Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/06/2018 10:00 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 | |
| HB285 || HB286 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"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."
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"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 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."
10:08:44 AM
^AMENDMENTS
10:08:47 AM
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the meeting. He
reported that in the previous day the committee had taken
up 28 of 96 amendments for the operating budget. He pointed
to two new documents in member packets. They were
replacement amendments for H DFG 18 and H HSS 18. They were
also posted on the legislative website.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 9
(copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
H DFG 9 - 4005: Building Materials
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $26.0 and FY19 Governor $227.2. A
decrease of $100.0 leaves $127.2 for building
materials.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the list of people available for
questions.
Representative Ortiz began by providing some background
information. He reported that in FY 18 the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG) eliminated the state facility rents
allocation and reallocated $2,125,000 undesignated general
funds (UGF) for various divisions. The amount was
transferred from the fish and game state facilities rent
allocation to the service line in the following
allocations: Commercial Fisheries Statewide Fisheries
Management $1,025,000; Wildlife Conservation $540,000;
Sport Fisheries $560,00. He believed the representative
putting the amendments forward was concerned about
increasing certain line items. However, they were the
result of fund shifts that took place when a statewide
funding policy was eliminated for DFG statewide facilities
rent that had been distributed to different departments. He
concluded that the distribution explained the reasons for
the increases in funding. He countered that they were not
actual increases but transfers of money. His same argument
would apply to the amendments heard the prior day: H DFG 5,
H DFG 6, H DFG 7, and H DFG 8. It would also apply to the
amendments that would be heard in the present meeting:
H DFG 9, H DFG 10, H DFG 11, H DFG 12, and H DFG 13. He
hoped his information helped to clarify the reason for the
increase in funds. He encouraged the department to provide
additional details.
10:13:28 AM
CAROL PETRABORG, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, explained that the change was
made in order have expenditures reflected in the correct
division. The expenditures used to be reflected in
administrative services. The total amount moved was just
over $2.5 million. She reported that about $1 million went
to the Division of Commercial Fisheries. She reiterated
that the purpose of the change was to have the revenue
reflected in the division for which it belonged.
Representative Wilson rebutted that the amount of $1.025
million could be seen on page 10 as a separate line item
and not reflected in her amendments. However, she suggested
that the money was in a different part of the budget for
the Division of Commercial Fisheries. She agreed that the
money had been distributed as Representative Ortiz had
indicated. However, she argued that the monies were not a
part of the increases within the division's budget.
Building materials were not affected or other services that
had been discussed in the previous day. Instead, it was
reflected separately as an increase in services.
Ms. Petraborg responded that it was difficult to see what
revenues would be used for the projected expenditures
without comparing expenditures to revenues. It would also
be difficult to identify line item transfers after the
fact. It was difficult to address the issue. She continued
that what was not reflected were line item transfers at the
end of the fiscal year when unexpected things arose. She
reported that members were looking at low-level details.
Sometimes adjustments were made at a higher level of detail
not reflected in the lower level accounts. She surmised it
would be difficult to understand without having a detailed
understanding of the accounting system. She relayed that
the department was very confident that expenditures were
recorded at a high level of accuracy. She provided some
additional details of accounting practices. She reported
that the department did several transfers between the
contractual line and personal services line in both
directions.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the listing under Alaska
Yukon-Kuskokwim (AYK) Region Fisheries Management. He asked
Representative Wilson a clarifying question about the
building materials.
Representative Wilson responded that she was talking about
$1 million in rent and the $1 million for commercial
fisheries as a whole. She clarified that when the
department went to allocate rent, the money went from state
facilities to commercial fisheries, wildlife conservation,
sport fisheries, and administrative services. She stated
that for commercial fisheries, the money went into its own
line. It did not get added into a certain portion of
detail. She thought what she was hearing from the
department was that it had the option of moving funds
around. She was concerned that when hundreds of thousands
of dollars were moved around, it was difficult to determine
what missed the mark. She wondered how the state would know
whether it was spending more money in certain areas than
anticipated. She did not propose reductions to FY 17 actual
levels because there were too many unknowns and it would
not be fair to the department. In determining reductions,
she ensured that personnel would not be affected. She did
not touch any general fund matching dollars either.
However, she was concerned about the disparity of the
numbers. She did not believe rent would be affected by her
two proposed changes.
10:19:48 AM
Representative Ortiz asked about the concerns that inspired
the maker to bring the amendment forward. He wondered if it
had to do with a lapse in UGF funding. Representative
Wilson did not believe her concerns had to do with a lapse
in funding. She thought the department spent every penny
the legislature appropriated. Representative Ortiz
interjected that the department did not spend all of its
appropriated funds. It gave back $17,800.
