Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/28/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointees: John Sturgeon, Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, Board of Trustees | |
| HB77 | |
| HB48 | |
| SB38 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 28, 2019
9:02 a.m.
9:02:58 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
John Sturgeon, Board Member, Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Remond Henderson, Staff, Representative Tammie
Wilson; Kate Sheehan, Director, Division of Personnel
Services, Department of Administration; Paul Labolle,
Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Amanda Holland,
Management Director, Office of Management and Budget for
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; Lacey
Sanders, Budget Director, Office of Management and Budget;
Fabienne Peter-Contesse, Administrative Services Director,
Department of Natural Resources, Office of Management and
Budget.
SUMMARY
HB 48 TEMP STATE EMPLOYEES IN PART EXEMPT SVCE
HB 48(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (ADM).
HB 53 APPROP: SUPP; CAP; DISASTER RELIEF
HB 53 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 77 NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
HB 77 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (AJS).
CSSB 38(FIN)
APPROP: SUPP; CAP; DISASTER RELIEF
CSSB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
six "do pass" recommendations and five "no
recommendation" recommendations.
SB 41 NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
SB 41 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES:
JOHN STURGEON, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the meeting agenda.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES: JOHN STURGEON,
ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES
9:03:37 AM
JOHN STURGEON, BOARD MEMBER, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH TRUST
AUTHORITY, provided detail about his life and career in
Alaska. He shared that he had been in Alaska since 1970 and
had worked for the U.S. Forest Service, the State of Alaska
Division of Forestry, and currently worked for Koncor
Forest Products. His last position with the State of Alaska
was the Division of Forestry. He served in the U.S. Navy
and did two tours in Vietnam. He had volunteered for many
boards including the Pacific Northwest Medical University
advisory board and board of trustees. He had also been on
boards for the Alaska Resource Development Council and
Alaska Forest Association (a timber/forest product
nonprofit in Ketchikan).
Mr. Sturgeon discussed his interest in serving on the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA) board. He
shared that over the years he had many experiences with
friends and relatives with mental health issues. He
elaborated that he had a special needs granddaughter who
continued to use mental health services. He had
approximately 49 years of resource management experience in
Alaska. He managed timberlands and general land management
for many years. He was currently the general manager of
Koncor Forest Products that harvested timber on Afognak.
Additionally, he was the land manager for Ouzinkie Native
Corporation, which had about 100,000 acres in the Kodiak
area.
Mr. Sturgeon understood the AMHTA had about 1 million acres
of land, used for generating revenue. He believed he would
be the most helpful in that area due to his experience in
land management and timber sales. He had recently completed
a large trade with the U.S. Forest Service to improve the
quality of timber [inaudible] in Southeast Alaska. He
looked forward to helping [AMHTA] with that kind of
assistance.
9:06:18 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston congratulated Mr. Sturgeon on the
supreme court and appreciated him stepping up for public
service.
Representative Josephson addressed that the AMHTA had been
called to task for failing to follow its own rules and
statutes, specifically regarding how executive sessions
were held, whether conversations had occurred off-record
that should not have, and whether decisions had been made
in private that should not have. He asked if Mr. Sturgeon
would follow the rules and law to the letter relative to
those types of matters.
Mr. Sturgeon shared that he had served on numerous boards
over the years and was familiar with the rules throughout
that time. He noted that he believed it was even more
important to follow the rules for a public board, like
AMHTA. He had always followed the rules and would continue
to do so.
Representative Josephson asked if the AMHTA seat was a
public seat.
Co-Chair Wilson replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Wilson stated that the House Finance Committee had
reviewed the qualifications of the governor's appointee and
recommended forwarding his name to a joint session for
consideration. She noted that signing the report to move
Mr. Sturgeon's name forward did not reflect intent by any
of the committee members to vote for or against his
confirmation during any further sessions. She thanked Mr.
Sturgeon for his time and testimony.
HOUSE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to the number of superior court
judges in the third judicial district; and providing
for an effective date."
9:08:53 AM
Co-Chair Wilson shared that public testimony had been
opened and closed earlier in the week. She asked the
department to address the fiscal note.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
addressed the fiscal note totaling $62,000. The amount
reflected the difference in salary and benefits between a
superior court judge and a district court judge. The
difference was about $35,500 per position, totaling $71,000
for two positions. The calculation netted back the money
the Court System would save in travel by taking the average
over the last few years, estimated at $9,000, for a total
fiscal note of $62,000.
