Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/14/2006 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB334 | |
| HB379 | |
| HB395 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 379 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 395 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 334 | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 14, 2006
1:43 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:43:06 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras; Konrad Jackson, Staff,
Representative Kurt Olson; Jim Pound, Staff, Representative
Jay Ramras; Nico Bus, Acting Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Natural Resources;
Jim Derringer, Staff, Representative Jim Holm; Mike
Pawlowski, Staff, Representative Kevin Meyer
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Steve Van Sant, State Assessor, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Jennifer Yuhas,
Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks; Chris Maisch,
Director, Division of Forestry, Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage; Scott Walden, Coordinator, Kenai
Peninsula Borough Emergency Management Office, Kenai; Craig
Goodrich, Fire Chief, City of Anchorage; Lynn Wilcock, Chief
of Fire and Aviation, Division of Forestry, Department of
Natural Resources; Tamara Cook, Direction, Legislative
Legal, Juneau; Chris Beheim, Crime Lab Supervisor,
Department of Public Safety, Anchorage
SUMMARY
HB 273 An Act relating to the dividends of individuals
claiming allowable absences; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 273 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 334 An Act relating to an exemption from and deferral
of municipal property taxes for certain types have
deteriorated property.
HB 334 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 379 An Act relating to controlled substances.
CS HB 379 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with zero note #1
by the Department of Health & Social Services.
HB 395 An Act extending the period of the fire season.
HB 395 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
1:45:56 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 334
An Act relating to an exemption from and deferral of
municipal property taxes for certain types of
deteriorated property.
REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, SPONSOR, testified that in
several communities, the State has seen private properties
go from prosperous offices and residential building in the
boom cycle to being empty. He pointed out that the economy
is returning and new developers are looking at abandoned
buildings as an opportunity to refurbish without complete
reconstruction. He submitted that could revitalize
neighborhoods and cities.
Representative Ramras noted that HB 334 would help clarify
existing tax deferral language. The legislation places a
deadline on the exemption that coincides with existing tax
deferral sunsets. The primary difference in the language
allows for the development of condominium or office type
buildings to be established in what are currently referred
to as deteriorated structures. At the local government
discretion, the tax deferral would be spelled out and
restricted only by the actual transfer of property. The
clear language allows a developer more stability and the
ability to secure necessary loans for reconstruction.
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that Amendment #1 would
replace the entire bill. Representative Ramras responded
that he had not yet reviewed the amendment.
JIM POUND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JAY RAMRAS, explained that
Representative Holm began reworking the amendment when it
was obvious that there was a problem with the bill's
language and that it would not allow the deferral to
continue should the building be rented out. The original
intent of the amendment was to renovate, bringing back to
code and making it available for use by the public. Hence,
the major rewrite of the amended language.
Representative Foster asked the status of the McKay Building
in Anchorage. Representative Ramras understood that the
developer was the same person. He stated it was not his
intent to meet developers interested in the building because
he did not want to be influenced. Renting the building is
not an option with the original legislation; consequently,
Representative Holm was requested to change the language to
include renting, which would then allow, "making good" on
back property taxes. The intent continues to be getting
"dead buildings" back functioning.
Mr. Pound pointed out amended language, which includes
demolition, with referral to "drop dead" tax deferrals.
Vice Chair Stoltze pointed out that the member's packets did
not include any correspondence with local municipalities.
Mr. Pound responded that some changes in the amendment could
garner those letters.
Vice Chair Stoltze inquired about other eligible buildings.
Mr. Pound replied that the only one he was presently aware
of, is the McKay Building. However, he believed there would
be others, based on input from realtors.
Representative Ramras interjected that he had received an
email from Ron Peck, Executive Director, Alaska Tourism
Association, noting support for the effort. He related
thoughts regarding tourism. He admitted that he was
reluctant to bring a bill forward that has such a narrow
single use, but believed the bill has merit for statewide
development through 2010.
1:55:32 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze mentioned there could be statewide
historical preservation opportunities with passage of the
legislation. Representative Ramras noted he was excited
about that option.
Vice Chair Stoltze questioned the impact of "remodeling".
