Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/29/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Fy 16 Budget Overview: University of Alaska | |
| Fy 16 Budget Overview: Dept. of Fish & Game | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 29, 2015
1:33 p.m.
1:33:20 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
ALSO PRESENT
Patrick Gamble, President, University of Alaska; Sam
Cotten, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game; Kevin
Brooks, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game;
Charles Swanton, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish
and Game; Bruce Dale, Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Department of Fish and Game.
SUMMARY
FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPT. OF FISH & GAME
1:34:08 PM
^FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
1:34:08 PM
Co-Chair Neuman reviewed the agenda for the day.
PATRICK GAMBLE, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, introduced
his staff member, Michelle Rizk, Associate Vice President
who was the primary person responsible for creating the
University of Alaska's budget.
President Gamble introduced the PowerPoint presentation "FY
16 Budget Overview: University of Alaska" (copy on file).
He explained that he typically began every presentation
with the university's mission which he drew attention to on
slide 2: "The UA Mission." In times when things got
complicated he reviewed the mission statement as a reminder
and an evaluation measure.
1:35:24 PM
President Gamble advanced to slide 3: "Serving All
Alaskans." He emphasized the large size of the university
system which included three universities, 12 community
campuses in rural Alaska, and several outreach centers. He
mentioned some of the remote sites such as Yukon Flats and
Tok. He gave credit to technology which made it possible
for the university to conduct business providing classes
and education to areas across the state and through the
Interior.
President Gamble discussed the organizational chart on
slide 4: "Top Level Organizational Chart." He discussed the
turbulence of the budget and the turbulent times the
university faced. He pointed to the names of newly
nominated members to the Board of Regents looking for
confirmation from the legislature depicted in red. He
anticipated losing the student regent upon graduation in
the following May. The student vacancy would be filled with
the appointment of another student. Also, there would be 5
voting regents turning over concurrently. He briefly
discussed his own retirement and the search committee being
formed to find his replacement. Additionally, a search to
fill the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Research
position was ongoing. He elaborated that the position was
the equivalent of the provost at the system-wide level and
was the University of Alaska (UA) President's contact
person and advisor in matters of academics and research.
There were over 70 applicants from all over the world
interested in the position. The board had narrowed the
search to 5 candidates. It was a very important position.
He also mentioned that John Pugh, the Chancellor of the
University of Alaska Southeast (UAS) campus, would be
leaving as well as the provost for the University Of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA). He continued to explain that the top
leadership of the university, the university-wide decision
makers, included the UA President, Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Research, and the three campus
chancellors. There was a level of leadership independent
from the prerogatives of each of the three chancellors and
the three universities.
President Gamble reported that it was his fourteenth
consecutive year of briefing the legislature on either the
railroad or the university system. Typically, he came
before the committee to arm wrestle for chunks of funding.
However, at present, the circumstances were different.
Instead, his focus was on figuring out how the university
was going to handle the budget crisis. He did not have all
of the governor's numbers yet and made note of the
legislature's numbers. He suggested that the university and
the state would have to resolve differences in determining
how to handle reductions rather than growth. A discussion
had not occurred but the university was ready to have one.
1:39:53 PM
President Gamble scrolled to slide 5: "Shaping Alaska's
Future." He stated that the theme, "Shaping Alaska's
Future," was the cornerstone for what the university was
trying to do to the entire university system. It was board
policy to turn the theme of shaping Alaska's future into
policy. He supposed that just because the trail got rough
did not mean it was the wrong trail. The theme would remain
the guide for the direction of the university.
President Gamble looked at slide 6: "Shaping Alaska's
Future." He mentioned that there were keys in shaping
Alaska's future shown on the slide. He emphasized the
importance of maintaining quality in the classroom and in
the research lab. He believed that quality could be
maintained without additional people or funding to maintain
it. He did not think there was a statistical relationship.
He wanted to make sure the university came out in one
piece. There were students that were graduating and going
into workforce programs during the period of time in which
the university was faced with budget difficulties. He
opined that UA could not let its students down because it
would lead to letting employers and the rest of the state
down. The University of Alaska felt strongly about making
its compact whole during the challenging period. The state
needed people who were willing to knuckle down and ride out
the storm. The people internally in the system would be
very important.
President Gamble continued that partnerships with others
would provide avenues for the university system to move
forward. He would provide additional information later in
his presentation.
President Gamble advanced to slide 7: "FY16 Budget." In
dealing with a tighter budget the university had to make
reductions without compromising its core. The core was
based around offerings including workforce development,
academic degrees, and research. He felt that if the
university maintained its core successfully then when it
had to reevaluate increments again the core would allow for
a smooth recovery. The plan was designed around the core.
President Gamble thought there was an opportunity under
duress for the university to strengthen the core by
redoubling its efforts. The university would be data-driven
making decisions accordingly. Prioritization would be
important in meeting Alaska's business requirements, and it
would be essential to building partnerships.
1:44:22 PM
President Gamble looked at slide 8: "Core Services and the
FY16 Budget." Research was critical to the core. The
university received $140 million to $150 million in
research funding each year, comprised mostly of federal
dollars. The university had world class researchers. If the
university were to destroy a research project of world
class notoriety it would never regain its research dollars.
There was significant competition around the country for
research funding. There was a multiplying force with the
money as well as a discretionary piece for administrative
purposes that came into university coffers as additional
revenue. He emphasized research being essential to the
core.
President Gamble turned to slide 9: "Maintaining Results":
Graduation rate nearly 12 percent higher than FY10
Degrees and certificates awarded in FY14 at an all-
time high - up 31 percent from FY10
Engineering degrees up 25 percent from FY10
Degrees in high-demand job areas up 22 percent
Teacher education degrees up 27 percent since FY10
Received more than $650 million in competitive
research grants since FY10 - $118 M in FY14 alone
President Gamble pointed out the importance of advising
students. The function of advisors was key to student
success. The university set up metrics in order to measure
progress. The legislature had funded the university such
that all freshmen and sophomores throughout the system had
advisors for their first two years if attendance at the
university. Advising was conducted differently at each of
its three main campuses but results showed students were
responding well to their advisors.
President Gamble wanted to rebuild around things that were
working for the university. He did not want to see things
cut from the budget without realizing their connection to
success. No one wanted to give up quality and success. He
pointed out that the slide depicted the university's first
and best results list. The items on the list were either
being seen for the first time or their related statistics
were at their best levels. He relayed that a number of
statistics had been made available to committee members and
their staff. He opined that if the university system was
going to structure around its core, it should structure
around the things that worked. It was at least a starting
point.
President Gamble discussed slide 10: "Achieving New
Results":
UA percentage of total degrees that are STEM, 6th in
the U.S for public institutions.
UAA 2015 list of the best online programs for master's
degrees in education.
UAA ranked by US News and World Report in the top 5%
out of 1421 institutions in the Western Region.
UAA Experimental Economics ranked 10th in the nation.
UAS 2015 list Best Online Teaching Degrees.
UAF Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM)
program, ranked as 2nd in the US for affordability of
program and 5th in the US for quality of program.
UAF research publications and citations on Arctic
research top not only the nation, but are also #1 in
the world!
President Gamble briefly touched on the fact that the
university was receiving national attention for some of its
programs. The slide highlighted a number of programs that
would likely be essential to the core.
1:48:12 PM
President Gamble read from slide 11: "How to Strengthen the
Core":
Address the higher education paradigm shift:
· keep building value and accountability
· a balance of tuition and fees
· compete, stay relevant, embrace institutional
excellence, service
Establish partnerships:
· the State of Alaska, federal government,
commercial businesses
· K-12 schools; other universities
· private industry
Build a reputation for excellence that will continue
to attract students, excellent faculty, research
dollars, and that give us a place at the table.
