Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/23/1999 01:40 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 23, 1999
1:40 P.M.
TAPE HFC 99 - 27, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 99 - 27, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 99 - 28, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 99 - 28, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:40 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Vice-Chair Bunde Representative Kohring
Representative Austerman Representative Moses
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative G. Davis
ALSO PRESENT
Annalee McConnell, Director, Office of Management and
Budget: Dan Spencer, Chief Budget Analyst, Office of
Management and Budget; Senator Sean Parnell; Representative
Lisa Murkowski; Carol Carroll, Director, Administrative
Services Division, Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs; Nico Bus, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Natural Resources; Nancy Slagle,
Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; Major Randy Crawford,
(Testified via Teleconference), Department of Public Safety,
Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 77 An Act relating to the Joint Armed Services
Committee, a permanent interim committee of the
Alaska State Legislature; and providing for an
effective date.
HB 77 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB 100 An Act making and amending capital, supplemental,
and other appropriations, and appropriations to
capitalize funds; ratifying certain expenditures;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 100 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 49 An Act relating to missions and measures to be
applied to certain expenditures by the executive
branch of state government and the University of
Alaska from the state operating budget for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1999; and providing
for an effective date.
CSSB 49 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with
"individual recommendations" and with a zero
fiscal note by the Office of the Governor dated
2/8/99.
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to missions and measures to be applied
to certain expenditures by the executive branch of
state government and the University of Alaska from the
state operating budget for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1999; and providing for an effective date."
SENATOR SEAN PARNELL commented that when the Legislature
passed last year's operating budget (Sec. 31, Ch.137, SLA
1998), it passed missions and measures as intent language.
That was the Legislature's effort to comply with its
obligations related to results based budgeting as expressed
in the Executive Budget Act. The Governor vetoed the
missions and measures from the FY 99 operating budget bill.
Senator Parnell pointed out that SB 49 would enact missions
and measures into substantive law rather than through an
appropriation bill. SB 49 would specifically apply only to
the FY 1999 appropriations contained in the operating budget
bill passed last year, Sec. 21, Ch. 137, SLA 1998. No new
missions or measures have been implemented or drafted as
part of the bill.
He continued that minor changes had been made to last year's
missions and measures and that all those changes were
technical in nature. In the Senate Finance Committee, a new
immunity section was added to Page 24, Section #2, at the
request of Senator Adams. Senator Parnell concluded that it
was time to provide the subcommittees a tool to implement
Results Based Budgeting and hold departments accountable for
spending.
Co-Chair Therriault requested Senator Parnell to highlight
the areas of change from last year's legislation. Senator
Parnell noted that there are six areas of change. On Page
2, Lines 10-12, the information services date was changed.
Page 5, Line 11 contains new language. The third change was
to the section that referenced a community mental health
program, which was deleted; Page 12, Lines 6-22, initially
indicated only services available at McLaughlin not at the
other youth correction facilities, and that language was
changed. On Page 13, Line 6, a typo correction was made;
Page 15, Line 8, a hyphen draft change, and lastly, the
addition of the immunity section.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the legislation
was aimed at the current fiscal year, although, in the
supplemental, many of these areas are not being funded.
Senator Parnell noted that concern should be addressed in
budget subcommittees. SB 49 would be applicable to the
operating budget passed last year. The numbers are valid as
they were passed, and will be adjusted in the appropriation
bill. A companion bill in the future will pass with the
operating budget and each subcommittee would then consider
if a supplemental would be needed.
Representative Grussendorf inquired if an allocation amount
would need to be present because it would be a companion
bill. Senator Parnell replied that it would, although,
numbers should not be replaced from the original ones.
Representative Grussendorf asked what would occur if there
was a disagreement between the Legislature and the Governor
regarding a goal or mission. Senator Parnell proposed that
the Governor could always veto the bill.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that the same detailed
process of missions and measures which the Department of
Public Safety went through last year, was not attempted this
year. He noted the proposal does not fit with the current
process that the subcommittee undertook and that the changes
recommended are lengthy and would be not in amendment form
at this time. He suggested that adequate verbiage would be
necessary.
Co-Chair Therriault asked Senator Parnell if he intended for
the language to reflect changes and modifications that were
in the mission statement from last year. Senator Parnell
understood that each of the mission and measures came
through the subcommittee process last year. The ones in the
bill do need refinement, as they are a statement of what was
passed last year. The intent this year is to produce new
missions within the departments for each division and to
refine existing measures.