Representative Wilson had talked to several accounts in the
prior 24 hours because of having concerns after hearing
from the Office of Management and Budget about the
legislature getting too far down into the details of the
budget. She disagreed with the notion that the legislature
had no business delving into the details. She wondered
about the necessary level of accuracy when exploring
details. She was told by the accountants that when $100,000
or more was moved, it was time to inquire with the
department as to the reason for moving funds into other
areas. Her message to the departments was that she wanted
more accuracy within certain areas. She suggested that when
and if the legislature imposed additional taxes or took
from people's dividends, she wanted to be able to explain
to constituents why it was necessary to do so. She had been
told by the chair that he did not want to see unallocated
cuts. She thought it was necessary to look at the detail in
order to find out whether money was being reflected
accurately. She was trying to follow the wishes of the
chairman and to find out where money had been spent by the
departments.
Co-Chair Seaton conveyed that it was not his intention for
her to delve into a particular line item. He did not want
unallocated cuts across agencies or across departments. He
thought Representative Wilson was saying that in 2017 the
department did not build a building. Rather, it did
maintenance. In 2019, the department allocated $227,000
rather than $26,000 because it wanted to construct a
building. Her amendment would take away building materials
that were needed to complete construction. Her reason for
the reduction was because two years prior the department
did not build a building. He argued that from year-to-year
different things were done within a department. He provided
an example. He was trying to better understand her
reasoning.
10:25:28 AM
Representative Wilson indicated she did not take all of the
money. She reported that the department did not convey its
intent to build a building, it reported the money had to do
with rent. She left $127,000 in the line item. She argued
that for each line item in the budget the department had
included the same amount of money from year-to-year. At the
end of the year the department trued-up accounts. She
wondered where the $227,000 amount was derived. She had not
heard there was a building in the works.
Vice-Chair Gara commented that there was a house fire going
on in each one of the agencies and people were wondering
what kind of coffee they were going to have in the coffee
shop. He conveyed that DFG's budget had been reduced by $27
million since 2013, a 35 percent reduction. He argued that
the department was trying to decide how it could address
its needs most efficiently. The departments wrote their
budget 1.5 years prior to the fiscal year. He continued
that any business would attempt to budget. However, an
agency might have an increase in insurance and would need
to cut back in another area. The legislature had allowed
the agencies to operate in a flexible way. He detailed that
the legislature assigned money to an appropriation and
within that appropriation the department could move things
around. Vice-Chair Gara compared a rigid plan to a Soviet
Union 5-year plan. He argued that a department should be
allowed to run like a business with some flexibility. He
commented that he had not heard about the impact of the
amendment on the department. The Yukon Kuskokwim fisheries
management allocation was down $1.3 million since 2015. He
argued that the departments should be allowed some
elasticity.
10:28:53 AM
Representative Pruitt could understand the argument that
had been made if the representative had only identified one
drastic difference in the amount being requested. He
provided an example of needing a new battery for a
forklift. He conveyed that there were several places in the
department's budget where there was substantially less
funding utilized than was being requested. However, it was
not a single instance of disparity from one year to the
next. He thought the representative had identified a
systemic challenge that had to be addressed. He reported
that the reductions on one page equaled $700,000, which
equated to $1 of everyone's permanent fund dividend (PFD).
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Representative Pruitt was
referring to Amendment H DFG 9.
Representative Pruitt responded that he had to reference
more than Amendment H DFG 9 because the conversation had
gone beyond just the one amendment. He was talking about
the fundamental reasons for why the maker offered the
amendment. She had also offered several amendments on the
same page. He thought the committee was talking about a
systemic issue. He opined it was important to look at the
department's habit of asking for more than needed. He
argued that the representative had a point. He urged
members to listen to the information.
Co-Chair Seaton responded that the point would be well
taken if the legislature also looked at requested
appropriations that had decreased adding money back in. He
stated that the amendments only addressed increased line
items, cutting them in half, rather than also accounting
for any decreases. He suggested looking at both sides of
the equation. He relayed that the point raised by Vice-
Chair Gara was that there had been a substantive downward
utilization of money in the department. He reiterated the
importance of looking at both sides of the equation.
10:36:00 AM
Representative Pruitt replied that the committee had heard,
in multiple cases, there was a lapse. He thought the
committee should address lapsed funds. He suggested looking
at the lapsed amounts. He relayed that when he was in the
private sector, his budget had to reflect a balance. He
continued to argue that departments should be looking for
potential savings. He suggested offering a conceptual
amendment to change the numbers to what the chair thought
they were. He thought the public wanted the legislature to
recognize and control government spending because the state
did not have money.
10:38:14 AM
AT EASE
10:39:58 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Ortiz appreciated Representative Pruitt's
comments. However, fundamentally, the issue was that the
department had seen significant reductions since 2015. It
had experienced a 35 percent reduction and was forced to
deal with them. The department had managed Alaska's
fisheries to the best of its abilities and was known around
the world for its success. He continued that the
legislation needed to allow the department to make
appropriate reductions using their expertise in managing
the department.
