Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
02/27/2020 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 | |
| HB205 || HB206 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 27, 2020
9:05 a.m.
9:05:28 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Co-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
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Partlow, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division; Representative Tiffany Zulkosky; Neil Steininger,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the
Governor; Kelly Cunningham, Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
John Binder, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
SUMMARY
HB 205 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 206 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda. He provided
the schedule for the afternoon meeting. The committee would
resume budget amendments.
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
9:06:48 AM
^AMENDMENTS
9:06:54 AM
Co-Chair Foster directed members to the next amendment. He
noted that the committee had left off on page 12 [of the
"2020 Legislature - Operating Budget Transaction Detail -
House Structure" document (copy on file)], Amendment
H DPS 5. [Note: amendments were heard on 2/25/20 during the
1:30 p.m. meeting and 2/26/20 during the 9:30 a.m. and 1:30
p.m. meetings. See separate minutes for detail.]
Representative Josephson requested to roll
Amendment H DPS 5 to the bottom of the list to provide him
with an opportunity to review the information.
Co-Chair Foster asked the amendment sponsor if he was
amenable to the request.
Representative Knopp agreed.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 1
(copy on file):
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
H DOT 1 - Funding for State Management of Kwinhagak
Airport
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 90.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment that would
provide $90,000 for state management of the Kwinhagak
airport. He detailed that the Native village of Kwinhagak
requested that the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) resume operation of the runway through a
resolution. He detailed that the village had constructed
the runway in 1999. In 2004, the tribe took over
maintenance and operations with no assistance from the
state; however, the community lacked funding for runway
maintenance. He elaborated that permafrost degradation had
resulted in dips and bumps in the runway and had destroyed
the lighting systems. Due to the damage, flights were only
possible during daytime hours.
Representative Josephson stated that the combination of
lack of maintenance and limited landing times constitute a
public health issue. The department previously operated and
maintained the runway. He reported that according to the
Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, the community was
entirely dependent on airline transportation to receive
supplies and transport patients to receive healthcare
outside of Kwinhagak in the winter and limited daylight
hours. He explained that air was the only viable year-round
mode of transportation for the village's 600 residents. He
stressed that a functional airport was vital to the health
and safety of the community.
9:09:39 AM
Co-Chair Foster spoke in support of the amendment. He
shared that he had spoken with Representative Tiffany
Zolkosky about the topic. He detailed that the community
was located in the Bethel region (House district 40). He
explained that virtually every small rural airport was
state maintained. At some point in the past the local
community had taken control of the maintenance. He did not
know whether the community had received federal tribal
highway and airport funding, but the funding had been
diminishing over the years. He believed Kwinhagak wanted to
return to having a state maintained airport.
Representative Carpenter wanted a better understanding of
why the state maintenance had been moved away from in the
first place.
Co-Chair Foster did not have the information. He relayed
that the community had thought it could maintain the
airport with the other funding it had been receiving. He
did not know any additional detail.
Representative Josephson read from a letter dated February
14, 2020 from Darren Cleveland, President of the Native
Village of Kwinhagak:
The Native village of Kwinhagak built the runway and
owns the private airport. Over the years our funds to
maintain the runway have dwindled. The result we now
see with the runway condition deteriorating could also
be attributed to the absence of maintenance fund
assistance from the state's DOTPF.
Representative Josephson believed the information was
similar to information contained in other documents [in
members' packets]. Resolutions were also included.
Representative Knopp did not know why the state moved away
from maintaining the airport. He knew the state had made
efforts over the years to relinquish airports to
communities if the communities were interested. He
understood that DOT had met with the village and the
department was more than willing to take over the
maintenance of the Kwinhagak airport. He highlighted that
without the switch to state maintenance, the village had no
means to repair the lighting or continue maintenance and
the airport would likely be mothballed. He recalled hearing
in a meeting that the medevac flights had not been able to
operate at night due to the [broken] lighting.
9:13:31 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard thought it was important to
hear from DOT. She did not recall hearing about the issue
in subcommittee.
Co-Chair Foster suggested withdrawing the motion to adopt
Amendment H DOT 1 in order to have staff reach out to DOT
for answers.
Representative Josephson WITHDREW Amendment H DOT 1 with
intent to offer it later in the amendment process.
Co-Chair Foster requested that committee members ask any
questions they may have for the department to follow up on.
Representative Merrick asked if the $90,000 included in the
amendment had been provided by DOT or the village.
9:15:04 AM
AT EASE
9:16:05 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted that Amendment H DOT 1 would be
rolled to the bottom of the amendment list. [Note: H DOT 1
was heard at 10:11 a.m.]
9:16:31 AM
Representative Josephson asked to hear Amendment H DOT 2
after Amendment H DOT 1.
Co-Chair Foster agreed.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H UOA 1 (copy on
file):
University of Alaska
H UOA 1 - Restore Funding to Compact Level
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -10,500.0
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Johnston explained the amendment that would remove
$10.5 million that had been added by the finance
subcommittee. She stated it was no secret that the past
year had been a catastrophic budget year for the University
of Alaska. She hoped committee members all remembered that
the budget veto was $135 million and what had happened to
the University as it tried to address the cut. She
highlighted what had taken place as students began to
decide not to enroll and when good professors had been lost
because they could not deal with the instability. She
detailed that the situation had brought the University and
the Dunleavy administration together where a compact had
been agreed upon, which was less catastrophic than $135
million in one year. The compromise resulted in a reduction
of $70 million spread over three years ($25 million in the
first year, $25 million in the second year, and $20 million
the third year). She stressed that there had been numerous
cuts in the past ten years. However, she was concerned
about ignoring the compact and putting the University in
another state of flux.
Co-Chair Johnston explained that the legislature already
knew where the administration stood on the issue. She
thought there was no question it would be a hard lift for
the University to add the $10.5 million to the compact. She
would be very concerned that the money would not remain in
the budget if added. She did not think including the
increment would be helpful to the faculty or the
University. She would prefer to see the legislature help
the University do what it needed to do, as painful as it
was, with consistency. For the aforementioned reasons, she
did not support the subcommittee's recommendation and
wanted to remove the $10.5 million increment.
9:20:20 AM
Representative Wool opposed the amendment. He stated that
the issue had been around for some time and he had given
the subject much thought in the past several years. He
detailed that the University had been cut every year but
one during his tenure in the legislature. He detailed that
he was the one lobbying for additional funding for the
University on an annual basis. He was well aware of the
compact and believed it was a desirable situation under the
circumstances. He thought it equated to the administration
telling the University it would cut off its foot instead of
a leg. He stated the compact was made under duress and the
University would do anything to not lose a leg. He thought
morale at the University was at an all time low. He shared
that he had many friends who worked and taught at the
University, some of whom were retiring for various reasons.
Representative Wool had been made aware of the reduced
reduction by $10.5 million made by the finance subcommittee
to offset salary increases, which the University had not
received in several years. He reasoned that because
student, faculty, and staff morale was so low, the $10.5
million was a good thing. He noted that the funding was
under half of the $25 million cut in the compact. He
thought it was a step that showed the legislature cared
about the University and that it would not necessarily
accept a compact made outside of the legislature. He
respected the individuals at the University who had to cut
the deal with the administration. He stressed that the
University had escaped a very bad situation. He remarked
that if the full $135 million cut had been made, the
University would be in a much different world. He
emphasized that the University had its wings clipped and he
thought the legislature should do what it could to help. He
reiterated that the amount was not even half of the $25
million reduction. He reiterated his opposition to the
amendment. He supported adding funding back for the
University.
9:24:08 AM
Representative Josephson associated his remarks with the
colleague to his right [Representative Wool]. He spoke in
opposition to the amendment. He stated that accepting the
compact had some logic because the parties central to the
issue had agreed to its terms; however, he noted that the
legislature was also central to the issue. He noted that
the governor was in a position to say that the compact was
a reduction of $25 million and he would veto to the compact
amount. However, he believed the climate and context had
changed.
Representative Josephson was happy that the subcommittee
had determined that the legislature was not party to the
compact and it was the appropriating body. He stated that
the specific item had arisen from regents' policies
regarding salary adjustments that started after Labor Day.
He knew that some would argue that the salary increases
were not needed. However, he stressed that the University
was hemorrhaging programs. He elaborated that in the
current week the University would lose anthropology,
English, early childhood special education, theater, and
the master's in clinical psychology. Additionally, it was
hemorrhaging professors who were being poached from
elsewhere. He detailed that the situation was occurring
partly due to morale and the demise of programs and also
because professors were not paid within the 90th percentile
of their peers. The regents had decided that the situation
was unacceptable and unprofessional. The subcommittee had
stood with the regents' action.
Representative Josephson clarified that the regents had not
asked for the extra $10.5 million because they were subject
to the compact. He had not heard from any regents on the
$10.5 million. He reported that the regents had determined
an adjustment was needed because they needed to do
something to protect staff. The impact of the adjustment
was effectively a $35 million cut because of the $25
million cut under the compact and an additional $10 million
needed for the additional expenses.
Representative Josephson shared that the subcommittee had
heard from the chief justice that salary increments were
needed, and they did not come in the way the general
government unit came for public employees. He noted that
the University was in the class with the court system and
its staff. For the reasons he had mentioned, the
subcommittee had added back $10.5 million. He acknowledged
that if the legislature tried to add back $25 million it
would be a confusing message; however, he would support it.
He did not believe the $10.5 million reduced cut was a
confusing message. He did not support the amendment.
9:28:11 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz associated his comments with the two
previous speakers. He reminded committee members that the
past proposed $135 million cut was preceded by several
years of cuts to the University. He stated that the compact
had been made outside of the legislature as the
appropriating body. He emphasized they were talking about
the impact on the state's youth, the people who at one time
had been turning to the University as their first choice.
He shared that he was a former teacher at Ketchikan High
School. Particularly in the last five or six years of his
teaching career he had seen more and more students choosing
the University of Alaska system as their first choice. At
that time, cuts had not yet been made to the University and
it had been offering a wide variety of programs and two
scholarship programs.
Vice-Chair Ortiz relayed that he had spoken with the
counselor at Ketchikan High School and in the past six to
seven years, fewer and fewer students were choosing the
University of Alaska system as their primary choice. He
stressed that the impact of the most recent cuts had caused
a greater reduction in the number of people applying to the
university system. He highlighted that if the state lost
its youth to outside schools it greatly increased the
chance they would not return to work in Alaska. He
emphasized that they were watching the dismantlement of
what had been a prized jewel of Alaska. He recognized the
need for fiscal responsibility and constraints over the
past ten years due to declining oil production and prices.
He understood the need to prioritize spending. He reasoned
that if the legislature was not going to prioritize its
future workforce, it was a large detriment to the state. He
supported a small step back in what had been a long train
of reductions to the University. He strongly opposed the
amendment.
9:33:07 AM
Representative LeBon was torn on the issue. He had a close
association with the University and had graduated from the
University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1975. He shared that
both of his daughters had graduated from the University as
well. He wanted to see the money restored to the
University's budget, but he believed that for the time
being, the compact was the deal. He thought perhaps the
capital budget could be a way to help with debt service and
deferred maintenance, which were serious needs for the
University. He reasoned that if the legislature could help
with some debt service it would free up some operating
money for other uses. He had confidence in the University's
ability to rank those uses, perhaps salaries and other
needs. He reiterated it was the reality that the compact
was the deal. He would find a way to support the University
with a different vehicle during the current session. He
hoped the capital budget was the method. He would support
the amendment.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked to hear from the
Legislative Finance Division (LFD). She asked what the $25
million reduction would be for the total University budget
in terms of percentage.
