Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Appropriations reviews Adjutant General budget, weighing maintenance, disaster and construction requests
Summary
The House Appropriations Government Operations Division heard the Adjutant General's budget request, discussing maintenance funding that would leverage federal dollars, disaster and emergency funds, Camp Grafton training expansion, and design money for a Williston readiness center.
Bismarck — The House Appropriations - Government Operations Division spent its Wednesday morning reviewing the Adjutant General's budget request, focusing on maintenance needs, disaster-response funding and construction projects that state officials said would leverage federal matching dollars.
The committee heard an overview from Brig. Gen. Mitch Johnson, Adjutant General of the North Dakota National Guard, who outlined multiple requests including a proposed base maintenance appropriation and one-time funds to match federal construction and mitigation grants. Committee members emphasized the need to understand accounting changes on the long worksheet but generally signaled support for several items while marking others with a question mark for follow-up.
Why it matters: The department manages about $900 million in land and facilities and officials told lawmakers a $6 million state commitment could unlock roughly $24 million in federal funds, producing about $30 million in projects to repair and maintain readiness centers and other facilities. Committee members repeatedly framed the maintenance ask as ‘‘oil change’’ money to prevent larger, more costly repairs later.
Committee members sought clarifying details on how the Armstrong and Burgum budget proposals differed and why some lines showed internal reallocations rather than new spending. Jennifer Sheet, division chief for fiscal and admin services, told the panel the apparent reductions in some operating lines were internal account-code moves to align federal/state match dollars in the agency's Army Guard contracts line.
Major items discussed
- Critical infrastructure/maintenance: The administration proposed a $1.5 million ongoing general‑fund base for a critical infrastructure matching program and $4.5 million in one‑time State Infrastructure Fund (SIF) money; officials said the $6 million combined would be matched by federal funds (they estimated about $24 million federal) and yield roughly $30 million in projects.
- Camp Grafton regional training institute: The department requested $34 million in federal funds for an addition to the regional training institute at Camp Grafton, an item members described as difficult to refuse and marked “okay.”
- Williston Readiness Center design: Lawmakers discussed a $2.5 million general‑fund appropriation for design work on a new Williston readiness center. Col. Cody Volk, director of infrastructure and environment, said construction costs were estimated at about $29 million and that design funding improves chances for federal funding, though there is no guarantee.
- Disaster grants and Storm Act program: The department requested federal authority and matching dollars for disaster-mitigation and Storm Act programs. Officials said roughly $16.6 million in federal Storm Act awards were already offered but the state lacked full authority or matching funds to accept them. The committee was told the Storm Act authorization is a revolving loan structure to fund mitigation projects locally and then recycle repayments for further projects.
- Emergency response fund: The committee reviewed a $2 million recurring access to a disaster relief fund used to pre‑stage resources and cover immediate needs; the department said it has previously used and been reimbursed from FEMA for portions of those expenditures.
Committee process and next steps
Members repeatedly asked staff to flag items for follow‑up and to explain account reclassifications on the long worksheet. Chairman Munson indicated the panel would continue detailed review at the next meeting and that representatives of the Adjutant General’s office would return with supplemental information on specific lines and the timing of any one‑time federal opportunities.
Ending: Lawmakers did not take votes on budget lines in the hearing but placed several items on the committee’s follow‑up list, asking the agency to provide finer fiscal detail (including the location and funding breakdown for several FTEs) before final appropriation decisions are made.