Representative Wilson wrapped up her argument. She asserted
that her constituents had sent her to delve into the
details. She believed in flexibility but wondered about the
appropriate amount of flexibility. She continued to provide
a recap of her argument in support of the amendment.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 9 FAILED (4/7).
10:46:03 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 10
(copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Westward Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 10 - 3010: Equipment/Machinery
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $114.0 and FY19 Governor $389.3. A
decrease of $100.0 leaves $289.3 for equipment rental
and maintenance services and equipment operator
charges.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson presented the amendment (see above).
Vice-Chair Gara asked if she had spoken with the department
about the impacts of the amendment. Representative Wilson
responded in the negative.
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 10 FAILED (4/7).
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 11
(copy on file):
Commercial Fisheries
Westward Region Fisheries Management
H DFG 11 - 3011: Other Service
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY 17 Actuals $943.6 and FY 19 Governor $1,578.7. A
decrement of $400.0 leaves $1,178.7 for printing,
copy, transportation and consulting services.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendment (see above).
Representative Ortiz asked if Representative Wilson had
spoken with the department about the amendment.
Representative Wilson responded, "No."
Representative Thompson commented that the devil was in the
details. He provided an example as the mayor of Fairbanks.
He indicated small savings added up. Applying a number of
small savings to the budget turned the Fairbanks Borough's
budget around. He agreed with Representative Wilson that
looking at the small stuff added up to savings. He
reiterated that the devil was in the details. The
legislature needed to be cognizant of what it was doing and
how it was increasing budget line items.
Representative Grenn liked looking into the details. He
also thought it was important to know the impacts of the
departments. He opined that not knowing the impacts made it
difficult to understand whether the decrements were sound.
He wanted to hear more.
10:51:12 AM
Representative Tilton explained that legislators were
appropriators. She stated that it was their
constitutionally mandated job to produce a budget. She
continued that doing a budget required looking at the
details. She pointed out that in the particular allocation
being discussed there was an increase from FY 17 in every
funding source. She did not think that the particular
amendment would be detrimental to the department.
Vice-Chair Gara suggested having a discussion like what
Representative Thompson had talked about where efficiencies
could be found to make a department run better at less
cost. As mayor, Representative Thompson found a way for the
police department to work just as well at a lower cost and
knew the impacts of the budget changes. He argued that
legislators were not just appropriators but policy makers
as well. He liked the idea of working with the departments
on their budgets. He could not relate to talking about a
number without understanding its impacts.
Co-Chair Foster thought everyone was right. He would defer
to the chair of the DFG subcommittee and assumed the issues
had already been addressed. He would be opposing the
amendment.
Representative Wilson suggested that if her decrements were
so devastating, the department should have responded to her
inquiries. However, the department had been unresponsive.
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Tilton, Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 11 FAILED (4/7).
10:56:17 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 12 and
H DFG 13 (copies on file):
[H DFG 12]
Commercial Fisheries
Statewide Fisheries Management
H DFG 12 - 3003: Information Technology
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $108.1 and FY19 Governor $413.2. A
decrease of $200.0 leaves $213.2 for information
technology training and consulting, software licensing
and maintenance.
[H DFG 13]
Commercial Fisheries
Statewide Fisheries Management
H DFG 13 - 3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $619.3 and FY19 Governor $2,227.0. A
decrease of $1,000.0 leaves $1,227.0 for printing,
copy, Transportation and Consulting Services.
Environmental conservation and economic development
fees.
Representative Grenn OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson presented the amendment (see above).
Representative Pruitt thought that the difference between
what was utilized and what was being requested in the
budget was over $1.9 million. He argued that $1.9 million
was worth exploring. He explained that the maker of the
amendment was leaving in the appropriation of $700,000 more
than what the department used in the prior year. He spoke
of his experience in balancing a budget. He understood the
question about how a department would operate. He reminded
members that legislators were the appropriators. He argued
that the legislature was seating its authority to someone
else. He continued that he could make an argument to his
boss about funding, but ultimately it was his boss'
decision. He emphasized that the department was asking for
$1.9 million more than the department actually utilized in
FY 17. He wondered whether the legislature should
appropriate the full amount of the department's request, or
whether it should manage it. He had not heard any feedback
from the department that the amendment amount was out of
line. He urged support for the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Representative Wilson had asked
the department about the impacts of the particular line
item being discussed. Representative Wilson had not talked
to the department. She concluded that the department had an
opportunity to respond but did not.
