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