Representative Bunde asked if the FY 2000 budget would be
accompanied with another bill such as SB 49. Senator
Parnell stated that it would include the refinement plus the
new missions as agreed to with the Administration.
Representative G. Davis noted that Major Randy Crawford from
the Department of Public Safety was online to clarify any
questions regarding the Department of Public Safety's
intent.
MAJOR RANDY CRAWFORD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERANCE),
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, ANCHORAGE, noted that
Department of Public Safety was working on refinement
information which would accompany the mission and measure
statement for FY 2000 budget.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, pointed out that the legislation would be applicable
to FY99. She explained that the Administration was
comfortable having a separate budget bill which accompanies
the operating budget. She pointed out that there could be
an issue during the last days of the session, when budget
amount change substantially in Conference Committee if the
correlating performance measures had not been changed. She
suggested to notice the changes on Internet, which could
indicate where the State was on performance issues and
budget amounts.
Representative Grussendorf asked the Conference Committee
procedure for the year 2000. Co-Chair Therriault replied
that last year, a cooperative system was used. Senator
Parnell emphasized that SB 49 was a substantive bill, not an
appropriation bill. If there are differences between the
House and Senate, they would be worked out in the Conference
Committee.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSSB 49 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying zero fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it
was so ordered.
CSSB 49(FIN) was reported out of Committee with "individual
recommendations" and with the accompanying zero fiscal note
by the Office of the Governor dated 2/18/99.
HOUSE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to the Joint Armed Services Committee,
a permanent interim committee of the Alaska State
Legislature; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE LISA MURKOWSKI stated that Alaska is being
considered as the site for deployment of a national missile
defense system. The Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense
recently stated that another round of base realignments and
closures are forthcoming. Because of such challenges,
Representative Murkowski noted she introduced HB 77.
Representative Murkowski advised that HB 77 would replace
the existing Joint Committee on Military Bases in Alaska
which was established in Ch. 31, SLA 1998 with the Joint
Armed Services Committee. Similarly, the Joint Armed
Services Committee would have an existence longer than
called for in the Uniform Rules, Rules 21(b) & (c). This
would be a permanent interim committee so those members
could be active year round. The committee would commence on
July 1, 1999. The Legislative Council would provide
administrative and other services to that committee.
Representative Murkowski noted that the committee would
provide a unified front with House, Senate, military and
civilian members to monitor military topics relative to
Alaska. Furthermore, it would review and encourage State
policy, in order to ensure the continued well being and
education of members of the armed forces in both active and
reserve components.
Representative Murkowski advised that military account for
approximately $1.7 billion dollars of Alaska's economy. She
stressed that it is imperative that the Legislature takes a
leading role to monitor the economic impact of future
military related events. She believed that the Joint Armed
Services Committee could provide that focus.
Co-Chair Therriault commented that the Senate Finance
Committee (SFC) had placed a 10-year sunset on the
legislation. Representative Murkowski replied that she had
no objection to a 10-year sunset, although, less than that
would create a problem when addressing the proposed
closures.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced the transition language on
Page 5, Section #3, which would extend membership to the
other committee. He pointed out that Representative Porter
asked that language be removed in order that he could
consider the make-up of the committee.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced Page 4, Lines 20-21, and
questioned what "well-being encouragement" would consist of.
Representative Murkowski suggested such behavior would
enhance the military feeling "welcome and accepted" in
Alaska. She acknowledged that language could be
"troublesome" as it is non-discript. Co-Chair Therriault
offered to work with Representative Murkowski on changing
that language.
Representative Bunde suggested the referenced language could
create a duplication of the work done by the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs.
Representative Grussendorf asked if there had been
discussion regarding the U.S. Coast Guard. Representative
Murkowski replied that there was definitely discussion of
the Coast Guard, and that the inclusion of the Coast Guard
in HB 77 would make the legislation different from the
formation of the Joint Military Bases Committee. One member
would represent the Coast Guard. Co-Chair Therriault noted
that in Southeast Alaska, the Coast Guard represents the
military presence and that the State of Alaska has the
largest Coast Guard support than any other state.
Representative Murkowski commented that she agreed with the
House Speaker that he should be the party responsible for
appointing committee members. She did not oppose adding
language to reflect that.
Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the fiscal note would
need to be adjusted. He thought that the fiscal impact
could be absorbed in the current level of funding in the
Legislature's budget and that those costs must be adequately
reflected.
