I gavel this meeting of the House Finance Department of Environmental Conservation Subcommittee
to order at 1234 on Thursday, February 12th, of 2026.
I'm going to remind everyone to make sure that their cell phones are muted.
Present today are Representatives Holland, Representative Meir, representative Costello,
And just in case anyone's wondering we do not have to have a quorum because we are not taking actions that are binding and
because, we're constrained at this lunch hour time frame and many of us have
Committees that start at 1.30. We're going to try and hold to a brisk start time
Our LIO operator today, assisting us, is Jude Augustine.
I'd like to welcome everybody and look forward to a collaborative and productive process with the full membership.
The purpose of the subcommittee is to review and discuss the agency budget transactions with
the goal of 40 recommendations to the Full Finance Committee.
These transactions can include increments, decrements, transfers, new positions or
Fund source changes and more.
Please bear in mind that our work will be focused on the number section of the operating budget only.
Issues in the language section the bill are the purview of full finance committee.
Our evaluation will often be based on comparisons between the FY 25
base budget and the FY 26 governor's request.
While our recommendations are not binding, they are helpful to the full finance committee's process of creating a committee substitute as we move forward.
Today we will receive a mid-year FY26 status report and overview of the department's FY27 request from commissioner designee Randy Bates and administrative services director Megan Kohler.
For those watching remotely, the PowerPoint presentation can be found under today's meeting documents on basis.
The legislature's online headquarters at www.akleg.gov.
Mr. Bates, Ms. Kohler, please come forward and begin your presentation.
And a good afternoon in Juneau style.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here with the committee.
Madam Chair, co-chairs, members of the Committee, thank you.
My name is Randy Bates, Commissioner Designee for
the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Privilege to being in a position like this, certainly a pleasure to
be to share our budget and an update on our current budget status, FY26.
With me at the table, as you mentioned, is Meg Kohler.
She is the Administrative Services Director in the audience.
from the department includes Crystal Keeneman, Deputy Commissioner,
Reese Williams, Special Assistant, Legislative Liaison, and
Cassie Griffin, who is our budget manager.
I think last time I referred to her is Guru, I got a smile as well, our Budget Manager Guru.
Thank you for the opportunity to share both our mid-year update on the FY26 and
our FY27 proposed budget.
You do have the packet of slides that we shared with you.
You see what our mission is.
It's a lofty, appropriate mission,
conserving, improving, protecting Alaska's natural resources
and the environment to enhance the health, safety
and economic and social well-being of all of our Alaskans.
We have a full complement of Commissioner's Office staff,
a few that I introduced, Reese, Crystal.
Meg, we have more directors. We have five divisions within the department administration.
We've environmental health with Shondi Perry, air quality with Jason Olds, a Juno-based
director, spill prevention and response, Theresa Melville in Wasilla, and Division of Water,
Gene McCabe.
We also have Sam Daffett, Dapsovich, who we brought over from DOT. He's got a couple
decades of experience, fifth generation, Southeast Alaskan.
In general this slide covers what we do in the department we have we touch everybody's lives whether you breathe eat drink or discharge
Whether you're a business or a household everything that is included here is sort of summarized in that breathey drink discharge concept
So happy to be more specific, but this is a pretty dense slide that covers a lot of the good work. We do
I will touch, this is where I'll take a few minutes and slow down a little bit.
I want to touch on six topics for you today, three of which this committee had asked us to address.
Three of, which I think are listed here that we want a touch.
But this our current year, fiscal year budget, and what our accomplishments look like.
So in all honesty, I've been there since May,
and I have been at the department for five more years with the state for 25.
In all truthfulness and honesty, every single day has an update or an accomplishment that
could have made this sheet.
We do a lot of really, really good work.
There's a lotta good that's happening in the department.
We rendered this down to significant issues we want you to be aware of, but we do great
work through all of our staff.
The first issue that I wanted to touch on is the Flint Hills settlement.
So this is a soulful lane contamination issue at the North Pole Refinery.
And there we did finally get a settlement $24.48 million this fiscal year.
That did go into the prevention mitigation account.
In addition to that, there is about $2.3 million that went into general fund to cover those attorney fees and the costs.
In meeting with a couple of the members here, we did respond to a question about that. That was dated February 3rd.
