Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2015 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 | |
| HB176 | |
| HB137 | |
| HB155 | |
| SB33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 33 | 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."
9:19:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVE TALERICO, SPONSOR, appreciated the
opportunity to appear before the committee. He indicated
there was an updated spreadsheet that reflected numbers
from the current committee substitute of the bill. He
suggested having Mr. Brooks review the accompanying fiscal
note, which included critical information.
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, relayed that the department had not finalized the
fiscal note. However, he had crunched some numbers since
the committee previously met in order to give the committee
an idea of the type of revenue that would be generated with
the current work draft of the bill. In the first year the
estimated increased revenue for fishing licenses was $3.8
million and for hunting licenses was $3.3 million, based on
the department's analysis. The total increase in revenue
would equal $7.1 million under the current work draft of HB
137. The effective date of the increase would be delayed
until the bonds for the hatchery were fully redeemed at
which time the surcharge would retire. The department
estimated the retirement of the surcharge to be in 2021 or
2022, not prior. The current revenue for the surcharge was
$6.3 million. Once the surcharge terminated a $9 increase
on all licenses would be implemented that would generate
$3.8 million. There would actually be a decrease of $2.5
million in surcharge dollars attributable to a sliding
scale used on the surcharge for non-resident licenses.
Currently, the surcharge for non-residents ranged from $10
to $45 but would be replaced with a $9 surcharge. However,
the department anticipated revenue in the amount of $3.8
million once the surcharge retired in the year 2022.
Representative Gara commented on the bravery of the sponsor
of the bill to attempt to raise fees. He proposed
increasing certain non-resident fees listed on page 6. He
supposed that he could put forth separate conceptual
amendments for each or he could propose one amendment with
multiple changes. He suggested changes related to trophy
game or to subsistence animals that Alaskans relied on. He
pointed to page 4, beginning on Line 14 citing increases in
black bear fees to $600, brown bear and grizzly fees to
$1200, bison fees to $1200, Caribou fees to $1000, moose to
$1000, sheep to $1000, and muskox to $2500.
Co-Chair Thompson voiced that amendments would be addressed
following public testimony.
Representative Gara had his conceptual amendment on the
table for members to make comments.
Representative Wilson made mention that in testimony heard
the previous week that very few tags were issued for some
categories versus several for more popular tags. She
believed it would be helpful to have additional numbers
from the department in order to determine any revenue that
might be left on the table.
9:23:43 AM
Representative Munoz asked if the payoff amount of the
bonds was approximately $3.8 million. She asked if the
money went away or was directed for another purpose.
Mr. Brooks responded that the surcharge payment of the
bonds currently generated approximately $6.3 million
annually. The amount would sunset and be replaced by a $9
increase per license that would generate about $3.8
million. There was a $2.5 million delta between the two
amounts. The revenue generated from a $9 increase across
the board was a lower amount than revenue generated from
the assessed surcharge (between $10 and $45) for non-
residents. The surcharge was based on a sliding scale
depending on the length of a license.
Representative Munoz wanted to know if part of the revenue
generated for the paying off of the bonds would go towards
conservation programs.
Mr. Brooks responded affirmatively.
Representative Munoz asked when the bonds would be paid
off.
Mr. Brooks estimated in 2021 or 2022. Each year the
department generated a little more. Therefore, there was
early redemption dependent on the rate in which the state
redeemed the bonds early. He could not provide a definitive
answer but it appeared that 2021 or 2022 was a safe
estimate.
Representative Munoz wanted Mr. Brooks to speak to the two
hatcheries projects. She wanted to know whether they
remained in operation and whether the state had met its
project goals.
Mr. Brooks reported that there were two hatcheries, one in
Anchorage and one in Fairbanks. The Anchorage hatchery was
funded through general funds and the Fairbanks hatchery was
the project in which the state was paying down bonds. He
added that both hatcheries were fully operational with
production levels pre-dating when they were built. They
were very successful at producing fish of which Alaskans
were catching.
Representative Gara asked whether the state was using
general funds to pay for things that the fees would
otherwise pay for because of a shortfall in fee revenues.
Mr. Brooks answered that each were about $48 million within
the Division of Sport Fish and the Division of Wildlife
Conservation. Primarily, the state received federal aid
from Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds and
through matching fish and game funds. The divisions
currently had about $6 million in unrestricted general
funds, monies viewed by the department as vulnerable for
the following few years. The fee increase would help to
offset potential general fund (GF) reductions. He reported
that, at present, there were GF reductions in deliberation
for the FY 16 budget. Also, he mentioned being under
matched within the Wildlife Division. The increase would
help to match federal dollars.
Representative Gara asked if the federal funds had to be
spent towards capital projects or if they could be spent
towards wildlife conservation projects outside of capital
projects.
Mr. Brooks responded that Representative Gara was correct.
9:27:33 AM
Co-Chair Thompson OPENDED public testimony.
9:27:52 AM
DON QUARBERG, SELF, DELTA (via teleconference), suggested
that the fees be further increased to recoup monies lost to
inflation since the last increase nearly 20 years
previously. He also proposed a resident tag fee. He
requested that the committee seriously consider removing
the $5 license fee based on a family household income for
two reasons. First, he believed that the fee was subject to
fraud. Secondly, the $5 fee was too costly to administer.