President Gamble mentioned strengthening the core and
wondered about how to do so. He mentioned that the
university worked closely with the state's school board. He
spoke about integrating what was taught in K-12 to enhance
the ability of a student to enter college. The goal was for
students to enter into college without having to go through
a mediation and for them to be successful, particularly in
the first two years of college. The university wanted to
integrate the transition from high school to college. He
also mentioned encouraging more students to strive in
conjunction with the Alaska Performance Scholarship Fund
program. He hoped to see students meet the rigor in high
school by starting as early as possible in extending
themselves. Beginning earlier in high school would help to
remove the burden of college by reducing costs and the
amount of time for students to graduate. He believed the
university could build a reputation for excellence under
fire. He opined that people were attracted to seeing the
success of a university in sustaining, maintaining, and
improving itself even when encountering a budget crisis. He
suggested that if the university disassembled itself
resulting in lost faculty and student recruits, it would
take a decade to recover, similar to what the state
experience from the timeframe of about 1986 to 1998.
President Gamble elaborated on slide 12; ""Niches" - The
Focal Points":
Research for Alaska's needs
· FSMI - Alaska's largest workforce
· Arctic Policy
· Aerospace
· Health Sciences
· Geo Sciences
· Land Grant Exploitation
President Gamble pointed out that the list outlined areas
in which the university excelled and needed to focus. He
purported that research projects being contracted to
entities outside of Alaska could be performed by the
university. He relayed that the university would be
proposing the introduction of legislation giving it
preference for research projects in Alaska. He believed the
legislation would require a language change.
President Gamble also mentioned introducing legislation
having to do with land grant exploitation. He talked about
having shopped the idea around for the previous two years
without having any push-back from the legislature. He
informed the committee that he had taken it to the former
governor who directed him to have the state's attorneys
review it. He had drafted language and conducted a
considerable amount of legal research to see if it was a
viable idea, which he found it was. He informed the
committee of an article that would be published on February
1, 2015 which encapsulated the notion that the university
would not be receiving its land grant. He added that the
land the university would have received had already been
divided. He remarked that UAF remained a land grant
university. The university needed to figure out a way to
get the equivalent of its federally intended and state
intended dowry. Historically, the first piece of
legislation that the original body of legislators took up
following statehood was the university's land grant. There
was solid support behind the legislation at the time, and
he gathered there would be solid support at present. The
proposal included the idea that a fractional portion of any
new resource development contracts or any renewed contracts
would go into an account on an annual basis controlled by
the legislature. It would be used for UA capital projects.
The university approached the legislature every year for
renovation and repair dollars, deferred maintenance
dollars, and for money for capital equipment, which was
funded about a tenth of a percent over the previous ten
years. The fund would allow UA to take a portion of the
money from the account, in the form of an annual
appropriation by the legislature, to pay for some of the
capital items he mentioned. He relayed that similar
legislation had not failed because it was not controlled by
the legislature. He reiterated that it was an idea in
response to the governor and the legislature encouraging
him to think outside of the box in terms of new revenues.
He mentioned the university looking at Texas' three models
used to do the same thing successfully.
1:54:59 PM
President Gamble advanced to slide 13: "The Model:
Eliminate Cost + Generate Revenue":
· Prioritize and reallocate resources
· Space utilization: reduce leased space, consolidate
· Long-term facility management plan… Sightlines,
university building fund, Land Grant Equivalency
initiative
· Control energy expense
· System-level collaborations
· Commercialization
· Investment opportunities…unmanned aerial systems,
alternative energy, arctic research, climate
research, fisheries, oceans, space physics
· Enroll and retain more students
President Gamble continued to review the model encompassing
the idea of how to compress around and maintain the health
and strength of the core. The elements of the model
included internal prioritization and resource allocation. A
couple of years previously the legislature had given the
university the authority to move from 7 appropriations to a
single appropriation. He suggested that it would not be
possible to use the model with 7 appropriations. He relayed
that the university was in the process of looking at
consolidating space and erasing turf lines to improve
efficiencies. Consolidation had always made sense but the
university had never been under fire as it was presently.
He continued that the university had been working a
sightlines model for the previous 3 years to develop a
long-term facility management plan. The university had over
400 buildings equating to 7 million square feet of floor
space. The university was examining and categorizing the
floor space it in terms of mission support and support
requirements. If a space did not have value to meet the
university's mission it would be dispensed. It was the
first time the university had been able to evaluate its
property. It also identified highly valuable property
mission-essential to some of the main offerings the
university would continue to provide for several years in
the future. It was important not to allow the mission-
essential properties to fall into deferred maintenance and
believed that the account he had mentioned would help. He
asserted that things started to become dilapidated when
maintenance was deferred for 10 to 15 years. Through the
use of the account he suggested, the university would never
let maintenance go for long.
President Gamble relayed that in FY 16 energy would be the
sole responsibility of the university. Controlling energy
expenses would be hugely important. Also, he mentioned
commercialization. He indicated that Dr. Dan White was in
the audience and had been key at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks in taking intellectual property and converting it
into economics. He reported that it was very effective in
enhancing the recruitment of professors and researchers.
President Gamble continued by addressing investment
opportunities. He pointed to the list on the slide. He did
not support the idea that investments were not available.
The university would be charged with the challenge of
having to make key in a time of adversity in order to come
out successful. One of the toughest problems was deciding
what to keep rather than what to cut. He commented that
investments might be necessary. He thought it might be a
significant challenge to find, agree upon, and follow
through with investments.
President Gamble emphasized the importance of retaining
students. He relayed that losing a student in their first
semester, who would otherwise be graduating in 5 years,
would equate to a university loss of 9 semesters of
tuition. Once students were in the door the university
needed to keep them to ensure future tuition revenue.
Student retention was a focal area for the university. He
suggested it might require internal investment in the
future and that advising had helped in retaining students.
1:59:59 PM
President Gamble advanced to slide 14: "Challenges":
Readiness for college and/or workforce
· The "core"
· Communicating a positive message of quality and
excellence while rightsizing staff and faculty,
programs and departments, to meet a state budget
reduction plan
· Addressing aging infrastructure
· Meeting the needs of public and private partners
· Preserving the ability to invest for future returns
in the "cut … cut … cut …" environment
President Gamble reviewed some of the challenges the
university faced with the model. He first pointed to the
need for a definition of readiness for college in the State
of Alaska. He asserted that the grade for readiness for
college had to be the university's call rather than the
high school. He was in agreement with the commissioner and
the Board of Education on the issue. Readiness meant that a
freshman student could walk into their first Math, English,
or apprenticeship class and be prepared. He felt there was
more work to accomplish in the area of readiness for
college.
President Gamble explained that the definition of "core"
continued to evolve. Once the core was fully identified it
would be easier to discuss what programs should stay and
which ones should go. He furthered that communications
would play a large role in maintaining the core. He opined
that it was people that really made the university'
programs. If a person was discussing programs, whether in
research or academics, they were also talking about people.
If a person was considering reductions they were also
considering reducing people in the workforce. In terms of
beating a 1-year budget, such as FY 16, fast money would be
needed and did not come in the form of program reductions
or a reduction in employees. There were laws and
accreditation issues that would come into play if a 2 year
program was shut down. It might help with a budget 2 years
in the future but not with the current budget. Immediate
savings would only occur if a person walked out the door
immediately and they stopped being paid. He conveyed that
personnel equated to 60 percent of the university's
operating budget. People would be at the heart of the
definition of the core.
President Gamble spoke of the commitments the university
made to public and private partners and how they would have
to be reassessed. There might be times that the university
would have to say "no" to long-term partners. He furthered
that the university could not be everything to everybody
anymore. He also touched on the difficulty in considering
investments when only looking at a 1-year budget.
2:03:03 PM
President Gamble turned to slide 15: "FY16 Operating Budget
Challenges." He reported that the university had a 2-part
problem. First, in FY 16 the university would have to pay a
bill for salaries and healthcare. There would also be
invoices for contracts requiring that the money be
incorporated into the FY 16 budget. He relayed that it
would take a minimum of 3 years before there would be any
easing in terms of increased costs and funding reductions.