Madam chair, is that something that we can share with that committee? Okay.
You want me to talk through that letter?
Although before you, while you're looking for your reading glasses, representative reference joined us at 1240.
Thank you.
So February 3rd, we did respond to finance committee co-chair Andy Josephson and
our budget chair here, Representative Hannon.
Cost recovery breakdown for that Flint Hills settlement, including total expenditures,
how those funds were allocated and the administrative costs to recover those
funds.
That judgment, like I said, resulted in $24.48 million deposited in the prevention mitigation account.
It is a general fund account, the costs broken down included the following
department oversight and response costs approximately $5.17 million.
Cost recovery for the piped water system, approximately 15.3 million, natural resource damages,
2.3 went into general fund for legal fees cost recovery.
There was another question related to this judgment and whether there is specific language
within that Flint Hills judgment that assigned limitations to how we would use that funding.
And our response to that is the judgment identified the appointment apportionment of the proceeds
but it did not impose limitations on the use of those funds.
The funds were deposited into that general fund account.
DEC does not have statutory authority to retain, reprogram, or
expend these funds without legislative appropriation.
Okay, and I, go ahead, represent Estelle.
Thank you, appreciate you being here today.
My question has to do, is that fund an allocation or an appropriation?
Because in one case, you get more flexibility than in another as far as spending.
Go ahead, on the record.
For the Record, Megan Cooler, Administrative Services Director for the Department, to make
sure that I can restate the question one more time just to
make sure I choose the rest.
Is the prevention mitigation account an allocation or an appropriation?
It is a allocation, it is designated fund within the general fund.
Okay, and then I'm gonna I want to go on my PFAS questions related to this. So we passed a bill a couple years ago requiring
The communities be able to send back PFOS
Firefighting foam that they were no longer required to have in their communities back to DEC
We anticipated that perhaps the money in the budget for that wasn't going to be adequate to address all of the communities in Alaska
I'm going to want a little more information on that, but the nexus is we would be able
to take some of this money and put it towards PFAS cleanup because there's no restrictions
on the fund.
Correct?
On that settlement.
Yeah.
Madam Chair, thank you for the question.
The status of that firefighting substance disposal reimbursement program, I'll jump from one to three.
I will also say that those funds are an appropriation.
And the increment that was added, the 24.48,
increased the longevity and the solvency of the fund to keep operations of
adequate at least through 20, I think it's 2051, something like that, those are significant funds
to keep that important agency solvent. More? Okay.
And we want to
keep it solvent, but we also know that we have some ongoing and immediate pollution needs
that aren't of that magnitude in that you know.
I can think of now the disaster communities and, you know, we'll ask.
I speculate that Kipnuck is probably not one of the communities that already sent its PFOS foam back
and it's now polluting somewhere out in the ocean.
And that we want to try and clean up as much of that PFAS before
it is doing ground and water contamination in communities.
a few million in a year while still making sure that the spar fund is adequately funded
to address any large catastrophic spills.
I'm interested.
Representative Tamacheski.
Thank you, Chair Hannon, through the chair.
So can you just reiterate real quickly on what the lawsuit was about?
I mean, what exactly the environmental hazard that it was?
In how cuz Flint Hills is a refinery in North Pole or was
So can you just reiterate that for the for The Listening audience of what exactly was the suit about in the in The Judgment?
Okay
Through Madam chair representative Thomas Sheffske I'll I give the briefest of thumbnails
Maybe director Kohler can fill in and if if you're desiring more information
I'm sure you're aware of it, I am happy to provide it and if we need to put it in writing for this committee,
that is then made public for those listening, we're happy do that as well.
The Flint Hills settlement was the result of soulfuling, contamination and plume,
and then the responsive cleanup.
And the replacement of the water systems, environmental damage,
core costs, all of that is associated with that type of contamination.
So it was a significant environmental challenge.
It took a lot to clean that up.
Replace the systems provide replacement water for a period of time.
Meg, do you want to follow up on that?
Through the chair.
Go ahead. So so now the site is clean so there's no more contaminants getting
down into the water table is that? For the record Meghan Kohler
administrative services director for the department through the chair I
but I don't want to speak out of turn without referencing our spill
prevention and response folks on the details of that site.
