Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/07/2015 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 | |
| HB137 | |
| HB118 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 118 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 137
"An Act raising certain fees related to sport fishing,
hunting, and trapping; raising the age of eligibility
for a sport fishing, hunting, or trapping license
exemption for state residents to 65 years of age;
requiring state residents to purchase big game tags to
take certain species; and providing for an effective
date."
1:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, SPONSOR, read from the
sponsor statement:
House Bill 137 is a response to calls from individual
hunters, fishers, outdoorsman groups, and the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to raise license and
tag fees for DFG.
There is currently a deficiency between the costs
associated with management and research needs and the
revenue brought in by license and tag fees. The
primary change that HB 137 makes is raising resident,
nonresident, and military hunting, fishing, trapping,
and combination licenses to help deal with this
deficiency. However, the most significant change in
fees occurs to nonresident big game tag fees.
HB 137 also limits eligibility for a low-income
license only to Alaskans that have an annual income
less than the limit in statute. The annual family
gross income limit to be eligible for this license is
being raised from $8,200 to $29,820 to match the
current poverty level for a family of four in Alaska.
The bill also creates a voluntary fish and game
conservation decal that a person who does not hunt or
fish can purchase in order to contribute to the
conservation efforts in Alaska.
The final change to this bill is to raise the age of
eligibility for the hunting, fishing, and trapping
license exemption from 60 years to 62 years. Also,
residents under the age of 18 are exempt from having
sport fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses, and
nonresidents under the age of 16 are exempt from
having a sport fishing license.
It has been over 17 years since many nonresident fees
have been raised and over 24 years since most resident
fish and game fees have been raised. Though the fee
increases in HB 137 will not match the increase in
costs associated with fish and game management, this
bill helps ensure that Alaskans can continue to enjoy
use of Alaska's abundant fish and game resources.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered if the bill left the free
hunting and fishing licenses intact for members of the
National Guard, Territorial Guard, and for disabled
veterans. Representative Talerico responded yes.
Representative Wilson asked Representative Telarico to
define low income as it related to hunting and fishing
licenses. Representative Talerico relayed that the poverty
income level of a family of four was set at or below
$29,820. He expounded that the resident fees had increased
$5 for a fishing license and $5 for a hunting license. He
indicated that the trapping license had increased but the
combination license provided a price break. He used the
combination license he carried in his wallet as an example.
If the bill passed the same license would cost an
additional $6.
Representative Wilson felt commented that $29 thousand
annual income was not very low depending on where a person
lived. She asked if that was the current number in statute.
Representative Talerico responded that currently $8,200 was
the low annual income level.
1:38:57 PM
Representative Wilson wondered why the huge increase.
Representative Talerico replied that he thought the $8,200
number had been established several years previously. He
had information from the federal government as to the
current level of poverty. He reiterated that the poverty
level income for a family of four was $29,820. He suggested
that the number could be changed easily.
Representative Wilson asked about documentation showing how
many people took advantage of the discount at the previous
low income level. She also wondered how many additional
people would take advantage of discounts for other programs
with the new number. Representative Talerico thought some
of the numbers were available and he would provide them. He
suggested Mr. Mulligan from Department of Fish and Game or
Mr. Banks from his office provide the information.
JOSHUA BANKS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, referred
to page 2 in tab 7 of the tabbed binders provided to the
committee. Fishing license fees and projected revenue
reflected the increases in HB 137. He reported that in the
second column the resident low income hunting, trapping,
and sport fishing combination license had a five-year
average revenue stream of just over $20 thousand.
Co-Chair Thompson acknowledged Representative Munoz at the
table.
Representative Wilson asked about the $20 thousand
licensing associated with the low-income level of
approximately $8 thousand. She wanted projections based on
the new numbers.
BEN MULLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, referred to the House Resources' fiscal note on page
2. He relayed that DNR looked at the number of households
in Alaska which fell under the $29,820 income level, using
demographic information from Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DOL). The department took the
average number of Alaskans per household, 2.92,
extrapolated out to 137,240 individuals, and determined how
many Alaskans purchased a sport fishing license; 24
percent. The number of new people that would potentially
purchase a low income sport fishing license totaled 12,748
(32,938 minus the preexisting number purchased).
Representative Wilson asked Mr. Mulligan to repeat the 12
thousand number. Mr. Mulligan responded 12,748.