The timeframe could be longer or shorter. He mentioned
hearing the governor speculate that there would be relief
within a period of 5 years. Among the legislature there had
been talk of 3 years. The legislature and the governor had
both talked about a 25 percent reduction to the university'
budget. He was concerned with the steepness of the angle of
reductions. He understood that if the angle in which
reductions were applied was flat, the state would have to
dip into reserves. He surmised that if the angle was steep,
the university would experience a significant amount of
damage.
President Gamble continued to explain that in examining a
3-year period two problems arose. First was meeting the FY
16 budget and second was trying to determine the baseline
and what it would look like after being reduced year-after-
year. The baseline would make up the total budget for the
university system. He wondered what programs would be cut
and what programs would be left in place. He also brought
up the topic of building the FY 17 budget after July 1st
and encountering the same issues in designing the budget
for FY 16.
President Gamble referred to the chart on slide 15 pointing
to the $12.1 general fund (GF) reduction. He noted that the
university had reviewed numbers provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). In order to arrive at a 25
percent reduction he assumed that what was left after
removing the $12 million he could cut in half applying the
first half to the FY 17 budget and the second to the FY 18
budget. He stressed that the GF reduction would continue
over the following 3 years and the baseline would also
shrink over the same time period. He wondered what the
university would look like at the end of 3 years. It became
increasingly difficult to run the numbers out 5 years.
He highlighted two numbers; the GF baseline end in the
amount of $288.5 million and the UA System bogey in the
amount of $42.9 million under FY 16. The bogey was the
amount which the university would have to come up with
either in the form of internal reallocations to offset the
figure or cash. The money was not part of the baseline
amount and would have to be covered in some way such as
cutting an expense. He outlined that the university would
have to pay its bills with revenue, reduce expenditures,
and shrink the baseline. The difference between the current
briefing and any other briefing was that the university had
always asked for increments and argued about the size of
the increment. At present, the university was looking at
shrinking the baseline for the following 3 years, a
negative increment. He wondered about what would be cut in
order to keep something else. He mentioned having a 2-day
strategic session with the university board in the previous
week. He approached the chancellors and provided them with
guidance, the model, and the university's priorities and
had them apply their portion of reductions to each
college's budget. The overall reduction was about $42.9
million. He wondered what the university would do
specifically.
President Gamble reasoned that when trying to answer the
question about what to do the answers were at a level that
no one at the university had dealt with before. The
university had taken a $17 million hit in FY 15. In looking
at the budget for FY 16 the targeted amount of reductions
was far greater than in the prior year. Actual budget
proposals with specific recommendations would be provided
at the February 2015 board meeting.
President Gamble reported that the board reviewed the
materials he had supplied including equivalency charts. The
charts identified different options that added up to the
reductions for each college. He provided a hypothetical
scenario in which the university reductions were paid for
in personnel cuts. A range was used to provide an educated
guess as to how many people would have to be laid off in
order to cover the deficit amount. Running such numbers
helped to demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. The
chancellors also applied cuts to programs to cover the
bogey figure. He opined that many of the things offered up
to cover the $42 million deficit were going to be included
in the recommended cuts. The board gave clearance to the
university administration to move forward with planned
cuts. He thought the legislature should be aware of the
gravity of the reductions and be provided with an
opportunity to have input. The university would have to go
through the reduction process again in FY 17. In terms of
fast money and slow money the university had to get to the
reduction number quickly. If programs were reduced the
university would have to spend upwards of 2 to 3 years
teaching out all of the students within the college. There
was a great level of complexity that accompanied the budget
process.
President Gamble asked that legislators provide him with
the latitude necessary to work the core. He would be able
to produce a number which could be provided to the
legislature. He relayed that the board needed all of the
options on the table. He asked legislators to tell him what
they wanted. He thought legislators could help identify
considered "political hot potatoes". He suggested
thoroughly debating them prior to making any decisions. He
commented that the structure of the university was on the
table. After 3 or 4 years of budget reductions the
university could be very different. As the base became
smaller and smaller the structure would be more likely to
change.
2:17:22 PM
President Gamble noted the slides provided by the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD) and indicated he would
not be providing a briefing on them. The university
formulated charts to help with determining what drove
spending and operations. He believed that the LFD charts
examined past results. He concluded his presentation by
offering to answer any questions from committee members.
Co-Chair Neuman commented that he and President Gamble
spoke to each other frequently. He indicated they had
discussed the budget and the future direction of the state.
President Gamble had recently pointed out that much of what
had been discussed by finance members was already being put
into place. Co-Chair Neuman suggested that there would be
reductions to the budget and that no one had expected the
state to lose 60 percent of its revenues in the previous 6
months. He alluded to the possibility of a total
restructuring of government whether it applied to the
university system or every other state agency. He talked
about coming back to the legislature in the following year
with a plan for the future. He suggested that further
analysis would be completed by the time the legislature met
in the following year. He thought there would be a better
forecast of expected revenue streams. He hoped that the $45
per barrel price was an anomaly. He speculated that the
state was leaning towards being more conservative in price
estimates. He maintained that President Gamble was also
being conservative in creating a budget for the university
system. He complimented President Gamble for his
perspective.
Co-Chair Neuman mentioned that President Gamble had
discussed his biggest concern being the loss of faculty due
to reductions. He asked him to discuss how a reduction in
faculty affected the university's future plans.
President Gamble responded that there was a common theme
which was that the heartbeat of the university revolved
around the tenured faculty. The tenured faculty were
inclined to be individuals who had earned their positions
through reputation, writing, research, and teaching skills.
In effect, the core group of faculty made up the reputation
of a good public state university. Over the years tenured
faculty had been reduced because of their costs. Adjuncts
had proven to be more like a throttle on an airplane. A
university was able to hire adjuncts quickly when there was
a need up or layoff adjuncts expediently. Adjuncts were
typically good instructors, some were retired and some
chose a certain lifestyle. Adjuncts were typically the
first line of faculty to be fired. It was very difficult to
recover from the loss of faculty and to continue to recruit
into the universities. There had to be an attraction at the
university in order to hire good faculty. The attraction
would be the quality of the core of the professorship and
research that the university had already. He supposed that
if the attraction was disassembled or fractured the state
university would lose student appeal as well. He mentioned
the disintegration of an institution's reputation, and
losing access to federal research dollars. Research was
highly competitive. Alaska's university system was
significantly above the proportion of federal dollars in
research that came to the university then it should have
been based on its size. It received the funding because of
its reputation and because of what it did. He wanted to see
the university maintain its status. Otherwise, the recovery
was based on upholding its reputation. He concluded that it
would be one of the areas he would investigate.
2:24:49 PM
Co-Chair Neuman commented that it went back to what the
legislators could do to try to freeze what it could and not
hold on to what it had. He did not want to see the
university lose everything at the core. President Gamble
reported that the university had lost its core twice in the
past; once in 1986 and in 1997 or 1998. He stated that
there were a couple of open positions in chemistry that the
university had not been able to fill. He commented that
people were not willing to come to Alaska. It took about 10
years for the university to recuperate.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for an estimation of the
university's land grant value and how long it would take to
recover. President Gamble responded that he would provide
the information. He alluded that the land grant was
fractured and spread out in a number of places which
lowered the value. The university's ability to exploit the
value would take money, an option the university did not
have currently.
Representative Wilson wanted to remind people that it was
one appropriation rather than 7. She stated that once a
dollar amount was known, the legislature would be leaning
on the regents to help identify where to spend the money.
She hoped the committee would respect their
recommendations.
Co-Chair Neuman cautioned that there needed to be a certain
amount of hands-on involvement by the legislature in
determining non-allocated reductions.
Representative Gattis stated that she had constituents in
college that had expressed concerns about programs being
cut. Already people were hearing about reductions and
worried about their effects. The feedback she was receiving
came in the form of requests not to cut programs with
hands-on participation such as lab courses. She asked that
their feedback be kept in mind. President Gamble responded
that students were very smart and provided good feedback.