The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) lost $64 for every
sale of a reduce fee license. Instead, he surmised that the
lost $64 could be used for matching funds for available
Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson tax monies on a 3-to-
1 basis. He calculated a potential loss of $192 to the
state in matching tax monies for each license.
Consequently, he projected that the total loss to the state
for each one of the licenses equaled $256 not including the
King Salmon stamp, which cost $15. He reviewed the total
losses associated with the King Salmon stamp. He reported
that he had contacted the predominant license vendor in
Delta Junction. Their estimate of the percentage of $5
license sales was 30 percent or more at a current income
limit of $82 hundred. He suggested that the percentage
would greatly increase if the income limit was raised to
$29 thousand or more. He continued to provide some
statistics. He believed that the $5 license should be
administered within the Department of Health and Social
Services for the purpose of properly vetting applicants.
All of the fees would be transferred to DFG for use in
managing Alaska's wildlife resources. He concluded his
testimony.
9:32:19 AM
STACY KLEINSMITH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
relayed that she was an avid sportswoman. She shared her
experience as a mentor to children. She advocated a $15
increase for residence licenses. She also reasoned that
there should be no Pittman-Robertson dollars left on the
table. She opined that an additional $10 was not a large
amount. She reiterated her support of a $15 resident
license fee increase.
9:34:51 AM
GEORGE, PIERCE, SELF, KASILOF (via teleconference), opposed
HB 137. He suggested increased fees for guides and out-of-
state hunters and fishers. He believed that the sockeye
salmon stamp should be applicable only to non-residents. He
opposed charging personal use fishermen. He suggested that
the Kenai River Sport Fishing Association, a guide business
for non-residents, proposed the tax. He stressed raising
fees for non-residents rather than for Alaskans. He relayed
that the personal use fishery was supposed to be a
subsistence fishery and believed it should be a top
priority. He urged raising fees for non-residents and
guides rather than subsistence users. He vehemently opposed
the sockeye salmon stamp for residents and opposed any
increases for seniors. He asserted that residents owned the
resources and were entitled to them. He purported that
guides were making more money than anyone else on Alaska's
resources by catering to non-residents.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that a salmon stamp was not
associated with the bill.
9:38:08 AM
RICHARD BISHOP, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in favor of HB 137. He strongly supported the
recommendations for higher fees than those in the most
recent work draft of the bill put forward by several
outdoor groups. He agreed on the importance of meeting the
need to capture federal matching funds and to offset an
anticipated loss of GF in order to continue the DFG
programs that ensured sound management. He ascribed to the
fee increases recommended by the various outdoor groups and
believed they were the best alternatives. He encouraged the
committee to amend the bill to include the increased fees
and to pass the bill.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Talerico commented that it was unusual for
people to ask for increased fees. One of the things he
wanted to keep in mind was that moving forward, the fee
levels were at a reasonable rate for the people he
represented in District 6, from a resident perspective. He
expressed his appreciation for the input provided by all
the groups that had made suggestions. However, he was
comfortable with the changes that had been made to the bill
up to the current point. He reminded everyone that his main
inspiration for the legislation was not to generate
substantial general funds, but to be able to continue
having the opportunities that sportsmen enjoy. He wanted to
ensure that people could continue to hunt, fish, and enjoy
the great outdoors. He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to present his bill.
9:42:40 AM
Co-Chair Thompson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 5, line 11:
Delete "gross income of less than $29,820"
Insert "or household income equal to or less that
the most recent poverty guidelines for the state
set by the United States Department of Health and
Human Services"
Vice-Chair Saddler OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Thompson explained that Amendment 1 corrected a
drafting error discovered at the previous meeting regarding
low-income licenses. It was a conforming amendment.
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to clarify that it was 100
percent of the poverty level.
Co-Chair Thompson responded, "Correct."
Vice-Chair Saddler WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Pruitt did not have a copy of the amendment.
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the amendment was a
conforming amendment because there were two places where
the language should have matched.
Representative Wilson referred to page 5 and explained the
changes.
Representative Pruitt appreciated the information and
recalled discussing it with Co-Chair Thompson.
9:44:24 AM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Thompson OBJECTED.
Representative Gara explained the amendment [proposed
deletions shown in brackets below]:
page 6, line 14
(A) Bear, black, each 600[400]
page 6, line 15
(B) Bear, brown or grizzly, each 1200 [875]
page 6, line 16
(C)Bison, each 1200 [800]
page 6, line 17
(D) Caribou, each 1000[575]
page 6, line 21
(H) Moose, each 1000[700]
page 6, line 22
(I) Sheep, each 1000[750]
page 6, line 29
(L) Musk oxen, each 2500[1925]
page 7, line 17
(20) Nonresident alien hunting license 600 [450]
Representative Gara relayed that the changes in the
amendment were associated with non-resident fees, as he
agreed with the sponsor of the bill that the fees
highlighted should not be borne by residents.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if Representative Gara had done
any kind of analysis on the effect on demand for the
licenses by the increases listed.