And once, if I can, Rainy Bates, once we have a cleanup like that, there are times when
those areas remain active and on our contaminated sites, we can continue to monitor them and
make sure that that cleanup took, and if there's anything else associated with that.
So representative with your permission, will follow up with a little more detail on what
So yeah, I just want to put it on there. I want
to make sure that the site has been clean.
I know once it's in the water table,
I mean, it is drifting.
Yeah, there's nothing we can kind of do about that,
but I'd just wanna make
sure with that settlement and make
sure the that site is actually clean
and not contaminating our water
table any further.
That's kind
of the basis of my questions. Thank you.
Yeah.
And Representative Thomas Chesky, just to note, I think, you know,
so one of the big was it contaminated folks wells who were on well systems.
So the biggest part of that settlement was hooking them in to a water system.
So I'm not a lawyer, but they might not say it's clean.
but the drinking water contamination is resolved
because you're not drinking from your well anymore,
you are now on a water system.
But I do want to return to the disposal fund of the foam
to be returned because, and I, just to.
make sure I'm not at all implying that we're going to clean up all the PFAS contamination in the state.
We don't, you know, that's hundreds of millions of dollars.
But wanting to make
sure that communities who are the bill passed to return to a centralized location,
unused phone that was there for firefighting response that is now no longer
going to be used, but to get it out of small remote locations so that it could
be disposed of instead of it staying and potentially becoming another spill.
And I know that we did not have a large allocation to start that, so I'm looking
to see how much, how many of those communities have we taken their phone
What's our ongoing?
Level of use for that
location
Madam chair, thank you. You've done a great job of advocating
For that very program that we're proud of as well
It was it's called the firefighting substance disposal reimbursement program and what that means is its reimbursement
for the removal and disposal of
PFAS containing firefighting substances.
It was $2.5 million multi-year award.
And we stood that and there were priorities within that bill
about how we were going to approach the clean up first
priority, second, third priority.
We've been actively engaged in that first.
priority, which is the actual liquid form of PFAS firefighting foam.
And we have $300,000 expended to date on those priority activities.
And this, what we know of is that it's the communities put forward the effort, pay to
have that removed, and then re-reimburse them at that point.
A specific number, I believe it's 11, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 8, and 8 and 9.
11 communities or entities that have taken advantage of this program remove their PFAS
from their particular areas and we've been able to reimburse them for those costs.
That's about $300,000.
partner and reimburse folks in that second and third priority activities. So those are just
coming into focus now. And as an example, the second priority would be replacement of equipment
that might have been in contact with that PFAS material.
a truck fire truck those are not cheap replacement items and so we really in
partnering on this we wanted to find the biggest bang for the buck and get that
liquid form that's sitting in barrels out of those communities before we
started the higher cost of of reimbursing for equipment. Commissioner how many
communities so if we've reimbursed 11 but how
many communities do we believe have that liquid foam in them?
For the record, Meg Kohler, Administrative Services Director for the Department, Madam Chair, at this point the division's
Bill Prevention and Responses working both with a contractor and doing extensive outreach to communities that they believe may have
those foam or the second and third priorities
within their communities.
So they're actively doing that outreach,
working to get those applications in,
but as far as a existing number,
I don't believe that we have a picture of that,
but we do know that it is, it's prevalent
in quite a few communities-
It could be hundreds.
It can be.
Yeah.
Madam Chair, could it be?
Yeah, so if we were just gonna do tier one response
to hundreds of communities,
2.5 million isn't going to be enough to even do that.
So that's that the seat I'm planting with the subcommittee of a couple of more
million may help another couple dozen communities.
Madam chair it's a it permission to speak.
This is a reimbursement program, and one of the challenges that we've heard from the
communities is having that seed money to initiate this effort, pay for it up front at their expense,
and then come to us for reimbursement. We can't do the front end because of liability reasons,
but the seed is important for those communities. If, for example, one
of your communities has a couple 50 gallon containers, it's incumbent upon them to identify it.
to an approved facility, pay for that up front,
then submit their reimbursement request to us.
We can cover that then, but it's at front end seed money that's necessary
for the community to be successful.
Understand that, you know, when we get caught in the loop of if it is Kip Nook and now it
is spilled, then it becomes your headache in aftermath with no obligation from the
community because,
we want to try and prevent it from spreading further now that we know that the long-term costs
and the obligations that, we have. So I'm just looking to make sure that
we are trying to do it when we can. Representative Costello, I have put you off.