Co-Chair Foster shared that $302 million was the adjusted
base for FY 21. In FY 20 the number had been $327 million
prior to the $25 million cut. In FY 22 the total would be
$277 million.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the figures
represented a 4 percent reduction.
MICHAEL PARTLOW, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE
DIVISION, asked Representative Sullivan-Leonard to clarify
the question.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard was interested in the
overall percentage reduction to the university budget. She
was trying to follow what the compact had stated.
Co-Chair Foster calculated that the $25 million cut from
$327 million was 7.6 percent.
9:37:22 AM
Representative Wool believed Representative Sullivan-
Leonard was interested in the percentage cut from the total
unrestricted general fund (UGF) and designated general fund
(DGF) budget combined. He believed the numbers cited by Co-
Chair Foster were off by one year. He thought the budget
based on the compact was $302 million in FY 20, $277
million in FY 21, and $257 million in FY 22. He estimated
it was a cut of about $100 million during his tenure with
the legislature. He believed the budget had been at a high
point of about $378 million in 2014.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the first $25 million cut went
into effect in FY 20 or FY 21.
Mr. Partlow replied that the first reduction of $25 million
was in FY 20, the second $25 million reduction was in FY
21, and the third reduction was $20 million in FY 22.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the budget was $327 million or
$302 million in FY 20.
Mr. Partlow replied that he did not have the numbers on
hand. He noted there were representatives from the
University available who may have the information on hand.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard supported Amendment H UOA
1. She remarked that departments across the board were
struggling and working hard to reduce their overall
budgets. She appreciated all the University was doing, but
she supported the compact.
9:39:39 AM
Representative LeBon acknowledged the relationship between
designated funds, federal funds, research money, and state
operating money; however, there was substantial UGF funding
connected to the federal designated research dollars that
did not flow to the University without the UGF investment.
He did not want to lose sight of that fact.
Co-Chair Foster noted that a comment had been made that the
$300 million was only UGF. He believed the numbers and
timeline provided by Representative Wool may be accurate
because FY 19 may have been $327 million, FY 20 may have
been $302 million, and so on.
Representative Carpenter commented that the legislature had
reduced the University budget over numerous years. The
legislature had also asked the University to consolidate
operations and become more efficient. He thought the
request had fallen on deaf ears. He believed the $10.5
million addition made it difficult for the University to do
what it needed to get done. He stated the conversation was
really about organizational change. He reasoned that
funding for a land grant university did not have to come
from state general funds. He believed there was a decreased
incentive to find alternative revenue sources when funding
came from state general funds.
Representative Carpenter elaborated that the state was
having to rethink the way to generate revenue at an
institution that had no reason to do so for years because
of its ability to rely on state funds. He thought it was an
opportunity to show the state's youth how the land grant
university should be properly managed. He supported
altering the way business was done in order for the
University to be more self-sustaining. He stressed that it
was an organizational change opportunity for the University
to right itself and be more efficient going into the
future. He stated that the funds added by the subcommittee
made it more difficult for the University to go through the
organizational change. He supported the amendment.
9:42:38 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz discussed the history of the reduction in
UGF for the University. He asked Representative Wool if he
knew what the UGF amount had been in FY 15.
Representative Wool believed there was a high mark of $378
million in 2014 or 2015. The number had been steadily
declining since that time. There was one year the
legislature had successfully added $10 million, which had
brought the total up to $327 million.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked where the most recent compact cut of
$25 million put the total UGF contribution for the current
year.
Representative Wool replied that without the $10.5 million
add back, the budget would be $277 million. He stated it
was a decrease of about $100 million from five or six years
back.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that Representative
Wool had stated $100 million.
Representative Wool replied affirmatively.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thought it was an obvious reduction in
resources going to the university system. He thought the
University had ample incentive to try to find other sources
of revenue based on the cuts.
9:45:02 AM
Representative Josephson thought the statement made by
Representative Carpenter was inaccurate. He disputed the
statement that the University had not taken substantial
steps towards efficiency. He detailed that there had been
University committees meeting intensively for the past six
months because of the $138 million veto. The committees
were looking programmatically and departmentally - they
were considering whether specific departments were needed
if there were other departments in other cities or whether
specific classes were needed within a given department. He
pointed out that the entire program had begun years back
with strategic pathways.
Representative Josephson addressed Representative
Carpenter's remarks on the land grant university. He
believed the state university land holdings were the size
of Molokai, a Hawaiian island that was smaller than Maui.
He stressed there was not substantial land, which was the
reason the University president was flying frequently to
Washington D.C. to meet with Senators Murkowski and
Sullivan to try to cut a deal to increase the land grant.
He stated that the University was a land grant in name
only. He equated it to saying that the University of
Delaware, which was a tiny state, had a land grant. He
noted that the University of Alaska often mentioned
Delaware as a comparison. He stressed that the University
as a land grant institution was not a solution.
Representative Josephson shared that prior to the meeting
he had met with University of Alaska Professor Abel Bult-
Ito, a biochemist, who had told him that the University was
about to be the first in the U.S. to offer its degree
entirely online. He had asked if people could attend class
because he believed it would be awful to complete a degree
entirely online. Professor Bult-Ito had confirmed that
students could attend the class in person, but they had the
option to attend remotely. The professor had informed him
that the university was mailing kits that included pig
carcasses and sheep heads to Iraq. He stressed that it
constituted efficiency.
Representative Josephson stated there were legislators who
had been cynical about the compact reached between the
University and the governor. He had not been one of them
and agreed with Co-Chair Johnston that the agreement was
remarkable. He recalled being elated at the agreement. He
agreed it was possible to do better, which was the reason
he would not support the amendment. He believed there
should be no cynicism about the compact, which he
characterized as a lifesaver.
9:48:42 AM
Representative Wool believed Delaware had a larger land
grant than the University of Alaska. He knew it had been a
priority for the Washington D.C. delegation to deliver on
the land grant; however, monetizing land took a long time
and not all land was monetizable. He reasoned the
University would not be given a bunch of acreage on the
North Slope with an oil well. He addressed Representative
Carpenter's consolidation and efficiency comments. He
stated that the University had been working to become more
efficient and to consolidate things like information
technology and human resources. Additionally, the
University had been looking into a single accreditation to
have one university with multiple campuses. He noted that
the legislature had passed intent language asking the
University to provide it with a report the previous
December, which had been done. He thought the conversation
would resume once the University of Alaska - Fairbanks
finished its accreditation process.
Representative Wool stated that reorganizing the University
had been a topic for a long time. He continued that
reorganization had taken place in the past and it would not
stop happening. He highlighted that if the amendment
failed, the cut to the University would be $15 million. He
elaborated that $10 million to $15 million had been cut
annually. He stated the cut would be similar to cuts in
other years, which he had opposed as well. He remarked that
without the amendment the cut would be less bad. He
remembered the day compact had been signed and he had been
reminded by the University that the cut of $70 million over
three years was no picnic and would not be good. The
situation reminded him of a person arrested overseas who
would do anything to get out of jail. He believed the
University had done what it had to in order to get out of
the situation. He stated that even if the legislature cut
$15 million it would be "sort of sticking to it."
Representative Wool agreed with Representative LeBon that
getting money in the operating [capital] budget would be
great. He highlighted that a budget of $277 million would
reflect a $100 million cut since 2014. He believed it was
more than the University deserved. He noted that there had
been substantial cuts to the University over many years. He
pointed out that money had been added to the Department of
Public Safety and Department of Corrections. He thought it
was a sad commentary that the state was adding to and
improving prisons - he recognized the work was needed and
he supported criminal justice in a responsible way.
However, he did not support adding money for prisons and
taking away funds from the University.
Representative Wool believed the state needed to be safe
but growing. He shared that he had met with hospital
representatives recently who had urged support for the
University. The hospitals reported getting many employees
including nurses and other medical staff from the
University. He stated they had heard the medical industry
was one of the few growing industries in the state and
there was a labor shortage in doctors to medical
assistants. He underscored that the University filled a
large void in the area. He did not support cuts to the
University. He stressed that if the amendment failed, the
cut to the University was still $15 million.
9:53:24 AM
Representative LeBon shared that five years back he had
been named by UA President Johnson to a strategic pathway
committee on athletics - one of the committees planning the
future of the University. He detailed that the committee
had been made up of two dozen people from the community and
UAA and UAF campuses with a goal to find a way to make
athletics completely financially independent within six
years. The committee had conducted a thorough nationwide
search to find an athletic department at a division two
university that was completely self-sufficient. He reported
that such a thing did not exist. He explained that meant
looking at how to go to the private sector to ask for $10
million annually to support athletics. He underscored it
was not merely a one-time fundraiser, the need was annual.
He stated "good luck" finding that level of support from
the business community. He explained that success on a
national level meant finding 30 to 40 percent support. He
stated that UAF and UAA would be at the top of the list if
they found support at that level. He reiterated the need
was annual and would mean $4 million to $5 million per year
from the community.
Representative LeBon remarked on research dollars. He
detailed it had been well established that $5 was brought
in for every $1 the University spent on research. He was
concerned that the compact would decimate research at the
University. He highlighted that the University was the
Arctic research university for the nation, headquartered in
Fairbanks. He was worried that in two years they would
realize they had destroyed an economic Arctic research
engine for the University, Alaska, and the country by
decimating the research capabilities at UAF and UAA.
9:56:29 AM
Representative Carpenter remarked that when Alaska had
become a state there were many who had believed it could
not stand on its own and that it would require federal
funds to keep afloat. He stated there was an argument being
made by committee members that UGF dollars had to be spent
in order to bring in more federal funding. He noted the
legislature made the argument in every department. He
stressed that for many years the legislature had said the
University was too big for Alaska's 700,000 residents. He
underscored that the University's size could not be
sustained by the state, and federal funds were required.
Representative Carpenter clarified he was not claiming that
all federal funds were bad. He stressed that federal funds
were required to help sustain the University and there was
no alternative plan. He stated that the fact "we" do not
have the land we were supposed to have when given the land
grant was a problem that had not been solved in decades
since because there had not been pressure to do so until
recently. He stated that the threat of $100 million cut
from a budget caused people to do things they had not
thought of doing previously.
Representative Carpenter hoped the state could find more
usable land to help fund the University because it was the
intent from the beginning. He reasoned that supporting the
amendment helped the University move towards the goal of
being a self-sustaining organization.
9:58:42 AM
Representative LeBon reminded the committee the state's
founding fathers had included language about the University
of Alaska in the state constitution and asked the
legislature to support funding for the University. He
acknowledged the path had not been smooth over the years
and there had been some investment decisions made by
regents, University administration, and the legislature
that had resulted in the current situation. He stated that
the University was a land, sea, and space grant institution
that deserved support. He cautioned taking care to avoid
actions that could ruin everything for current and future
generations. He shared that he was contributing to a
college fund at UAF on a quarterly basis for his five
grandchildren.
Co-Chair Foster considered how to maximize the odds of
getting the most funds to the University. He shared that he
and his father had both attended the University. He
detailed that he had received a finance degree from UAA. He
discussed that the previous year the governor had proposed
cutting the University by $134 million in one year. He
noted there had been substantial emotional opposition to
the cuts throughout the state. He believed the governor had
realized the situation and had met with the University to
establish a compact outlining a $70 million reduction over
three years ($25 million reductions in the first and second
year and a $20 million reduction in the third year).