Representative Gara responded that he had done a logical
analysis; the money that non-residents paid to come to
Alaska and to hire guides was in the thousands of dollars.
He asserted that an increase of a few hundred dollars for
trophy animals would likely not change demand. There was
also some interest in protecting the few subsistence
animals listed in the amendment. He believed the increases
were relatively small.
9:47:48 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler clarified that there was no specific
analysis except that more money was more money.
Representative Gara responded in the negative. He stated
what he stated.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if it was correct to say that
there had been no specific analysis done.
Representative Gara responded, "Just logic."
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if Representative Gara's answer
was a yes or a no.
Co-Chair Thompson interjected that it sounded like, "No."
Vice-Chair Saddler agreed that it sounded like, "No."
Representative Gara responded that he thought it was
logical.
Representative Talerico suggested that he was comfortable
with the figures with the exception of those suggested for
the caribou and moose. He thought the suggested numbers
were too high. He was happy with the other figures. He
suggested bringing the caribou and moose figures back down
and increasing the goat tag fee.
Co-Chair Thompson received a note that the committee could
not amend more than two items or lines. He wanted
clarification.
9:49:06 AM
AT EASE
9:49:47 AM
RECONVEYNED
Representative Talerico responded again that he would keep
the caribou and moose tags lower but would increase the
goat tag.
Co-Chair Neuman acknowledged that Department of Natural
Resources had spent a significant time on the bill and that
many groups and sportsmen from around the state had
contributed their input to the legislation. He also
commented that there had been a large amount of testimonies
through email and public testimony. He asked if he was
correct.
Representative Talerico agreed.
Co-Chair Neuman indicated he would support the pay
structure outlined in the current version of HB 137 based
on the extensive responses from a number of Alaskans made
in House Resources.
Representative Edgmon surmised that as the bill traveled
through the legislative process there would be continued
pressure to double all of the fees. He strongly opposed
doubling the resident fees. Perhaps there was a measure of
compromise to the increases. He agreed with previous
testimony about the need to get more funding from Pittman-
Johnson and Dingell-Johnson and to avoid underutilizing
federally matched funding. He suggested that he would
support taking the existing amendment and aligning it with
what the sponsor had indicated.
9:52:14 AM
Representative Pruitt MOVED to AMEND conceptual Amendment
2.
Representative Pruitt explained the amendment to conceptual
Amendment 2 [proposed deletions shown in brackets below]:
page 6, line 16
(C)Bison, each 900[1200]
page 6, line 17
(D) Caribou, each 650[1000]
page 6, line 21
(H) Moose, each 800[1000]
page 6, line 22
(I) Sheep, each 850[1000]
page 6, line 29
(L) Musk oxen, each 2200[2500]
He stated that the recommended numbers he was proposing
were the same numbers recommended by the sportsman's group.
He left the non-resident numbers for black bears, brown
bears, and non-resident alien licenses at the levels
Representative Gara recommended in conceptual Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Neuman OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Neuman discussed the fact that the state was
increasing fees for many things such as refined fuels. He
also mentioned the possibility of new income taxes and
sales taxes, and dipping into the Permanent Fund. He
expressed his concern with imposing additional increases
for Alaskans.
Co-Chair Thompson reminded Co-Chair Neuman that the
committee was currently discussing the amendment to
Amendment 2, which would actually decrease the fees.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that he would rather stay with
the numbers in the original bill.
9:55:19 AM
Representative Gattis understood that it was a huge
statement when groups joined together to take a position.
She relayed that she would support the amendment to the
amendment based on the groups she mentioned getting
together.
Representative Wilson was also going to support the
amendment to the amendment.
Representative Munoz thought the proposed changes were
higher than the numbers recommended by the subcommittees.
She wondered whether the outdoor groups were satisfied with
the numbers that had been adopted.
Representative Pruitt relayed that the numbers provided by
the outdoor caucus were slightly higher for bison and
caribou. The overall numbers they suggested were lower than
what Representative Gara was recommending. He believed the
group was involved in previous discussions.
9:57:36 AM
Representative Gara supported the amendment to the
amendment.
Co-Chair Neuman WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, the amendment to conceptual Amendment 2 was
adopted.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if there was further discussion on
conceptual Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Neuman maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson,
Edgmon, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gattis, Munoz, Neuman
The MOTION PASSED (7/3).
9:59:15 AM
Representative Gara asked to hear from the bill sponsor
regarding raising fees for goat tags.
Representative Talerico pointed out that if a discussion
ensued about trophy animals the goat should be included. He
did not have an issue raising the tag fee to some degree
with the exception of doubling or tripling the amount.
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHS 137 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSHS 137 (FIN) was REPORTED out
of committee with five "do pass" recommendations and five
"no recommendation" recommendations and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Fish and Game.
10:00:27 AM
AT EASE
10:03:51 AM
RECONVEYED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 33 2015 Tire Fee Comparison With Other States.pdf |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 33 |
| SB33 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 33 |
| SB 33 CS WORKDRAFT HFIN.PDF |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 33 |
| HB 105 CS WORKDRAFT FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/13/2015 9:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |