Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/12/2021 01:30 PM 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 | |
| HB70 | |
| Presentation: Village Safe Water | |
| Presenation: Prosecutor Housing | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 12, 2021
2:50 p.m.
2:50:32 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Carrie Bohan, Facilities Services Program Manager,
Department of Environmental Conservation; Bryan Butcher,
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Revenue.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ruth Kostik, Administrative Services Director, Department
of Environmental Conservation, Office of Management and
Budget, Office of the Governor; John Skidmore, Deputy
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law.
SUMMARY
HB 70 APPROP: CAP; REAPPROP; SUPP; AMEND
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 70
"An Act making appropriations, including capital
appropriations, reappropriations, and other
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making appropriations to capitalize funds; and
providing for an effective date."
2:51:02 PM
^PRESENTATION: VILLAGE SAFE WATER
2:51:10 PM
CARRIE BOHAN, FACILITIES SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, began a
PowerPoint presentation titled "Department of Environmental
Conservation House Finance Committee," dated May 10, 2021.
She began on slide 2 titled "Village Safe Water:"
Village Safe Water's mission is to support rural
communities in their efforts to develop sustainable
sanitation facilities
Communities with a population less than
1,000 per AS 47.07.080
We accomplish this mission by:
Funding planning, design, and construction
of
water, wastewater, and solid waste projects
Providing project management and oversight
for grant funded projects
Ms. Bohan elaborated that a few communities exceeded the
one thousand population limit and were the exception due to
their status as second class cities, which were included
under statute.
2:53:47 PM
Ms. Bohan moved to slide 3 titled "Village Safe Water:
Project Assessment:"
Project grant applications are scored primarily on how
they address critical public health needs and capacity
to operate and maintain facilities
Current level of service
Beneficial health impact provided by the
project
Relationship to other project phases
Operation, maintenance, and management
capabilities
High scoring projects added to the Multi-Year Priority
List
Ms. Bohan explained that projects were ranked in score
order and those highest on the list received funding. Once
a project was selected Village Safe Water (VSW) committed
to funding it through completion, but the funding was not
always allocated at one time. The large longer-term
projects were placed on the multi-year priority list and
after the design phase was completed, received priority
funding as needed in subsequent years to completion. The
multi-year priority list gave the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) the flexibility to fund
more than one project at a time.
2:56:23 PM
Representative Carpenter pointed to slide 3 and asked about
the criteria used to judge capacity to operate and
maintain. Ms. Bohan replied that since 2015 VSW employed
the Operation and Maintenance Best Practices tool. She
delineated that the tool was based on three categories that
were established in the Safe Drinking Water Act:
technical, financial, and managerial categories. The tool
judged water system capacities. The department worked with
the Rural Utility Business Advisor within the Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development (DCCED) to
gather information from communities and score them
according to the tools criteria. The information was
published on the program's website so the other agencies
working with the communities were able to look at how the
community was doing and could provide additional assistance
to improve their capacity.
2:58:32 PM
Representative Wool spoke to a community's capacity to
operate and maintain a system. He assumed a community
needed the financial means to maintain a system. He
ascertained that it was a problem if communities could not
afford to maintain the system. He inquired whether fiscal
solvency to operate and maintain a system was a criterion.
Ms. Bohan answered in the affirmative. She reported that
the program determined if a community had a realistic and
balanced budget and were collecting sufficient revenues to
cover the cost of operating and maintaining the system. She
elaborated that it was not a "yes/no" type of scoring. Each
community had an opportunity to improve its capacity. Each
category had multiple tiers and a community could improve
their scores through easily identifiable criteria.