Co-Chair Foster explained that the subcommittee had
accepted the $25 million reduction with an add-back of $10
million for salary adjustments, resulting in a $15 million
reduction. He recognized that the legislature did not have
to abide by the compact between the University and the
governor; however, the University had come to him and had
communicated it felt the conversation with the
administration had been good. The administration had made
no promises but there had been discussion about the
possibility of a debt paydown and money for deferred
maintenance. He elaborated that when he had spoken with the
University representatives, they had asked for additional
funds for debt paydown and deferred maintenance.
Co-Chair Foster was concerned that adding the $10 million
back went against the compact by adding more to the
operating budget and may mean less funding for debt paydown
and deferred maintenance. He elaborated that if the $10
million was added back it may mean less would be put in for
capital, deferred maintenance, and debt paydown. He
explained that the $10 million could ultimately be vetoed
[by the governor] and the legislature would have overplayed
its hand. He was concerned the University may get less than
it could have received if the legislature reached too high.
He did not want the legislature to overplay its hand;
therefore, he supported the amendment.
10:03:16 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz did not want his statements and vote to
appear contradictory. He shared that he would vote in
support of the amendment despite his earlier comments in
support of remarks made by the co-chairs.
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
Co-Chair Johnston provided wrap up on the amendment. She
recognized the many valuable statements made about the
University during the current discussion. She noted that
actions the University was taking in its strategic pathways
was happening all across the nation in universities. She
stated that how education was provided was changing from
the past. She was concerned that without the amendment and
with the compact already in existence, the ability for the
[additional] funding to go to the end game would likely
cost the University more in the end. She explained that it
would delay the tough conversations the University needed
to have in order to meet its commitment. She reasoned it
would make the timeline shorter and the cuts would be more
severe.
Co-Chair Johnston disagreed with some of the statements
made on the subject during the meeting. One of the remarks
had been that the University needed to share in the burden
of cuts. She stressed that the departments did not take the
cuts on the same level as the University. She stressed that
in the past year, the cuts to the departments had been much
smaller than cuts to the University and anything outside of
state government. She elaborated that the legislature had
been looking at all of the departments and trying to take
cuts. She highlighted what had happened with both the
Department of Health and Social Services and the
supplemental budget. She stated that the cuts had not been
possible. She stated the University was different because
in budgeting the core was taken care of first and it was
easier to cut off the arms. She noted the University was
part of the arm.
Co-Chair Johnston did not take the compact lightly. She
would be devastated if the University lost its position as
the Arctic research center for the U.S. and
internationally. She believed it would be devastating for
Alaska, particularly as the Arctic changed. She was not
offering the amendment lightly. She hoped she was somewhat
pragmatic. She hoped to do some things that would help the
University in the long run without hurting it as much as it
could be hurt. She agreed that adding the funding back
could bite the University in a way that would make things
much worse.
10:07:52 AM
Representative Wool OBJECTED. He recognized where Co-Chair
Johnston was coming from. He thought they may be at a
tipping point. He noted that Representative LeBon and
family had attended the University. He had also obtained
his degree from the University. He was not overly concerned
that the research arm would flail - certain programs were
doing well. He was concerned about the average Alaskan who
wanted to go to college. He stated that the University of
Alaska was very affordable - many colleges cost between
$50,000 to $80,000 per year, which most people could not
afford. He highlighted that even state colleges outside of
Alaska were very expensive. He was concerned about the
general education component for kids out of high school who
did not know what field their degree would be in.
Representative Wool noted that not all departments had been
cut and some had received an increase (e.g. DPS and DOC).
He underscored that post high school education reduced the
likelihood a person would commit a crime. He stressed that
education was the right course of action if the desire was
to keep individuals out of jail. He added that other states
had cut state funding for universities over the years, but
recently the trend had reversed because states realized it
had not been a good investment. He acknowledged that some
states' economies were doing a bit better, but he stressed
that Alaska had money. He MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Carpenter, Knopp, LeBon, Merrick,
Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Foster, Johnston
OPPOSED: Wool, Josephson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H UOA 1 was ADOPTED.
10:11:33 AM
Co-Chair Foster listed individuals available to speak to
Amendment H DOT 1 [note: the amendment was first heard at
approximately 9:07 a.m. and was withdrawn in order to give
time to contact the department with questions].
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 1
(copy on file):
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
H DOT 1 - Funding for State Management of Kwinhagak
Airport
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 90.0
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
Representative Josephson noted the record would reflect his
previous comments on the amendment. He briefly explained
that in the past the village of Kwinhagak had a state
operated airport. He detailed that in 1999 Kwinhagak had
locally constructed the runway and in 2004 the tribe had
taken over maintenance and operations with no assistance
from the state. He reported that presently the community
lacked funding to maintain the runway and it had become a
health and safety problem, partly due to climate change and
permafrost degradation. He elaborated that the lighting
system was broken, making it possible to land only during
daylight hours. The village was one of the larger
communities in the Bethel region and was home to 600
residents. He stressed that a functional airport was vital
to health and safety.
Representative Josephson stated that perhaps the
community's ability to take over the airport was different
than saying it would take over full maintenance. He
reasoned that however a person viewed the situation, there
was a life and safety issue in Kwinhagak, which made it an
anomaly in the region. The community was asking for state
help with the airport.
10:13:35 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard looked at the proposal and
did not recall hearing about the issue in the subcommittee
discussion on rural airports. She asked about the state's
responsibility regarding the rural airports related to
oversight and management.
JOHN BINDER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via teleconference),
replied that the state owned and operated 239 airports
(including Anchorage and Fairbanks international airports),
of which, 237 were rural. The Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT) had continued to look for
efficiencies - ways to reduce the costs and obligations -
while maintaining a safe operational infrastructure. In
February 2019, the governor had asked DOT to review the
airports in an effort to identify areas to reduce financial
obligations. The department had identified 18 airports that
stood out as opportunities for potential changes in
maintenance. The identified airports were primarily in
locations where there was no longer an existing community,
or the airports were on the highway system. He cited the
community of Aleknagik as an example where DOT had recently
completed a bridge connecting the community to Dillingham,
providing access to a certificated airport.
Mr. Binder confirmed that the Kwinhagak airport had been
handed over to the tribe in 2004. He reported that at the
time it had been completely understood by both parties what
the maintenance and operations obligations were. He
detailed that subsequently the community had some
challenges in revenue generation caused by the closure of a
cannery and a reduction in anticipated activity. He relayed
that the condition of the airport had deteriorated over the
years. The department had partnered with the community over
the past several months to complete the planning study. The
airport was eligible for federal funds, but it needed a
couple of pieces in place first including an updated
airport layout plan and documentation of the capital needs.
The department had partnered with the community and had
secured a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant to
complete the work, which would be required regardless of
who maintained or owned the airport.
Mr. Binder relayed that the big picture guidance to DOT was
to reduce the number of airports maintained and operated by
the state. The department recommended continuing down that
path and partnering with the community. He added that DOT
had several emergency lighting systems stationed throughout
the state. He detailed that several communities were
utilizing the systems because many times a lighting system
could go down in the winter and maintenance could not be
completed until thaw. One of the emergency systems was
located in Kwinhagak in order for the community to have 24-
hour access as needed. He noted that the systems were
battery operated, meaning there was labor involved with
setting up, taking down, and charging the system each day.
10:17:38 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard noted the amendment
requested $90,000 UGF. She asked if there were federal
funds that would achieve the effort. She asked if the
$90,000 was necessary to match the federal funds.
Mr. Binder answered that the $90,000 was the region's rough
estimate of the airport's annual operating cost. The
estimate included $40,000 to $45,000 in a maintenance
contract. He detailed that if DOT was directed to take over
the airport, it would likely contract with someone in the
community rather than have DOT staff maintain the facility.
The figure also included fuel, equipment, and facility
costs, which was all additional to the contract. Federal
funds were not eligible to be used for those types of
activities. He explained that the runway required a
significant amount of gravel initially for a resurfacing
project at a cost of about $1 million or so. More
comprehensive work was also needed for a runway
rehabilitation, which likely cost several million dollars.
He relayed that all of the capital projects were federally
eligible, and the state's share was 6 percent. The $90,000
was the annual maintenance and operations estimate.
Representative Josephson thought it sounded like the
amendment would help the community have a fully operating,
albeit flawed airport system for the reasons noted by
Mr. Binder. He surmised that health and safety
considerations would be improved at least on the margins.
He asked if Mr. Binder agreed.
10:20:04 AM
Mr. Binder stated his understanding of the question. He
stated that $100,000 would not be enough even if the
department paid it directly to the community for the
runway. He relayed that the initial work needed on the
runway was estimated to be $1 million or more. He stated
the money in the amendment would cover an annual
contractual maintenance cost for things like snow removal
and grading. He clarified the funds would not fix the
current capital needs.
Representative Josephson clarified his question. He asked
if the $90,000 would improve health and safety by improving
the maintenance of the airport, notwithstanding the capital
needs requiring federal resources.
Mr. Binder replied that it would be abnormal for DOT to
allocate such a substantial amount of work, money, and
equipment to a runway that was not state-owned. He believed
there were some mechanisms available to partner with the
community, along with working with the FAA [Federal
Aviation Administration] toward the broader capital
improvements. His recommendation was to provide the funding
directly to the community or to partner with the community
rather than adding the funds to the DOT budget.
Representative Wool referenced Mr. Binder's testimony that
the state had loaned temporary battery charged lights to
the community. He asked if it was a safety risk. He
wondered whether new lights would be on the list of things
to do with the money. Alternatively, he asked if the lights
fell under federal matching funds.
Mr. Binder confirmed that the Kwinhagak airport would need
a new lighting system to remedy the current challenges. The
system would be included in the capital project category
and would be much more expensive than the $100,000.
Representative Wool was trying to understand the goal of
the investment. He surmised that the people of the
community wanted the airport run by the state and the funds
would help with that goal and may help the community
develop a plan for federal matching. He understood from Mr.
Binder's testimony that the state did not necessarily want
to maintain the airport and had not done so in 16 years;
however, if the state did maintain the airport, DOT would
contract the grading and plowing out. He considered that if
the work was contracted out it may be done by the people
currently providing the work. He asked what the $90,000
would go towards and what improvements may occur in the
long run.
10:24:18 AM
Mr. Binder answered that it was the challenge with the
$100,000. The department could allocate the funds to send
DOT staff to help grade the runway, but he understood the
surface condition was in poor enough shape that it needed
new gravel brought in prior to grading, which then got into
the capital costs. He explained it was very challenging to
do repairs with $100,000. The department had provided the
figure as its anticipated annual maintenance cost once
things were in good shape, the number would be an annual
maintenance cost for an airport similar to Kwinhagak.
Representative Wool referenced Mr. Binder's comment that a
cannery had closed, which had previously been a revenue
source. He asked when the cannery had closed and if that
coincided with the difficulty the community had with
maintaining the airport.