1:42:47 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked if the current version "P"
generated enough revenue to support the department's
operating cost in sport fisheries and wildlife conservation
that would replace current unrestricted general fund (UGF)
appropriations. Mr. Mulligan referred again to the fiscal
note. He stated that the license increase would bring in a
combined $6.49 million. At present the general funds (GF)
in each of the Sport Fish Division and the Wildlife
Conservation Division sat a little bit above $6 million
respectively. It would not completely replace the money if
all GF were lost.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the extra money generated by
the increased fees. He wanted to know how it affected the
joint state and federal funding of wildlife conservation
efforts. Mr. Mulligan wondered whether Representative
Saddler was asking about how the extra funds would be spent
on wildlife conservation or both wildlife conservation and
sport fishing.
Vice-Chair Saddler responded, "Both."
Mr. Mulligan first addressed wildlife conservation. He
stated that intensive management activities would require
DFG funding. He mentioned the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Access Defense Program. He
also reported having Pittman-Robertson federal aid money to
match other funding. Federal funding was increasing at a
dramatic rate based on ammunition and gun sales. These
monies would also be used to the fullest extent possible to
match the funds.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the state receiving federal
money as a result of the Pittman-Robertson matching
formula. Mr. Mulligan responded that he could not provide
an exact number. He explained that certain programs had to
be paid directly from DFG. He elaborated that when it came
to certain intensive management activities it was not
advisable to use federal funds and some aspects did not
qualify for federal aid funding. It would be difficult to
provide an exact leverage amount resulting from the
increase. He would return with additional information.
Co-Chair Thompson asked whether the state was in jeopardy
of losing its federal funding if it did not raise its fees.
Mr. Mulligan responded that if the state did not provide
matching funds by September of 2016, some of the federal
funds would likely have to be returned.
1:46:19 PM
Co-Chair Thompson asked for an amount. Mr. Mulligan did not
have a figure. He redirected his questions to Mr. Brooks.
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, responded that in reference to the federal funds it
was three federal dollars for one state dollar. In rough
terms the current version of the bill would generate $2.2
million on the hunting side. It had the potential to match
$6.6 million of federal aid. The department had seen an
increase of approximately $10 million in the federal aid
funding from the FY 15 to FY 16 apportionment which was the
reason for placing a very large capital project of $11
million in the department's capital request. The department
hoped to capture some of the federal aid dollars. However,
he stated it was under-matched. Certainly the revenue in
the bill would help with the matching dollars. He also
reported that the state had two years to obligate.
Obligation for the federal government was not an order of
goods but an approved project. He continued to explain that
once the state had an approved project with identified
match funding it could obligate on the federal side. The
danger the state faced was being hit with another large
increase between FY 16 to FY 17, which he anticipated. It
would compound the state's ability to provide matching
funds. He relayed the state was stretched in providing
matching funds because it had more federal dollars through
the door than it could match.
Representative Gattis asked about the residents' feedback
concerning raising fees. She understood that the fees had
not been raised for about 17 years. She wanted to better
understand whether the state was maximizing its matching
funds by increasing the charges.
Mr. Brooks responded that the focus of the intensive
matching programs were geared towards providing opportunity
for hunters and fishers, but more specifically for hunters.
The opportunities included lengthening seasons allowing
people to hunt and fill their freezers. The department
wanted to continue its efforts but needed the approval of
the Board of Game. The department realized that the $6
million of GF currently appropriated for the sport fishing
and the wildlife budgets were vulnerable for the ensuing
years. The increase in fees would backfill some of the GF
cuts and would assist the state in continuing some of the
important and intensive management programs that provided
opportunity.
1:50:06 PM
Representative Gattis was unclear whether there were enough
monies or if the state needed more funds. She wondered if
the state could have raised its fees and done a better job
of maximizing its match or if the state was maximizing its
match with the fee schedule in HB 137. Mr. Brooks responded
that the current version of the bill would not match all of
the federal funds that were available to the state.
Representative Gattis asked how much more the state needed
to maximize its match. She commented that there was clearly
a "sweet spot" to maximize returns when legislators were
aware that the state's GF might need backfilling from
another source. She wondered if the state could raise its
fees in such a way that would better maximize the state's
returns.
Mr. Brooks reported that the department supported the bill
and considered it important. He also felt the legislature
and the sportsman groups came to a level of increase
acceptable to them. He suggested the sponsor of the bill
would certainly have a strong opinion about a number. He
felt that it was not up to the department, nor did he have
a specific recommendation the certain dollar levels.