Co-Chair Meyer asked if any of the municipalities support
the bill. Mr. Pound understood once the amendment was
included, the Fairbanks North Star Borough would be
supportive. He noted on-line testimony.
Mr. Pound pointed out that the amendment had just arrived.
1:58:06 PM
Representative Kerttula referenced the 2010 date and asked
if consideration had been given to making it permanent. Mr.
Pound explained the entire section sunsets in 2010,
indicated essential by Legislative Legal.
Representative Kerttula reiterated her question as to why it
was being sunset at all. Mr. Pound understood that the
entire current statute exemption language sunsets then.
Representative Holm MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
LS1353\A.3, Cook, 2/14/06. Vice Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Weyhrauch asked why an exemption past 2010
had not been granted. He referenced Subsection 1, Line 19,
of the amendment regarding "payment of the deferred taxes"
and asked if the taxes would become 100% due at the defined
period or could they be paid over a period of time.
Mr. Pound referenced language on Page 2, Line 8, Section D,
"a date provided in the ordinance adopted under this
subsection," which explains that a local municipality would
have an option to negotiate individual contracts with a
developer. Otherwise, the intent is if the property meets
one of requirement, deferred taxes become payable.
Representative Weyhrauch advised that "due" and "payable"
mean different things. Mr. Pound thought that language
would be clarified in the terms of the contract between the
developer and the municipality. It is the sponsor's intent
that the municipality be the one that controls it.
2:02:36 PM
JIM DERRINGER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM, commented
that Amendment #1 attempts to address tax deferral as the
building is being remodeled. It also provides a time for
when the deferral is made. Originally, there was language
allowing for a five-year deferral. After speaking with the
Borough, it was determined that it would be best to provide
more flexibility.
Co-Chair Meyer asked how the new amendment differs from the
original one. Mr. Derringer responded that an added
provision includes "remodel" and the time certain for the
tax deferral. Mr. Pound added that the amendment includes
"occupancy".
Co-Chair Meyer inquired what "remodeling" would consist of.
Mr. Derringer pointed out that is clarifying language, which
differs from renovation. Legislative Legal recommended
inclusion of the language.
2:05:36 PM
Representative Joule asked if someone remodeled and then
placed the building up for sale, would the sale
require"occupancy" permit. Mr. Pound explained that if a
transfer takes place (sale), then the deferred tax becomes
payable. Mr. Derringer pointed out it would be considered
remodeled and eligible for occupancy. Once 50% of a
building is occupied, taxes are due.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if there was support from the
Municipality in Fairbanks. Mr. Derringer referenced the on
line testimony.
Vice Chair Stoltze questioned the use of "remodeling",
worrying about potential loopholes. He requested testimony
from the State assessor and those affected municipalities
outside of Fairbanks, pointing out the high dollar issues.
2:07:50 PM
STEVE VAN SANT, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STATE
ASSESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, commented that "remodel" was all encompassing
and would depend on the local code. He acknowledged, it
needs to be written into the local code. In theory, the
exemption would provide for a 10-year exempt on the
property; the owner could then move into a 5-year deferment.
When sold, the deferred amount would be owed at the time of
the transfer.
Vice Chair Stoltze asked the sponsor why that language was
necessary and what it accomplished. Mr. Pound said that
Legislative Legal submitted the wording. The Sponsor does
not care one way or another about it.
Mr. Van Sant pointed out that the legislation addresses
deteriorating property, property that is substantially below
par, needing major work. He recommended that the remodel
language be removed.
2:10:37 PM
Representative Hawker wanted to know what the bill provides
that is not already in existing statute. He noted the
addition of two triggers:
· 50% occupancy on a rehabilitation, and
· Completion of demolition.
He pointed out that those indicators would be placed into
statute as mandatory triggers for the repayment of taxes.
He thought that language forces municipalities what they can
do.
2:14:08 PM
Mr. Pound pointed out the third trigger:
· The date provided in ordinance adopted under that
subsection.
The problem with existing language is that it creates a
"blank" area for the developer being able to acquire a loan.
There is not language addressing when the deferment begins.
That makes it more difficult for a developer to secure
necessary financing.