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to REPORT HB 77 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
There being NO OBJECTION, HB 77 was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1 (AJS).
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act removing from the exempt service of the state
persons who are employed in a professional capacity to
make a temporary or special inquiry, study, or
examination as authorized by the governor and
including those persons in the partially exempt
service of the state."
9:10:18 AM
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed that public testimony had been
opened and closed earlier in the week. She reported that
one amendment had been brought to her office.
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 31-LS0346\M.1
(Wayne, 3/25/19) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 4, following "state":
Insert "; repealing the authority of the governor or a
designee of the governor to authorize higher pay than
is otherwise allowable for certain partially exempt
employees in the executive branch; and providing for
an effective date"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "is"
Insert "and AS 39.27.011(k)are"
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"*Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY: LIMITED EFFECT OF REPEAL. The repeal of
AS 39.27.011(k) by sec. 2 of this Act applies to
employment contracts entered into on or after the
effective date of sec. 2 of this Act.
*Sec. 4. This Act takes effect immediately under AS
O1.10.070(c)."
Representative Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
REMOND HENDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON,
explained that HB 48 moved temporary positions established
under AS 39.25.110(9) from exempt service where there were
no salary limits, to partially exempt service where there
was an established pay plan. He noted it was a step in the
right direction; however, there was a subsection (k) under
AS 39.27.011 where the pay plan for state employees was
established, that allowed the governor or a designee of the
governor on a case-by-case basis to hire an employee at a
higher pay than Step F. Although, under HB 48, there would
be more transparency when the positions were filled, there
would be very few salary limitations.
Mr. Henderson elaborated that written justification was
required to hire employees at a higher step; however, it
only required the approval of the governor or governor's
designee. The amendment would delete subsection (k), which
would limit the amount paid to newly hired temporary
employees. He clarified that the change would apply only to
employment contracts entered into after the effective date
that AS 39.27.110(9) was repealed. He relayed the change
would not impact the salary of existing employees or
individuals hired prior to the bill's effective date.
Representative Josephson asked for an example of an
employee in the last 20 years that the bill and amendment
would have limited in pay and by moving them to partially
exempt status [if it had been law at the time].
Mr. Henderson asked if the question was whether there had
been an attempt to move someone from exempt service to
partially exempt service.
Representative Josephson clarified he was trying to get a
sense of the who the target was.
Co-Chair Wilson underscored they were not talking about any
specific individual. She explained that the bill increased
transparency. She detailed that currently the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) underneath the Office of the
Governor could sign off on their justification. She wanted
to make sure a new hire did not begin with a salary of
$300,000. The amendment would cap the salary for new hires.
For example, if a person was replacing someone who had been
in the position for 20 years, the new person would not
receive the outgoing person's salary.
9:14:22 AM
Representative Josephson remarked he was not trying to
identify a specific person. He was asking about the title
or description of the staff person or employee. He asked if
it was possible to ensure that a future governor could hire
someone like Keith Meyer [former president of the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation].
Mr. Henderson responded that if the governor were to hire
someone like Mr. Meyer, there were a number of avenues to
take. The governor could hire through the exempt service
where there were no hiring limitations. He explained that
the bill was primarily designed to address temporary
employees. He assumed the example by Representative
Josephson would apply to a position that was more permanent
in nature.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
9:15:17 AM
AT EASE
9:16:16 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter asked to hear from the
administration on how it would be impacted by the bill.
KATE SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, asked Representative
Carpenter to repeat the question.
Representative Carpenter complied. He asked if the change
limited the administration's ability to hire the technical
or subject matter expertise it needed.
Ms. Sheehan asked if Representative Carpenter was referring
to the amendment or the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified the amendment had passed.
Ms. Sheehan replied that amending the statute to remove the
"special k" [subsection (k)] exception would still allow
the administration to hire someone at an advanced step
placement. She detailed that the pay schedule included
steps A through F and pay increments beginning with J and
above. The subsection (k) exception had allowed the
administration to hire someone at a pay increment level.
She clarified that the administration would still have the
ability to bring someone in above step A through step F.
Representative Carpenter stated that without understanding
who had been hired in the past, it was difficult for him to
determine what the bill's impact would be. He was trying to
determine what the administration would no longer have the
ability to do if the bill was implemented.