3:00:44 PM
Co-Chair Foster addressed the catch 22 facing the VSW
program regarding communities with the ability to support a
system and communities that could not. He acknowledged the
need for a scoring system, but it left the ineligible
communities without basic services. He understood the
complexity of the issue and wanted to place the issue on
the record and asked for comments. Ms. Bohan answered that
there was no easy solution to the issue. The program
discussed the issue frequently, internally and with federal
partners. She reported that VSW did adjust the eligibility
criteria in the current year to address the issue. They
lowered the eligibility score for unserved and underserved
communities to access funds for improvement to core
infrastructure. The program continued to work with all the
partners to assist the communities build its capacity. She
noted that VSW had success with regional partners helping
with funding.
3:04:31 PM
Co-Chair Foster thanked the program for the recognition of
the issue. He realized it was an ongoing process.
Ms. Bohan advanced to slide 4 titled "Village Safe Water:
Average Project:"
Cost to provide running water and sewer to individual
homes in a village for the first time
$350 - $750 thousand per/home
Projects typically last 5-10 years to completion,
depending on
Size and complexity of the project
Availability of funds
Ability of community to meet ongoing
construction funding conditions
Ms. Bohan discussed an average project.
Co-Chair Merrick asked what drove the cost up so high. Ms.
Bohan answered that the high price tag included the cost to
mobilize materials and the short construction season was
also a factor. She relayed that a delay could easily mean
missing an entire construction season. Construction for the
landscape and climate raised the costs. Currently, the
materials costs had skyrocketed due to the pandemic had
skyrocketed. She concluded that there was a variety of
reasons that drove high project cost.
3:07:45 PM
Representative Carpenter referenced slide 4 and observed
that the costs reflected the way things had been done
versus how things could get done. He asked if his statement
was accurate. Ms. Bohan replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wool guessed that if there was a water
utility in place charging for service, he assumed the
utility would not recover the cost, but the customer would
be billed for service. He asked about the average cost of a
water/sewer bill that had a water system installed at a
cost of $500 thousand per home. Ms. Bohan answered that the
numbers included on slide 4 were provided via grant dollars
and the communities were not taking on the expense.
However, the customer would be billed to cover the ongoing
expenses. She recalled that user rates in some rural
communities were as high as $250 per month. She would
follow up with more average costs.
Representative Josephson asked about goal setting. He
stated the goal was lofty and honorable. He asked what the
program was trying to achieve. Ms. Bohan answered that the
goal was to provide public health protection through access
to safe drinking water and sanitation. Studies had shown
the health impacts associated with a hauled or honey
bucket system. There were health benefits from access to
systems providing a larger volume of water daily and
properly treated water meeting safe drinking water
regulations.
3:11:11 PM
Representative Josephson asked if the state was subject to
a court order or some other mandate. He wanted to finish
the work by 2030, but he wondered what would happen if it
was not completed by 2050. Ms. Bohan replied that there was
a state statute and requirements that public
water/wastewater systems had to comply with state and
federal regulations but that was not a directive to
construct a new system.
Representative Edgmon asked for the number of villages that
did not have adequate water sources. He related his
experience of a village in his district that could not find
a suitable water source to support the system. Ms. Bohan
responded that she could not provide a specific number of
communities that fit his description. She elucidated that
VSW worked with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium
(ANTHC) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) to list all the
known sanitation needs in rural communities that were
maintained on an IHS database. She offered to follow up.
Representative Edgmon discussed that the eye popping
numbers reflected on the reality of doing business in
rural Alaska. He remarked on the difficulty of climate,
landscape, location, and logistics that affected a project
in rural Alaska.
Co-Chair Foster pointed to the number for the cost of first
time service on slide 4. He wondered if the cost per home
was calculated by the total cost of the whole entire
project and divided it by the number of homes.
3:16:06 PM
Ms. Bohan responded in the affirmative. She furthered that
in 2016, VSW commissioned a survey to develop a rough cost
estimate for what it would cost to provide service to all
unserved communities. She restated that the methodology was
to take the cost of the entire system from scratch and
factor in the number of homes in the community.
Representative Wool asked if there were situations where a
water system was being developed in a community where
residents refrain from being connected to the system due to
costs, which made the costs higher for everyone else. Ms.