He commented that the "e-world" [internet] was well
developed at present and offered numerous options and
possibilities. Student input would be central to the path
the university took.
2:28:09 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler referred to the chart on slide 12. He
asked to what degree the niches or focal points coordinated
with private industry. He wondered if they served private
uses or if they were more academic or research oriented.
President Gamble responded that Lockheed Martin, a very
large aerospace corporation interested in entering Alaska,
wanted the University of Alaska to be a major player in the
mathematical research, workforce development, and
maintenance of a project to upgrade a long-range radar for
the government. The university was dealing with the
corporation in a number of areas and the company was in a
request for proposal (RFP) process. He thought it was a
classic illustration of how Alaska's physical location
provided unique opportunities. He furthered that there was
a business component involving manufacturing which could
potentially be done in Alaska. Lockheed Martin maintained
the radar for the F22 and would maintain the radar for the
F35. All polar launches would occur in Kodiak, Alaska. The
university had an intent to sign a contract designating the
university as the agent for all future launches for polar
orbits. The university would have a free seat on every one
of the rockets. The students would build the satellites and
the university would do the research and provide workforce
development. He opined that it would constitute a solid
partnership that had the potential to last for the
following 50 years.
President Gamble indicated there were a number of other
areas that had potential for growth. He wondered how the
university would be willing to contribute in order to
attract Lockheed Martin to invest in Alaska when
negotiations ensued. He also wondered about how much the
state would benefit. He opined that the university would
have to step up to be a partner if it wanted partnerships.
It was a poor time to attract people to Alaska. Identifying
investments was included on the chart. He had a number of
examples such as in the area of unmanned aircrafts where
investment dollars were not available in the capital
budget. It appeared that the drone program would come to a
halt. There was no money for Alaska Aerospace and it was
possible that the launch site would be sold. He suggested
that the state needed to have a debate where all sides came
together before making any decisions.
2:32:48 PM
Co-Chair Neuman wanted an update on Alaska's new arctic
research vessel, R/V Sikuliaq. President Gamble stated that
the vessel would be delivered to Seward in February 2015.
It was a state-of-the-art vessel which had sailed through
several waters performing research. He reported that any
bugs were worked out. It was currently in Alaskan waters
and ready for its next mission.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if the University was largely
involved. President Gamble responded affirmatively. The
university had reserved space on every cruise. It would be
afloat approximately 200 days per year for several years
into the future.
Representative Kawasaki commented that most agencies were
looking at user fee increases. He mentioned that the
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation was looking at tripling or quadrupling
fees that had not been changed for a least 10 years. He
supposed that the university had a way to increase revenues
by increasing room and board fees and tuition. He was not
suggesting increasing fees but wanted President Gamble to
respond.
President Gamble replied that the governor strongly urged
the use of fees to generate revenue. He had encouraged
agencies to review their fees. Although the university had
received the governor's message, fees were not normally a
topic that took up much time in a discussion. He explained
that the board policy outlined that money collected from
fees had to go directly towards their intended use. He
could not take fees and use them as UGF. In a discussion in
the previous week, the university decided that it would
look at its fees to determine possible revisions. At the
time the university submitted its budget there was no
recommendation to increase tuition, however, circumstances
had changed. He understood that the red or camouflage book
that the university had was no longer relevant. In the book
the board, in its wisdom at the time, decided it did not
need to raise tuition. The topic was revisited and the
result was that there would be a raise in tuition. He
concluded that the university would ultimately raise its
fees and tuition.
2:36:24 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the university's role
in the upcoming opportunities in the Arctic. He was
concerned about lost opportunities. As the University
refocused he wanted to make sure a path was still available
for the University to play a key role in research. He
emphasized that all of the payers including China, Russia,
Singapore, and Kuwait were playing a part in developing the
arctic. He mentioned that the Northwest Passage had been a
dream for people for hundreds of years. He reemphasized
that he did not want the university to miss opportunities.
He also wanted the state to be ready for when the economy
rebounded. He did not want lost infrastructure impeding the
university from doing its job. He spoke proudly of the West
Ridge Research Center at UAF and perceived that the
Secretary of the United States Navy had been impressed with
the university's job well done. He was concerned with the
state's role with infrastructure needs and potential lost
possibilities. He furthered that if the state did not build
a port in the Arctic prior to someone else, it would lose
commerce and an incredible opportunity. He understood the
fiscal constraints of the state but hoped the existing road
map would remain in place.
Co-Chair Neuman was unclear whether Representative
Guttenberg had a question.
Representative Guttenberg stated that he was making an
observation.
President Gamble commented that UA was America's arctic
university.
2:40:01 PM
AT EASE
2:45:23 PM
RECONVENED
^FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPT. OF FISH & GAME
2:45:23 PM
Co-Chair Neuman introduced the committee's next presenter.
SAM COTTEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME,
introduced himself and his staff. He indicated his staff
would be available for questions. He relayed that he was
new to his position and understood the responsibility to
the people of Alaska. He conveyed that in his position he
would try to be as responsive and as open as possible about
how the Department of Fish and Game made its decisions. He
was very pleased and impressed with the professional
caliber of the staff currently at the department and
acknowledged their dedication. He turned the presentation
over to Mr. Brooks.
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Brooks to focus on highlights of
the presentation due to time constraints.
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "FY 16 Budget
Overview: Department of Fish and Game (copy on file)." He
indicated there were about 30 slides in the presentation
and he could certainly get through them with enough time
for questions at the end.
2:48:08 PM
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 2. He noted that the Department
of Fish and Game's (DFG) mission statement was derived from
the Alaska Constitution and Title 16.05.020 in the Alaska
Statutes. The mission statement encompassed a portion of
both documents.
Mr. Brooks pointed to slide 3: "ADF&G Core Services." He
mentioned that management included measuring commercial
harvests, issuing habitat permits, angler days, user
harvests and success, and participating in federal issues
that affecting the state. The second core service was stock
assessment and research accomplished by meeting escapement
goals, meeting or exceeding threshold harvests or catch
levels, performing wildlife and subsistence surveys, and
doing research. Another important component of DFG was
customer service and public involvement. The department
conducted hunting and angling skills programs, provided
opportunities for Alaskans to learn about wildlife and
wildlife management, interacted through the sales of
hunting and fishing licenses, participated in the boards
and advisory committees, and generally provided information
to the public at the department's public service counters
across the state.
Mr. Brooks discussed slide 4: "Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Organizational Chart." He reported that there were
six divisions within the department and the commissioner's
office. The divisions included the Division of Commercial
Fisheries, Division of Sport Fish, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Division of Habitat, Division of Subsistence,
and the Division of Administrative Services. He remarked
that the first three were the largest of the divisions
within the department. He noted that the department also
had a board support section and two independent agencies,
the Commercial Fisheries Limited Entry Commission (CFEC)
and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.
Mr. Brooks pointed out the staff in the audience. He stated
that Charlie Swanton was formerly the department's Sport
Fish Director was now the Deputy Commissioner handing much
of the state's Pacific Salmon related issues. Mr. Tony
DeGange was the new Director of Habitat. The new Special
Assistant, Mr. David Rodgers, would be helping with issues
having to do with endangered species. Mr. Bruce Dale, the
acting director for the Division of Wildlife Conservation,
and Mr. Tom Brookover, the acting Director for the Division
of Sport Fish, both previously served as deputy directors.
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 5: "Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Regional and Area Offices." He relayed that a
mainstay of the management programs was having offices near
Alaskans. The map showed 30 permanent offices around the
state. There were numerous other offices that were seasonal
in nature such as field camps.
He explained that he would run through each of the
divisions in the next several slides to provide a broad
overview of the relative size of the department.