Ms. Sheehan replied that the [section (k)] exception had
been used, but she did not know how frequently. Currently
the exception only pertained to partially exempt employees.
She clarified that exempt employees could still be brought
in at any salary deemed appropriate. Partially exempt
employees included directors and deputy commissioners; the
category was exempt from some, but not all, of the
personnel rules. She explained that for partially exempt
employees, the bill would restrict the administration to
following the personnel rules, which allow for advanced
step placement for exceptional qualifications or
recruitment difficulties. She did not know the number of
employees that had been brought in under the exception.
9:19:58 AM
Representative Tilton stated her understanding from Mr.
Henderson's testimony that existing partially exempt
employees would be grandfathered in under the current
system and that the bill would only apply to future hires.
Mr. Henderson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that the
executive branch would still have the ability to hire
someone at its discretion on contract. He noted the person
would not be eligible for benefits because they would be on
contract.
Mr. Henderson responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Wilson asked staff to review the fiscal note.
Mr. Henderson addressed the zero fiscal note from DOA. He
assumed the note was zero because the department did not
anticipate any costs associated with implementing the bill.
He also assumed the department had not put forth any cost
savings because it could not yet project what the savings
would be. He relayed there would be some cost savings as
people left positions and new people were hired [at lower
salaries].
9:21:36 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston MOVED to REPORT HB 48(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION, HB 48(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (ADM).
9:22:07 AM
AT EASE
9:22:45 AM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 38(FIN)
"An Act making supplemental appropriations for
unemployment assistance, fire suppression activities,
and restoration projects related to earthquake
disaster relief; capitalizing funds; and providing for
an effective date."
9:22:52 AM
PAUL LABOLLE, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, reported
that the bill was disaster supplemental legislation that
dealt with fire suppression and the Cook Inlet Earthquake
[that occurred in Anchorage in December 2018]. He provided
a sectional analysis of the bill. Section 1 included $1
million in federal funds for unemployment assistance - for
people who found themselves unemployed or who lost business
due to the earthquake and were not otherwise qualified for
unemployment. Section 2 was $7.9 million for fire
suppression under the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
to cover the projected costs of the coming spring's fire
season. Section 3 was for the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT) and had four subsections:
subsection (a) included $65 million in federal funds for
surface repair for roads and buildings damaged by the
earthquake; subsection (b) was the state match of $6.5
million; subsection (c) was $1 million to covered damaged
items not covered by insurance; and section (d) was $1
million for those not covered by federal receipts.
Mr. Labolle moved to Section 4 - fund capitalization for
the Disaster Relief Fund. Subsection (b) increased the
federal receipts from $9 million to $46 million. The
section also included $21.9 million from the General Fund
to the Disaster Relief Fund. Section 5 included lapse
dates. He detailed that appropriations made in Section 3
for DOT lapsed under capital grants. Appropriations made in
Section 4 - fund capitalization for disaster relief - did
not lapse. Section 6 was the immediate effective date.
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available for questions.
He asked for verification the disaster relief fund was
scheduled to run out on April 1 [2019]. He spoke to the
need to pass the legislation in order to recapitalize the
fund. He detailed the Senate had sent the bill to the House
recently and there was an effort to move the bill fairly
quickly.
9:27:22 AM
Mr. Labolle replied in the affirmative. The department had
communicated the fund would run out at the end of March.
Vice-Chair Ortiz read from subsection (c) [of Section 3]:
The sum of $1,000,000 is appropriated from the general
fund to the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, for costs related to damage to state
facilities caused by the Southcentral earthquake not
reimbursed by insurance.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if state was paying a deductible or
it had been unaware of some areas where the insurance would
not cover damages. He asked for detail.
Mr. Labolle deferred the question to the department. He
explained that sidewalks or parking lots that were part of
a property but not part of the structure were examples of
items not covered by insurance.
Co-Chair Foster asked Mr. Labolle who the appropriate
person would be to direct the question to.
Mr. Labolle deferred the question to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
AMANDA HOLLAND, MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET FOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES, answered that the $1 million supplemental was
for administrative activities that were not covered. She
detailed the supplemental was for repairs related to state
facilities that were damaged in the earthquake. Funds would
be used for damage assessments; parking lots; sidewalks;
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems that
would need permanent repair (temporary repair was possible
in the short-term).