HB 77 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 27, Side 2).
HOUSE BILL NO. 100
"An Act making and amending capital, supplemental, and
other appropriations, and appropriations to capitalize
funds; ratifying certain expenditures; and providing
for an effective date."
Co-Chair Therriault passed the gavel to Co-Chair Mulder.
ANNALEE MCCONNELL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, advised that the Governor's Office has worked
diligently to bring the supplemental request down. As
indicated by the spreadsheet, by addressing only the
disasters, it still was not small enough to fit within last
year's cap of $3.5 million dollars. She emphasized that
there has been progress during the last six years, to bring
the Supplemental Budget under control. However, with
unusual circumstances and unanticipated expenditures, the
amount held might not be sufficient.
Co-Chair Mulder requested that updated information be
provided to the Chairman's office and to the appropriate
Subcommittee Chair offices. Ms. McConnell agreed to do so.
Ms. McConnell addressed the "belt-tightening" measures being
attempted by each department. She noted that the Governor
had placed restrictions on departments in three areas:
? Hiring,
? Travel, and
? Purchasing, in the area of contractual services
and supplies.
In order for the departments to meet those numbers, each
amount was itemized in the bill. The Governor is serious
that the departments not exceed the lower amount proposed in
the budget.
Ms. McConnell pointed out that the supplemental was
separated into categories of disasters, judgements and the
Cleary related issues.
Co-Chair Mulder inquired if the total increase proposed in
the supplemental budget was $28 million dollars, offset by
the $16.5 million dollars already provided for in the
current year, and additionally, offset by $6.2 million
dollar "belt tightening", with a net increment of $5.2
million. Ms. McConnell stated that was correct, although,
indicating that the Cleary amount would change that number.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Administration had
requested that the departments link reductions to off set
the increases which they were not able to get around. Ms.
McConnell replied that the departments were instructed to
absorb everything possible within the program. If the
department was not capable of doing this internally, they
were requested to look at other areas within the department
where a delete could offset the proposed increase.
Additionally, each department was instructed to " tighten"
their belt.
Co-Chair Mulder asked how the savings was determined. Ms.
McConnell replied that the above mentioned three items were
initially targeted. Following that, the Administration
removed from the calculations all those areas which could
not responsibly cutback such as 24-hour institutions and
trooper detachments. Travel was then heavily targeted.
DISASTERS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS - #1
Ms. McConnell stated that the change is a request for a
lapse date extension from 1999 to 2001. This change would
recognize that federal funds received earlier were to be
used to complete many projects. However, she pointed out
that some of the projects were not finished during the
designated allocation period.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if those were appropriations in which
the local community was required to make a match in order to
receive the grant. Ms. McConnell replied that would be a
portion of the responsibility.
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS - #2
? Southeast Rain/Wind Disaster
? Endicott Mountain Flood
? Western AK Fisheries Disaster
Ms. McConnell spoke to the Western AK. Fisheries disaster.
She provided members with a handout addressing the concern.
[Copy on File].
Ms. McConnell pointed out that this had been the second year
in a row with disastrous fish runs in Western Alaska. It
has been suggested that El Nino created a condition of ocean
warming, which created a situation so harsh that fewer
numbers of fish spawned.
The Office of the Governor began working with the federal
government in order to educate them regarding the severity
of the loss, comparing it to one of a crop failure from a
drought. She emphasized that Alaska's "major crop" of fish
was being affected. Following much discussion, the federal
government understood Alaska's predicament and began the
process of declaring a state disaster. The process begins
with a Declaration of Disaster, at which time, the
Administration assessed that $12 million dollars would be
needed to respond to that disaster.
The situation was addressed in several ways. The first was
to work with the fishermen to restructure their loans. The
program of individual and family grant assistance was
started. A different approach was used, which established a
limit of $1500 dollars per eligible person. In order to be
eligible, a person would need to be directly connected to
the fisheries as a permit holder, a crew license holder or a
process worker.
Ms. McConnell pointed out that the Administration chose not
to be involved in the secondary effects. She emphasized how
stringent the criteria requirement was. The fish runs had
to be 50% less than the 10-year average.
Ms. McConnell reiterated that the assistance consisted of
$1500 dollars per individual who met the criteria (or a
$5000 dollar cap per family). No cash was provided, but
rather a vendor payment system was established to insure
that the assistance went to basic essential living expenses
such as food, home heating fuel, electric, power and water
sewer services.