Mr. Brooks reviewed slide 6: "Commissioner's Office":
Commissioner Sam Cotten
Deputy Commissioner Kevin Brooks
Deputy Commissioner Charlie Swanton
· 10 permanent full-time positions
· $1,926.2 FY2016 Operating Request
· $910.4 UGF Request
· 1% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Provide support and policy direction to departmental
programs
Mr. Brooks explained that the commissioner's office
provided support and policy direction to all of the
department's programs. The commissioner acted as an ex
officio of the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game.
The position also sat on the North Pacific Management
Fisheries Council (NMFS).
Mr. Brooks discussed slide 7: "Division of Commercial
Fisheries":
Director Jeff Regnart
· 308 permanent full-time positions
· 433 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $71,341.7 FY2016 Operating Request
· $44,239.8 UGF Request
· 33% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Protect, maintain, and improve the fish, shellfish,
and aquatic plant resources of the state, consistent
with the sustained yield principle, for the maximum
benefit of the economy and the people of Alaska
Mr. Brooks reported that the Division of Commercial
Fisheries was the department's largest. The division was in
charge of managing all commercial, personal use, and
substance fisheries in state waters. The division also
managed shell fish and ground fish species under delegation
from the federal government. It also planned and permitted
the salmon hatcheries and mariculture operations and
provided support to the state's efforts towards the Pacific
Salmon treaty and Alaska Yukon treaty efforts. The division
represented about a third of the department's overall
budget. More importantly, the Commercial Fisheries Division
consumed about 60 percent of the department's GF dollars.
2:52:42 PM
Mr. Brooks presented Slide 8: "Ex-vessel Value of
Commercial Harvests and Mari culture Production in Alaska."
He stated that one of the ways the department monitored the
Commercial Fisheries Division was by watching the ex-vessel
values as seen on the slide. For the last several years the
ex-vessel value had been in excess of $2 billion annually.
It was an indicator of fishermen's participation and their
success in making a living from the resources.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 9: "Escapement Goal Achieved."
He specified that the chart was an indicator of the
division's performance. Measuring escapement goals was a
key point of the division's management program. The state
had 296 escapement goals around the state on various salmon
stocks. The division targeted meeting 80 percent of the
goals. He explained that the state had never met 100
percent of its goals most likely due to week stocks and
sometimes because of weather preventing aerial surveys from
happening or a flood or high water event occurring which
prevent the state from enumerating fish. He remarked that
80 percent was an aggressive target which had been in place
over the previous several years. It was a target the
division strived to achieve.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 10: "Division of Sport Fish":
Acting Director Tom Brookover
· 200 permanent full-time positions
· 176 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $48,522.0 FY2016 Operating Request
· $6,307.5 UGF Request
· 23% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Protect and improve the state's recreational
fisheries resources
Mr. Brooks informed the committee that the division
accounted for about a quarter of the departments overall
budget. Its budget was just under $50 million. Only $6.3
billion came out of the undesignated general fund (UGF).
The division was primarily funded through federal receipts
as well as DFG revenues from the sale of licenses. He
reviewed that the Sport Fish Division was responsible for
the management of Alaska sport fisheries as well as many
personal use fisheries and some subsistence fisheries not
managed by the Commercial Fisheries Division. The division
also ran the state's two hatcheries, the William Jack
Hernandez Sport Fish Hatchery in Anchorage and the Ruth
Burnett Sport Fish Hatchery in Fairbanks. The Sport Fish
Division maintained boater and angler access for sport
fishing and recreational opportunities and was the
department lead on invasive species.
Mr. Brooks continued with slide 11: "Sales of Fishing
Licenses." He cited that one of the indicators the division
paid attention to was the license sales. They were a
reflection of angler participation. If the state was
selling licenses, folks wanted to get to fish. He
elaborated that with the challenges the state had with
Chinook stocks over the previous few years the sale of King
Salmon stamps had decreased due to folks having low
expectations in catching Chinook. Fishers refocused their
efforts on Coho or other species. The division had its high
water mark in 2008 where the state sold just under 500
thousand licenses. He reported an uptick in sales over the
prior two years.
2:56:01 PM
Mr. Brooks revealed slide 12: "Division of Wildlife
Conservation":
Acting Director Bruce Dale
· 217 permanent full-time positions
· 53 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $49,203.1 FY2016 Operating Request
· $6,529.3 UGF Request
· 23% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Conserve and enhance Alaska's wildlife and habitats
and provide for a wide range of public uses and
benefits
Mr. Brooks stated that the division was charged with
collecting scientifically sound information and managing
wildlife populations in Alaska. The division maintained
habitat on state lands capable of sustaining robust and
well distributed wildlife populations. One of the
division's key roles was increasing lower declining
ungulate populations through its intensive management
programs. The division also ran through shooting ranges in
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
Representative Gattis asked about the current
administration's position on intensive management in terms
of perpetuating and enriching it.
Acting Commissioner Cotton responded that the department
did not intend to make any significant changes. There were
funds available through previous capital appropriations
that allowed the division to maintain its functions. The
department was attempting to be cost-conscious but the
commissioner did not foresee any major changes in
direction.
Representative Gattis spoke of some areas within her
district that people were unable to reach in order to carry
out predator control. She wondered if there would be any
change. Acting Commissioner Cotton suggested that he could
provide her with additional information but reiterated that
there would not be any major changes in direction.
Mr. Brooks turned to slide 13: "Sales of Hunting and
Trapping Licenses." He reported that similar to sport
fishing license sales the sales of hunting and trapping
licenses was a reflection of hunter participation in the
harvest of the state's wildlife resources. There had been a
slight uptake in the license sales over the previous two
years. He surmised that it was a result of people's
expectations of going out to harvest an animal and to put
food in their freezers.
Mr. Brooks relayed that he would turn to the three smaller
divisions within the Department of Fish and Game.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 14: "Division of Subsistence":
Director Hazel Nelson
· 29 permanent full-time positions
· 23 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $7,728.2 FY2015 Operating Request
· $3,106.4 UGF Request
· 4% ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Scientifically quantify, evaluate and report
information about customary and traditional uses of
Alaska's fish and wildlife resources
Mr. Brooks reported that the budget for the Division of
Subsistence consisted of about $7.7 million total and $3.1
million in UGF. The division's budget equaled approximately
4 percent of the department's budget. The Division of
Subsistence was tasked with compiling and analyzing
subsistence harvest information. Its employees conducted
research to gather information on the role of hunting and
fishing by Alaskans for customary and traditional uses. The
information was used to inform the public and assist the
Board of Fish and Board of Game in making determinations on
amounts necessary for subsistence.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 15: "Management Plans
Incorporating Subsistence Information." He reported that
one of the ways the division was measured was to review the
management plans for both fish and game. The division
monitored the number of plans that subsistence contributed
to developing. In the previous two years there had been a
refocused effort in contributing to management plans. In
2014 the division had contributed to over 50 management
plans with the subsistence harvest information used by the
boards.
2:59:30 PM
Mr. Brooks moved to slide 16: "Division of Habitat":
Director Tony DeGange
· 47 permanent full-time positions
· 3 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $6,841.9 FY2016 Operating Request
· $4,236.9 UGF Request
· 3% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Protect Alaska's valuable fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats as Alaska's population
and economy continue to expand
Mr. Brooks acknowledged the new director of the division,
Mr. Tony DeGange. He indicated that the Division of Halibut
was another of the smaller divisions in the department. The
amount of total operating funds for the division equaled
$6.8 million, $4.2 million in UGF. The division's role was
to review applications and issue permits for activities in
fish-bearing water bodies and legislatively designated
special areas. It was also responsible for monitoring and
authorizing development projects and conducting compliance
actions. Primarily, he was speaking of successfully
permitting development operations that would provide jobs
for Alaskans but also would not harm critical fish and
wildlife habitat that was necessary for Alaskans to enjoy.
Co-Chair Neuman asked members to hold their questions until
the end of the presentation.