9:29:56 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that his question in no way
represented an unwillingness to meet the disaster relief
needs. He asked if standard insurance policies did not
cover things like the associated public property.
LACEY SANDERS, BUDGET DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, replied that OMB and DOT were working with the
Department of Administration's Risk Management to identify
what costs could be and could not be put towards insurance.
There were some costs, such as parking lots, that were not
covered by the state's insurance.
Co-Chair Foster referenced Ms. Holland's testimony about
things that were not covered, such as administrative
activities. He asked if she had been referencing the $1
million in subsection (d).
Ms. Holland affirmed that she had been speaking to the
surface transportation administrative activities. She
elaborated there were some expenses that were not covered
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The activities
ineligible for reimbursement included things like damage
assessments, some overhead costs, project planning and
scheduling, and any damage estimated to be $5,000 or less
per site. She detailed that FEMA also did not cover regular
work hours for employees, only overtime costs.
9:31:59 AM
Co-Chair Foster looked at a chart [source: Legislative
Finance Division Multi-year Agency Summary - FY 2020 House
Structure (copy on file)] showing the disaster supplemental
would total $38,301,000 UGF and $103,000,002 million in
federal funds.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if there was a fiscal
note associated with the bill.
Ms. Sanders replied that the bill was an appropriation
bill; appropriation bills did not have fiscal notes because
the bill made the appropriation.
Co-Chair Wilson looked at Section 4 of the bill that would
allocate more than 10 percent to match the $46 million in
federal funds. She asked where the $68 million figure came
from. She asked if the $46 million was guaranteed. She
noted there had been a 10 percent match, but the match
included was 20 percent.
Ms. Sanders replied that the bill had initially contained
an estimated deposit to the Disaster Relief Fund of $46
million, which was $36 million above the estimate in the
prior year's appropriation bill. She stated that $21.9
million had been estimated. The estimate had been given in
January. The numbers used to come up with the estimate were
the numbers used to apply for the federal disaster
declaration. The numbers had been modified and the
anticipated amount needed for the remainder of FY 19 and
into FY 20 was approximately $12.2 million in state funds.
She detailed it was not a program where the 75/25 percent
match could be applied. There were a variety of programs
covered under the Disaster Relief Fund, some had 100
percent federal reimbursement, some had a 75 percent
reimbursement with a 25 percent match. She explained it was
not an easy calculation where the 75/25 percent could be
applied.
Ms. Sanders highlighted that the amount of federal receipts
received was an estimate - the state could receive all of
the federal receipts it was eligible for. The remaining
amount of $9 million (above the identified $12 million),
was in anticipation of any spring disasters that may occur.
She detailed that spring flooding typically occurred in the
April to June timeframe. She pointed out that amount in the
bill reflected an initial request - OMB expected at the
high end that $60 million in state funds may be needed in
total to address the Cook Inlet earthquake; $6.5 million
had already been obligated, but that was within the
Disaster Relief Fund. She continued that the budget
included another $12 million and OMB was working on a
separate supplemental request to cover the remainder to
reach the $60 million. She expounded that it took about
five years to work through the process of declaring a
disaster and the payment process. The Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) believed the $12
million was sufficient to get through FY 19 and into FY 20.
The administration would be back with a solidified number
for the remaining amount as the process moved forward.
9:36:09 AM
Co-Chair Wilson hoped the administration was going to come
back with information on how the state would pay for the
disaster funding. She had understood the bill to be
primarily for earthquake [disaster] funding, but it went
beyond that. She spoke to the fire suppression component
and highlighted the $7.9 million in Section 2 of the bill,
which she believed was for the spring fire season. She
remarked that the bill included another $9 million that
could be used for fire and/or flooding in anticipation of
what may happen. She asked why the administration would not
just come back with a supplemental request (as was the
normal practice) if needed.
Ms. Sanders addressed the $7.9 million request from DNR and
explained that the bill had been put together as an
emergency response - not only addressing the disaster, but
also addressing the existing shortfall in fire suppression
funding. There had been approximately $5.2 million in the
DNR budget for wildland fire protection. The funding had
been sufficient to cover fire costs in the fall; currently
there was an unobligated balance of approximately $1
million. She elaborated that based on the lowest year's
cost for fire suppression, the cost would be approximately
$8.9 million for the spring season; the $7.9 million plus
the $1 million was expected to be enough to get through the
end of the year. The department had the ability to use
disaster funding for wildfire response without an
appropriation; however, that method took a significant
amount of administrative overhead. The administration
believed it prudent to request the funding from the
legislature.