Bohan answered in the affirmative. She shared that it was
more likely that the home was disconnected from service
because it could not afford the user fees. There were some
instances where a homeowner chose not to be part of an
initial project due to costs and she confirmed that it
drove up the cost for the rest of the community.
Representative Wool ascertained that the scenario presented
a whole new cyclical challenging situation, where more
residents might drop the service due to escalating costs.
3:18:48 PM
Ms. Bohan moved to slide 5 titled "Village Safe Water:
Typical Project Timeline," which showed a flow chart of the
timing of a typical project. She described the process. She
indicated that each spring VSW accepted applications for
new planning projects. The planning project was the first
step that identified the problem, potential solutions, and
cost estimates. The plans were reviewed via a committee
that included Ms. Bohan, staff from the federal funding
agencies and IHS, and representatives from various
regulatory programs that had to approve system designs. She
elaborated that once the planning document was approved,
the community may apply for a construction grant. The
planning project typically took 9 to 12 months to complete
and put the project in its second year. She furthered that
in year 3 the project applied for design and construction
funding, which was awarded by the fall of the third year.
She noted that design could take one to two years depending
upon the complexity of the system. By the spring of year 5
construction funding was awarded and could last one to
three years.
Ms. Bohan turned to slide 6 "Village Safe Water: FY2021 by
the Numbers:"
Planning Projects
$1.9 million funding made available
19 studies for 19 communities
Project range: $25,000 -$240,000
Construction Projects
$62.5 million funding made available
19 ongoing construction projects and 13 new
construction projects
Project range: $300,000 - $9.3 million
IHS & EPA Tribal Construction Projects
$48 million funding made available
35 construction projects
Project range: $65,000-$7.1 million
3:22:49 PM
Ms. Bohan reported that VSW worked closely with its
partners; the IHS and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), both provided funding through IHSs Sanitation
Deficiency System (SDS) funding cycle. The entities scored
each others work and ensured that no communities were
falling through the cracks in the process. Ms. Bohan
advanced to slide 7 titled "Village Safe Water: Supporting
Rural Sanitation:"
Work with partners to support communities in their
efforts to build technical, financial, and managerial
capacity
Provide water and wastewater system operator training
and certification
Remote Maintenance Workers
Funded through federal grants from EPA and
USDA and associated state match in the
operating budget
15 Remote Maintenance Workers at DEC and
regional health corporation provide onsite
training and technical assistance
Emergency response and support
Village Safe Water does not provide funding for
ongoing maintenance and operations of systems
Ms. Bohan furthered that the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) grants were part of its Rural
Development (RD) section. She shared that some of the
Remote Maintenance Workers (RMW) had been working with the
same communities for over 20 years and were dedicated to
the job.
3:25:18 PM
RUTH KOSTIK, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR (via teleconference), turned
to side 8 titled "Village Safe Water: FY2022 Gov Amend
Request (in thousands):"
$70,812.0 FY2022 Governor's Amended
$52,250.0 Fed
$18,062.0 AHFC Bonds (match)
$500.0 SDPR
First Time Service
Expansion, Upgrade, and Replacement of Existing
Service
Gov Amend is an increase of $2,332.0 of match due to
increased federal support
Ms. Kostik noted that the increase was a result of the
federal funding that passed in late December, which was an
increase of $7 million from FY 2021 from the EPA. She
reminded the committee that the VSW match was appropriated
from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) bond
proceeds. She reported that there were bills moving through
the legislature [HB74/SB54-AHFC Water & Sewer
Bonds/Transportation] regarding the transaction but if it
did not pass the AHFC fund source would need replacement by
another fund source. She reviewed slide 9, " Village Safe
Water: FY 2021 Supplemental Request (in thousands):"
$3,650.0 GF Match
First Time Service
Expansion, Upgrade, and Replacement of Existing
Service
Due to increased federal support
Ms. Kostik noted that the numbers reflected a higher level
of funding from the EPA. She remarked that the federal
funding was approved very late in the state's budget cycle
and had to be included in the supplemental request.