Representative Grenn MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
OPPOSED: Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 12 and Amendment H DFG
13 FAILED (4/7).
11:01:14 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 14 and
H DFG 15 (copies on file):
[H DFG 14]
Sport Fisheries
H DFG 14 - 3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $2,093.2 and FY19 Governor $3,750.0. A
decrease of $100.0 leaves $3,650.0 for contracts and
cooperative agreement.
[H DFG 15]
Sport Fisheries
H DFG 15 - 4015: Parts and Supplies
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals $142.6 and FY19 Governor $368.6. A
decrease of $50.0 leaves $318.6 for parts and supplies
for repair and maintenance.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson presented the amendments (see above).
She argued that with the passage of Amendment H DFG 14 the
deportment would still be given over $1.5 million
additional dollars than what was spent in FY 17. She
wondered who was in charge.
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 14 and Amendment H DFG
15 FAILED (4/7).
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 16
(copy on file):
Wildlife Conservation
H DFG 16 - 2000: In-State Employee Travel
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals were $522.7 and the FY19 Governor's
budget request is $980.1. A decrement of $50.0 will
result in a FY19 budget request of $930.1 for In-State
Employee Travel, $407.4 more than FY 17 actual
expenditures.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson presented the amendment (see above).
Representative Pruitt wanted to hear from the department
regarding the amendments. He inquired about a transferring
of funds.
Co-Chair Seaton encouraged someone from the department to
respond.
11:06:10 AM
BRUCE DALE, DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT
OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), replied that the
difference in the actuals for FY 17 and the request for
FY 19 was that the request for FY 19 was based on averages
rather than the FY 17 request. He explained that the
division's budget, like many others, was significantly
variable in terms of how funding was moved around. Simple
weather changes could affect hundreds of thousands of
dollars. A couple of changes within a couple of weeks for
things such as caribou surveys happening over the fiscal
year change could make drastic changes in in-state travel
from one year to the next. He argued that there was only
$100,000 UGF in the total travel amount. A decrement of
$50,000 would drastically reduce travel for things that
were not eligible for fish and game funds which have to
directly benefit hunter and trapper license buyers. He
indicated the funds would be used for travel related to
endangered species act response, non-game activities,
regulations, and law enforcement. Travel related to the
examples he provided would not be covered with fish and
game funds.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson, Grenn
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 16 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 17
(copy on file):
Wildlife Conservation
H DFG 17 - Add Positions for the Creation of a New
Wildlife Access Program and to Review Wildlife Access
Projects Offered by Representative Ortiz
Federal Pittman-Robertson (P/R) Funds are derived from
an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms,
ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent
tax on handguns. These funds are apportioned each year
to the states. The funding was to be used for
restoration of wild birds and mammals and to acquire,
develop and manage wildlife habitats, hunter training
programs and the development, operation and
maintenance of public shooting ranges and for wildlife
access.
An increase in the sale of firearms and ammunition has
significantly increased the amount of Pittman-
Robertson funding allocated to the Division of
Wildlife in Alaska's Department of Fish and Game.
Although there is a 3:1 match, given the state's
fiscal situation, meeting this match has been
challenging. In fact, the state match shortfall has
resulted in Alaska reverting a total of $3.3 million
of P/R funding ($1.9 in FY17 and $1.4 in FY18). If
other sources of match are not identified or
appropriated, another $3.9 million is expected to
revert on September 30, 2018 and $6 million in FY19.
The requested positions and funding will allow for the
establishment of a statewide wildlife access program
in the Division of Wildlife Conservation. These
positions will work with the Department of Natural
Resources, municipalities and other entities to
identify wildlife access projects that qualify for
federal P/R funding. Up until now, the focus of the
department has been on Hunter Access programs.
Expanding the scope of projects to "wildlife access"
projects allows for the following:
--Flexibility in the types of projects that can be
funded by federal P/R funds; and
--Additional opportunities for obtaining match.
Communities and non-profits may be willing to leverage
their funding to obtain federal funds for eligible
projects (such as trails or cabins).
UGF is requested because the funding source provides
the maximum flexibility for the types of projects the
employees will be able to pursue. Use of Fish and Game
funding is limited to projects that benefit hunters
and trappers.
Representative Tilton OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Ortiz explained that in the subcommittee
process there was a substantial discussion about how to
better leverage and access newly available Pittman-
Robertson funds. The conversation was instigated from the
Member from Big Lake. He thought he had made a good point
in bringing up the topic. In response, he was offering the
amendment. He read the amendment (see above).
11:10:47 AM
Representative Tilton relayed that the Pittman-Robertson
funds were created with the idea of creating a better
hunting experience for people through habitat management
and hunter education. The funds come through the tax sales
of guns and ammunition. She argued that to expand the scope
to wildlife access could be detrimental to hunting, which
was the purpose of the funds. She thought the amendment
might actually violate the intent of the Pittman-Robertson
funding. She iterated that hunting was a way of life for
Alaskans. She did not believe the intention of the funds
were for wildlife access. She also did not believe a new
position was necessary for communities to come forward.
