Fish and Game proposes $5 habitat fee hikes, annual sweep of dedicated accounts to shore up operations

Stephanie Simic, executive director of the Fish and Game Department, told the House Finance Division I work session that the department recommends raising two habitat fees by $5 each — the fisheries habitat fee and the wildlife habitat fee — to align their values and capture inflation.

Simic said the department’s estimate, based on recent sales averages, is that a $5 increase on the fisheries habitat fee would generate about $640,000 and the same increase on the wildlife habitat fee about $144,000. She told the committee Fish and Game typically sells 140,000 to 150,000 fishing licenses annually and about 80,000 to 85,000 hunting licenses.

Why it matters: Fish and Game leaders said the revenue would flow to the Fish and Game Fund to support department operations and reduce reliance on general funds. Committee members pressed for clear statutory language because the two habitat fees now sit in dedicated accounts and statutory changes would be needed to redirect incremental revenue.

Simic said the department would ask lawmakers to change statute so the additional fee revenue could be transferred into the unrestricted Fish and Game Fund. “What we were suggesting is that you might be able to put a cap on the amount that remains in the fund dedicated, and then anything above that we would have the authority to transfer,” she said.

Committee members and Fish and Game staff discussed a proposal to cap several dedicated accounts at $750,000 and sweep any year-end residual above that cap into the Fish and Game Fund. The accounts cited by the department for such treatment include the fisheries habitat account, the wildlife habitat account and the game management account, the latter of which receives $10 from certain big-game tag sales and — the department said — currently holds one of its largest balances.

Representative questions and department responses

Representative Marty asked whether a $750,000 cap would be sufficient or whether the statutory language should read “may” rather than “shall” to preserve flexibility. Simic said she preferred the department have flexibility; the group discussed changing mandatory “shall” language to “may” to avoid forcing a transfer in years when the dedicated account needed funds for program work.

Representative Papovich asked how the $750,000 figure was chosen. Kathy Labonte, Fish and Game’s chief of business, said the department reviewed several past years of expenditures and that the dedicated accounts often serve as matching or leverage for federal projects; the $750,000 figure was intended as a buffer based on historical use.

Representative Hagen Phillips asked for the current balances; staff reported the game management account carried about $1,895,000 as of June 30.

Next steps and caveats

Committee members asked staff to prepare precise fiscal projections showing the effect of the $5 fee increases and the proposed annual sweep at June 30 for several years forward so lawmakers could see the incremental revenue available to the unrestricted Fish and Game Fund before drafting final language in HB 2.

The department and committee agreed that statutory changes would be required to redirect dedicated-account residuals and that staff would draft bill language if the committee wishes to pursue the proposal in the budget bill.

Ending

Committee members signaled cautious support for pursuing fee increases and year-end sweeps but asked the department to return with numerical projections, clearer drafting, and an explanation of how the changes would interact with existing federally funded projects that use the dedicated accounts as matching funds.