Representative Josephson asked if the legislature did not
find $18 million in matching funds whether the state
permanently waived $52 million. Ms. Kostik replied that
at some point VSW had to commit to its funding partners to
accept the funds and make grants. She explained that in FY
2021 the department awarded the full amount of grant money
even though the state matching money was not yet identified
and assumed it would borrow from the next years
appropriation. The program would need to alert its funding
partners if VSW was unable to find the match money.
3:28:23 PM
Ms. Kostik Ms. Kostik presented slide 10, "Village Safe
Water: Funding Sources," which showed a flow chart of its
funding sources and the corresponding allocations. She
delineated that the chart showed the full scope of funding
sources that flowed into the VSW program. She pointed to
the left that depicted the state match, USDA Rural
Development funding and the EPA Infrastructure grants that
flow through the traditional funding route through the
multi-year priority list that required a state match. She
pointed to the SDS list on the middle right and explained
that the funding flowed through from IHS and EPA tribal
Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act for the SDS
list projects. On the far right there was one more pot of
funding from IHS Housing Priority System (HPS) system that
supported sanitation and water projects. She noted that the
colors of the fund sources would match the chart depicting
the funding history on the next slide.
3:30:15 PM
Ms. Kostik advanced to slide 11 titled "Village Safe Water:
Funding History," which showed a bar graph entitled
Funding for Rural Water and Sewer Improvements SFY2017 -
2021. The bar graph showed a five-year funding history.
She detailed that the state match was depicted in green,
EPA funding was shown in gold, and USDA-RD was designated
in purple; the federal funding required a state match. The
IHS money was represented in blue, and the EPA Tribal
funding was shown in brown; both funding sources did not
require a state match.
Ms. Kostik spoke to slide 12, "Rural Alaska Sanitation
Funding Need," which showed a pie chart titled "Rural
Alaska Sanitation Funding Need = $1,821,446,807." The pie
chart depicted the total SDS funding need. The blue portion
[68 percent] encompassed all first time service projects
and reflected the traditional piped systems and its high
costs totaling roughly $1.2 billion. She pointed to the
yellow portion of the pie chart labeled Upgrades to
Benefit System Operation or to Address Minor Health
Threats and noted that the type of project was the most
difficult to fund because they did not frequently rise to
the level of scoring to get funded and encompassed minor
things like putting a protective roof over a water tank to
prevent deterioration.
3:32:30 PM
Ms. Kostik addressed slide 13, "Alaska Water & Sewer
Challenge Project":
Conventional systems are expensive to construct,
maintain and replace
Many communities cannot afford the high operation and
maintenance costs.
Available funding is not adequate to serve remaining
homes and make needed improvements
Innovative approaches are needed to address health
problems associated with water and sewer system
deficiencies
Focus on decentralized systems that provide treatment,
recycling, and water minimization
Pilot testing at UAA delayed due to COVID, anticipated
to begin in fall 2021
Ms. Kostik elaborated that in 2013 DEC launched the Alaska
Water & Sewer Challenge Project that was a research and
development project to try to build an alternative to a
piped system that included an improved self-contained water
system for single homes. The goals were to keep the cost to
$160 thousand per home and be easily maintained. She noted
that DEC was working with the EPA to set the standards for
water recycling. The project was in phase 5 with one model
and testing in a community was slated to happen after the
standards were developed. She commented that community
involvement would be critical to the project.
3:34:22 PM
Ms. Kostik moved to slide 14 titled Other Water/Wastewater
Infrastructure Funding at DEC;
.notdef Infrastructure Protection Funding
.notdef Grants to VSW eligible communities of up to
$150.0 for critical improvements that extend
the life or improve operations of a water or
wastewater system
.notdef One-time $4,000.0 appropriation; all funds have
been allocated
.notdef Municipal Matching Grants (AS 46.03.030)
.notdef Grants to municipalities for public water
supply, wastewater system, solid waste system,
or water quality enhancement
.notdef Municipalities provide 15-40% match depending
on population
.notdef Historically UGF funded program
.notdef No new projects funded since FY 2016
.notdef State Revolving Loan Funds (AS 46.03.032 & AS
46.03.036)
.notdef Low interest loans for clean water and drinking
water projects
.notdef Capitalized by federal grant funds
.notdef Can be used to match Municipal Matching Grants
.notdef Newly created Micro Loan option aimed at VSW
eligible communities
3:37:19 PM
Ms. Kostik commented that since the Municipal Matching
Grant program was phased out, use of the loans had
decreased. She explained that communities used the loan
funds to supplement their grants.
Representative Edgmon stated there was potentially a large
sum of money coming into Alaska via federal funding. He
wondered in broad terms how that could affect all the VSW
projects. Ms. Kostik thought that it was a very good
question. She deduced that there was possibly even more
funding coming through a federal infrastructure plan. She
shared that the federal delegation had been very effective
at obtaining funding for VSW, which necessitated asking for
more matching dollars. She reiterated that construction
material prices had skyrocketed, and projects were going to
cost more temporarily. The huge injection of cash would
exacerbate the problem for things like contractor
availability. She worried that the current funding had to
be spent by 2024 and did not know how much could be done in
the timeframe considering the limitations.
3:40:10 PM
Representative Edgmon stated that her answer made a lot of
sense and listed the challenges. He recalled a presentation
by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) that
reported on the number of aging systems. He cited slide 12
and deduced that there was more need in communities with
existing service needing upgrades. He questioned the pie
chart allocation. He noted that a small number of
communities lacked services and most had existing service
needing upgrades. He asked if he was reading the slide
incorrectly. Ms. Bohan answered that the data on the graph
on slide 12 came directly form the SDS database she had
described earlier from the ANTCH and IHS database and was
based on known needs. She furthered that the disparity
Representative Edgmon described between the first time
service costs for the 28 communities that remain unserved
cost an estimated $50 million to $60 million to construct a
new system versus the upgrades needed for existing
facilities that costs much less.
Representative LeBon thanked the presenters for the
informative presentation. He had a question regarding first
time service. He referenced a $45 million project and at a
cost of $500 thousand per home he deduced that about 90
structures would benefit from the project. Ms. Bohan
replied that she did not know the number off the top of her
head but agreed the numbers Representative LeBon used were
fairly accurate. She reported that the community she spoke
of was Tununak and she did not recall the number of homes
that the project would serve. Representative LeBon guessed
that there was a combination of residential and
nonresidential structures. He asked if a community could be
too small to qualify for a program and wondered how the
ability to maintain a system was judged.
3:44:48 PM
Ms. Bohan responded that there was not a low population
level that affected eligibility but at a certain point a
small population could not support a system. The program
looked at other alternatives for providing services. She
detailed that IHS had a program that provided wells and
septic systems for individual homes and VSW would also
consider the same type of service. Representative LeBon
surmised that in theory no community could be too small to
receive some level of assistance. Ms. Bohan replied
affirmatively.