Thank you. Along the same lines,
I was wondering if you could, for the committee, just list or name the 11 communities that
about additional contaminated sites.
However, if you have hired a contractor,
could we at least know what communities
the contractor's going to be working with?
Because that individual essentially is going
to potentially contaminated communities
where they have this opportunity
to get the reimbursement.
Yes, Representative Costello through the chair.
We will work to provide that information.
I don't know if we have a comprehensive inventory from the communities around the state or the entities around
the city. It's not just communities. Every entity that might be out there that ever had this type of material sitting on
their compound. So every rule volunteer fire department probably has some.
or facility that was vulnerable to fire. They may have had it themselves. So, and I say that
because one of these entities here is not a community. Of the 11, we have the City of Wrangle,
the King Cove Fire and Rescue, Trident Seafoods Corporation, City
of Craig Volunteer Fire Department, Penguin Creek Homeowners Association. I apologize if
City of Falls Pass, city of Shishmarath,
city Gus Davis, Stebbins Community Association,
and again, the city
of Craig Volunteer Fire Department.
Those are the 11 that we have worked with to reimburse,
either reimburse fully or encumbered monies to reimburs.
Megan, you were looking to say something on that?
Yeah.
Go ahead.
Thank you. For the record, my cholera admin services director, the department, through the chair, I believe when I noted that we are working with a contractor that is not a
contractor, that. We have under a contract. It is a entity that goes out into a lot of these rural communities. So working
with them to make sure that were doing that outreach and recognizing that they do a
lot. Of work in that that kind of vein and that field to be able to help connect those communities with this reimbursement.
process so thank you okay thank
you all right let you go back to your
script number three of six and I'll be
where we're continuing to move this
along again one of the questions that
we were asked to address was close
commercial passenger vessel environmental
compliance program how are we doing do
we have the budget to do it and how good
are
we do a job managing our our fleet it's
out there I will
I will say that I believe we have what we need.
I believed that we had a robust inspection compliance program permitting as well.
And I think that, we've a fleet that is relatively compliant and
understands how to work with us.
It's a two way street.
So in general, I would say for all the permits.
Let's let's talk about the water world for just second for an app these permit
Alaska pollutant discharge elimination system permit
Every operational facility in Alaska that is going to discharge wastewater requires one of these permits whether it's one
Of our publicly owned wastewater treatments a seafood processing plant
a cruise ship, a mine or oil gas operation,
a platform and cook inlet.
They all require these permits.
Depending on the flow from those
in terms of the wastewater,
they're gonna be categorized as either a minor permit
or a major permit.
In our world,
a miner permit gets inspected once every five years,
the life of a permit,
a mayor gets inspected once
every other year, so once
every two years.
So.
That's our general protocol for inspections in the water permitting world.
Cruise ships, however, that are 50 births or greater,
they have their own inspection protocol that is much more significant than anything else we have.
All of our vessels that apply in
the waters in Southeast Alaska, Alaska anywhere here,
undergo 100 percent inspection every year.
Those that are larger are inspected twice a year once import and once under way
And that's that by design. That's what we've decided to do. We needed to deal with these vessels
So it's a much more significant inspection program than we have for any other industry out there small vessels large vessels
They all get inspected all of those that discharge get that second inspection underway while they're discharging
We do have
a number of inspectors dedicated specifically to the cruise ships. We have a marine engineer
that participates, and then we have the division of air that does opacity measures. And so on average
They do 400 to 500 measurements.
The air team does 400-500 measurements a year,
and that is looking at that smoke stack of those vessels.
And this year I believe we topped 600 measurements
from around Southeast and elsewhere
on those air measurements, so we have a robust program
that has staffed up appropriately,
that it is managing that industry in a way
that we've confidence that they're complying with our rules.
Madam chair
Mr. Bates in the inspections last summer if that's when you have data from how many violations or warnings were given to the cruise ship
100% inspected fleet copy that
Madem chair. That's a number that will return to you after committee. I know that
We're still pulling together some of those specific numbers from the last last calendar year not fiscal year, but calendar here
I'm going to tell you philosophically, we also work with all of the industry cruise ships
included too, as we're going through the plant, whether it's a seafood plant oil and
gas plant mining, city treatment.
If we see something as an inspector, my request of our team is to point it out and get it
fixed right away.
It may not be a violation that shows up in the cheat sheet or in a formal report, but
wrenches or something else that's sitting around
that we can say, technically that is a violation, but clean it up
get it done.
I'd rather they clean it up now than report to it later and penalize them five years from now in that inspection process.
So you may not see the entirety of violations listed in a report that comes out because we've done what I think is a really appropriate good job
Right then and there not at some later time after after we've issued the paper or our violation
So, but we will respond to you with that number from last calendar year
Representative home
Thank you for the chair while we're talking a little bit about the the permits and this could be a general question to I
Suspect a broad range of your permitting inspection and violation and enforcement
Could you talk a little bit about what the structure is
for the fees and charges associated
with what people are paying to get the permits,
what they're being charged, if anything,
for inspections, and then what's happening
when they are violations?
And I'm just kind of looking more generally at kind
of what is the revenue side of helping cover the costs
that are created by these operations
to our public efforts to
Monitor and ensure compliance. Thank you. Yeah, co-chair.
Thank You. Good to meet you as well. I don't believe we've had that pleasure yet, but
These programs that we have the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act. Some of our programs are
implement those programs from the federal government. These are these are
federal programs designed to be implemented assumed by states. So what's
good about that is the feds give us a little bit of money to do that. The bad
thing about is they don't give as nearly enough money
to that so it's supposed to a 75-25 share where the
75% of that share cost and we match it with 25%.
We are overmatching by 150% probably in all of our programs,
just to make these programs run, right?
The feds don't provide enough money to offset those costs.
So some of the cost is
GF shared some of that cost is reimbursement
Statutory designated receipts or general fund matcher or something else
We do have in all of our divisions. We have a fee
Program, so it's a pay-to-play. So you have to if you're gonna get a
water permit or an air permit, you pay the fee associated with that.
That fee is calculated, and Meg may have more detail, but that fee
is calculate based on
the time it requires to develop that permit
and finalize that through application to completion.
And that's a sometimes, depending on the division, that is a
an actual cost, sometimes that a
pre-set cost through our regulations.
So inspections are part of the business and so we have separate sections in each
of our divisions. We don't have perimeters operating also as inspectors.
It's a separate function. So we've permit specialists and then we
have inspection specialists for each division. But those costs are all wrapped
into the program that to cost a certain amount of money.
Is that begin to answer some of
Just one follow-up, please. To the chair, are the inspections, do they...
have a specific fee associated with doing the inspection,
or you're primarily charging a fee for the permit,
and once you hold the permits,
then any inspections are being done
through any of this cost recovery or our general funds,
but it's assumed that that's our cost
of doing business to support that.
But, or are they actually being charged
when there's an inspection?
And particularly if there is a violation,
but just in general, I'm just kind of looking
at the operating cost of it.
through the chair, co-chair Holland, the latter.
So they are not charged specific to their inspection,
nor are the fees associated with violations
brought back to the division,
those go straight into the general fund.
Thank you.
Moving right along.
Very quickly we do have three more issues here
I'll be I will be brief because each of these could take
More than just an hour or we have and I know you've you got a hard deadline here Fairbanks PM 2.5
What we're trying to do is find reasonable cost effective logical ways
to achieve clean air in Fairbanks and the North Pole.
And we've worked with the governor's office.
We've work closely more recently with EPA and our own DEC staff
on a reasonable approach to addressing that problem.
I can't tell you how happy I am.
We got that plan approved.
We worked.
With the new federal administration, we pushed back
provisions that EPA was enforcing upon us, we found a path forward with EPA, and we have a plan
approval at this point that is not onerous to the residents. We've, you know, at one point,
we were looking at $250 million in increased fuel costs that would have been born by the
residents of that area. $60 million dollars in federal highway funds was held hostage,
Maybe yesterday, Fairbanks is in attainment, North Pole is close, and we have a game plan
with the North pole and with some of our grants to continue to target some
of the contributing factors that are reducing that air quality in North
Pole and Fairbank's area. So we're very excited about the progress we've made in
the relationship that we had with federal government through EPA on this one, so.
Thank you, Coach Hannon, through the chair, and how was Emmett to work with?