Representative Wilson asked for comments from the
department about the Pittman-Robertson Funds. She wanted to
make sure the funds would be used correctly. Mr. Dale
responded that the Pittman-Robertson fund was originally
set up to restore wildlife across the United States. The
funds were from an 11 percent excise tax on guns,
ammunition, and hunting equipment. The use of the funds had
to be broadly related to wildlife, with specific
exceptions. The funds could not be used for: law
enforcement; regulations; the creation, dissemination, or
publication of regulations; or compensation for wildlife
damage management. There were other restrictive
subcategories, but he had listed the primary categories for
which the Pittman-Robertson funds could not be used. He
responded to the question about the requested position. The
majority of the duties of the position would center around
hunter access projects. However, the flexibility of the
position would enable the person to be involved with
wildlife projects such as trail projects. The department
had other entities providing matching funds including the
Mat-Su Borough. The matching funds allowed the department
greater flexibility to work with communities on things that
were only partially hunting related.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if wildlife viewing was specifically
allowed. Mr. Dale responded positively.
Representative Wilson asked Mr. Dale if he could provide
that information to her. She had done research on an effort
made to change the sideboards to the use of Pittman-
Robertson funds to include wildlife viewing and trails.
However, she could not find anything that confirmed that
the parameters had changed. Mr. Dale responded that he
would provide the information.
11:15:10 AM
Representative Pruitt was under the impression that the
Pittman-Robertson fund was available for wildlife access.
He brought up the question as to whether the use of the
money should be expanded from hunter access to wildlife
access. He had heard that the state had returned money. He
thought the money was funding in which Alaskans had
participated in generating. He suggested the hunting
community had encouraged the legislature to increase its
tag and license fees. He thought it would be easy to find
projects identified to help with hunter access. One of the
communities that had advocated for additional fees
suggested shifting from hunter access to wildlife access.
He thought if the legislature started down the path of
increasing the parameters to include wildlife access it
would lead to less of an emphasis on hunter access. He
suggested the issue was a policy call. He was hesitant to
support the amendment based on the potential shift in focus
from hunter access to wildlife access. He opined that the
amendment might erode the original intent of the
legislation that passed concerning an increase in fees for
tags and licenses.
11:18:08 AM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the notion of wildlife
access. He reported using access points just west of Minto
to view wildlife and to hunt ducks. He thought access to
wildlife and access to hunting was really the same thing.
He asked about the request of $41,000 GF match through the
fish and game fund and $124,000 from the Pittman-Robertson
fund. He wondered if the state could use Pittman-Robertson
funds to hire a person to utilize the funds.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that the funds were not fish and
wildlife funds. Rather, they were general fund match funds.
Fish and wildlife funds could only be used for certain
portions under state statute. There were more Pittman-
Robertson funds available and more communities interested
in having projects. However, there was no one to coordinate
and administer the grants. The amendment created the
position.
Representative Kawasaki misspoke about Fish and Game funds.
His question was whether the federal money from the
Pittman-Robertson fund could be used to utilize Pittman-
Robertson funds. Mr. Dale replied that the match had to be
non-federal. Representative Kawasaki asked where the
federal receipts were coming from. Mr. Dale responded that
the federal portion would be Pittman-Robertson funds.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the Pittman-Robertson
funds could be used with the state match to request
Pittman-Robertson funds to be used in the state. Mr. Dale
did not understand the question. Co-Chair Seaton tried to
clarify Representative Kawasaki's question.
Representative Kawasaki started over with his question. He
asked if Pittman Robertson funds for the positions could be
used to acquire more Pittman-Robertson funds for the state.
Mr. Dale responded in the affirmative. The department
already had a project statement which was the grant
statement allowing the use of fish and game funds matched
to Pittman-Robertson funds. The position would be looking
for hunter access projects and helping to develop them.
Representative Guttenberg asked a clarifying question. He
suggested the state could use fish and game fund monies to
access Pittman-Robertson funds but only for hunter access
projects. However, if the state used general funds or other
funds, the state could expand the definition beyond hunter
activities. He furthered that the fish and game funds could
only be used for hunter projects. He wondered if he was
correct. Mr. Dale responded, "That's correct."
Representative Tilton explained that in talking with some
of the state's outdoor organizations, the concern had to do
with access and the potential negative impact on hunting.
She read from a bill previously enacted in 2005: "The
commissioner has, but is not by way limited to, the
following powers and duties: To promote fishing, hunting,
and trapping, and preserve the heritage of fishing, hunting
and trapping in the state."
