HOUSE BILL REPORT

ESHB 611

BYHouse Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Representatives Scott, S. Wilson, P. King, Hankins, Zellinsky, Allen, R. King, Day, Haugen, May, Hargrove, Cantwell, J. Williams, Sprenkle, Jesernig and Miller)

Providing funds to offset the impact of the Navy home port in Everett.

House Committe on Ways & Means

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute do pass.  (25)

     Signed by Representatives Grimm, Chair; Bristow, Allen, Appelwick, Basich, Ebersole, Fuhrman, Grant, Hine, Holland, Madsen, McLean, McMullen, Nealey, Peery, Sayan, Schoon, Silver, L. Smith, H. Sommers, Sprenkle, Taylor, Valle, B. Williams and Winsley.

Majority Report:     Do not pass.  (3)

     Signed by Representatives Belcher, Locke and Niemi.

House Staff:Susan Kavanaugh (786-7145)

AS PASSED HOUSE APRIL 21, 1987

BACKGROUND:

The U.S. Congress authorized $43.58 million for federal fiscal year 1987 for a navy home port in Everett, Washington.  Congress said this money could not be spent until the State of Washington appropriated its share of funds for home port impacts.

The Washington State Department of Community Development worked with other state agencies to estimate the increase that will occur in state expenditures and revenues as a result of the home port being located in Washington.  Demand for public services is expected to increase primarily as a result of population growth associated with the base, but also because of the need to make plans to accommodate this growth and to monitor dredging, dredge spoils disposal and construction.

The Department of Community Development estimate of state spending during the 1987-89 biennium as a result of the home port totaled $15.43 million, of which $3.5 million is for roads and the remainder is for increased public services.  The governor's supplemental transportation budget request includes $3.5 million to cover the state's share of road costs.

SUMMARY:

The bill appropriates money to the Office of Financial Management to offset the increased demands for public services during the 1987-89 biennium as a result of the home port.  The money is to be allocated to specific agencies based on increased agency operating expenditures and workload directly associated with the home port:  school enrollments (Superintendent of Public Instruction), caseloads (Department of Social and Health Services), monitoring (Departments of Ecology and Fisheries), inspections (Department of Labor and Industries) and planning (Department of Community Development).

The general fund-state appropriation is $10.47 million.  The general fund-federal appropriation is $1.17 million (these funds go to certain programs, such as AFDC and Medicare, that are administered by Department of Social and Health Services, but receive some federal money).  Appropriations of other state funds total $1.46 million.

No funds can be spent, except for planning or monitoring, until 1) actual construction or site preparation for the home port has begun, 2) the federal government releases to be expended the $43.5 million appropriated in federal fiscal year 1987 for construction of the home port, and 3)  all required local, state, and federal permits for site construction, preparation, and dredging are obtained.

Reports to the legislature on funds spent and other actions by the governor regarding the home port are required.

The legislature intends that the harbor area outside the home port remain free for navigation and commerce, except in periods of national emergency.

Fiscal Note:    Attached.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Several people presented testimony in favor of the bill and their names can be obtained from the House Ways & Means Committee.

House Committee - Testified Against: Several people presented testimony against the bill and their names can be obtained from the House Ways & Means Committee.

House Committee - Testimony For:     The home port would bring jobs and income to the state.  The home port would generate more revenues than expenditures for the state and Snohomish County.  It is a strategic necessity for the nation's defense.  Environmental concerns about home port dredging have been, or are being, resolved.

House Committee - Testimony Against: The home port would lead to job losses at private firms in the Everett port area.  It is not clear that the home port would generate more revenues than expenditures for the state and Snohomish County.  Disposal of home port dredge spoils could harm Puget Sound.  The home port would have an undesirable impact on the local community.