Representative Gattis stated that what she was hearing Mr.
Brooks say was that the state could further maximize its
match. Representative Talerico stated that the intent of
the bill was not to recover all of the GF money but to
ensure the ability to fund the opportunity for all of the
hunters and sportsmen. His understanding was that if the
state did not have the ability to collect data or do
particular surveys needed, whether intense management or
any specific area, the state would be forced to error on
the side of caution. The state could be forced into
imposing shorter seasons or quotas. Currently, the state
enjoyed reasonable seasons with opportunities for people to
get out more than 10 days or more than one weekend. He was
inspired to get the state to a level where it could
continue to have what it currently enjoyed with the defined
seasons. He relayed that in the area where he lived there
was a 25-day moose season. If the state did not manage
hunting properly then it would have to move to a
conservative method which would likely lead to lost
opportunities for everyone. He was eager to hold on to the
opportunities for people who really wanted to be out in the
field.
Co-Chair Thompson relayed the names of the available
testifiers if there were questions from members.
1:54:40 PM
Representative Gara wondered why it was important to raise
the discount age for a king salmon stamp from age 60 to age
62. Representative Talerico could not imaging getting a
free license that he would qualify for in the following
year. He felt awkward bringing a bill forward that would
qualify him to receive a free license. He planned on
purchasing a license as long as he was available to get out
into the field. He was not married to the provision and was
happy to change it.
Representative Gara understood the sponsor's reasoning.
However, he thought the provision might not be favorable.
He referred to page 6, line 6 and line 8. He explained that
a non-resident could either purchase a small game hunting
license or an alien hunting license which was much more
expensive.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Representative Talerico to point to
where the topic of intensive management fees was referenced
in the bill. Representative Talerico indicated that
intensive management fees were not part of the bill.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Brooks to define intensive
management for game. Mr. Brooks replied that intensive
management was a method of wildlife management approved by
the Board of Game that designated species for additional
survey work, habitat manipulations, and lethal removal of
predators if required. There was a broad list of activities
that were included under an intensive management program.
1:58:14 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the legislature would have any say
how the intensive management funds were spent. Mr. Brooks
responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified, "Even though they are designated
funds?" Mr. Brooks replied that all of the funds would go
into the Fish and Game fund which comes from license
revenue and federal aid dollars.
Co-Chair Neuman wanted clarification. He continued that in
conversations with the Director Swanton of the Division of
Sport Fisheries current fishing license fees were $15 with
a $9 surcharge designated for repaying the bonds for two
new fish hatcheries; a sport fish hatchery and a salmon
hatchery. He anticipated the bonds being paid off by about
2020. He asked Mr. Brooks if he was accurate.
Mr. Brooks relayed that the total bonds currently had a
deadline of 2026. However, he reported that the state was
doing early redemptions in which the state paid its older
obligations. He relayed that although 2021 was slightly
ambitious it was not far from the mark.
Co-Chair Neuman reported that he oversaw the Department of
Fish and Game's budget. He explained that the $9 surcharge
for the two hatcheries were approved several years ago to
build the hatcheries. The department was able to take $500
thousand out of the $9 fees collected for the Division of
Sport Fisheries. The extra money was used to pay down the
bonds more quickly. He expressed wanting to take the $9
that people were used to paying and fold the money back
into the department instead of increasing the fishing
license fee. The department would receive the $9. He wanted
to know the current cost of the bonds.
Mr. Brooks responded that the surcharge generated
approximately $6.5 million to $7 million per year. There
was a sequence established in the appropriation bill that
paid the $500 thousand debt in the sport fishing division
first. Additional funds were used to pay down early
redemptions. The department paid down $850 thousand in
early redemptions in the last payment that was made.
2:01:43 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked, if the state lapsed the $9
surcharge, whether the department would receive an
additional $67 million as long as the number of people
purchasing fishing licenses remained the same. Mr. Brooks
responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Neuman spoke of another piece of legislation in
play that dealt with the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC). He explained that in the budget that was
being crafted instead of CFEC having a separate
appropriation, the funding was moved to the department. He
specified the reason for doing so was for additional
management. He reported an excess of about $3.5 million in
permit fees collected by CFEC typically used for enhancing
research programs. In the current year the department would
have access to these funds for the first time could be used
for other research programs. He wanted to confirm his
accuracy. Mr. Brooks responded that it was a new funding
source, not additional money. It offset GF cuts.