Ms. Sanders highlighted the second component related to the
Disaster Relief Fund. She referenced $9 million above the
$12.1 million need. The balance of the fund was anticipated
to run out on March 31 or April 1. She detailed that an
appropriation of $12.9 million was needed. at the time the
administration had submitted the request, it had
anticipated the amount needed to get through the initial
period was $21 million. The administration believed it was
necessary to bring a balance into the fund using the $9
million in order for spring flooding to be addressed
quickly.
9:39:18 AM
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed her understanding of the funding
in the bill. She referenced $65 million that was earthquake
related that would be matched with $6.5 million. She asked
for verification that the GF matching funds could be used
even if the total $65 million [in federal funding] did not
come to fruition.
Ms. Sanders replied that the money was appropriated for
federal highway surface transportation disaster repair and
could not be used for anything else.
Co-Chair Wilson understood the funds had to be used for
transportation. She clarified her understanding that if
only $55 million in federal funds came in, it would not
prevent the agency for using the full $6.5 million [in
state GF].
Ms. Sanders replied that the $6.5 million could [only] be
used for disaster repair if that was the intent. She
explained the intent was to match the $65 million in
anticipated [federal] funds.
Co-Chair Wilson was frustrated the funding was being called
matching funds, which made it sound like the funds would
only be utilized if certain federal funds were received. In
reality, the [state] funding could be utilized even if all
of the federal funds did not come in. She pointed out that
the legislature would be forward funding possible
disasters. She could not recall where in the budget to look
to see how the funds were specifically spent. She suggested
asking for a balance of the Disaster Relief Fund after the
fire and flooding seasons. She did not want funds to be
unavailable in the event of a flood, but she did not want a
"slush fund" that was not being used the way the
legislature thought it should be.
9:41:31 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked for a historical accounting of
the fund balance.
Ms. Sanders replied that the information had been included
in her presentation on March 8 and she would follow up with
the information.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the bill's $8.9 million for fire
suppression had been discussed in Ms. Sander's March 8
presentation. He asked if the money was in the [disaster]
fund currently.
Ms. Sanders corrected that the amount was not a fund; it
was an appropriation to DNR.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that $8.9 million
reflected the least amount of money that would be needed
for fire suppression.
Ms. Sanders replied in the affirmative.
9:43:07 AM
Representative Carpenter asked what happened to the $7.9
million for fire suppression (in Section 2 of the bill) if
it was not utilized by the end of the fiscal year.
Ms. Sanders replied that the money would lapse back to the
General Fund if was not used by the end of the fiscal year.
Representative Carpenter asked for verification the funding
would only be used in the event of a fire.
Ms. Sanders responded affirmatively. She detailed the money
would go to a separate allocation to DNR for fire
suppression activity.
Representative Knopp noted the appropriation under
discussion was a supplemental appropriation for FY 19. He
highlighted that the budget also included approximately $8
million in fire suppression funds for FY 20. He considered
that the funding for FY 19 may lapse to the General Fund.
He asked for verification there would be a new
appropriation for FY 20 on July 1.
Ms. Sanders replied in the affirmative. She explained that
the governor's proposal for the FY 19 supplemental and the
FY 20 amended budget brought the amount appropriated for
fire suppression up to the lowest expected amount in order
to have sufficient fire response funding available.
Representative Knopp thought actual fire seasons had cost
considerably higher than $9 million. He wondered about the
lapse and asked why the full amount would not be
reappropriated for fire suppression.
Ms. Sanders agreed that the figure represented the low end.
She elaborated that fire suppression activity was
unpredictable and varied annually. She explained that the
administration may be back before the legislature the
following year with a supplemental request if the fire
season exceeded the allocated amount.
9:45:33 AM
Representative Carpenter directed a question to DNR. He
recognized it was not possible to predict when fires would
break out. He acknowledged the high cost of fighting fires.
He asked if any of the funding was used to reduce the fuel
source around population centers that would reduce the cost
of fighting fires or reduce the likelihood of spreading
around population centers.