11:24:46 AM
Representative Pruitt suggested that if the concern was to
get additional Pittman-Robertson funds, removing the
wildlife language might solve the issue. He thought it was
a policy call. He believed a tenuous discussion could ensue
with the passage of the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed that the state had been returning
money to the federal government because of not having
sufficient monies in the fish and game fund. The reason for
expanding to wildlife was to generate needed matching
funds. The amendment would allow the state to put up match
funding for the employees who would be administering grants
to bring in matching funds from municipalities for hunter
access or wildlife viewing projects. The question was not
whether the legislature could change the fund source.
Representative Pruitt thought part of the reason for a
change was to have access to more projects. He thought the
department had reported they were looking for more hunter
access projects. He recommended removing the wildlife
access language. Otherwise, he thought there would be a
larger debate regarding PR funds.
Representative Thompson commented that the line item was to
hire a couple of people to administer grants that
communities would apply for and match. He asked if there
were communities interested in putting up matching funds to
facilitate projects in their area.
11:29:14 AM
Representative Ortiz understood that the department was
confident there were different communities that, with the
use of these positions, would have better access to
opportunities. It would provide the department with better
access to Pittman-Robertson funds.
Vice-Chair Gara wanted to make an overall comment on the
budget. He suggested that the legislature was trying to
smartly find a way to leverage federal funds to make
service costs less or was trying to replace state funds
with federal funds wherever possible. He argued that until
the state came up with a fiscal plan, the smartest way to
fund important services was to try to leverage federal
funds where possible. He supported the amendment. He
thought it would improve the quality of life in Alaska.
Representative Wilson pointed out that UGF was being
requested because the funding source provided maximum
flexibility for the types of projects the employees would
be able to pursue. If the legislature was to use fish and
game funding it would be limited to projects that benefited
hunters and trappers who were the individuals paying into
the Pittman-Robertson fund. She suggested that it was not
that the state did not have the fish and game funding. The
amendment indicated that the reason the department did not
want to use the fish and game funds was to have more
flexibility. She argued that it was a policy call in which
the state would be using general funds in order to have
more flexibility. The state would be establishing a new
wildlife access program. She re-read a portion of the
amendment. She opined that it was a change from hunting and
trapping to wildlife viewing and trails. It was a policy
call. She thought the amendment reflected more than the
operating budget based on its language and conveyed her
concerns with the language.
11:34:55 AM
Representative Ortiz appreciated the concern about moving
the amendment then in some way limiting hunting and fishing
access. However, Mr. Dale had reported that moving the
amendment would enhance hunter access programs and provide
flexibility for wildlife viewing and access. He relayed
that in his district wildlife viewing and wildlife access
were critical components of the tourist economy. He thought
the amendment was a win-win amendment.
Representative Tilton MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Seaton,
Foster
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 17 PASSED (7/4).
11:37:51 AM
Co-Chair Seaton WITHDREW Amendment H DFG 18 (copy on file):
Wildlife Conservation
H DFG 18 - Add one-time increment to reduce the chance
of lapsing federal Pittman-Robertson funding in FY19
Offered by Representative Seaton
Federal Pittman-Robertson (P/R) Funds are derived from
an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms,
ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent
tax on handguns. These funds are apportioned each year
to the states. The funding is to be used for
restoration of wild birds and mammals and to acquire,
develop and manage wildlife habitats, hunter training
programs and the development, operation and
maintenance of public shooting ranges.
A surge in the sale of firearms and ammunition has
significantly increased the amount of Pittman-
Robertson funding allocated to the Division of
Wildlife in Alaska's Department of Fish and Game.
Although there is a 3:1 match, given the state's
fiscal situation, meeting this match has been
challenging. In fact, the state match shortfall has
resulted in Alaska reverting a total of $3.3 million
of P/R funding ($1.9 in FY17 and $1.4 in FY18). If
other sources of match are not identified or
appropriated, another $3.9 million is expected to
revert on September 30, 2018, and another $6 million
in FY19.
The fund source is the rural development initiative
fund. The fund has $3.3 million in cash, 45
outstanding loans, projected loan demand of $780.0 in
FY19, and a current loan to asset ratio of 65 percent.
Appropriating $1 million from the fund will result in
a loan to asset ratio of 69 percent.
This funding will be used to match available Pittman-
Robertson Funding in FY19.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment Replacement H DFG
18 (copy on file):
Wildlife Conservation
Replacement H DFG 18 - Add one-time increment to
reduce the chance of lapsing federal Pittman-Robertson
funding in FY19, Section 1, IncOTI
Offered by Co-Chair Seaton
Line Items
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 1,000.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
1,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding
1223 Charter RLF 1,000.0
Explanation
Federal Pittman-Robertson (P/R) Funds are derived from
an 11 percent federal excise tax on sporting arms,
ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent
tax on handguns. These funds are apportioned each year
to the states. The funding is to be used for
restoration of wild birds and mammals and to acquire,
develop and manage wildlife habitats, hunter training
programs and the development, operation and
maintenance of public shooting ranges.