Through the Chair, Representative Thomas Shefsky, Regional Administrator Polkon is wonderful
to worked with.
We have a great relationship.
We shared the stage last week at the Forum on the Environment, where we spent an hour-and-a-half
Our relationship and what our goals are for for both Alaska and Region 10
There has never been in my opinion in in
My experience and I've been with the state for a while
There's never have been as good of alignment as there is right now with EPA and the State of Alaska, D. E. C
And part of that is the federal administration the states administration
regional administrator poke on on myself
She comes from Alaska she was in my position. She knows these issues
She hasn't been able to work on them for a year because there's a conflict of interest, but
She's she's wonderful to worked with as is
Administrator Selden. Thank you for the question. Absolutely. I couldn't come up with her last name. So thank you
For reminding me
There's too many too. Many folks just remember, thank
Okay, quickly these are important as well
Home heating oil tank response funding. This is a capital fund from twenty six four hundred fifty thousand dollars
Was appropriated to address clean up of spilled home heating. Oil. this is important
There's there's more than 50 spills reported on an annual basis and that is
I suspect it's woefully under reported because the reason
This isn't important programs people are quite honestly scared to call and say hey
I've got a leaking tank
What do I got to do, because it's going to cost me money.
This is a program designed to address that.
So it is reimbursement program that provides somewhere between $13,000 and $17,00 to the
homeowners for the cleanup and containment of those home heating oil tanks.
You know, I think every home experienced some level of spill.
Every home he knew I'll tank whether it's five gallons,
100 gallons 500 gallons was dumped over Juneau during our snow pop,
snowpocalypse, you know. We were we were.
Concerned about the avalanche or the snow coming off roofs that would knock these tanks over dislodge them
Disrupt the plumbing. Those are the types of spills we're concerned with because they're small but incremental
And they just persist and so this is a program that is designed to assist those homeowners in that cleanup cost wonderful program
we have
Expended about $134,000 to date, which is 10 approved applications.
And I think once that just kicked off in November, so the more knowledge that folks have about that,
the better opportunity there's going to be to do some of this clean up.
Thanks, I am curious whether or not this fund or perhaps there's a complimentary fund that is available for people to do inspections and to
do any sort of strapping or other spill prevention work in order to stabilize tanks that might be at risk of spilling, particularly as we
look at coastal communities that are at risks of future flooding.
Yeah.
Preventive at this point though. We recognize that need we would much rather prevent these from happening
than having to clean them up. This is this is
Designated specifically for that cleanup effort. However, when I was speaking to I believe it was a Prince William sound RC AC
I might have been cooking that
There was some mechanically inclined person sitting in the in in that table that said hey, why don't we just build little knobs that when you take
tips over, it shuts that flow off. Great, let's have that conversation. Let's figure that piece out.
That makes a lot of sense too. So something we'll look at,
it's not part of our current program, though.
Okay, thank you. Final one, I'll turn the mic over to Director Kohler.
And this is, again, a difficult one to try and pigeonhole
into a few minutes, let alone an hour, significant effort
on the department, on part of the Department,
couldn't be prouder of our staff for stepping up
and helping out.
We had about 100 people of 570 staff
that were somehow involved in that response.
Very significant in terms of, of art delivery of service.
We do have a letter, a formal letter.
This is dated February 11th.
It did go to Representative Josephson,
House Finance Co-Chair and yourself, Madam Chair.
And this is detailing the current cost
and the plan for typhoon, that's just what I wanted
to point out is current costs to data are about $870,000.
we're looking at additional work that's going to be required in the long term that is beginning
we are continuing to evaluate, assess and figure out what we have to do but we'll be
mobilizing and getting out in a field in April with break up and there's gonna be a lot of work
April made June and beyond so we're looking at through this fiscal year about 1.2 million additional
It's going to be needed to cover costs
So additional additional eight eight seventy eight hundred and seventy thousand to date
1,2 additional through the fiscal Year
Good question, but we do want to jump pretty quickly. We've only got 15 minutes
We need to get to
Thanks to follow-ups to that question. I'm curious as we look at your thoughts on what's happening now
What is it teaching us about what we need to perhaps be planning for in the future in order to budget for?
The spill response and the community response to these storms in future
I'm just curious if there are some lessons learned from Merbock and now along that would
teach us about perhaps how to look at the costs and the structure of the department moving forward.