Mr. Binder estimated that the cannery had closed around
2009/2010. It had been the community's belief it could
generate sufficient funds through the collection of landing
fees due to high activity at the time, especially with the
cannery operations. The closure of the cannery had
drastically impacted the amount of activity. Additionally,
if there was not someone sitting at the airport full-time,
it was very difficult to identify who was and was not
landing and to collect the revenue. He explained that
systems were now available that could track landings
without having a body at the airport full-time, which would
help alleviate some of the revenue challenges. He
summarized that the community had been hit early on with a
big challenge collecting the revenue they anticipated being
able to generate.
10:26:47 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked how many of the 237 airports
mentioned earlier by Mr. Binder were state-maintained.
Mr. Binder replied that about 100 of the 237 airports were
contracted out (i.e. non-DOT staffed). The remainder were
either on the highway system or in locations with a DOT
staff, which were generally hub community locations.
Co-Chair Foster asked if there were other communities that
had local control over their airport like Kwinhagak.
Mr. Binder replied there were currently seven other
communities that owned their own airports. Including
Juneau, Kenai, Soldotna, Wasilla, and Anchorage's Merrill
Field.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that he was only referring to
rural airports. He noted that Anchorage and Kenai were
connected to the road system. He realized there were
airports such as Quartz Creek north of Nome and Basin Creek
that had no community at the airport. He asked if there
were any villages that had local control over their
airports.
Mr. Binder answered that he could not think of another
airport that was not connected to the road system that was
community maintained. He referenced Nenana, but noted it
was on the road system.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the situation was very unique.
He detailed that the state maintained airports in
communities that were not connected to the road system or
the Alaska Marine Highway System and had no other method of
transport to bring in food, medicine, or access to
healthcare or traveling teachers. He highlighted that the
airport was the only avenue of transportation for the
Kwinhagak community. He supported the amendment and
believed it was consistent with the way the state handled
all other village airports.
10:29:47 AM
Representative LeBon supported the amendment. He thought it
sounded like there was much work yet to be done such as
additional gravel and repairs. He asked if accepting
transfer of responsibility to the state would enable the
village to leverage other funding sources (i.e. federal or
other) to help with the project.
Mr. Binder answered that federal funding was made directly
to the airport owner. They were working with the community
to accept the federal funds in order to repair the runway.
If the state was the owner, the federal funds would go to
the state. He noted that the design and engineering work
would take some time and it would be unlikely to occur in
the coming summer. He estimated the earliest the capital
improvements could take place was 2021.
Representative Carpenter asked for the estimate for
matching funds needed to secure federal money. He asked if
the local community had another source, aside from the
state, to obtain the needed funds.
Mr. Binder answered that the state match for rural airports
was generally 6.25 percent of the project cost. The
department estimated the initial resurfacing at about $1
million and the broader runway rehabilitation at several
million dollars. He noted DOT did not yet have precise cost
figures for the broader runway rehabilitation project.
Typically, the owner of an airport used whatever rates and
fees they generated for matching funds. He highlighted
Juneau and Kenai as examples. The state used the general
funds via the capital budget to match federal funding for
the projects.
10:32:58 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative Tiffany Zulkosky to
address the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE TIFFANY ZULKOSKY, introduced herself and
relayed that Kwinhagak was located in her district.
Co-Chair Foster asked for the approximate population in
Kwinhagak.
Representative Zulkosky answered that as recently as 2017,
Kwinhagak had a year-round population of 700.
Co-Chair Foster asked for verification that air was the
only transportation route to Kwinhagak. He suspected the
river was not a primary transportation route. Additionally,
there was no road to Kwinhagak.
Representative Zulkosky agreed. She relayed that Kwinhagak
was one of the largest villages in her district apart from
the hub community of Bethel with a population exceeding
6,000. She detailed that air travel was the only form of
reliable year-round transportation in and out of the
community. She noted it included reliable access for life
or death circumstances, including transportation by
medevac. She reported that during limited visibility hours,
medevacs had been impacted with regard to timeliness and
ability to pick up patients.
Representative Zulkosky provided context regarding the
issue. She shared that her office had organized a meeting
held the previous Wednesday with DOT Commissioner John
MacKinnon; Deputy Commissioner Binder; John Moller, a
representative from the governor's office; and DOT's
legislative liaison. She detailed that the department
representatives had spoken about the governor's directive
to divest of rural airports. She noted that as Mr. Binder
had acknowledged in the current meeting, the governor's
directive was largely related to seasonal runways that did
not have a year-round community hanging in the balance.
Over the course of the conversation with DOT leadership and
representatives from the tribe, Commissioner MacKinnon had
stated that DOT's wheels move rather slowly and there was
not a quick fix for infrastructure issues dealt with by the
department, but that an appropriation provided to the
department could advance the conversation about the
acquisition of the airport. Additionally, providing
maintenance funds to DOT may facilitate a more timely
conversation. She added that the commissioner and Mr.
Binder had both acknowledged that the condition of
divesting of rural airports was a different animal than the
Kwinhagak situation, especially because air travel was the
only form of reliable year-round transportation for the
community of 700.
Representative Zulkosky shared that Commissioner MacKinnon
and Deputy Commissioner Binder had acknowledged that
revenue, such as landing fees, could help close the gap.
She explained that if the committee made the decision to
allocate maintenance and operation funding, the entire
amount was not necessarily impacted by UGF because there
were revenue options available to help DOT close the UGF
gap. She noted that the fees were often transferred to
residents, but in a meeting with the tribe the previous
week, the tribe had indicated it would be willing to
consider increased landing fees in order to ensure reliable
access to the airport was provided. Additionally, the
funding would lapse, if it was not used and the
conversations about reacquisition of the airport broke
down.
Representative Zulkosky highlighted that while there was
some conversation about downward pressure on the budget,
the legislature did not often talk about equity in the
course of its committee meetings. From her perspective, the
appropriation provided equity, ensuring that the life of
Alaskans in villages mattered as much as any Alaskan on the
road system or with access to the ferry system.
10:37:37 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked for history with
regard to the maintenance on the airport. It was her
understanding that the lighting system was the challenge.
She asked if there was an existing lighting system that
needed batteries or if the issue was more substantial.
Representative Zulkosky replied that the lighting was one
component of the condition of the runway and DOT had been
gracious in working with the community to provide support
in the form of a temporary lighting system. The community
had indicated there was a significant burden on local
leadership to make the lights operable, particularly
outside of working hours in order to meet planes during
evening hours. There also continued to be degradation of
the gravel runway with large bumps and breakdown of the
gravel quality with the changing climate and melting
permafrost over time. According to the community it was not
only a lighting issue. There was an ongoing long-term issue
with regard to maintenance of the gravel runway.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if a lack of staff
for incoming evening flights was also a challenge.
Representative Zulkosky answered that in a conversation the
previous week with the tribal president and a tribe member,
they had indicated there was difficulty in having the
capacity on the ground. As resources for maintenance and
operation had continued to decline, there was some
difficulty in having local capacity to keep up with the
maintenance conditions.
10:40:01 AM
Representative Merrick asked how many landings the airport
had per year and what the landing fee was.
Representative Zulkosky answered that she did not have the
detailed information on hand. There were at least three
small commercial air carriers serving the community. In a
meeting the previous week, the tribal president had said
there could be up to 12 flights coming in per day. The
numbers could fluctuate depending on the season. She
detailed there was a year-round population in the
community. Additionally, the village was located on the
Kanektok River, which had a thriving sport fish ecotourism
industry. She detailed there were a couple of cabins
running sport fishing operations out of the region
annually, which could bring in additional flights during
the summer season.
Representative Merrick asked about the landing fee.
Representative Zulkosky replied that she would follow up
with the information.
Representative Carpenter stated that somewhere between
$200,000 and $300,000 would be necessary to secure federal
funding for maintenance needed to improve the runway. He
asked if the tribe or local community had $200,000 to
$300,000 to secure the federal funding.
Representative Zulkosky answered that her instinct was to
say no, but she did not want to speak out of turn. She
stated it was unlikely that a community of 700 people
struggling to keep maintenance and operation dollars
readily available for the existing condition of the runway
could provide a quarter of a million dollars to obtain
federal match. She believed the possibility of additional
regional partners that may be able to provide support to
the tribe in order to acquire federal funding match to
bring the runway up to standard could be explored. There
was significant anxiety around the life, health, and safety
impacts of the runway that had given the issue a sense of
emergency for the community. She was not confident the
community would have enough revenue to meet the federal
matching requirements. More than likely, DOT providing
financial support long-term, would offer the stability the
community needed for reliable airport access.
10:43:14 AM
Representative Tilton asked how much money the tribe was
currently putting toward the runway maintenance cost. She
asked how long it had been since the tribe had not been
able to adequately maintain the runway.
Representative Zulkosky answered that she did not have the
precise number of the maintenance dollars currently being
received by the tribe. For the past 16 years, the community
had operated and maintained the airport. During that time,
the community had constructed the 4,000 square foot gravel
runway as well as a heated building used like a terminal.
Heavy equipment was kept in a garage and was readily
available. She did not have the ongoing maintenance dollars
received by the community, but there had been substantial
work and cost savings the tribe had borne on behalf of the
state for the past 16 years.
Representative Wool believed Mr. Binder had identified only
one airport run by a village. He believed that out of 237
state airports, some were run by communities, but they were
on the road system in places such as Nenana and Kenai. He
referenced that the amendment would direct $90,000 to DOT
for management of the village airport. He remarked that the
funding was not sufficient to buy equipment or fix lights.
He supported the concept but did not understand how the
money would be used. He asked if there had been functioning
lights prior to the temporary battery lights. He thought it
sounded like a fairly busy airport.
Representative Zulkosky deferred the questions to Mr.
Binder.
Mr. Binder confirmed that the Kwinhagak airport had an
operational lighting system that was no longer functional.
He detailed that the standard lighting system had in-ground
cables hooked to the city supply or ran off of a generator.
The emergency lights could be set out for illumination on
an as-needed basis.
10:46:52 AM
Representative Zulkosky replied to Representative Wool's
second question about how the dollars would be used. She
detailed that in a February 19 meeting with DOT leadership,
the department had indicated that adding an appropriation
to the operating budget would likely ease the conversations
and potentially help jump start the efforts around the
reacquisition of the airport on behalf of the tribe. She
understood it was a complex process for DOT to have to make
numerous considerations, particularly given the status of
the runway and the additional cost; however, she believed
providing the resources would help DOT meet its mission of
keeping Alaska moving through service and infrastructure
and would help the department maintain its commitment to
rural Alaska as well.
10:48:02 AM
AT EASE
10:56:48 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked people to consider the meeting time.
He reviewed the remaining amendments.
Representative Carpenter and Representative Sullivan-
Leonard MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
H DOT 1.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Wool, Foster,
Johnston
OPPOSED: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H DOT 1 was ADOPTED.
10:59:05 AM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DOT 2
(copy on file):
Highways, Aviation and Facilities
H DOT 2 - Funding for Management of the Napaimute Ice
Road
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 50.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson shared that he had not been to
Kwinhagak, but he had spent three years in the mid-
Kuskokwim and was familiar with the issue. He explained the
amendment with a prepared statement:
The amendment would provide $50,000 in one-time
funding for maintenance of the Kuskokwim Ice Road,
which runs about 355 miles from Tuntutuliak to
Sleetmute, connecting 11,000 people in more than 15
communities. Federal transportation money from
Napaimute provided minimal maintenance support. This
is inadequate to cover all expenses. The Native
Village of Napaimute uses all of its federal tribal
transportation dollars to plow and maintain the
drivability of the Kuskokwim River. This amendment
would ease transportation of goods and people during
the winter. The ice roads are used by vehicles.