Mr. Brooks discussed slide 17: "Number of Permits Issued."
He stated that one of the things the division did in
monitoring activity was to review the number of permits
issued. He pointed out that in the prior three years there
had been over 4 thousand permits issued. More importantly,
the division had only had to take 14 non-compliance actions
in the previous year. In the instance of non-compliance,
the division worked with a developer or an individual on
whatever items needed to be brought into compliance to
protect fish and wildlife habitat.
Mr. Brooks advance to slide 18: "Division of Administrative
Services":
Director Sunny Haight
· 73 permanent full-time positions
· 11 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $12,701.0 FY2016 Operating Request
· $3,169.4 UGF Request
· 6% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Provides routine administrative services for the
department and coordinates development of the annual
operating and capital budget
Mr. Brooks relayed that the Division of Administrative
services provided the primary functions in the areas of
accounting, budget, human resources, and information
technologies as well as general support. One of the things
unique to the department was the administration of its fish
and game licensing program. The department sold nearly 800
thousand pieces of stock annually and generated $25 million
of revenue for the fish and game fund to help fund the
department's programs and support fish and wildlife. The
division comprised about 6 percent of the overall budget of
the department and just under $3.2 million in UGF.
He moved to slide 19: "Board Support Section":
Board of Fish Executive Director Glenn Haight
Board of Game Executive Director Kristy Tibbles
· 6 permanent full-time positions
· 5 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $1,983.5 FY2015 Operating Request
· $1,512.7 UGF Request
· 1% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Ensures that the public process for the state's
fish and wildlife regulatory system operates
efficiently and effectively
Mr. Brooks affirmed that the Boards Support Section was
small but critical and totaled $1.5 million in UGF and 1
percent of Department of Fish and Game's total budget. The
section played a critical role in helping the Board of Fish
and the Board of Game to meet as well as the 84 advisory
committees around the state. He reported that in 2014 the
Board of Fish met for 36 meeting days and considered 377
proposals. The Board of Game had 20 meeting days and
considered 180 proposals. He added that the joint board met
for 5 meeting days and considered 41 proposals.
He discussed slide 20: "Independent Agencies":
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
· 28 permanent full-time positions
· 3 permanent part-time/seasonal positions
· $4,593.6 FY2016 Operating Request
· $0 UGF Request
· 2% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Controls entry into Alaska's commercial
fisheries to promote conservation of Alaska's
fishery resources and economic health of
commercial fishing
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council
· 4 permanent full-time positions
· $2,503.5 FY2016 Operating Request
· $0 UGF Request
· 1% of ADF&G's Operating Budget
· Works toward restoring the environment injured
by the Exxon Valdez oil spill to a healthy and
productive ecosystem, while taking into account
the importance and quality of life and the need
for viable opportunities to establish and
sustain a reasonable standard of living
Mr. Brooks reported that CFEC had zero UGF. The commission
generated its revenue from the sale of vessel licenses and
permits in the amount of $4.6 million which equated to 2
percent of DFG's total budget. He continued that the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council was a small monitoring
unit currently. The council has a staff of four, an
operating budget of $2.5 million, and zero UGF. Neither
entities reported to the commissioner. Instead they were
housed within DFG for budgeting and reporting.
3:03:22 PM
Mr. Brooks discussed slide 21: "FY2016 Budget By Division
and Funding Source ($214,975.5)." He explained that the
department's FY 16 endorsed budget was just under $215
million. The two pie charts were broken down by division
and by fund source. The three large divisions, Commercial
Fisheries, Sport Fish, and Fish and Wildlife, comprised
about 80 percent of DFG's budget. The other divisions were
the smaller pieces in the pie. He directed members'
attention to the pie chart by fund source. The GF made up
about 40 percent of the total budget. Federal funds equaled
about 31 percent and Fish and Game funds were 11 percent,
and the remaining 18 percent consisted of a variety of
other smaller funding sources.
Mr. Brooks reported on slide 22: "FY2016 Budgeted
Positions." He relayed that the department's workforce
consisted of 922 full-time positions and 1683 positions
total. During the seasonal months the department nearly
doubled its workforce. A majority of the seasonal positions
were in the three larger divisions within the department.
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 23: "FY2016 Operating Budget
by RDU Department of Fish and Game: FY2015 Management Plan
to FY2016 Adjusted Base Comparison." He explained that the
slide showed the FY 15 management plan compared to the FY
16 adjusted base by RDU's [Results Delivery Unit]. The
differences in the budget were cost of living adjustments
from labor contracts. He noted a health insurance rate
reduction determined by Department of Administration and
distributed to all agencies. He pointed out the reversal of
three temporary increments added by the legislature
previously. They were scheduled to end after FY 15 and
totaled $810 thousand. They were depicted on the slide
under the reversal of multiple one-time appropriations.
Mr. Brooks discussed slide 24: "FY2016 Operating Budget by
RDU Department of Fish and Game: FY2016 Adjusted Base to
Governor Endorsed Budget Comparison." He relayed that the
slide showed the FY 16 adjusted base and the FY 16 governor
endorsed budget. He reviewed the main changes. The
department proposed a $7.3 million UGF reduction. The
decrement encompassed a multitude of division decreases.
There were also some fund source changes that he would
discuss in detail in the subcommittee process. He indicated
he had a more comprehensive slide he would review before
the end of his presentation.
Mr. Brooks slide 25: "Department of Fish & Game's Share of
Total Agency Operations (GF Only)($ Thousands)." He noted
that the following three slides were generated by the
Legislative Finance Division and provided a 10-year
lookback. Department of Fish and Game had grown over the
previous decade. He reported seeing a decrease in growth in
the prior two years. However, throughout the 10 years the
department's share of the overall agencies' budget remained
steady at a range of 1.6 percent to 1.7 percent. It equaled
1.67 percent in the FY 16 request.
Mr. Brooks talked about slide 26: "Appropriations within
the Department of Fish & Game (GF Only) ($ Thousands)." He
conveyed that the slide broke out the 10-year lookback by
division. He pointed out that the Commercial Fisheries
Division, represented by the blue line at the top of the
graph, dominated the GF discussion. He noted the cluster of
all other DFG divisions near the bottom of the graph. He
also drew attention to the downturn in GF budgets in the
most recent 2 years.
Mr. Brooks explained slide 27: "Appropriations within the
Department of Fish & Game (All Funds) ($ Thousands)." He
remarked that the graph depicted "All Funds". The chart
reflected the federal funds and the Fish and Game funds as
well as the GF in the budget. Both of the budgets for the
Sport Fish Division and the Wildlife Conservation Division
were about $50 million dollars each, and the Commercial
Fisheries Division budget was in the $70 million range. The
remaining divisions were relatively small in comparison.
3:07:39 PM
Mr. Brooks advanced to slide 28: "Major Accomplishments in
2014":
· Commercial Salmon Harvest
· Intensive Management
· Endangered Species
· Wood Bison Restoration
Mr. Brooks reported that the department had a strong year
in 2014. He affirmed the strong commercial salmon fishery
harvest totaling 156.7 million fish with a preliminary
value of $ $576 million. The largest component came from
Bristol Bay. There was also a strong chum salmon harvest
from Kotzebue. He furthered it was the second largest
harvest on record with 677 thousand chums harvested. He
referred back to the question regarding intensive
management. He specified that the department was currently
implementing intensive management programs aimed at
increasing caribou and moose numbers in portions of game
management units 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 25.
The department was active around the state. The department
was pursuing intensive management programs in areas within
the game management units, rather than throughout entire
units that need it and that were approved by the board. He
also mentioned a reintroduction of wood bison in the
following 2 months. The department has practiced due
diligence in terms of the endangered species act. The wood
bison population was considered an experimental population.
The animals would be released on the landscape in the
following March. The department had the associated funding
for their reintroduction.