Representative Hawker understood that the motivation then
was to provide a date as to when the municipality could
trigger it sooner. He maintained his continual support of
local control and determination. He thought that a
financial institution, when granting credit to a potential
applicant, the municipality could opt to exercise such a
deferral. He appreciated the clarity in Section (D). He
reiterated concern for the need of the legislation.
2:17:19 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if Representative Hawker's reference
was to the amendment or the bill. Representative Hawker
responded that the amendment is the bill. Mr. Derringer
stated that the extra provisions could provide time
certainty to a developer. Otherwise, it would cause
boroughs to modify the provisions.
Representative Hawker thought that would be inherent in an
ordinance passed by a municipality. He worried about over-
stepping legislative boundaries and inadvertently
constraining economic development and rehabilitation
projects. Mr. Derringer interjected that the reason that
50% is used was so the person could continue up to 60% or
70%, and never transfer or pay the taxes.
2:19:48 PM
Representative Hawker stated that was inherent to the
current municipal authority.
JENNIFER YUHAS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS
NORTH STAR BOROUGH, FAIRBANKS, testified that Mayor Whittier
supports the changes in the legislation that would provide
the greatest degree of flexibility at the municipal level.
He supports the idea that municipalities should be able to
determine a tax deferral.
Representative Hawker commented that was his point. Co-
Chair Meyer questioned the need of the legislation.
2:21:38 PM
Representative Kerttula recommended testimony from
Legislative Legal Services; she asked about the 10-year date
and the historic significance of that exemption.
TAMARA COOK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTION,
LEGISLATIVE LEGAL, JUNEAU, stated that she had no
information on the 10-year gate. That came strictly as a
drafting request from outside their office. With respect to
existing law, there is silence regarding when property for
which the taxes have been deferred, when that deferral
period ends. The deferral cannot go longer than five years.
It is known under existing law, if the ownership of the
property changes, then all the deferred payments becomes
due.
Ms. Cook assumed that the ordinance would be structured to
address what the time period should be, when taxes are
deferred, if ownership does not change.
Ms. Cook continued, HB 334, not the amendment, clarifies the
difference is that the deferment for 1 - 5 years of taxes
and makes that payable only when ownership changes. The
amendment A.3 is more elaborate offering several "triggers":
· One is in existing law, when ownership changes;
· Second is a test based on occupancy;
· Third is based upon when property is a project
involving the demolition of a structure and when
finished, the municipality makes the determination;
· Fourth is the date provided by an ordinance, which
would presumably allow a municipality to offer deferred
tax payments for years one, two and three years; those
taxes would become due and payable at a particular
date.
Ms. Cook pointed out that under the amendment, if a trigger
occurs, payments are due at the earliest of the listed
event. By ordinance, the municipality would not be able to
change the occupancy test.
2:25:12 PM
Representative Kerttula inquired if the amendment would
create more restrictions on municipalities. Ms. Cook
replied that partially was correct and that current statute
does not direct the time period the deferral must last. It
could be addressed by ordinance.
Mr. Van Sant added that a Fairbanks North Star attorney
regarding the exemption of the Polaris Building had
contacted him. The question arose with the developer and
the legal department as to when the deferred payment would
be owed. The attorney advised the developer, it would be
due at the end of five years. The developer disagreed, and
understood that the tax would only be due when the property
sold. The amendment removes "only" and inserts the other
triggers referenced by Ms. Cook.
2:28:00 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referenced "remodeling". Ms. Cook did not
know why that word had been included.
Vice Chair Stoltze MOVED to DELETE all references to
"remodeling" and "remodel" in the bill. There being NO
OBJECTION, the references were changed.
Vice Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted.
Representative Hawker asked the Chairman's intention with
passage of the legislation. He questioned if it was
necessary and requested legal clarification regarding
whether it inadvertently treads on other development.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed. He suggested holding the bill in
Committee for a few days to check with other communities and
requested that Representative Hawker ask Ms. Cook any legal
questions he might have at this time.
2:32:05 PM
Representative Hawker referenced the amended bill and asked
if it would accomplish anything that was not already
authorized in statute. He questioned if the latitude should
be left within the municipality.
