced in Southeast Alaska versus the rest of the state.
He explained that in the rest of the state two hatcheries
were built and run by the department. In Southeast Alaska,
the state did not build hatcheries. The hatcheries were run
by private non-profit partners and received state funding
to operate. He opined that the approach seemed to fit the
Southeast region better. As a result of establishing a
surcharge to build the two hatcheries in Anchorage and
Fairbanks it left an understandable desire by Southeast
legislators that their regions sport fishers were paying
for something they were not getting a direct benefit.
Therefore, the department apportioned part of the surcharge
to use in Southeast Alaska. He pointed out that the methods
used to benefit sport fishers were different and in
Southeast Alaska it was accomplished via contract. The
surcharge split was one way to ensure that each year all
the surcharge funding was not allocated to Anchorage and
Fairbanks leaving insufficient funding to maintain the
contractual obligation to produce fish in Southeast.
2:50:33 PM
Representative Carpenter asked how many hatcheries would be
supported with the 30 percent portion. Commissioner
Vincent-Lang responded that the funding was distributed on
a case by case basis as to how the fish was produced at the
private non-profit hatcheries. The department let the
hatcheries decided where the facilities should be to
produce the fish. The state paid the hatcheries to keep the
production ongoing. Representative Carpenter understood the
concept of fairly distributing the money. He thought there
was other risks that should be considered. He wanted to
know about the legality of splitting the money and the
constitutionality of subaccounts in terms of dedicated
funds.
2:52:14 PM
AT EASE
2:55:39 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Mr. Bullard was online.
Representative Carpenter had concerns and questions
regarding the 30/70 allocation split, the creation of a
subaccount and the legality of designated funds.
Mr. Bullard responded that the amendment would create a
dedicated subaccount within a dedicated account within a
dedicated fund called the Fish and Game Fund. He explained
that the fund was a constitutionally dedicated fund because
it was required for participation in federal programs. The
federal government did not require the state to further
dedicate the revenue within the Fish and Game fund for
particular purposes. He stated that both the account and
the subaccount were unconstitutional, but the fund was
constitutional. Representative Carpenter asked for clarity.
Mr. Bullard reiterated that the original account and the
subaccount within the fund were unconstitutional.
Representative Josephson asked whether Mr. Bullard was
stating that he drafted an unconstitutional amendment for
Representative Ortiz. Mr. Bullard restated that it was his
legal opinion that if the federal government did not
require that the Fish and Game Fund have dedicated funds
for purposes other than what the fund was designed for then
the accounts were unconstitutional. Representative
Josephson was aware that the fund was a dedicated fund
because it predated statehood. Mr. Bullard responded that
it was permissible because its existence was required by
the federal government. Representative Josephson stated
that the subaccount did not mean the money could not be
distributed for different use by a future legislature. He
believed that the state was compliant with the dedicated
provision if the resources were used for fisheries. He
asked whether he was correct.
Commissioner Vincent-Lang interjected that when the DJ and
PR funds were made available there was a requirement that
license fees had to be used to match the funds. The Fish
and Game Fund was a dedicated fund voted on by the people
of Alaska and was an amendment to the constitution. The
money in the fund was dedicated to DFG and could not be
used for other purposes.
3:01:37 PM
Representative Josephson recommended that the bill be held
to revisit Mr. Bullards opinion. He needed more clarity
regarding his statements.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained that rather than hold up the
bill any longer he would withdraw the amendment and address
the issue in the other body.
Vice-Chair Ortiz WITHDREW Amendment 3.
3:02:34 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSHB 80 (FSH) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 80 (FSH) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note by
the Department of Fish and Game.
3:04:32 PM
AT EASE
3:07:22 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 80 Amendment 3 Ortiz 042221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB 79 SEAGO Comment Wool Amendment 2 042221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 042221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |
| HB 79 DFG Backup to Amendments 2 3 022221.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 79 |