Mr. Brooks pointed out slide 29: "Issues and Challenges":
·
Chinook Salmon Fisheries
· Endangered Species and the State's Right to Manage
· Fish and Game Fund Pressure
· Federal Funding
Mr. Brooks spoke about the low abundance of Chinook which
had been well documented. It had prompted the closure and
restrictions necessary for conservation that resulted in a
burden on Alaskans reliant on the Chinook stocks for food
and income. The department had initiated a Chinook salmon
research initiative and received some questions about its
status. Over the prior 2 years the legislature appropriated
$7.5 million in 2013 and 2014 sessions for the department
to pursue the initiative, a $30 million initiative. He
conveyed to the department's managers that they should only
count on the money that the department had. The department
recognized the fiscal climate. There was enough funding to
complete some good work and to fill some of the knowledge
gaps identified at the onset of the initiative. The
department identified 12 indicator stocks for the
initiative that stretched from Southeast to the Yukon. The
department was likely going to reduce the number of
indicator stocks and focus more on the adult work rather
than juvenile work using about half of the funding. He
relayed that juvenile work was very costly. He mentioned
that he had some of the project managers working on a
proposal to get the best information at the best value with
the money that had been appropriated. The information would
be reported back to the legislature at some point. He also
reported doing the final edits of the second issue of the
Department's Chinook News which provided a current update
on the work that had been done regarding the 12 indicator
stocks. The first issue came out in 2014 in newspaper form.
He remarked that the commissioner had been working on the
issue of Chinook salmon fisheries with the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC).
Acting Commissioner Cotton responded that NPFMC had
jurisdiction over the Bering Sea among other federal waters
in Alaska. Recently the department had advanced a proposal
in which he expected to take final action in the following
April to reduce the limits on Chinook salmon bycatch in the
Bering Sea. It was significant because of the low abundance
situation on Alaska's Western rivers. It would be a large
reduction in the overall limit. It had been a hard-fought
battle but Alaska was currently in a position to accomplish
the reduction. A huge percent of the Bering Seas stocks
were Alaska fish. Some Chinook salmon seen in other parts
of Alaska were not necessarily Alaska fish. He felt like
there had been some success and hoped to finalize it in
April.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there were enough votes. Acting
Commissioner Cotton thought so. He added that there were 11
votes on the council, 6 were Alaskan.
3:13:53 PM
Mr. Brooks continued to address slide 29. He pointed out
that the department relied heavily on federal funding; it
was 30 percent of the department's overall budget. In many
areas the funding was flat or declining. However, there was
one area he wanted to highlight. The Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration funds underwrote the Division of
Wildlife Conservation. He explained that the fund was
derived from excise taxes on guns and ammunition at the
national level. It was dedicated and allocated out to the
50 states based on size and population. Alaska received a 5
percent allocation of funds. The fund has been growing
dramatically for several years and was reflective of guns
and ammunition sales in the nation. The Division of
Wildlife Conservation was challenged due to the fact that
the funds required a 3-to-1 match, $3 federal dollars to $1
state dollar. The department typically used its Fish and
Game funds and monies from GF to match the federal dollars.
The Fish and Game funding has been flat but has been on the
rise for the previous 2 years. There had been an increase
of about $900 thousand in 2014 over 2013. He continued to
explain that it was out of $25 million total. He commented
that it had been nice to see the increase. Much of the
revenue was derived from non-resident sales. Many people
visited Alaska to hunt and fish. As the national economy
was improving, Alaska was seeing more visitors and
additional non-resident sales. He reiterated that it
remained a challenge to match federal funding and to put
sound projects in the field that would provide useful
information for managers.
Co-Chair Neuman commented that the legislature would be
working diligently to make sure the state had match funds.
Mr. Brooks clarified that it was one program where federal
funds were not diminishing, atypical of the current trend.
Mr. Brooks pointed to slide 30: "Highlights in Operating
Budget for FY2016." He reported that the department was
requesting $7.3 million less in UGF for FY 16. The
department was proposing some revenue offsets including $3
million in receipts from the Commercial Fishing Limited
Entry Commission that would replace UGF in the budget for
the Division of Commercial Fisheries. The receipts were
derived from the sale of vessel licenses a1nd permits and
were tied to the industry. The department thought it was
the prudent thing to do. The agency generated between $7.5
million to $8 million in revenue and had a budget of about
$4 million. The excess revenue would be useful in
offsetting cuts to the Commercial Fisheries Division that
would otherwise result in reductions to programs important
to commercial fishermen. The department was proposing
another offset which was to replace $1.2 million in UGF in
the Division of Wildlife Conservation with federal funds
from the Pittman-Robertson fund.
Co-Chair Neuman interjected that Co-Chair Thompson would be
leaving the meeting early and had a question.
3:17:51 PM
Co-chair Thompson asked that the department provide
recommendations for generating revenue. H asserted that
fishing license fees had not been increased for several
years. He thought that there were many reduced fees that
had been in place since the 70's. He wanted to revisit fee
structures to generate additional monies due to the current
fiscal situation. Acting Commissioner Cotton responded that
Co-Chair Thompson was correct that a hunting license cost
$25 which was a bargain in comparison to many other states.
The department did not charge for game tags but many states
did. He was encouraged by many outdoor groups promoting the
idea of increased fees. It was an opportunity to face the
budget situations with a "pay-as-you-go" approach. His
staff had put together some spreadsheets showing different
options and different revenue results from those options
which he would be happy to share with the committee.
Co-Chair Neuman remarked that perhaps Co-Chair Thompson was
encouraging the department to take the lead.
Mr. Brooks returned to slide 30. He indicated that the next
part of reaching the $7.3 million UGF reduction was direct
cuts to divisions. The Commercial Fisheries Division made
up to 60 percent of the department's GF. He reported that
reductions were spread to all of the divisions within the
department. He discussed that when DFG added projects it
also added precision to its management. He provided the
example of running a Chinook weir and extending it to
include counting Coho. The department would add weeks to a
season trying to enumerate better and ultimately getting
better data resulting in more precise management and
greater opportunity for fishermen or anglers. As the
department scaled back it might be replacing a weir with
aerial surveys, a method that was less precise and not as
detailed. The public is effected by not having as much
opportunity. The department tried to manage for optimum
opportunity, however, it had to protect the stocks creating
tension in the budget. As the department looked at
reductions, provided specifically in the form of change
records, it would identify specific projects such as sonar
and weir projects that the department would be proposing to
reduce or eliminate.
3:21:40 PM
Mr. Brooks mentioned that there had been 6 additional
temporary increments that had been added over the years.
They were scheduled to expire after 2016, 2017, and 2018.
The department would be proposing to end them at the end of
2015 and not continue them which would total $1.2 million.
He would be discussing the large pieces of the $7.3 UGF
reduction in more detail in the subcommittee process.
Mr. Brooks advance to slide 31: "FY2016 Capital Projects
Request":
Projects and Initiatives
· Wildlife Management, Research and Hunting Access:
$11,250.0 Federal, $500.0 GFM
Recurring Capital Projects
· Sport Fish Recreational Boating Access: $2,250.0
Federal, $750.0 GF
· Shooting Range Deferred Maintenance: $375.0 Federal,
$125.0 F and GF
Mr. Brooks commented that although he had been presenting
the department's operating overview, the department had
three small capital projects reflected on the last slide of
his presentation. The first was a cluster of wildlife
management, research, and hunting access projects totaling
$11.2 million in federal dollars using the spike in the
Pittman-Robertson fund so it did not revert back to the
federal government. If the money went back to the federal
government it would be spent somewhere else or reallocated
to another state. Department of Fish and Game had a $500
thousand match in GF. In straight proportion it would take
$3.7 million to match $11.2. He relayed that the department
was under-matched and would be looking diligently for
partners on many of the projects. The department was trying
to get the authority on the books in order to pursue the
effort.
Mr. Brooks continued that the department had 2 recurring
capital projects including boater access in the amount of
$3 million using the majority of federal funds, and
shooting range deferred maintenance for $500 thousand none
of which were GF. He concluded DFG's presentation and was
happy to answer questions from committee members.