Coach here, through the chair, thank you. It's a great question and we started that. We started
The day we had knowledge of how long when it hit
Was okay. We're doing some things really good, but we could do some. Things better. What are those things?
And so we pulled all of our staff together
Through a video conference and in-person in the first week of January to have that very conversation
What did we experience?
Both from the commissioner's office to the director's Office to this staff that were in The field.
What was your experience
that went well, and what can we do better to deliver what the residents need?
And so we don't have that finalized yet, but we had that open conversation with all of
our staff to sort of evaluate that.
That was more of a programmatic level.
How can be responsive?
How should people travel?
What do they need in terms of immunizations?
the most significant devastating rodeo we've probably ever seen in the state's history.
So I don't have an immediate answer in terms of funding.
We know that Merbock is expensive.
is going to be similarly expensive and Kipnik's not repaired yet. Quig is closer and all of our
communities had hits and most of them are set back up. Kippnik has not recovered and it's going
to a challenge. If you saw the article the other day they were calling every village tribal member
to find out, do you want to live here or would you rather relocate? I mean that's the significance
I want to just the 1.2 figure that you're going to need in the remaining fiscal year is that coming as a supplemental or you've got department funds.
You're gonna move around I'd like to introduce Meg Kohler.
Let her run through her slides and feel that one if possible madam chair respectfully.
Thank you madame chair those.
But I believe in the letter and then the additional funding,
we anticipate that that will be reimbursed through DMBA
as part of the response.
All right, then I'm going to have you jump to slide seven.
Excellent, we can at least.
One more.
Seven, perfect.
My apologies for the record my cooler admin services director. So looking to the
2027 governor's proposed budget. I will work to be brief
But I'm happy to answer any questions and also any question after
So for The item I think you'll see the four items here are reflective of what I would consider largely technical changes
These do reflect salary
increases, as well as the information technology, IT classification study
implementation. We'll move through each of the divisions, but we'll give an overview.
overview slide. So looking at the department overview, you'll see, as in previous years,
we've continued to identify the Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act funding on top of
the Department of Traditional Funding. We'll continue to do that through while those funds
are in place. What you will see here, again, is budget increases.
for salary adjustment and including the IT class study increase and that impacts 17
staff members within our department
This table does reflect
It looks and I think I used in the committee meeting it looks a little funky
And that is the result of the spar aqueous film forming foam a triple F disposal reimbursement program
That's a multi-year appropriation.
So it shows here as a reversal of the 2.5 million.
That does not mean the funding's gone in FY27.
The balance that is not expended during FY26
will be moved forward.
But it's reflected as the $0 transaction.
So you'll see that in the large UGF decrement.
actually there but you'll see that moved forward in the next year so and it
will also make the spill prevention and response fun slide look a little strange.
the next slide. So we'll look at Division of Administration. The Division
of administration, my division is funded at the appropriation level in proportion
to how the rest of the department pays for personnel services. This allows us
to spread the Department overhead costs to non-general fund sources.
You'll see here there is an increment related to IT and salary adjustments.
I'm going to feel like a little bit of a broken record on those words.
However, you will see some changes in the shifting percentages.
This is one of the technical changes that I noted.
And this reflects the alignment with the EPA-approved FY27
federally approved indirect cost rate.
As our division personnel services cost shift between funding sources the administrative services costs also shift to follow suit
So that is what you'll see there again. That's a net zero change, but it does adjust the percentages
Percent of reference thank you, so I think what? You were saying there was this department
shares its personnel with other or this division shares personnel
with
other agencies potentially or other divisions of DC and so there is there
an interagency receipt in this other column what what's what there and I guess
I just wanted to flesh that out a little bit more yeah through the chair and
thank you representative so that is probably a a portion of me speaking to
and not speaking well.
So, no, this is Division of Administrative Services.
So for our accountants and our IT
and those type of positions that support all of the department,
we pay for that through as a percentage related
to our other division's direct personnel services.