Co-Chair Neuman suggested that they were other designated
general funds (DGF) that the department would have access
to in order to target fisheries management programs
overseen by the department. Mr. Brooks confirmed that he
was correct.
Co-Chair Neuman pointed out that there was approximately
$3.5 million and $7 million of extra sport fishing dollars.
He took issue with increasing licensing fees. He wanted the
committee to be aware of the department's flow of funding
sources. He told of being an avid outdoorsman who had
traveled with biologists on salmon surveys and moose
surveys. In talking with the biologists he believed they
needed funds but suggested conducting further
investigation.
2:04:30 PM
Co-Chair Thompson referred to the current year's indirect
expenditure report and how it specifically related to money
foregone by the state for free resident senior licenses.
The department estimated that the state had foregone about
$6 million in revenue under current law. He remarked that
the figure was inaccurate because it assumed that all
77,866 qualifying seniors purchased a license in 2013. He
stated that the money foregone under the law enacted in
1981 was significant. He recalled the department's
estimation of a $77 savings to seniors through the time
period. He concluded it was important to continue looking
at the information based on the reasons he provided.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the Comparison of Fish
and Game Fee Increase Proposals sheet comparing the current
statute, HB 137 version H, and HB 137 version P. He wanted
to know about the group appearing in the fourth column,
"Outdoor Caucus."
Mr. Banks responded that the numbers in the column labeled
"Outdoor Caucus" were provided by a coalition of sportsman
groups including members such as the Alaska Outdoor
Council, also part of the Legislative Outdoor Heritage
Caucus.
Representative Kawasaki noted the small increase to
resident hunting, fishing, and trapping licensing fees but
also pointed to the larger increase in fees for non-
residents. He brought up information in a legislative legal
memo that talked about the differential between resident
and non-resident and that a state could not have a
differential for a non-resident because it dealt with game.
The memo also mentioned that there was one case upheld in
Montana where the differential between the non-resident and
resident fee was 25 times larger. He wanted to hear
comments from Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks recalled that Representative Talerico's office
requested a copy of the legal opinion regarding any
required thresholds. It turned out that the Carlson case in
Montana did not apply to HB 137. The Legislative Legal
department provided additional information which confirmed
that the proposed increases were not as high as those in
Montana.
2:08:09 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if the resident and non-
resident licensing fees and the differential between the
two generally conformed to those in other states.
Representative Talerico mentioned the old saying, "We do
not really care how they do it outside." He shared that his
opportunity to take a game animal in the state of Wyoming
would be the same as what Alaska would charge for a new
mouse tag. It varied in the Lower 48 states claiming that
license and tag fees varied substantially. He added that in
some states the tag fees varied based on regions.
Representative Kawasaki stated he preferred residents paid
less than non-residents to the extent possible. He also
asked if any studies had been done to understand the
potential negative impacts from high increases to non-
residential tags. For instance, he wondered if the high
cost of a tag would detour people from visiting Alaska.
Mr. Brooks stated that DFG had information comparing the
cost to hunt and fish in Alaska with the western states. It
was not uncommon for states to charge a premium for non-
residents. He relayed one example heard in a previous
committee that to hunt a mule deer or an elk in Oregon was
about $2 thousand for a non-resident. He advised that Thor
Stacey could provide extensive information about a fee
threshold for non-residents. The folks coming from out of
state to hunt in Alaska were paying a significant amount
for travel and guide services. Previous studies were done
to determine what kind of increase the public could
tolerate.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the DFG conservation
decal listed in Section 19 and about new language having to
do with the $20 voluntary fee. He wondered if the fee would
be deposited into the state GF and how the department would
use the funds.
Mr. Brooks informed the committee that in the current
version of the bill the revenue would return to the GF. It
was an official wildlife conservation stamp. He explained
that one of Representative Seaton's constituents suggested
that there were folks that were likely willing to
contribute financially to the management of resources but
generally did not do any harvesting. He relayed that the
DFG fund was dedicated for hunting and fishing license
revenue as a federal government requirement established at
the time of statehood. He did not believe the decal revenue
would qualify for the dedication. There were probably ways
that it could be deposited into the Fish and Game fund such
as a statutory designated program receipt. There were other
ways it could be identified for other types of conservation
functions within the department.