3:23:40 PM
Co-Chair Neuman congratulated former Sport Fish Division
Director, Mr. Charlie Swanton, on his appointment to Deputy
Commissioner within DFG. He mentioned hearing about the
effects of some federal regulations that would allow
subsistence fishing on the Kenai River. He asked Mr.
Swanton about the potential effects on the fishery.
CHARLES SWANTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND GAME, responded that the effects of allowing
subsistence would play out over the following several
months. He was unsure of the future outcome but thought
that department staff had weighed in with the federal
subsistence board about concerns they had. He remarked that
in some people's minds the information was solidly heard.
He could not predict the outcome, however.
Co-Chair Neuman clarified that he meant the outcome of the
fishery. He asked if it was damaging to the fishery.
Mr. Swanton remarked that the specifics of the particular
proposal that was passed had a series of answers to some of
the questions. His understanding was that the users would
submit an operation plan to the federal manager, who had
not been determined at present. For the sake of discussion
it would likely be the refuge manager, as in other areas of
the state. The refuge manager and staff would review the
operational plan which would stipulate such things as
species, gear, location, time, and limits in terms of how
much of each species could be harvested. The things he
mentioned had not been determined.
Commissioner Cotton added that DFG had been working on the
issue. Representative Gara had been very interested in the
issue as well as others. He thought the deputy commissioner
had outlined the procedure well. He was definitely
concerned about the effect on King Salmon and other sport
fish including Rainbow Trout and Dolly Varden Trout, The
nets were indiscriminately nets. Many of the decisions that
would be made would have a specific determination on the
effects. He expressed his surprise about the issue and
relayed that there were 4 federal agencies that voted on
the issue. Typically they had opposed the issue and in the
case of the most recent vote the National Park Service
votes yes catching most people off guard. He was very
interested in pursuing the issue further.
3:27:56 PM
Representative Munoz asked about the environmental
compliance functions within the Habitat Division and asked
about the staff time designated to those efforts. She
offered that he did not have to respond but could provide
her with the information at a later time. She also wanted
to know if the function had grown over the previous 3 to 5
years. If so, she wondered if it was a function that
traditionally had been handled by the private sector. If it
was the case, she asked why the state had not encouraged
more private activity in the area of environmental
compliance of development projects.
Commissioner Cotton asked for clarity about her questions.
Representative Munoz responded that within the Habitat
Division the function had grown over time. It was also an
area that had been traditionally handled by the private
sector. She asked about quantifying staff time. Also, she
wondered if it was something that could be handled properly
in the private sector.
Mr. Brooks suggested that a significant portion of the
Habitat budget was soft money or program receipts. The
department worked with Kensington Mine or Greens Creek Mine
in Southeast Alaska. His staff collaborated with the mines
it was an area but they were paying for the remedial work
or some of the environmental assessment work that the
department was leveraging dollars form industry to the
extent possible. It was a significant share of the habitat
budget aside from the GF they received. He would provide
the information Representative Munoz was looking for.
3:30:02 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked Mr. Brooks to include the impact of
privatizing some of the types of work such as seismographic
work into the study on the effects of the state doing
things in-house or privatizing some of the work. Mr. Brooks
said that he would do so.
Representative Gara mentioned that the legislature had
worked on trying to find the answer to the declining runs
of King Salmon. It was great news to hear bycatch would
become limited. The current study that had received much
support from the legislature affected people in almost all
of the legislative districts. It affected rivers from the
north to the south. People were unable to fish for King
Salmon on the Kenai or the Yukon or the Kuskokwim in the
current year. He understood the fiscal pressure, however he
expressed concerns about affecting the King Salmon study.
He asked what information would no longer be available if
the study ceased. He also suggested funding the study on a
tapered down basis. For example, 25 percent less of the
funding could be spent on the study in the current year,
and imposing additional reductions of 25 percent for the 2
subsequent years which would extend the study over a longer
period but would cost less to the GF annually.
Acting Commissioner Cotton replied that the King Salmon
study was a very high priority for DFG and for many people
in Alaska. He referred to Mr. Brooks previous comments
about doing meaningful work with reduced funding. Mr.
Brooks spoke about the 12 indicator systems of which fewer
systems might have to be used. He asked Mr. Swanton to
comment.
Representative Gara clarified that what he meant by
tapering down was completing the study but doing it over a
longer period of time with a declining amount of money
being spent annually.
Acting Commissioner Cotton asked Representative Gara for
clarity about whether the department would receive the full
funding for a $30 million project.
Representative Gara responded affirmatively and added that
it would be over a longer period of time and tapering down
amounts annually.
Acting Commissioner Cotton expressed his concerns about the
certainty of receiving the full funding. He felt it was an
obvious concern.
Mr. Swanton added that the department had already started
looking at scaling the study down in terms of fewer
indicator stocks and in some cases completely eliminating
the juvenile work. Although the juvenile work was
important, it added an element that the state did not
necessarily have on a statewide basis. The department had
taken a look at the issue in the context of how it could
still collect some of the information. In essence, the
juvenile work provided a picture of ocean survival, a
picture the state did not have. In other words, there was a
data gap from the time the smolts left fresh water until
the time they returned as adults. It was the department's
belief that the first year of ocean survival was a
bottleneck. Going forward the department wanted to use the
funding to focus on enumerating and getting the best
escapement information for adult salmon in certain problem
areas like the Yukon and Kuskokwim. Juvenile work would be
set aside due to the fact that it had to be done for a
lengthy period of time. It took about 5 years prior to
getting the first data point of the juvenile work back
waiting for the juveniles to return as adults before
collecting the data. He agreed that tapering down was a
long-term approach.
3:36:07 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked Commissioner Cotton about tribal
management of waterfowl in cooperation with federal
agencies in Alaska. He also mentioned that there had been
some push for more regarding state lands and resources. He
asked if there was any current management of fish and game
resources in state lands or waters. He wanted his input on
seeing anymore in the state.
Commissioner Cotton deferred to Mr. Dale.
BRUCE DALE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, asked Vice-Chair Saddler to
repeat his question.
Vice-Chair Saddler was aware of some cooperative management
of waterfowl with federal agencies and he had seen some
desire by native communities to have an increasing role in
wildlife management. He asked if there was currently any
native or tribal management of state wildlife and fish
resources and his thought about expanding those.
Mr. Dale responded that there was no other cooperative
management in place that he was aware of. He relayed that
there were questions about the ability under the law for
the authority that had been given to the Board of Game to
delegate authority to another entity. He believed it was
clear that the board was not able to in a general sense. In
terms of delegating authority from management, he did not
believe it had occurred. Waterfowl was managed under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act making it possible and the
distinction. In the spirit of cooperative management the
state had at least a few if not several cooperative
managements such as the Western Arctic Caribou Heard
cooperative management groups where they did not have the
authority to back the regulations but worked closely
together to advise the board of their recommendations. The
International Porcupine Caribou Heard board was another
example.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the department would welcome or
seek out the opportunity to expand the cooperative
agreements in the future.
Acting Commissioner Cotton replied that he would like to
cooperate. He was aware that there would be some private
land holders that might be interested. However, the state
could not surrender management authority but could
cooperate.
Co-Chair Neuman commented that he wished the state had a
marine mammal management act rather than having a Marine
Mammal Protection Act to be able to manage some of the
wildlife.
Acting Commissioner Cotton indicated he would follow up
with Representative Munoz question independently.
Co-Chair Neuman thanked the presenters and announced that
there would not be a finance meeting on the following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:40:43 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ADFG FY2016 House Finance Committee Overview.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2015 1:30:00 PM |
|
| UA FY16 Overview HFIN 1-20-15.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2015 1:30:00 PM |
|
| UA Overview Handout.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2015 1:30:00 PM |
UA Handout HFIN Overview |