So we're not sharing with other
Departments that's how we support the overhead cost for the department as a whole
that that cost share is
Put to the divisions to support that
Through the chair through the Chair or might so give the so personnel is being charged back to environmental health and air quality
Depending on how much of their time took for each of those sections
Okay, that I think that was what my question was tonight and that
Was what I was thinking okay one accountant in administration may provide service for
Four other divisions, and so we just cost share what that pro ratta rate is essentially
Okay
And then through the chair to the Chair
if I may. So the gray bar that we see in front of us is representative of that I assume sort of
those dollars being received because this is just a division of administration from the other
divisions. The I believe that is a portion of it sorry I'm flipping through my pages
Yes, that does reflect some Ia that also are other items that fall within that fund source designation
Okay
Moving on to the division of environmental health
Again, this one reflects salary and IT increments.
This slide also reflects a technical change.
This now includes facility operation maintenance state owned.
Those of you may remember there was a previous last year, there is a slide for...
Facilities Operations Maintenance State owned also known as FOMSO for our Environmental Health Lab.
It is the one building that the department owns. We have moved it into the Division of Environmental
Health, RDU. That is because that EHL lab is managed by environmental health, the staff that
staff this is also a to better align with how other departments include what is
called FOMZO in in their division breakdowns and so this
is a just an alignment you'll see here that we have combined for clarity we've
combined the two components in the prior year data so that it
looks consistent. You can see the breakdown overall, but recognize that prior to 27, those
were two separate items. Moving on. On to division of air quality. This just reflects salary.
Kind of standard. And then moving on to spill prevention and response.
Again, this just reflects salary in IT, but also shows that 2.5 A triple F reversal.
Again that money will be put forward again but it shows as a reversal in these items.
And then moving on to division of water, again this is salary and IT I'll also note
recognizing that there's also some carry forward language within the operating
budget for moving GFPR the ability to carry that forward and that is
associated with over the last couple of years we've seen changes in the level of
fees that are collected based on construction and other activities so
flexibility within as they can adapt to, you know, increases in construction or
otherwise. GFPR? GFPR, that is correct, Madam. Please tell us what GFPR is. Oh, I'm sorry.
The general fund program, RACI, it's the feasibility to collect fees. Thank you.
We made our speed do and, you know, accounting offices never like that.
So thank you for participating in the speed round.
Representative Holland, we got just a couple minutes, so.
Thank you, two things I wanted to.
And I think I'll skip.
We've kind of talked about storms.
I got one thing I just want to bring up at this point.
In terms of fiscal year 27, assuming the gas line project
is moving ahead, what are your plans
and how does this budget support what I expect would be?
a significant amount of work required to support the 20 sites that would be created and the
rest of the operations is that planned for and in this budget to be able to
support that project assuming it moves ahead on the schedule it's been announced.
Co-chair Holland through Madam Chair the answer is we're already working on those permits and with
the with the project itself so we have a number of permits that are either issued that
plan. So we've got things like general permits for oil and gas construction and operation.
Those are in place. Those were developed considering these types of projects. And there's a number
of other routine permits that a project like that is going to require. There's nothing
overwhelming about that workload. We're excited about it early and often is what we say. Get
Tailor that project so it it sails through and complies with the laws that we have and protects the environment
Thank you, my question has to do with a comment you made earlier about the over matching on the for the federal state match
What can be done about that? What are you doing in regards to that
Yeah, thank you
Representative Costello through the chair
Thanks for picking up on that comment. We've talked to EPA about this.
We we've asked for additional funding at the federal level to help cut our state cost down.
It's something that we as states, not just Alaska, but all states struggle with,
is the implementation costs with primacy programs.
We took these on because we have a state's rates issue.
We want to control our destiny,
but it comes at a cost too.
and we have to be aware of what that cost is.
So the feds, at one point, had more money to share.
They don't right now is what they say, and
we understand that. But when the
the APTIS program, for example, the
Alaska pollutant discharge elimination system,
rough numbers, I donít want to
necessarily tell you it's 1.5 million something like that we get from the feds
we match that with 2. 5 million so it is well overmatched when our only
requirement is 25 percent. Feds can't come up with that for every state and so
if we're going to assume that responsibility and if were going
to implement a primacy program to manage our resources it comes at
cost like we are doing everything we can to trim and be as efficient as we
I want to thank Commissioner Bates and Director Kohler for your participation today.
Our next subcommittee meeting will be on Thursday, February 19th.
That's a week from today at 1230 here in room 120.
And with that, this meeting is adjourned at 130.