A surge in the sale of firearms and ammunition has
significantly increased the amount of Pittman-
Robertson funding allocated to the Division of
Wildlife in Alaska's Department of Fish and Game.
Although there is a 3:1 match, given the state's
fiscal situation, meeting this match has been
challenging. In fact, the state match shortfall has
resulted in Alaska reverting a total of $3.3 million
of P/R funding ($1.9 in FY17 and $1.4 in FY18). If
other sources of match are not identified or
appropriated, another $3.9 million is expected to
revert on September 30, 2018, and another $6 million
in FY19.
The fund source is the Commercial Charter Fisheries
Revolving Loan Fund. The fund has nearly $5 million in
cash, only one $28.1 outstanding loan, projected loan
demand of just $45.0 per year, and a current loan to
asset ratio of 1 percent.
This funding will be used to match available Pittman-
Robertson Funding in FY19.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton read the amendment (see above).
Representative Wilson asked how the funds would be spent
within DFG. Co-Chair Seaton responded that it would be
matching money for FY 19.
Representative Wilson asked if Co-Chair Seaton thought the
money would be for grants rather than personnel. She
wondered where the general funds would come from. She
mentioned the fund having excess dollars. She inquired
about the use of funds the state would have access to.
Co-Chair Seaton responded that the funds were anticipated
to be 3 to 1 match funding for grants for one year. He
hoped other matching money could be found from other
communities.
11:42:16 AM
Representative Wilson understood that the amount was seed
money for the amendment that just passed. Co-Chair Seaton
responded in the negative. The amendment would match 3 to 1
federal Pittman-Robertson funds for projects identified by
DFG. In the future, with the additional staff, he
anticipated the monies would be used for the larger
projects. There was a need for the positions to pursue
larger projects.
Representative Wilson asked if the funds would be used by
DFG rather than boroughs and non-profits. She suggested the
money would be utilized for shovel-ready projects the
department might have that qualified for the funds for
hunter and wildlife access. Co-Chair Seaton relayed that
she was correct.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment Replacement H DFG 18
was ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DFG 19 and
H DFG 20 (copies on file):
[H DFG 19]
Wildlife Conservation
H DFG 19 - 3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals were $449.0 and the FY19 Governor's
budget request is $1,500.0. A decrement of $100.0 will
result in a FY19 budget request of $1,400.0 for
wildlife contracts with various organizations to
conduct wildlife management activities.
[H DFG 20]
Wildlife Conservation
H DFG 20 - 3011: Other Services
Offered by Representative Wilson
FY17 Actuals were $1,238.4 and the FY19 Governor's
budget request is $2500.0. A decrement of $150.0 will
result in a FY19 budget request of $2,350.0 for
charters, $1,111.6 over FY 17 actual expenditures.
Representative Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wilson read the amendments (see above).
Co-Chair Seaton asked which charters would not be able to
be conducted. Representative Wilson did not know. However,
the department asked for double the amount it had in FY 17.
Representative Ortiz asked for the department to comment on
the impact of the amendment.
Mr. Dale reported that much of the funds were not general
funds. The general fund would only be a minority fund
source. Most of the funds would be fish and game fund,
match funding from the Pittman-Robertson fund. He added
that there was a fair amount of federal non-Pittman-
Robertson money which the department used to contract other
services. He relayed that with the monies available, the
department contracted more-and-more to provide services.
11:48:54 AM
Representative Wilson asked how many charters the
department had contracted in 2017. Mr. Dale responded that
the majority of the department's wildlife work was done
with fish and game fund match to federal aid money for
things like moose surveys, caribou surveys, deer surveys,
and all the radio tag captures. He indicated that the
division's core mission was estimating the harvestable
surplus of animals for hunters. Much of the division's work
was done by air in Alaska. The department used very little
charter monies for meetings. The surveys were done on the
ground, but frequently it took air charters to get to the
locations.
Representative Wilson restated her question as to how many
charters the department had in FY 17. Mr. Dale replied that
he was trying to determine whether it would be in the order
of hundreds or thousands. It was at least several hundred
charters. He suggested a charter might be a 2-hour flight
to locate an animal. Another charter might be 5 Super Cubs
flying for 5 days. Other times it might be a 3 weeks trip
with 2 fixed wing aircraft and 1 helicopter to put out
radio collars from Bethel to Cold Bay.
Representative Wilson asked what would cause the division
to have twice as many trips in FY 19 as in FY 17. She
wondered if laws or regulations had changed. She asked what
caused it to be double the amount. Mr. Dale responded that
favorable weather played a part. He added that with
increasing fish and game funds the division had not had a
full year of increased fees for licenses and tags. The
division had identified several areas where there were gaps
in research and management capabilities within the
department in different regions. The division had brought
those to the House and the Senate when HB 137 passed
[Legislation passed in 2016 - Short Title: Hunt/Fish/Trap:
Fees; Licenses; Exemptions].