Ms. McConnell continued, the State began working with the
federal government and ultimately secured $50 million
dollars to be spread throughout the entire disaster area for
several categories of activities.
Ms. McConnell noted that the original $12 million dollars
broke down into the following categories:
? $9 million dollars for family and grant
assistance;
? Funding for delivery of fish to three communities
which receive no commercial salmon and/or
subsistence food.
? $40 thousand dollars for transporting emergency
food aid from the federal government and
distributed through food banks;
? $400 thousand dollars was set aside to address
special social services such as crisis counseling.
? Additionally, $1.5 million dollars was set aside
to match the $7 million dollar Magnuson-Stevens
money in the prior year.
? Lastly, there were administrative expenses for
distributing the monies.
Ms. McConnell noted that the federal government has
reimbursed the State $2.4 million dollars of the original
$12 million dollars. She emphasized that if the State had
not responded to this disaster, we would face other types of
disaster expenditures such as emergency food supplies to be
flown out during the winter or emergency fuel supplies flown
out. She stressed that this was not only an economic
disaster, but also a natural disaster.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned the emergency living expenses of
$8.1 million dollars. He noted that equated roughly to
$1500 per individual.
CAROL CARROLL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS,
replied that the $8.1 million dollars represented 6100
grants received and approved. Ms. McConnell clarified that
5500 applications were received some of which were
applicable to entire families.
In response to Co-Chair Mulder, Ms. Carroll commented that
funds had been paid directly to the vendors, not to the
individuals. Co-Chair Mulder understood that some vendors
still have outstanding bills. Ms. Carroll noted that she
had not received a lot of complaints from vendors not
receiving their funds, although, there were instances that
vendor's funds had to be corrected.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if individuals had the authority to
determine which vendors they wanted to use. Ms. Carroll
explained that had been negotiated with each applicant.
In response to Representative Bunde's inquiry regarding the
ten-year average determination, Ms. McConnell explained that
the requirement was that the fish run be no more than 50% of
a ten-year average. If a community was in an area with less
than 50% of runs and other employment opportunities existed,
that community would not be included in the disaster area.
In most of these areas, if the population is not able to get
money from commercial fishing, there is usually no other
income options.
Representative Bunde questioned the State's minimum match
requirement in order to receive Magnuson-Stevens $7 million
dollars. Ms. McConnell replied it would cost Alaska $1.5
million dollars and that the nature of the assistance was
directed by the federal government. The applications were
completed for State aid the end of October, 1998. Current
applications are for federal assistance ($18 million
dollars) available for individual and family assistance.
Representative Bunde asked about the chum salmon which had
been flown into the Upper Yukon. Ms. McConnell corrected,
noting that chums were flown into the villages of Hooper
Bay, Scaman Bay and Chugiak and had been used for village
food and that the fish flown into Upper Yukon had not been
done with State funds. That project was entirely a
volunteer operation and those salmon were used for sled dog
food.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if there was $18 million dollars
still available in the federal program. Ms. McConnell
replied that the State received two Magnuson-Stevens
allocations. There was $7 million dollars under
consideration in May, 1998, in which the Legislature did
appropriate $125 thousand dollars to match the loan money.
Additionally, $1.5 million dollars of that disaster money
would be used to secure the rest of the money from the first
federal declaration. Subsequently, the State received $50
million dollars from the federal budget just currently
passed. $18 million dollars of that is to be used for
family grant assistance. A portion of that money will be
used to reimburse the State for the $4 million dollars
spent.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 28, Side 1).
Ms. McConnell emphasized that the State has been warned that
it will be impossible to receive federal aid unless Alaska
makes a contribution. Senator Stevens has stressed this
need. Co-Chair Therriault asked what the requirement was to
receive funds from the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Ms. McConnell
offered to research that information. Co-Chair Therriault
asked if the State had overspent or overmatched. Ms.
McConnell believed the State had not overspent. The $1.5
million dollars was a match requirement for receiving the
first $7 million a year ago. She did not know if the feds
used a formula to make that determination or if it was a
case by case scenario.
Co-Chair Therriault asked why to date only a small portion
of the monies had been expended. Ms. McConnell noted that
given the timing of when the funds were available, most of
the projects could not be undertaken during the last
construction season because of the weather and have been
postponed until the current construction season. That
resulted from last year's funding and requires a non-federal
contribution.