2:12:51 PM
Co-Chair Thompson was very much in support of the $20
decal. He felt that at his age he should be responsible for
paying something.
Vice-Chair Saddler thanked the sponsor and the department
for working with the outdoors organizations to introduce
the bill. He felt that it was coming together with a
willingness to pay more for conservation of some of the
finest traditions of outdoorsmen. He commended all for
coming to a great compromise. He also acknowledged that the
fees could have been higher if they were based strictly on
an inflation adjusted basis. He thanked the sponsor.
Representative Gara asked about the change in age from 60
to 62 prior to a discount on the various licenses and tags.
He wanted to know if the change could be phased in with
licenses in 2017.
Representative Talerico did not have a problem with
Representative Gara's suggestion. He appreciated the
committee process and his question.
2:15:15 PM
Representative Gattis suggested there had been many folks
that were willing to pay for their licenses whether at age
60, 62, or 65. Folks were willing to pay for the honor of
being able to hunt. She wanted to have the conversation
about raising the age to 65 rather than 62. She did not
feel it would be as a much of a challenge as some people
believe. She also suggested the possibility of tying the
benefit to receiving the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). She
wondered about determining residency for a person that
received a license that was good forever. She wondered
about residency verification. She had a few questions.
Mr. Brooks explained that currently once senior
identification cards (PID), were issued the department did
not verify residency. The PID was a lifetime benefit. He
added that residency was verified by being checked against
the PFD data base at the time of issuance. If someone did
not receive a PFD a letter would be sent asking for other
verification of residency such as a utility bill showing a
presence in the state.
Representative Wilson referred to the low income category
of making at or below $29 thousand per year. She wanted to
verify that the $5 fee covered licensing for hunting
fishing, and trapping. Individuals that fell outside of the
low income level would pay $60 for the same type of
license. She wanted to know if she was correct.
Representative Talerico responded affirmatively.
She thought the state should evaluate the numbers further
and suggested splitting the number in half. She opined that
the difference in revenue would be about $382,440 versus
$63,740 at $5. She based her numbers off of the old fiscal
note. She reemphasized having a discussion on dropping to a
$5 low income licensing fee adding that the drop was too
low in her opinion. She mentioned that she was referring to
an old version where it was talking about the Board of Game
making regulation to reduce or eliminate the resident tag
and fee for muskox for all or a portion of a game
management unit. She wanted to know if the provision was in
the current version of the bill, as she could not find it.
Mr. Banks clarified that the provision was in the original
bill in version H. He relayed that the sponsor originally
proposed creating resident big game tags but, the provision
was removed in the resources committee substitute. Members
could find the provision on page 3 of version H.
Representative Wilson re-asked if the provision was in the
new version of the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that version P was the newest
edition of the bill.
Mr. Banks responded in the negative.
2:20:13 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about a way in which to
track big game tags for individuals eligible for the $5
license. He wanted to know if low income individuals were
participating in big game hunting. Mr. Brooks explained
that there were very few resident big game tags. He
elaborated that the state had a brown and grizzly bear tag.
He would look into the matter. Most of the big game tags
applied to non-residents.
Representative Edgmon commended that he was still learning
the details of the bill but wanted to commend the sponsor
for the work done in balancing interests. He thought a
significant amount of behind-the-scenes work was done to
bring the numbers together. He indicated he was going to
keep an open mind about suggested fee changes. He believed
that most of the increases were commensurate with inflation
of 17 or 24 years. He spoke of the health of elders in his
community. He offered that he was interested in taking a
closer look at increasing the qualifying age from 60 years
to 65 years of age.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for final remarks from the bill
sponsor.
Representative Talerico thanked the committee for hearing
the bill. He stated that he would provide the committee
with his recommended amendments. He was clear that the bill
brought its own controversy. He wanted to make sure it was
vetted by many. He also reiterated that it was not put
forth to replace GF the state was losing, but the
inspiration behind the bill was to make sure that Alaskan
outdoorsmen did not lose their opportunity currently
provided by the state. The one change he was really married
to was in Section 20 of the bill which affected
particularly low income families. Rather than having to
purchase a resident license persons ages 16 and up that
were still in high school would be able to enjoy the
outdoors without having to purchase a license. He had
received feedback that the change would be important for a
family of 4 with a 17 year old at home.
HB 137 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:24:59 PM