Ms. Cook referenced testimony from Mr. Van Sant, who
remarked that there was a conflict in the statutory
interpretation between a developer and one of the municipal
attorneys. The municipal attorney advised that when
ownership changes, the deferred tax is due. The
municipality has the option to make the taxes due sooner.
Taxes are due the minute the deferral ends. Ms. Cook did
not know for sure, but supposed that Amendment #1 would
clarify that a municipality could set a date when payment
was due. Representative Hawker concluded that Amendment #1
does make explicate the date certain when the tax is due.
2:35:50 PM
Representative Kelly echoed concerns regarding what is wrong
with existing law, what are the negative impacts and how
does the legislation fix it.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed and requested that the sponsor and
Representative Holm's office provide further research
regarding expressed concerns.
HB 334 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
2:37:51 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 379
An Act relating to controlled substances.
MIKE PALOWSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, presented
an overview of the bill. HB 379 elevates gamma-
hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) to a classification of a
controlled substance in State law. GHB was elevated to a
schedule 1 in February 2000 by the federal government. The
issue came forward over the summer when a 16-year-old high
school student died after overdosing on a version of GHB not
covered under State law.
Mr. Pawlowski highlighted the changes made in the House
Judiciary Committee.
· Tightening of the title, Page 1, Lines 1 & 2, to avoid
the original version, which was an act, related to
controlled substances.
· The addition on Page 1, Line 14, a limitation for the
federally recognized drugs when intended for human
consumption. [Some of the chemicals do have legitimate
uses.]
· Page 2, only the federally recognized analogs to GHB
are explicitly in Statute.
· Section 2, repeals the classification GHB as a schedule
4, where it currently is in statute.
Mr. Pawlowski commented that those changes would send a
clear message that they are extremely dangerous drugs.
Co-Chair Meyer summarized that the legislation would move
GHB from a Class 4 to a Class 1. Mr. Pawlowski pointed out
that GHB has gained a lot of popularity as a "date rape
drug".
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out the zero fiscal note.
Representative Joule asked the result of moving GHB from a
Class 4 to a Class 1 offense. Mr. Pawlowski related that
the Alaska case was prosecuted under the federal law because
at that level it is a Class 1. In State law, the first
offense is not be applicable and the minimum sentence is a
year. Whereas, a Class 1, the same crime, the first offense
sentence would be 0-2 years or with a maximize sentence of
10 years.
Representative Joule asked how many cases could be impacted
with the changeover. Mr. Pawlowski shared that the dilemma
of GHB does not show up on a test. It is difficult to
detect. There would not be many possession cases because it
is so difficult to prove possession; however, when it has
been administered, the State could see more of those cases.
2:43:00 PM
Representative Joule voiced support for the direction the
bill was going but thought it would increase the Department
of Corrections budget overtime. Mr. Pawlowski agreed.
Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged that the State might see
financial consequences resulting from the legislation.
Vice Chair Stoltze noted there was no fiscal commentary from
the Public Defender office. Mr. Pawlowski responded that
the sponsor had only conferred with the Department of Law.
He indicated that they could ask for a fiscal note from the
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) and the Public Defender if
that was the wish of the Committee.
Vice Chair Stoltze recommended it. Mr. Pawlowski emphasized
that the proposed change is already scheduled at the federal
level and recommended that it be put in compliance at the
Alaska State level.
2:46:08 PM
Representative Hawker recommended that the title be
"tightened up". He pointed out the reference be to "certain
chemically similar substances". He inquired if there had
been "expert testimony" from a pharmacologist indicating no
compromise of industrial activity. Mr. Pawlowski deferred
that question to Chris Beheim of the State Crime lab.
2:48:50 PM
CHRIS BEHEIM, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CRIME LAB
SUPERVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE, offered
to answer questions of the Committee. He spoke to the two
substances, Gamma Butyrolactone (GBL) and Butanediol (BD),
when taken internally, metabolize to GHB and produce exactly
the same chemical effect.
Representative Hawker asked if Mr. Beheim was comfortable
with the proposed list. Mr. Beheim replied they are his
recommendations based on federal statutes.