Representative Josephson explained that the ice on the
river was plowed down the center for vehicle traffic. He
elaborated that troopers used the road during inclement
flying conditions. Additionally, people traveled between
communities for things like the Cama-i festival in Bethel.
The state currently provided a $50,000 appropriation to the
Northwest Arctic Borough to maintain ice roads between
Kotzebue, Kiana, and Noorvik. He noted that the amendment
included a comparable appropriation.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DOT 2 was
ADOPTED.
11:01:30 AM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H VRS 1,
H VRS 2, and H VRS 3 (copy on file):
Various
H VRS 1 - 2% Reduction to the personal services line
in the Executive Branch
1178 temp code (UGF) -48,082.2
Various
H VRS 2 - 2% reduction to the personal services line
in the Legislative Branch
1178 temp code (UGF) -1,048.9
Various
H VRS 3 - 2% Reduction to the personal services line
in the Judicial Branch
1178 temp code (UGF) -1,723.5
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter stated there was a situation with
the budget that would remove portions of Alaskans'
Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) to pay for state spending. He
stressed that reducing the formulaic cost of government
growth was needed and presented a challenge. He estimated
the budget would be close to $13 billion in a decade if the
state spending growth was not constrained. He stated that
no Alaskan wanted a $13 billion budget because it would
mean additional taxes and a lower standard of living. The
amendments acknowledged that while the private sector would
continue to take a hit with a reduced PFD, the public
sector would also have some skin in the game. The amendment
would decrease state salaries by 2 percent and state
spending by about $50 million. He did not believe it was
too much to ask for state workers to pay for some of the
cost of reducing the budget, just like the private sector
was paying as well.
11:04:07 AM
Representative Knopp opposed the amendment. He thought he
could have supported Amendment VRS 1 on its own. The
previous year he had asked the administration to take a
look at around 90 commissioner and deputy director
positions throughout the state. He had never heard anything
back on the positions. He noted there were many
duplications where some departments had two or three
director positions. He had received no feedback from the
administration on his request. He was frustrated that the
public thought it was the legislature's responsibility to
broadly reduce appropriations. Whereas, he believed the
governor's office should look at departments to find
efficiencies.
Representative Knopp expressed additional frustration that
the administration never looked at the top levels of the
organizational charts when considering places to cut. For
example, cuts were targeted at people like DOT road
maintenance workers and equipment operators. He cited a
reduction of seven to nine positions in Department of Labor
and Workforce Development as another example. He found it
frustrating that cuts always began in the bottom tiers and
never at the top. He could have likely supported the first
amendment but did not support the other two.
11:05:45 AM
Co-Chair Johnston believed all of the committee members had
been on a subcommittee responsible for reviewing the budget
for the executive and/or judicial branches. She was
concerned that the reduction was unallocated. She would
have been more interested in the idea of locating 2 percent
cuts if it had been done at a departmental level that
committee members had participated in. She responded to
Representative Knopp and explained that in one of her
subcommittees they had denied a request to increase the top
level by adding a deputy commissioner position. She
believed it was the kind of discussion that was needed,
which was much more thorough than an unallocated cut like
the one proposed in the amendments.
Co-Chair Johnston relayed that the previous year the
legislature had discussions to cut from the legislative
branch. She detailed that one of the concerns had been that
because the year had been so contentious, they did not know
the number of times they would return to the Capitol
Building and the associated cost. She believed they had all
participated in the cost. She hoped the current year would
not be the same, but it was not yet known. She highlighted
that the judicial branch had been very proactive in trying
to cut its budget. She explained there had been a point
where even the governor had been asking the judicial branch
to increase its budget because of the backlog.
Co-Chair Johnston thought the amendments were
counterintuitive. She stated the amendments represented the
kind of budget she abhorred. She stressed that the
legislature was there to do its work thoroughly. She stated
that when the legislature could not find the cuts and
directed state entities to find the cuts it was kind of
like saying, "I want to cut the budget, but I want to cut
your budget." She was not disparaging the amendment
sponsor, but she believed the legislature needed to do the
work and be responsible. She underscored the necessity of
having the tough conversations. She did not support making
broad-based cuts.
11:09:03 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard also felt the judicial
branch had made significant reductions in its budget and
had been the most accountable in her mind. She appreciated
the amendment sponsor's effort towards fiscal discipline.
She stated that the legislature had been given a flat,
status quo budget and she had been hoping to see more
reductions in the governor's budget. She asked why there
had not been a pay, hiring, or travel freeze. She wondered
why there had not been an attempt to put downward pressure
on the budget overall. She acknowledged that they had
worked on the issue in the committee process; however, she
believed the discipline seemed to be a challenge across the
board. She supported the amendment and noted the reduction
was not that large when looking at the overall budget. She
had been hoping for a stronger fiscal path coming from the
administration. She agreed that the responsibility was in
the legislature's lap, but she believed there needed to be
a stronger attempt at reducing the overall budget.
11:10:46 AM
Representative Josephson opposed the amendments. He
reported that the operating budget had been cut over
$1.1 billion since FY 15 or about 24 cents on the dollar.
He stated that the governor's attempt to overcut in the
previous year had drawn a visceral and intense reaction
from the public. He specified that the governor had
responded with the FY 21 budget, which was a reflection
that he could not come up with the cuts. He believed some
exempt salaries could be cut. He reasoned that if he were
offered a deputy commissioner position at a salary of
$190,000 and it was cut to $150,000, it would still be a
workable situation. He had been astounded at some of those
[salaries]. He did not feel that way about the presiding
officer of Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC),
the University of Alaska, Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC), or the Alaska Mental Health Trust
Authority (AMHTA). The jobs were competitive, and it was
necessary to pay good salaries.
Representative Josephson thought if someone were looking
for a colleague to look at the exempt salaries question -
the top echelon, not the assistant attorney general
positions - it was something he would look at. He
associated himself with Co-Chair Johnston's remarks.
11:13:11 AM
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the amendment.
He stated that the issue was a policy call from the
legislature directing departments and all government
branches to process a 2 percent pay cut for all employees.
He explained that the amendments were a recognition of the
state's fiscal condition. He did not believe a more robust
discussion was necessary. He highlighted that the state had
been in a recession since he had moved back to Alaska in
2013. He stressed that the private sector had lost jobs and
taken pay cuts, while public sector employees received
automatic pay raises.
Representative Carpenter emphasized it was a policy call
for the legislature to determine that 2 percent was not too
much to ask under the existing fiscal conditions. He
stressed that the legislature had done nothing to reduce
the costs of personal pay. He underscored that the
legislature and the executive branch were not discussing
the issue. He stated that public employees were treated
differently than private sector employees through the
recession. He stated the amendments were an acknowledgement
that the public looked to the legislature and wondered why
it was not constraining government spending when the
private sector had to make do with less. He asked if
committee members would view the amendment differently if
it included language specifying it was the legislature's
intent that all branches of the government take a 2 percent
pay reduction in acknowledgement of the state's fiscal
situation.
Representative Carpenter MOVED to AMEND Amendments H VRS 1,
H VRS 2, and H VRS 3 to include intent language that the
executive, judicial, and legislative branches take a 2
percent pay cut in recognition of the state's financial
situation.
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED. She asked whether there were
some bargaining units that would be impacted by the
proposal to reduce pay by 2 percent across the board.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked to hear from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
NEIL STEININGER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated his understanding that Co-
Chair Johnston was asking whether a 2 percent pay reduction
could be implemented under the terms of the collective
bargaining agreements.
Co-Chair Johnston agreed.
Mr. Steininger relayed that salary schedules set for state
employees were covered and set by collective bargaining
agreements. He elaborated that a 2 percent pay reduction
would have to be bargained with the bargaining units. He
explained that the impact of the amendments would mean that
a 2 percent reduction would be achieved through adjustments
in the way agencies implemented their budgets.
Co-Chair Johnston imagined that there were some bargaining
agreements currently in the negotiation process, while
others had been signed. She asked for verification there
would be an issue of reopening agreements that had already
been agreed to. Additionally, departments would have to
find another way to meet the 2 percent cut other than to
cut bargaining agreement salaries. She surmised that
departments may have to find some other unallocated cut.
Mr. Steininger replied in the affirmative. The bargaining
unit agreements were staggered in the terms covered. He
explained that the bargaining units were not all currently
open for bargaining.
11:18:42 AM
Co-Chair Johnston stated that while she appreciated the
intent and discussion, she believed the action needed to
come earlier on in the budget discussion in a more
thoughtful way with direction within different departments.
Representative LeBon referenced previous comments from the
representative from Kenai related to what the private
sector would do under "this type of condition." He noted he
had some experience in the specific area. He considered his
banking days and recalled that between 1986 and 1990, the
state had gone through a very difficult economic period.
During that time, the banking industry had lost about half
of its members.
Representative LeBon shared that he had been fortunate to
work for the largest bank in the state during that period;
the bank had been in the position to weather the storm and
had purchased four of the failed banks from the FDIC
[Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation]. Within a 45 day
period, the NBA [National Bank of Alaska] had doubled its
assets from $1 billion to $2 billion due to the acquisition
of the failed banks. During the time, the bank management
had made the decision to scale back due to the economic
conditions. The bank had set a goal of reducing employment
by 10 percent in a calendar year. The effort had been done
through attrition - no one had lost their job or received a
pay cut. The bank had known that telling employees their
pay would be cut by 5 percent targeted the most productive
employees and treated them as if they were the least
productive. He explained that an across the board decision
of that nature was very dangerous for the private sector to
make. The bank had known not to make the decision; however,
it did scale back. He reported that he had worked in the
lending department in Fairbanks and had hoped for the next
year that no one would leave. He had been motivated to be
on good behavior with his employees because he did not want
anyone to leave.
Representative Knopp relayed that adding the proposed
intent language to Amendments H VRS 1, H VRS 2, and H VRS 3
to did not do anything to change his view on the
amendments. He highlighted that the original amendments
clearly identified that a 2 percent reduction would be
taken from the personal services line across all
departments. He asked for verification the 2 percent
reduction included exempt and non-exempt employees.
Mr. Steininger agreed.
Representative Knopp considered that if the employees
represented by a bargaining unit were off the table and not
open to negotiation, there was a real possibility the
amendment could never be achieved with the remaining
employees. He reasoned that it was a real possibility a cut
of $48 million could not be achieved when taking two-thirds
of the workforce off the table because they were
represented [by a bargaining unit]. He thought the cuts had
to come from the personal services line.
Mr. Steininger answered that the reduction could be managed
through attrition (by not filling positions for some time).
He explained that the reduction would not necessarily come
from salary reductions but perhaps the number of positions
or other expenditure lines (there was authority to transfer
between lines of expenditure). How cuts were achieved would
depend on the various departments and divisions.
11:23:59 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the governor's
budget was considered relatively flat. She asked for detail
on her comments. She wondered whether the governor's budget
had included specific reductions that mirrored
Representative Carpenter's amendments.
Mr. Steininger answered that the governor's amended FY 21
budget was roughly $50 million lower than the FY 20 budget.
He explained that in percentage terms, the budget could be
described as flat. He added that the number included
supplementals proposed by the governor in FY 21. He
clarified that not every program had been proposed as flat.