Co-Chair Therriault referenced the Millers Reach fire where
the average payment per household was $13 thousand dollars.
He inquired what that funding was specifically allocated
for. Ms. Carroll replied that funding was designated for
anything lost except the house itself, such as clothing,
food, tools, etc.
Representative Austerman noted that he was having difficulty
following the total disaster dollars being discussed. Ms.
McConnell explained that $7 million was the total received
from last year's federal aid. The Legislature did not
approve general funds for that. The Administration had
requested $1.5 million dollars as the general fund match to
receive the $7 million dollars. The Legislature did approve
a small portion of that request for loans, but not the
entire match. The expectation was that local communities
could come up with the remainder. Ultimately, that was
impossible.
Representative Austerman asked if the $50 million dollars
was the total for this year and last year. Ms. McConnell
stated that it did not include the $7 million from last
year. A portion of that $50 million dollars was how the
State was able to reduce the original $12 million disaster
amount to $9.6 million dollars.
Representative Austerman asked if there was a breakdown of
how the $50 million dollars would be handled. Ms. McConnell
replied that there was in the material previously submitted
to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBA). She
offered to provide that information to House Finance
Committee members. Ms. McConnell reiterated that the State
would not have been able to secure the $50 million for
assistance if State money had not been contributed.
Representative Austerman questioned how the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had become involved. Ms.
McConnell stated that they were involved in the organization
of the program. FEMA was designated by the White House to
be the agency to bring together all the other federal
agencies in order that the $50 million dollars is managed.
Representative Austerman asked for a breakdown of "other
monies". Ms. McConnell noted:
? $10 million dollars of low income Home Energy
Assistance money; and
? $400 thousand dollars in the Department of
Agriculture for emergency food aid. These monies
are tied to the fishery disaster.
Representative Austerman asked the length of time that the
Administration would extend the disaster concept. Ms.
McConnell replied that the Administration has not yet
formulated a recommendation on how to address that concern.
She acknowledged that how to assess a situation in which a
disaster occurs over many months or years is an issue that
does need to be discussed.
Co-Chair Mulder advised that he had directed each of the
subcommittee chairs to address their piece of that puzzle.
He noted that Representative Bunde would take the lead and
be the person to review the Western fisheries disaster.
Representative Williams asked how much of the $50 million
dollars had been obligated. Ms. McConnell stated that a
substantial part of that money would not come through the
State; it will be going directly through the Federal
Economic Development Administration to projects in various
communities. That agency is currently in the process of
evaluating which projects to fund. After the State receives
the federal reimbursement, we will have expended $9.6
million dollars. The State will be reimbursed for $2.4
million dollars of State funds, which are anticipated soon.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the fisheries
disaster has caused people to loose their livelihood.
Representative Bunde questioned when does a natural disaster
become an economic disaster, and how long will it be
supported if it becomes a continuing natural trend.
Representative G. Davis agreed that at this time, the State
is looking at funding commercial fishing. He questioned how
that would be handled in a long-term commercial disaster.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that in the past, the
State has subsidized oil companies to allow them to continue
to conduct business.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned how much money would be required
from the State to secure the federal money. Ms. McConnell
replied that the State disaster was declared with $12
million dollars. Portions of those funds were reimbursed.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if the Legislature were to deny the
$1.5 million dollar match of last year, would that endanger
the $50 million dollars. Ms. McConnell commented that she
did not know if that would endanger the $50 million dollars,
but, it would definitely mean that the State would not
receive the $7 million dollars. She also added, the issue
is not whether the communities are willing to make the
match, the issue is whether they have the money to do it.
The effect of not having a fish run has strongly affected
the local treasuries.
In response to Representative Austerman, Ms. McConnell
acknowledged that this situation is very different from an
economic disaster, beginning with the fact that we do not
have fish. These are the differences between a loss of
price and loss of market. The result is an economic
disaster. Representative Austerman noted his surprise that
the situation had been tied to the El Nino condition.
Representative Bunde requested a list of communities
involved in the subsidies.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the communities where the fish
had been transported to, had been given the option to
purchase food in the local stores. He believed that could
generate local sales tax which would be more helpful to the
local treasury. Ms. McConnell stressed that these people
had no commercial income and they were in need of a basic
food supply. She noted that she was surprised that the
request for fish was lower than anticipated and that the
families took only the minimum that they needed.
Co-Chair Mulder asked the combined population of the
affected villages. Representative Foster responded that it
was approximately 2500 residents.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 28, Side 2).