Representative Kelly asked how many other states have taken
these measures. Mr. Pawlowski was not sure of the exact
number but knew specifically of two. Every state has taken
their individual approach on the issue. The original
version of the bill was taken from California, which defined
an analogue in statute. Because of the way in which the
Alaska Statutes (AS) are written, that did not totally work
for us. New Jersey listed the chemicals as the ones
recognized by the federal government.
Representative Kelly asked if 50% of the states had
addressed the concern. Mr. Pawlowski thought that fewer
than half had; however, pointed out that federal law applies
everywhere.
Representative Weyhrauch requested more information on the
date-rape drug. Mr. Pawlowski responded that "by and
large", it is an industrial solvent.
2:52:00 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired about the industrial use for the
drugs. Mr. Beheim replied that GHB and BD are industrial
solvents used in manufacturing of fibers and pesticides,
having several other uses. The key concern is when used for
human consumption. Mr. Beheim provided examples of
substances with warnings.
Representative Holm asked which pesticides use the chemical.
Mr. Beheim did not know specific pesticide names.
Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT CS HB 379 (JUD) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying zero note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so
ordered.
CS HB 379 (JUD) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department
of Health & Social Services.
2:55:50 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 395
An Act extending the period of the fire season.
KONRAD JACKSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, testified
that the spruce bark beetle kill on the Kenai Peninsula has
created an enormous amount of dry grass and that the dead
trees are susceptible to lightning strikes and man made
fires. The threat grows greater every year. Gradually over
the past several years, the climate in that area has been
warming earlier, leaving wild areas dry and increasing the
risk of major wildfires.
Mr. Jackson pointed out that the largest uncontained fire on
the Southern Kenai Peninsula was the Tracy Avenue fire,
st
starting before May 1, 2005, threatening residents and
property. The fire might have been contained had the
equipment and personnel been available the first day it
started.
Mr. Jackson discussed that by moving the fire season start
st
date to April 1, allows the State to become actively
involved in the fire prevention and control earlier in the
season.
2:58:45 PM
Representative Weyhrauch questioned if an extra month would
add additional expense and asked why the Legislature should
decide rather than the Commissioner for the Department of
Natural Resources.
Mr. Jackson reported that the intention was to provide the
Commissioner with the authority to bring people online
earlier. Representative Weyhrauch repeated his question.
Mr. Jackson noted it is at the request of the firefighters
to be able to be better prepared, earlier in the season. He
pointed out that in some instances, the State has to pay for
firefighters brought up from the lower '48.
Representative Foster commented that over 1,000 fires are
man made and questioned the relief that comes from arson
fires.
Mr. Jackson said that they had not considered arson set
fires. It is the early season fires that are the main
concern. He did not know how those fires were started, but
the intent is to guarantee that they are put out as quickly
as possible with available resources.
3:04:17 PM
Representative Holm voiced concern that bills like this set
the entire State into a poor situation. He asked if using
"fire season" would provide the Commissioner more power for
all the State. Mr. Jackson said it would. He added that
the Commissioner "may" designate periods other than the fire
season to prohibit the setting of fires that would unduly
increase fire danger. The legislation only puts it into
effect, one month earlier.
Representative Holm voiced concerned with the snow melting
at different times in various parts of the State, making the
fire potential different statewide. He believed that a
"blanket statement" could negatively affect different parts
of the State not at danger.
Mr. Jackson pointed out that currently, local authorities
determine the local danger. The local municipalities deter
regionally.
3:08:18 PM
CRAIG GOODRICH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FIRE CHIEF,
CITY OF ANCHORAGE, testified that the purpose of the
legislation requests to bring on air crews and part time
membership one month earlier. That action would help fight
campaign fires. He advised the structural component of
having the crews on one month earlier. Mr. Goodrich
stressed that this is a crucial issue. A campaign fire
costs the State about $1 million dollars per day. He noted
what the fiscal costs represent.
3:10:15 PM
Representative Weyhrauch inquired why the bill does not
indicate that the Commissioner designate the fire season
each year. Mr. Goodrich explained that would require a
guess to determine when the fires will occur. The intent is
to have the seasonal employees back to work and equipment
ready to go on fire alert. He emphasized that the training
and the equipment should be ready beforehand. It would be
better to move it up one month in statute.