He explained the process included looking at the allocation
of resources between the departments. Strategic reductions
had been made to certain programs to accommodate natural
cost pressures in others.
Co-Chair Johnston stated it had been brought to her
attention that a salary schedule was set in statute that
would have to be changed. The legislature would have to
amend AS 39.27.011, which she did not believe should be
done in the budget.
Representative Carpenter provided a scenario where the
intent language went forward directing a 2 percent pay cut
across the board for all state employees. He asked if the
intent would be ignored and the cuts would be addressed in
some other way such as through the elimination of jobs.
Mr. Steininger answered that there were other statutes that
bound the way the administration would be able to implement
the proposed reductions. He detailed that statutes and
bargaining agreements that dictated employee pay could not
be ignored with the adoption of intent language. There were
other mechanisms binding the hands of the administration in
terms of how the reduction would be implemented. He
explained that the reduction would have to be made through
things like turnover and reductions in other line items in
the budget.
11:27:20 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if it was safe to say that
it was currently not possible for the legislature to make a
reduction to state employee pay across the board to help
with the budget crisis.
Mr. Steininger answered, "In short, no."
Representative Carpenter asked if it would matter if he
changed the reduction to 1 percent.
Mr. Steininger answered, "No." He explained it was due to
existing factors binding the hands of the administration in
terms of how the proposed reduction could be implemented.
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his amendment to
Amendments H VRS 1, H VRS 2, and H VRS 3.
11:28:32 AM
Representative Wool shared that he had been a small
business owner for several decades. He always watched the
bottom line and when times were tighter, he looked for ways
to save money. He acknowledged that labor was the easiest
way to save money in many situations. He did not believe
cutting wages by a couple percentage points would go over
well. He agreed with Representative LeBon who had discussed
the use of attrition to save money. He believed the
University [of Alaska] also used the method when an
employee retired or left - the individuals were not
replaced. He considered a $1 million cut to the
legislature. He surmised the $50 million reflected total
personnel costs. He did not know what the total legislature
budget was. He thought the discussions should come up and
should include the governor's office as well. He would be
interested in having the conversations in a more in-depth
setting instead of merely cutting off 2 percent "willy-
nilly." He thought it was a discussion for another time. He
believed it was difficult to address the issue in a 10 to
20 minute section of a finance meeting.
Representative Merrick asked what fund code 1178 was. She
noted the code was labeled as "temp code UGF" in the
amendment.
Mr. Steininger replied that it was a tracking code used by
the Legislative Finance Division for UGF.
Representative Merrick asked if it was the correct code for
the amendments proposed by Representative Carpenter.
Mr. Steininger answered in the affirmative.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
answered that there would be so many fund codes that would
be impacted by the amendments, it would result in a
document of about 200 pages; therefore, a temp code had
been used, which was similar to what was done in fiscal
notes. She added that the fund code detail would be broken
out if the amendments passed.
11:31:52 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz agreed with an earlier comment by a
committee member from Kenai that the private sector had
seen a reduction in employment numbers and positions during
the recession. He referred to the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development website and noted that the public
sector had also seen a great reduction in the number of
people working for the state. He detailed that at least
2,100 fewer workers were employed by the state compared to
the number of workers in 2015. He pointed out that the
reductions also resulted in reductions to the economy,
which contributed to the recession.
Representative Wool noted that the University had over
1,000 fewer people working there (500 in Fairbanks alone).
He referenced an earlier amendment regarding pay increases
for the University. He stated that judiciary and the
University had voluntarily taken pay raise freezes - they
had opted not to take contractual pay increases. He
believed people had shown good intent and willingness to
take a hit for several years.
11:33:54 AM
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the
amendments. He stated that the simple fact that the
subcommittee process had not brought up the issue of pay
decreases and/or freezes highlighted the challenge the
legislature had with the process. He stated that the
University was not implementing pay freezes on its own
volition, it was something that had been forced upon it. He
stressed that the current conversation highlighted the
difficulty for the legislature to reduce personnel costs
like any business would choose to do out of necessity. He
underscored that if the legislature's intent was to reduce
pay by half a percent, it was not possible.
11:35:19 AM
Co-Chair Johnston MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Sullivan-Leonard, Merrick, Tilton
OPPOSED: Wool, Josephson, Knopp, LeBon, Ortiz, Johnston,
Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendments H VRS 1, H VRS 2, and
H VRS 3 FAILED (4/7).
11:36:06 AM
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 5 (copy
on file):
Statewide Support
H DPS 5 - Delete Authority to Implement New Anchorage
Emergency Communications
Center and Support Staff
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -872.8
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Knopp explained the amendment that would put
a pause on the proposed 911 dispatch center to be located
in Anchorage. He explained that the idea had been proposed
about four years earlier in light of all of the changes
resulting from SB 91 [crime reform legislation passed in
2016] and HB 49 [crime reform legislation passed in 2019]
as part of a public safety action plan. He relayed that the
issue had come to him at the eleventh hour and he had
received many phone calls on the subject. He had provided a
letter to committee members addressed to the governor from
various communities dated February 24, 2020 (copy on file).
He listed various entities that had signed onto the letter
including Mat-Com (the Mat-Su dispatch), Houston Fire and
Rescue, the City of Wasilla, City of Ketchikan, City of
Houston, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Wasilla police, Kenai
Peninsula Borough, Mat-Su Borough Emergency Services, and
various mayors and administrators who had raised concerns
about the issue.
Representative Knopp shared that there had been a meeting
in his office on Tuesday that included Vice-Chair Ortiz,
Representative LeBon, Representative Sullivan-Leonard, the
mayor of Wasilla, a Wasilla dispatcher, a member of the
governor's office, two members from the Department of
Public Safety (including a deputy commissioner), and the
former commissioner of the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development/former [Kenai] borough
mayor Mike Navarre. The primary concern about the dispatch
center was that it decentralized and unbundled emergency
service 911 calls. He explained that currently 911 calls
went to a dispatcher who determined whether the call went
to state troopers, ambulance, or fire. In the case of the
Kenai Peninsula Borough, when a call was made from a land
line, the system automatically routed it to the appropriate
location in the City of Homer, City of Kenai, or the City
of Soldotna. He explained that land line calls were not
physically picked up - cell phone calls were physically
picked up. He noted it was not true for Mat-Su and he could
not speak for Ketchikan and Fairbanks.
Representative Knopp explained that the system was trooper-
centric and would not dispatch fire, EMS [emergency medical
services], or anything else. He elaborated that the new
system would create more bureaucracy for municipalities
because the emergency 911 surcharge came in via public
service answering facilities to cover expenses.
Municipalities and boroughs were charged with collecting
and administering "that."
Representative Knopp explained that in the case of Soldotna
in the Kenai Peninsula Borough, a new communication center
had been built in the area several years back. He explained
that the borough had built the facility and troopers helped
to supply and equip it. The troopers had provided eight
PCNs [position control numbers] and the borough had
provided an equal number. He noted that the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) had only filled five of the positions
and the borough had always covered the vacancies by hiring
additional dispatchers and with overtime. He did not have
information on the issues experienced by Mat-Com or
Ketchikan.
Representative Knopp pointed out that if the eight trooper
positions were taken out of the borough's dispatch center,
the need did not go away because 911 calls would go their
first. The borough would have to hire more people to fill
the dispatch center. He explained that when a call came in
requesting state trooper dispatch, the borough
communication center sent the call to Anchorage for
response. Under the new system there was uncertainty about
whether a call would be sent back to the borough if there
was a request for fire or EMS in addition to troopers. He
relayed that the proposed center would not deal with
anything unrelated to the troopers. He elucidated that the
proposed system unbundled what had always been done. He
explained that the existing system worked very well.
Representative Knopp believed the situation was happening
because of contractual issues with other organizations. He
shared that the DPS deputy commissioner had reported the
proposed center would allow the department to collect and
own its own data including response times and calls. He was
requesting to slow the project down by defunding the
positions given the substantial concern surrounding the
center. He believed the concerns should be discussed and
the administration should be given time to thoroughly vet
the project. He highlighted that the first phase of the
project was estimated at $9.5 million in the capital
budget. He detailed that $3.5 million had been appropriated
in the previous year's capital budget and approximately
$4.5 million came from Alaska Industrial Development and
Export Authority (AIDEA) funds. The first phase of the
project remained short funded by approximately $1.1
million.
Representative Knopp noted the numbers were not in for the
second phase. He urged support for the amendment, which
would enable time for conversations to take place. He
highlighted that the deputy commissioner had shared that
the project was about 65 percent underway - architectural
designs had just been completed and the department was
working on getting out an RFP. He stated that the
functionality of the proposed center was a long way off,
although he believed the department's goal was summer of
2021.
11:44:17 AM
Representative LeBon shared that he had chaired the DPS
subcommittee. He appreciated the work done by the amendment
sponsor to bring stakeholders together. He relayed that he,
Representative Knopp, Vice-Chair Ortiz, and Representative
Sullivan-Leonard had met to try to understand the complex
topic. He stated his intent to make several comments and
propose an amendment to Amendment H DPS 5. He remarked that
existing 911 jurisdictions would continue to receive 911
calls within their boundaries. He elaborated that the two
DPS emergency communication centers (one in Fairbanks),
could individually support DPS operations statewide as well
as answering 911 calls from rural and unorganized areas
without 911 programs or 24-hour dispatch facilities. He
noted that communities were not all fortunate enough to
have a local dispatch facility.
Representative LeBon expounded that DPS centers would be
secondary to established 911 jurisdictions and would
receive transfers/calls from other primary public safety
answering points (PSAPs). He stated there was an effort to
improve the overall 911 response statewide. He believed the
initial goal of the project was to move forward to an
Anchorage communications center, modeled somewhat after the
Fairbanks communications center. He shared that the
Fairbanks center was effective, operational, and meeting
expectations to the point where it supported Ketchikan and
Kodiak on a regular basis. He reported that the
relationship between the City of Fairbanks, City of North
Pole, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, and DPS was tight,
effective, and successful. He knew all of the players
including the trooper captain in Fairbanks and was
confident that he would have heard about any unresolved
issues. He wanted to talk about a pathway forward. He
shared that during the meeting in Representative Knopp's
office they had heard from stakeholders. He referenced the
letter addressed to the governor from stakeholders [dated
February 24, 2020 (copy on file)]. He read from the last
paragraph of the letter:
Combined opposition to the construction and
implementation of the Anchorage Emergency
Communications Center under the management of the
Department of Public Safety has been resounded from
the Mayors of the City of Wasilla, City of Houston,
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Mat-Su Borough Emergency
Services, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, City of
Ketchikan, Mat-com Public Safety Dispatch, and
Soldotna Public Safety Communications Center. State
representatives and Senators for their respective
communities are also disheartened to hear of these
proceedings on behalf of their constituents. Combined
professional experience and subject matter expertise
of this level must be heavily weighed and valued on a
matter that will negatively affect the emergency call
processing for hundreds of thousands of people.
Representative LeBon suggested that "this well has been
poisoned." He had heard from the DPS commissioner that when
Commissioner Amanda Price had taken office, she had slowed
the project down to work with stakeholders to resolve
issues and concerns. He had initially heard about the
primary concern related to the loss of positions during the
budget process at the subcommittee level. He understood
that no one wanted to lose positions. He referenced
Representative Wool's earlier point that the University of
Alaska - Fairbanks had lost numerous positions in the past
few years, which he did not like, but things happen and "we
move forward."