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, confirmed that DNR had other funding sources in its
operating budget to deal with the issue. She detailed that
DNR had a consolidated federal grant used for hazardous
fuels mitigation. She elaborated that grant funding paid
for wildland firefighter staff to work on hazardous fuel
mitigation before and between fires. She had found out the
previous day that DNR may receive additional funds to
address the spruce bark beetle infestation; the infestation
was a problem for the forests and also created hazardous
fuels.
Representative Carpenter asked for verification that none
of the money in the bill would go towards that type of
activity [hazardous fuels mitigation]. He surmised the
funds in the bill were available only in the event of a
fire.
Ms. Peter-Contesse replied in the affirmative. She
explained that fire suppression activity was in a separate
component from fire suppression preparedness. She confirmed
that the funds would only be used during firefighting.
9:48:16 AM
Representative Josephson pointed out that the $7.9 million
was for FY 19 and surmised the funding was for a May or
June fire.
Ms. Peter-Contesse replied that DNR had a statutory fire
start date of April 1. She reasoned that fires did not
observe the budget start date. She explained the funding
would augment the $1 million remaining [from the previous
season] to get through June 30, 2019 based on projections.
She expounded that $14 million was about the least the
department had spent [in a season] over the past ten fiscal
years, which had been in FY 12 and FY 18. The average
firefighting cost on the General Fund side was about $35
million. She stated it was possible, but unlikely, that a
portion of the funds would lapse. She informed the
committee it was more likely the department would come to
the legislature with a supplemental request, given fire
service projections. She clarified that was not yet known.
Representative Josephson asked what part of the bill would
be used for flooding mitigation.
Ms. Sanders answered that the Disaster Relief Fund could be
used for response to flooding, but not for flooding
mitigation. For example, the funding could be used if a
disaster was declared for spring breakup that resulted in a
flood.
Representative Josephson asked if funds had been
traditionally allocated for that purpose (prior to
flooding).
Ms. Sanders could not speak to mitigation work that had
been done on flooding, as it was her understanding that it
was not what the Disaster Relief Fund was used for. She
would check with multiple agencies to determine whether
anyone did flood mitigation work and would follow up with
the committee.
9:50:47 AM
Representative Josephson asked if the sum reflected
anticipated funding. Alternatively, he wondered if the
funds could also be used in the event of flooding.
Ms. Sanders replied that the Disaster Relief Fund could be
used for any disaster response including flooding, another
earthquake, or another type of disaster. The $9.7 million
was not based off of a spring projection that happened over
a ten-year period; the cost varied from year-to-year. She
would provide the committee with a detailed listing of the
historical disasters and the funding allocated.
Representative Josephson asked about the UGF outlay of
approximately $37 million related to the earthquake. He
asked if there was confidence the state had done everything
within federal law to capture all possible federal revenue.
Ms. Sanders replied that DMVA Homeland Security and
Emergency Management was working diligently to ensure the
appropriate costs were charged to the federal government or
the state (when not covered with federal funds). She stated
that DMVA was following very strict rules to ensure funds
were allocated appropriately.
9:52:59 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston pointed to slide 5 of the March 8
presentation from OMB in members' packets [titled "HB 53 -
Disaster Relief Supplemental Overview"] (copy on file). She
noted that the slide showed a Disaster Relief Fund balance
of $362,900 as of March 5, 2019. She asked if the graph on
slide 4 was the graph Ms. Sander's was suggesting showed a
historical fund balance. She thought it looked more like an
appropriation than a fund balance.
Ms. Sanders agreed. She explained there had been a second
presentation given later in March that included the fund
balance as of July 1 of each year. She would follow up with
the information.
9:54:11 AM
Co-Chair Wilson MOVED to REPORT CSSB 38(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations.
There being NO OBJECTION, CSSB 38(FIN) was REPORTED out of
committee with six "do pass" recommendations and five "no
recommendation" recommendations.
Co-Chair Foster provided the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:55:09 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| John Sturgeon_Redacted.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
Confirmation |
| HFC 3.8.19 HB 53 - FY2019 Disaster Relief Supplemental Overview.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 53 SB 38 SB 38 HFIN March 28 2019 |
| HB048 ver M Am#1 3.27.19.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |
| HB 53 3.8.19 OMB Response.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 53 SB 38 |