Representative Weyhrauch reiterated why the first sentence
could not say that the Commissioner designates the first
day. Mr. Goodrich replied that language would ask the
Commissioner to imagine when to suspect a fire season
starts. There is an ecological change in conditions now
happening and the fire seasons are simply starting a month
earlier.
3:12:08 PM
Representative Kelly was concerned about the fiscal note
accompanying the bill and spoke to the relentless pressure
of employees in every field wanting to go to work earlier.
He asked about exchanging the month up front, giving up the
back end. Mr. Goodrich deferred to the Department of
Natural Resources. Representative Kelly reiterated his
concern with the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Meyer agreed.
3:14:27 PM
Representative Hawker disagreed with the manner in which the
bill had been presented. He requested to question Mr. Bus
from the Department.
SCOTT WALDEN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), COORDINATOR,
KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICE, KENAI,
spoke in support of the legislation. He provided members a
handout of the major Kenai Peninsula fires since 1996+.
[Copy on File].
He stressed that prevention is very important. Mobilization
is a reaction and an expense itself. Having the resources
prepared comes with costs - it is proactive. He urged
support for the bill.
3:19:00 PM
Representative Kelly referenced the beetle kill spruce
concern and asked if that area was being logged to the
maximum. Mr. Walden did not know the logging level. There
is mitigation process preparation going on daily. They are
concentrating on the egress points, preparing for the large
fires. The Northern areas will benefit from passage of the
legislation. The staging areas are generally in Palmer and
Kenai. Having the operations one month early will benefit
the entire region.
Representative Kelly asked about the coordinated approach.
He thought it was "insane" not to maximize logging when it
serves as the base of the problem.
3:21:00 PM
Mr. Jackson advised that in the House Resource Committee,
testimony was heard indicating there has been a significant
amount of logging in the region, which has helped with the
mitigation effort. He understood that since the majority of
the trees have been dead for a long time, the value of that
timber is rapidly decreasing.
3:22:18 PM
NICO BUS, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, offered to answer
questions of the Committee.
He noted queries proposed by Representative Weyhrauch,
regarding the statutes, stating that the proposed date of
April through September has been offered because the
Department of Natural Resources prefers to provide fire
protection in a cost effective manner. The easiest way to
do that would be to provide long-term contracts. The
standard fire season used to be through late May to middle
July. The contracts were written and ready by that time;
however, currently, the aviation contracts are May through
September. As history has indicated and climates have
changed, the fires are happening earlier, which is part of
the reason for the fiscal request - $395 thousand dollars
contractual services. He addressed the five-year contracts.
Mr. Buss responded to comments made by Representative Kelly
regarding employee's pressure to come back to work earlier.
The Department only has 32 full time employees in the fire
preparedness program and 179 seasonal employees, which
remain four to seven months. The season is limited. He
recommended that what should be focused upon are determining
the needs and the best utilization of that staff. If the
State waits until May to train, they might not be ready or
fully trained when the fires start.
3:25:29 PM
Representative Hawker observed that the bill changes the
definition of "fire season". The only operative effect
defining fire season, the Commissioner may offer preventive
activities. He admitted that the additional authority
should provide that and understood that extending the date
was the entire consequence of the bill. Representative
Hawker asked if the State was mandated to have the
definition of the fire contracts in place during the fire
season. He believed there were two separate policy calls
being proposed and was troubled with the fiscal note. He
proposed it be zeroed out and run through the Department of
Natural Resources' subcommittee budget.
3:29:00 PM
Mr. Bus agreed it was a policy call, noting that the
Department was requesting the funding.
Co-Chair Meyer indicated he would not be "comfortable"
letting the bill leave Committee with the accompanying
fiscal note because of the impacts that would have on the
operating budget.
Representative Holm applauded Representative Hawker's
st
assessment. He asked why April 1 had been chosen. He
remembered the huge fire in Fairbanks, which the State did
not fight.
Mr. Bus responded that the proposed legislation would not
impact actually the fighting of fires.