Representative LeBon was concerned that the ability for the
stakeholders to meet with DPS and resolve issues was
unlikely to happen. He believed the issue had become a
"goat rope." The amendment he planned to propose was aimed
at finding a middle ground. He referenced an article in
that day's Fairbanks Daily Newsminer about a swearing in of
students at Lathrop High School conducted by a colonel in
the space station. He detailed that the ceremony had been
for students nationwide. He expounded that the photo in the
paper showed students from Los Angeles and Dallas who were
being sworn into military service. He explained that during
the meeting in Representative Knopp's office, the attendees
had heard about telecommunication issues. It had been
suggested that DPS would be incapable of dispatching
emergency services from Anchorage to Palmer because
dispatching trooper, police, fire, and ambulance would
overwhelm the system. He had never heard about the issue in
Fairbanks. He stressed that the process had reached a point
where he was concerned about the ability for stakeholders
and the department to work together to resolve the issues.
11:52:00 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment H DPS 5 to decrease the reduction from
$872,300 [$872,800] and seven positions to $489,000 and
four positions. The amendment would restore the three IT
positions associated with the Anchorage Emergency
Communications Center to allow the department to continue
moving forward on setting up the center, which he believed
needed some support.
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.
Representative Knopp agreed that communications and user
groups had been contentious. He believed the issue had been
more about contractual issues, which had not been resolved.
He remarked that he had eluded to the fact that there were
issues with public safety and willingness to negotiate. He
shared that he had served under three mayors [in Kenai] and
all three administrations had sent memorandums of
understanding to DPS, which had never received responses or
been updated since the 911 center had been built. He
continued that DPS had not been accommodating or willing to
entertain some of the discussions. He could not speak to
any of the issues DPS had with other contracts. He stated
that the Mayor [Bert] Cottle of Wasilla and former [Kenai]
mayor Mike Navarre had been clear that the issue was not
about positions but about the loss of service and
decoupling services and dispatchers. He referenced a
statement by Representative LeBon regarding a call
overwhelming the system. He did not know if it would
overwhelm the system, but the trooper dispatch in Anchorage
would not dispatch fire and EMS services. He believed there
had been talk about requiring the dispatcher to stay on the
line during each call as it was transferred back and forth,
which was cumbersome. He stated that more conversation was
needed regarding how the proposed system would work.
Representative Knopp highlighted that in the past in rural
Alaska it had been necessary to dial an 800 number to reach
911 services. At one point he thought the issue would be
addressed through the new 911 system; however, he noted it
had always been a provider issue and not a 911 issue. He
stated his understanding that the situation had been
resolved and it was possible to dial 911 from anywhere; the
call may still be routed through an 800 number to reach its
destination in some cases. He stated it was no longer
necessary to remember an 800 number in rural Alaska to
reach emergency dispatchers. There had also been discussion
about the location of dropped calls and related concern
about the placement of cell towers and triangulation and
how it had to be done. He asked Representative LeBon if it
was his understanding the specific issue had been resolved.
Representative LeBon nodded his understanding.
Representative Knopp continued that there had been
improvement, but some issues with the specific topic still
existed. He did not support the amendment to
Amendment H DPS 5 because IT people had looked at the issue
(including IT staff at the borough, Mat-Su, and DPS)
numerous times. He did not believe the project should move
forward until all of the issues were resolved. He wondered
whether decoupling dispatch services was the smart way to
go. He thought it appeared to be cumbersome. He did not
believe the fact that contracts or negotiations could not
be improved or negotiated was a good reason to replace the
existing system that was functioning well.
11:56:38 AM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Steve Thompson in
the audience.
Representative Wool remarked that he would not attempt to
pretend he understood the topic given its complexity and
the numerous documents committee members had received that
day that took different positions. He directed a question
to Representative LeBon and noted that Fairbanks was not
mentioned in the number of communities at the end of the
letter [to the governor dated February 24, 2020 (copy on
file)]. He listed various communities that had signed the
letter. He referenced Representative LeBon's statement that
Fairbanks had a well-functioning call center. He asked if
everyone in the Fairbanks area, including North Pole, City
of Fairbanks, and the Borough of Fairbanks, was routed
through the call center. He wondered if fire or EMT
services were rerouted somewhere else.
Representative LeBon replied that in Fairbanks 911 calls
were routed into the City of Fairbanks. He explained that
the initial conversation on a call was about the nature of
the emergency, and the center had the ability to determine
where a call was coming from in urban areas. He noted it
was not the case for rural areas - there were fewer towers
to pick up cell phone activity. He detailed that after
determining the nature of the emergency, if needed the call
was transferred to the emergency communications center
while the dispatcher remained on the line. At that point it
would be a three-way call. He elaborated that the Fairbanks
dispatch would remain on the call for as long as necessary.
He explained there may be a need to dispatch a trooper, an
ambulance and/or fire truck, which may require joint
participation between the two centers. He relayed that if a
call to the City of Fairbanks' center could be handled by a
city asset it would not go out to the trooper
communications center on Peger Road.
11:59:56 AM
Representative Wool asked about a similar situation taking
place in Kenai. He asked if the call would go locally first
and then get sent to a call center, depending on the
circumstances. He asked if the proposal was to route all
incoming calls through the call center in Anchorage. He
used making a call to Alaska Airlines as an example, where
the call was routed to various locations.
Representative Knopp answered that the calls would never
and should never all route through Anchorage. He stated it
would be foolish to put a centralized dispatch center in
one location, especially a location subject to earthquakes.
He detailed that trooper calls on the Kenai Peninsula that
were automatically routed to the Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAP) facility would be transferred to Anchorage
for trooper dispatch. He was uncertain whether the Kenai
dispatcher would have to remain on the call. He explained
that the Anchorage center would not dispatch other
emergency services - the call would have to be transferred
back to Soldotna to be dispatched. He believed questions
needed to be answered related to the process. He stressed
that the new center would not improve the service.
Representative Knopp relayed that two things had come out
of their meeting in Anchorage. He explained that there were
parts of rural Alaska that did not go to a PSAP that
eventually the enhanced 911 would cover. He elaborated that
the system would only cover 20 percent of the population in
unorganized boroughs south of the Brooks Range - calls
would be routed to the PSAP facility in Anchorage. He noted
he had not seen the lines and maps that had been drawn. He
stated that the system would decouple hundreds of thousands
of people in urban Alaska including Mat-Su, Kenai, and
central Fairbanks. He relayed there was some thought that
the process could have been sent to the current facility in
Fairbanks instead of a PSAP facility in Anchorage. The big
driver of the project was for DPS to have its own records
management system and own its data collection. He shared
that Mat-Com had reported the information was currently
sent to the department on a weekly basis and the data could
be sent daily if requested. He explained that the
information was sent to the department weekly instead of
immediately.
12:04:05 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized Representative Jonathan Kreiss-
Tomkins in the audience.
Representative LeBon clarified that the initial dispatcher
did not hang up and would not hang up in Fairbanks or
Anchorage. He explained that the initial dispatcher may be
released if the call was for troopers only and did not
require fire, ambulance, and other services. He added that
in rural Alaska, the Fairbanks and Anchorage centers would
support each other. He detailed that a rural originating
call would go to those centers first. He referenced the
concern voiced in a meeting that the center could be
overwhelmed. He explained that the two centers supported
each other for public safety purposes. The ultimate goal
was for improved public safety statewide. The hope was for
DPS and affected boroughs to work together for the common
goal.
12:05:33 PM
Co-Chair Johnston recalled a situation when she had called
911 from the backside of Flattop Mountain [in Anchorage]
for an injured friend and the call had gone to Soldotna.
She appreciated Representative LeBon's comments about
technology. She asked how much had been spent on the
project to date.
Representative LeBon referred to the earlier statement that
the state was 65 percent into the project. He detailed that
the project had been launched under the previous
administration before several current committee members had
become legislators. The previous fiscal year the
commissioner had mentioned the project and had expressed
concern about its pace moving forward. The commissioner had
mentioned the brakes were being tapped on the project to
take a deeper dive. He shared it had been suggested that
another deeper dive was necessary for functionality
purposes and to ensure financial resources were available.
He believed the second deep dive would result in an
exploration of the financial aspects as well.
Representative Knopp referenced the capital appropriation
from the previous year that included the estimated project
cost. He detailed that the remodel construction cost was
$600,000, the dispatch furnishing was $735,000, computer
aided dispatch was $1.2 million, 911 call answering
software was $6 million, and mapping location software was
$1 million, for a total of $9,535,000. He was unsure what
had been spent to date. The deputy commissioner had
reported the project was at about 65 percent and the
architectural design had just been completed. He added that
the deputy commissioner had relayed that the department had
recently identified the building that would be used
(located next to the building the department was currently
using). He stated that some people believed the cart had
been put before the horse in the project. He reasoned that
if architectural design had just been completed, the
remodels and construction had not yet been done. He
believed the project was a long way from IT staff doing
anything substantial because the building would have to be
renovated. He believed the department had mentioned it was
getting ready to go out to RFP.
12:09:21 PM
Co-Chair Johnston remarked that she could see where IT
could be helpful in the discussion in terms of identifying
IT capital and programming that was needed to go along with
the architectural design. She supported the amendment to
the amendment.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that the 65 percent was on the
engineering phase and not 65 percent of the total project
cost. He referenced all of the discussion that had taken
place thus far about the impacts, the 911 dispatch, and
other associated items. He explained it was a different set
of circumstances with every center. He noted the current
conversation had highlighted many of the impacts on Kenai.
He stressed that the way a 911 call was routed and
dispatched was significantly different in his district as
well. He agreed that the breaks had been applied to the
project by the incoming [now current] administration;
however, there had been little to no engagement with
telecoms and different communities involved. He noted there
had been no engagement by the administration in his
district. He explained that while the breaks had been put
on the system, the time had not been used for a deeper
dive.
12:11:29 PM
Representative Josephson asked what specific document
Representative Knopp had read from.
Representative Knopp answered that he had read from the
legislative capital budget project detail for 2018
pertaining to the particular project.
Representative Wool stated his understanding of the
amendment. He stated that the committee had heard that in
the past it had been necessary to dial an 800 number to
access 911 in rural Alaska, which was no longer the case.
The committee had heard that in non-rural Alaska it was
easy to identify a caller's location. He stated there was a
call center in Fairbanks and other PSAP centers. He asked
if the project's goal was to increase efficiencies, use
less labor, and have fewer dropped calls. He asked if there
was a major problem other than the location and 800 number
that seemed to be somewhat resolved. He wondered about the
major expected outcome from the project that would improve
call time, call response, call coordination, or labor
savings resulting for a slightly more centralized location.
Representative Knopp responded that he had heard in his
meeting with the department that DPS wanted to own its
data. He explained that the issue was about the data
collection and GIS [geographical information system]
records management system. The question was whether the
project should move forward currently. He found it
concerning that Commissioner Price had not known she had
employees on the [Kenai] Peninsula. He did not know how
deep the dive had been. He stated that the governor's
office was not intimately familiar with the project either,
which was the reason he was asking the administration to
slow the project down and take a deeper look. He stated the
question was up to the committee to determine whether the
project was ready to move forward or not.