Representative Foster added that the village stores do not
keep a large surplus of food supplies. Ms. McConnell noted
that the Red Cross had undertaken emergency food deliveries.
She added that under the circumstances, the project was cost
effective.
Ms. McConnell pointed out that in past years, there was a
budget for disaster funding with annual appropriations.
That no longer exists. Representative Foster echoed the
concern, pointing out that in previous years, budget cut
backs have come from the disaster fund, knowing that a
supplemental would cover those expenditures.
NICO BUS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, addressed the other two disasters
listed in Section #2. Last year in October, there was a
major rainstorm in Southeast Alaska with over six inches of
rain in a 24-hour period. The Governor declared a State
disaster in the Borough of Haines and the City and Borough
of Juneau. The request for $2.7 million dollars was to be
used for road washout. The nature of the expenditure was
for emergency repairs for the roads and highway.
Representative Williams asked how much had been used for the
Fritz Cove portion of the storm repair. Mr. Bus replied
that the amount of money approved to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities was $1.3 million
dollars, to be used for various road projects. The
Department is working with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA) to get supplemental funding.
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities repaired the roads
rather than the local municipalities doing that work. Mr.
Bus pointed out that it was a natural disaster and qualified
under the State's criteria for emergency relief.
NANCY SLAGLE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, added
that FHA has specific guidelines on what they cover under an
emergency response. They consider anything out of the
normal operation of maintaining a road or building a road,
caused by heavy maintenance, to be considered normal.
Anything that is "extra-ordinary" or causes serious damage,
they provide guidelines for assistance. Those guidelines
are what the Department responded to for specific repair
work caused by the disaster. FHA will not cover less than a
$500 thousand dollar aggregate amount.
Representative Austerman asked if the costs had not been
associated with a "disaster", would they be coming through
the Legislature as a supplemental request. Ms. Slagle
replied that they would, but that a disaster situation helps
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities go to the
federal government to try to receive assistance.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if Fritz Cove road was a State or
local road. Mr. Bus replied that it was a State road and
the responsibility of Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities. Representative Moses noted that most
roads in the municipalities are state roads.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - #3
Nico Bus stated that the fire suppression disaster request
was in the amount of $7 million dollars. Co-Chair
Therriault advised that Department of Natural Resources had
delivered two memo's indicating itemized information on fire
suppression.
Mr. Bus stated that the $7 million dollars would cover
expenditures to date for the period July 1st through
December 31st and the fixed costs of the Department for this
upcoming summer's activity. It does not include the price
of suppressed fires in May and June.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the total fire expenditure for
last year. Mr. Bus listed the three most expensive fires:
? Carter Lake fire which started in FY98 and went
into FY99, expanded from a military base;
? Tok fires which amounted to about $500 thousand
dollar to a $1 million dollar expenditure;
? Several Skagway fires which cost the State a
substantial amount of money.
? He added that there were over 523 incidents of
fires costing less than $50 thousand dollars each.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned when a fire starts on federal
land, who is responsible for putting it out. Mr. Bus
explained in the State of Alaska, the way in which fires are
fought is that the State is divided in half. The upper half
of the State, fires are fought by Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and in the bottom portion, where most communities and
people live, are fought by the State. When a fire starts,
the resources are pooled between the two agencies.
Ultimately, the party that pays is the landowner. He
acknowledged that this is a complex system.
Representative Austerman asked what the "fixed" costs were.
Mr. Bus explained that like a fire hall, manpower and
equipment must be ready. In wildlife fires, this is
addressed with contracts with various aviation vendors. The
State must contract with vendors in January to guarantee
that they will be available during summer fire activity.
The fixed costs pay for those contracting fees.
Representative Austerman asked why those costs are not
included in the Department of Natural Resources operating
budget. Co-Chair Therriault commented that the fire season
crosses fiscal years, consequently, it was shifted to the
supplemental budget. Mr. Bus added, the Department of
Natural Resources has basically two operations. One is the
regular maintenance operation including mining and forestry
type concerns; fire suppression is more of an emergency
response which is kept separate. He noted that portion of
the budget is a big expense. It is isolated as strictly
emergency response and kept separate. That portion requires
about $4.5 million dollars in fixed costs and with the
additional costs of dealing with the fires. He added, those
costs average approximately $10 million general fund dollars
per year.
HB 100 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 P.M.
H.F.C. 16 2/23/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|