3:31:32 PM
LYNN WILCOCK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHIEF OF FIRE
AND AVIATION, DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
st
RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE, stated that the April 1 date was set
th
because often fires begin by April 15.
Representative Holm commented on the nature of his "seasonal
business", proactively preparing in the autumn for the
upcoming spring. He pointed out he attempts to rehire as
many workers as possible from the previous year, so that
they do not need to be trained.
Mr. Wilcock said they do a lot of preparatory work in the
fall for fire fighting in the spring; however, pointed out
that they are subject to the national standard for fighting
fires, which calls for annual recertification for the safety
of the fire fighters. Also, there is extensive work, which
needs to be done in the spring for the fire-fighting season.
3:35:04 PM
Representative Joule inquired if there were other types of
trees being impacted by the spruce type beetle. Mr. Wilcock
replied that spruce bark beetle was the biggest influence.
He knew there were others, affecting hardwoods but not
nearly with the same impact. He mentioned the aspen fluff.
Representative Joule asked if there was an insect affecting
the birch trees. Mr. Wilcock replied that they have seen
birch pathogens, mostly defoliators, which cause leave fall
later in the summer. Typically, hardwood stands are not the
problem in Alaska. It is controlling grass in the spring
and later on in the summer, switching to black spruce.
3:37:14 PM
Representative Joule inquired if the State was experiencing
a reduced annual precipitation. Mr. Wilcock replied he is
not a climitologist. He indicated that two years of reduced
rainfall is not an indication of a climate change and he did
not know if there was a new trend.
Representative Kelly read from the bill regarding the
Commissioner making the declaration. He did not want to
experience pressure to bring employees on for longer periods
of time. He thought that the bill's language would provide
plenty of flexibility to the Commissioner.
3:39:31 PM
Mr. Wilcock responded that the Commissioner's authority was
exercised in 2003, the spring in which there were many
fires. A fire must occur before the Commissioner can
declare a fire season early-start. It only takes one full
day of sunshine before the fire season starts and that is
difficult to predict.
Representative Kelly commented, "flexibility is relative to
weather conditions". He recommended extending it back by a
couple weeks and leaving the budget alone.
3:43:00 PM
CHRIS MAISCH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
ANCHORAGE, explained that the problem with the early fire
season indication is that the budget is in two different
BRU's. The suppression portion of the budget cannot be
accessed until there is activity. To bring people on early
in the season, they have to take the funds from the
preparedness part of the budget. That part of the budget is
currently funded at a level that allows bringing people back
st
at the May 1 date. It is not simple because of the
financial resource restrictions.
Representative Kelly thought it could be moved up a couple
of weeks without further budget appropriation.
Co-Chair Meyer asked if the bill were passed, would it
guarantee no supplemental funding requests next year.
Representative Hawker commented that previous testimony
should not determine the budgeting process. He disagreed
about the need. He recommended structuring a budget without
the additional money and restructuring the BRU concerns. He
emphasized that pushing the date back does not have a fiscal
consequence.
3:46:45 PM
Representative Kerttula asked the cost per day of combating
a big fire. Mr. Bus responded anywhere between $1 thousand
- $260 thousand dollars per day.
Representative Kerttula questioned the problem between the
two BRU's with the Department's budget. Mr. Bus explained
that the history of the fire suppression budget is varied.
The Department has tried a new approach in which they
completely separate it from actually doing the suppression.
By doing that, they attempt to approximate what an average
fire year would cost. Then the preparedness aspect is used
for aviation contracts and seasonal staff. The proposed
legislation proposes to make those contracts longer. With
the current allocations, the Department cannot extend the
season.
3:49:01 PM
Representative Kerttula stated that the bottom line is that
the Department cannot take care of the fire season with the
current budget. Mr. Bus replied that without the seasonal
staff and the contracts, it becomes an efficiency issue.
The contracts need to be in place to make the process more
economical and is part of the speculation.
Co-Chair Meyer referenced all the "unknowns". He
recommended that the concerns be further discussed in the
Department of Natural Resources Subcommittee with
Representative Kelly, the Subcommittee Chair.
HB 395 was HELD in Committee for further discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:52 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|