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the impact of cutting $250,000.
He asked if $750,000 of federal funds from the Pittman-
Robertson fund was an accurate figure. Mr. Dale replied
that the representative was approximately correct. He
elaborated that the marine mammal division largely used
federal funds rather than Pittman-Robertson funds. The
threatened, endangered, and diversity programs used general
funds or other sources of match for a 2 to 1 match through
the statewide wildlife grants program, a subaccount of the
Pittman-Robertson fund.
Representative Ortiz summarized that if the amendment moved
forward it would have a net-negative impact on hunters'
ability to access wildlife. Mr. Dale responded that he was
correct. The division's various core services were
collecting information like population sizes and vital
rates to estimate harvestable surplus for the Board of Fish
to set seasons and bag limits appropriate for the resource
capability.
11:52:14 AM
Representative Pruitt thought the question that needed to
be answered was why there was an increase. He suggested
that if there was a concern about losing federal money and
the general fund was too much, the department might want to
lay out what the year was expected to look like in real
terms. He also advised that the department recommend GF
reductions that would not affect its ability to receive
Pittman-Robertson funds. He provided an example. He thought
the department had over-asked and should provide
suggestions.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if Representative Pruitt wanted Mr.
Dale to respond. Representative Pruitt replied that anyone
could respond. He urged there was a need for further
discussion and input.
Co-Chair Seaton thought what the department had conveyed
its justification for raising hunter fees: to be able to do
an analysis, under charters, to improve wildlife management
and to access more game in Alaska. It had been constrictive
without numbers. The department reported they still had not
received enough funding for the necessary charters it
needed. Also, the department had not experienced the full
impact of increased fees to hire the charters. The charters
were currently in the budget since fee monies had started
coming in. He continued to elaborate that the department
had already responded to Representative Pruitt's question.
He noted that the department had not reached the point
where the increased fee receipts were fully implemented.
Representative Pruitt relayed that, in terms of the
wildlife contracts, the increase was 3 times the amount and
the charters the amount had doubled. He continued to
present his argument against the amendment.
Co-Chair Seaton reminded the representative that the UGF
that the legislature was cutting was matched with 75
percent federal money. Therefore, it was actually quadruple
the amount being cut. Representative Pruitt interjected
that the state had received a match before. Co-Chair Seaton
disagreed. Representative Pruitt disagreed. He did not
believe Representative Wilson's question had been answered
properly.
11:58:58 AM
Representative Thompson commented that with the two
amendments which would eliminate $250,000 the increase from
FY 17 to FY 19 would be well over $2 million. He thought
that if the state removed $250,000 out of the request and
leaving more than a $2 million increase to the department,
it would still be able to conduct all of the surveys it
needed. He argued that the $250,000 reduction would not
harm the department. He questioned all of the increases and
would be voting against the amendments. Co-Chair Seaton
responded that the committee would essentially be cutting
$1 million rather than $250,000 from the budget because it
was a 3 to 1 match. If, the legislature cut the UGF match,
then it would be cutting $1 million from the budget.
Representative Thompson suggested that a $2 million
increase should bring in $6 million more dollars. He asked
if the state would receive $6 million additional dollars by
increasing the budget by $2 million. He asked for
clarification. Co-Chair Seaton responded that it was not
just a UGF budget. It included the match funding. If the
match was removed the 3 to 1 federal match would be removed
as well. The budget would be decreased by $2 million.
Representative Wilson relayed a basic 101 budgeting
concept. She explained that there was the general fund, the
general fund match, and the general fund program. She
continued that licensing was part of designated general
funds. Increasing fees would be an increase in designated
general funds rather than UGF. The amendment talked about
decreasing UGF rather than general fund match. There were
also general funds being utilized that were not matching
fund dollars. She wanted to clarify about the different
funds. The fees the department was going to use to match
funds was designated general funds. She reminded members
that she did not touch the match monies that would
otherwise affect the Pittman-Robertson funds. She just
decreased UGF in these amendments. She asked members for
their support.
Representative Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Gara, Grenn, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Foster,
Seaton
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DFG 19 and Amendment H DFG
20 FAILED (4/7).
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the following
meeting at 1:00 p.m.
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 287 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 286 OpBudget Public Test emails 3.5.18.pdf |
HFIN 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 286 |
| HB 286 H HSS 18 Replacement.pdf |
HFIN 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 286 |
| HB 286 H DGF 18 Replacement.pdf |
HFIN 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 286 |
| HB 286 Gara 03.06 DSH letter of support.pdf |
HFIN 3/6/2018 10:00:00 AM |
HB 286 |