12:14:42 PM
Representative LeBon remarked that the data collection
piece was important. He stated that the communications
center and upgraded technology in Anchorage and Fairbanks
would enhance data collection. He explained that data
collection was important because the state tracked crime
statistics carefully. He elaborated that the transfer of
data was still done by paper and written reports. He
detailed that when the written report was received, the
receiving agency had to input the data a second time. He
believed that was a method of the past. Data collection was
another important benefit of the communications center.
12:15:47 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke to the overall amendment offered by
Representative Knopp [Amendment H DPS 5]. He believed
Representative Wool had asked if the proposed emergency
communications center would decrease spending. He reported
that the center would not result in decreased spending. He
elucidated that there would be a collection of PCNs from
locations such as his district. The money that
Representative Knopp's amendment was looking to delete was
for seven new positions added on to the positions collected
from other areas around the state. There would be a cost
increase if the project moved forward.
Representative Merrick thought the committee was sending
mixed messages. She stated that the legislature had
communicated that it wanted DPS to focus on rural public
safety. She stated that the new communications center would
increase public safety access in rural Alaska. She noted
the communities that had signed onto the letter all stood
to lose positions or revenue through contracts.
Representative Knopp remarked that the center may
eventually result in 911 calls getting through slightly
quicker; however, response times would not change. He
highlighted that the committee had not discussed all of the
work dispatchers did behind the scenes. He detailed that
when a trooper was connected to the Alaska Land Mobile
Radio System (ALMR) system, dispatchers could look for
records requests, court documents, and any warrants, which
all occurred behind the scenes. He was uncertain whether
the proposed centralized trooper dispatch in Anchorage
would handle all of that work. He pointed out that everyone
was currently connected in the ALMR system. He questioned
whether local dispatchers would continue to have that
responsibility.
Representative Knopp highlighted that the committee had not
talked about the funding in Vice-Chair Ortiz's test audit.
He stated that currently the 911 surcharge used to manage
PSAPs was approximately $30 million collected annually. He
explained it was only available for boroughs and not the
state. He detailed it would be necessary to come up with a
funding mechanism after the center was constructed to fund
the additional positions and operate the facility.
Vice-Chair Ortiz responded to comments by Representative
Merrick. He stated that if the project would go to fruition
it would likely improve the 911 response in rural Alaska;
however, there was no data showing it would improve 911
response throughout the entire state. He believed there
would be a decreased 911 response for areas currently
operating efficiently.
12:20:25 PM
Representative LeBon stated that DPS had suggested the net
cost would decrease because of contracts with different
groups like Mat-Com. He explained that money from the
contracts would be saved and available to support the
communications center in Anchorage or Fairbanks. He
believed the fiscal note showed the project would not
result in a spike in the department's spending.
Co-Chair Foster asked Representative LeBon to restate
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment H DPS 5.
Representative LeBon explained that the amendment to
Amendment H DPS 5 would change the decrement from $872,800
and seven positions to $489,000 and four positions. The
amendment would restore funding for the three IT positions
associated with the Anchorage Emergency Communications
Center and would allow the department to continue moving
forward on the project.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative LeBon provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stated that the department had a priority to open the new
emergency communications center by July 2021. Given the
timeframe, he believed there was time to work on the issue
collectively as a community. The department had indicated a
commitment to move forward, but it wanted to work with the
affected communities. He found the amendment to be a
reasonable compromise that attempted to allow the project
to move forward at a measured pace that worked for
everyone.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to amend Amendment
H DPS 5.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Merrick, Wool, Foster, Johnston
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Knopp, Ortiz, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton,
Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment H
DPS 5 FAILED (5/6).
Representative Wool stated that he did not have significant
clarity on the topic. He believed the issue could be the
subject of a meeting on its own. He thought it sounded like
an IT problem more than anything. He likened the issue to
installing wiring in a new home for a speaker system but
then purchasing a blue tooth speaker. He pointed out that
under the scenario, the original wiring was a waste. He did
not want the same to be true in the case of the emergency
communications center. He did not have sufficient data on
the issue.
12:24:50 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard thanked Representative
Knopp for offering Amendment H DPS 5. She shared that there
had been many discussions about dispatch and E-911 work
behind the scenes. She relayed that the Mat-Com system in
the Mat-Su Valley was a long time project she had worked on
beginning in 2001 when she was on city council. She
detailed that the system worked well and handled fire, EMS,
police, and trooper calls for a population base of 108,000.
She believed the consolidation effort was trying to fix a
problem that was nonexistent in her region. She supported
putting the project on hold to determine whether there were
cost savings and efficiencies involved. She noted the
answers had not been provided as of yet. She supported the
amendment.
Representative LeBon opposed the amendment. He shared that
the subcommittee had met with DPS on several occasions to
discuss the topic and he had learned more about it than he
ever thought he would. He was pleased to have learned more
about the issue, an issue that was important to the future
of public safety statewide. He noted he had only recently
become aware of some disagreements between Mat-Com and DPS;
however, he felt the department had made a strong case that
consolidating DPS dispatching resources in-house would
minimize data entry costs, which would bring greater
efficiency and increase capabilities to provide public
safety resources to all Alaskans. The department had
attempted to prove it had the capability to dispatch
resources across the state from distant locations because
it was doing so out of its facility off Peger Road in
Fairbanks and had been doing so for years; the dispatch
service included Ketchikan and Kodiak.
Representative LeBon highlighted that there was a redundant
fiber optic cable between Fairbanks and Anchorage that
routed around the North Slope as well as microwave
communication technology, all of which provided sufficient
backup in the case of natural disaster along the Parks or
Richardson Highways. He stated that DPS had thought the
project through for quite some time and had paused it for a
year to continue examination of the issue. He suspected
that based on the letter sent to the governor that it may
be paused again. He was concerned that the amendment may go
too far to pause the project. He thought DPS had received
the message and that a deeper dive on the project would
take place.
Representative Knopp provided wrap up on the amendment. He
agreed with Representative LeBon and Co-Chair Johnston that
at some point technology would change enough that the
situation would be a non-issue; however, he did not believe
that time had come. He addressed the cost aspect and
relayed that there were two phases to the project. He
detailed that the second phase did not yet have a dollar
amount determined. He explained that if the package were
bundled and all emergency services were dispatched from the
one location, he would agree with Representative LeBon that
the department was merely moving forward with technology.
He believed Representative Sullivan-Leonard had stated it
well by saying there was simply not an issue and that the
project would divide a system that was currently working
well.
Representative Knopp reasoned that the project would not
result in fewer positions - dispatch positions had to be
filled. He believed the project would create more expense
for communities and the state by doubling up on duties
because one entity did not want to dispatch for another
one. He stated that the system had worked extremely well
for the 40 years he had been in Alaska. He pointed out that
currently there were some occasions where DPS had to
dispatch troopers via the Juneau Police Department. He
highlighted that the project had originated under the
previous administration and the new administration had not
had time to scrutinize the issue in the past 1.5 years. He
noted that a deep dive on the project had been proposed in
the past, but he did not believe it had ever occurred. He
did not support disrupting a system that was working well.
He reported that people who had spoken about the project
had shared that the issue was not about positions, but
about the disruption of service, which was the big concern.
Representative Knopp relayed that a spokesperson from the
governor's office had communicated that they had heard the
concerns and believed they should be considered. The
administration had not yet had time to meet with all of the
departments. He believed the administration thought the
concerns were valid and should be resolved. He requested
more time for the administration to come back with a
stronger recommendation and more detail on the project cost
and how it would work. He thought perhaps there would be an
opportunity to work out any possible contractual issues.
12:31:17 PM
Co-Chair Johnston MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Carpenter, Josephson, Knopp, Ortiz, Sullivan-
Leonard, Tilton, Wool
OPPOSED: LeBon, Merrick, Foster, Johnston
The MOTION PASSED (7/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment H DPS 5 was ADOPTED.
12:32:19 PM
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H HSS 5 (copy on
file):
Department: Education and Early Development
Appropriation: Education Support and Administrative
Services
Allocation: Early Learning Coordination
TRANSFER: Transfer Parents as Teachers program to the
Department of Health and Social Services, Public
Health appropriation, Women, Children and Family
Health allocation.
EXPLANATION: This amendment corrects duplicative
appropriations.
Department: Health and Social Services
Appropriation: Public Health
Allocation: Women, Children, and Family Health
ADD WORDAGE: It is the intent of the legislature that
the Department of Health and Social Services provide a
report to the Department of Education and Early
Development by January 15, 2021, which includes the
following information: all funds distributed; the
number of children and families served; and the
regional distribution of funds. A copy of the report
shall be provided to the co-chairs of the finance
committees and the Legislative Finance Division.
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Johnston explained that currently the Parents as
Teachers program was in the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) and Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED). The technical amendment would put the
program under DHSS only. She shared DHSS had been managing
the grant since 2018. She understood the need for DEED to
have a part of the program. She read from the amendment
explanation:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Health and Social Services provide a
report to the Department of Education and Early
Development by January 15, 2021, which includes the
following information: all funds distributed; the
number of children and families served; and the
regional distribution of funds. A copy of the report
shall be provided to the co-chairs of the finance
committees and the Legislative Finance Division.
Co-Chair Johnston shared it was her intent that the
technical amendment please all parties without disruption
to Parents as Teachers currently being held under DHSS,
while understanding it is an education program.
Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding of the amendment.
He believed the governor had moved Parents as Teachers from
DEED to DHSS and the subcommittees had accepted the
transfer. However, the program had been left in the DEED
budget and it was necessary to pick one location.
Co-Chair Johnston agreed.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
12:35:02 PM
Representative Carpenter referenced the report coming back
to the legislature. He wondered why the committee would not
include effectiveness measures in the reporting
requirement. He asked if the amendment sponsor would
entertain including the requirement.
Co-Chair Johnston replied that she would be amenable to an
amendment.
12:35:51 PM
AT EASE
12:40:56 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to AMEND Amendment H HSS 5.
The amendment would delete "; and" between the words
"served" and "the" in the add wordage paragraph and would
insert a comma. After the word "funds" the amendment would
delete a period and insert a comma and the words "and
develop measures of effectiveness." He read the proposed
change:
It is the intent of the legislature that the
Department of Health and Social Services provide a
report to the Department of Education and Early
Development by January 15, 2021, which includes the
following information: all funds distributed; the
number of children and families served, the regional
distribution of funds, and develop measures of
effectiveness. A copy of the report shall be provided
to the co-chairs of the finance committees and the
Legislative Finance Division.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if it would be the intent to have
the report done annually. He pointed out that the amendment
only read 2021.
Representative Carpenter stated it was a great question. He
wanted all departments to report measures of effectiveness
annually.
Vice-Chair Ortiz suggested changing the language to
annually in place of 2021.
Representative Carpenter proposed inserting the word
"annually" before "by January 15" in the intent language.
12:43:19 PM
Representative Wool asked for verification the requirement
would be annual.
Representative Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wool noted it was one more annual report
required of the department with less funds. He thought the
requirement to develop measures of effectiveness annually
may be "a bit nebulous."
There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment to Amendment H HSS
5 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment H HSS 5
as amended.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H HSS 5 as
amended was ADOPTED.
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
12:45:20 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 205 OP Budget Amendment H HSS 5 022620.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 H DPS 5 Backup Gov Dunleavy Letter Re-AECC - 022420.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 Amendments Actions 022720.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 HB 206 All Amendments w Actions 022720.pdf |
HFIN 2/27/2020 9:00:00 AM |
HB 205 HB 206 |