3:46:16 PM
AT EASE
3:47:25 PM
RECONVENED
^PRESENATION: PROSECUTOR HOUSING
3:47:32 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW (via teleconference), discussed the
Department of Laws (DOL) housing requests in the Capital
Budget. He considered housing a retention issue. He offered
that the issue had four components. The largest component
was housing. Overall, the Criminal Division had a 25
percent to 37 percent turnover rate for prosecutors per
year between 2018 and 2020. He elucidated that turnover was
most pronounced in rural Alaska with Bethel averaging a 45
percent turnover of prosecutors over the last 7 years. He
called it a tremendous problem and identified that
housing was a critical component to retention. He listed
the three categories of the housing issue: availability,
quality, and affordability. He shared that he had heard
stories from prosecutors having to sleep in their offices
for long periods of time until housing became available. He
shared his own personal experiences with the issue when he
had lived in rural communities. He spoke to the quality of
housing available. Some units lacked necessities such as
locks on the front door, running water, or working
appliances. He believed the challenges helped explain why
people did not stay in the communities for long periods. He
voiced that affordability was also problematic. Many
housing options required first and last month's rent and a
deposit. New prosecutors also had student loan debt and
other moving expenses. He viewed the situation as an
obstacle to trying to attract and retain quality people. He
explained that on May 12, 1990, a law was adopted that
allowed various state agencies to own and operate employee
housing. The authorization was for DOL, the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG), Department of Public Safety (DPS), and
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT).
He believed that DOL was the only department that had not
taken advantage of the law and concluded that it was
currently necessary. He elaborated that the department
wanted to build or buy housing. The plan included
consulting with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC) on costs, logistics, etc.
3:54:25 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked if any properties had been
identified in the areas of need. She shared that she did
not have experience in rural Alaska, but she had worked in
the real estate world as an agent and appraiser for the
past 10 years. She felt that the cost per unit of $300
thousand was only sufficient for a modular home. She
questioned the proposal. Mr. Skidmore replied that the
proposal of $300 thousand per unit came from a Request for
Information (RFI) the department had done. He acknowledged
that the cost of building materials had significantly
increased, and it was a rough guess. He discovered through
discussions with AHFC that the costs were more likely
$350,000 to $400,000 but could increase up to $600,000. He
had not done a Request for Proposal (RFP) yet and readily
acknowledged that the costs could be much higher.
Representative Rasmussen stated that in Anchorage one could
not get into the market for under $500 thousand and the
costs of building materials had skyrocketed. She did not
want to put the cart before the horse if the timing was not
right. Mr. Skidmore replied that the proposal was not only
to build but to search for existing structures if
available. The request was merely to obtain enough funding
to investigate what was available. He emphasized that he
was open to all options.
3:58:16 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked if the department was
looking for one consultant for all communities or one in
each community. Mr. Skidmore answered that the department
listed the priority of communities [Bethel, Utqiagvik,
Kotzebue, Nome (in that order)] and would begin in Bethel.
Currently, the requested amount of money would not allow
them to include the other communities and he considered
Bethel a test run. Representative Rasmussen asked how many
units they needed in Bethel. Mr. Skidmore replied that the
department anticipated the need at 9 to 10 units, and it
would take up the entire $3 million. Representative
Rasmussen asked if the department needed the same amount of
housing for the three subsequent communities in the future.
He responded that the housing necessary in the remaining
three communities were two to three units and together were
the equivalent to what was needed in Bethel. He
acknowledged that more information was needed.
4:00:11 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked if the department helped pay moving
expenses for employees. Mr. Skidmore answered that the
department only paid for part of the moving expenses and
were authorized to pay $6 thousand, which included airfare
for the employee and family. He discovered that the amount
could vary substantially depending on where the employee
was moving from and whether they had a family and the
number of possessions. He reiterated that the department
was examining all options from modular housing, attached
homes, etc. and wanted to seek the advice from AHFC. He
also wanted to partner with DPS that already had an agency
section that managed housing. The department had housing in
the same communities as DOL needed it, which provided
benefits for both agencies.
4:03:07 PM
Representative Josephson had some concerns about DOL
getting into the housing business, although they may have
been assuaged by the partnership with DPS. He asked for
clarification that DPS already operated housing. Mr.
Skidmore answered in the affirmative. He recognized that
DPS was a good resource, had a greater housing need, and
managed its housing for 31 years. Representative Josephson
asked about major maintenance and replacement. He expressed
uncertainty about how DOL would manage it without
assistance. He wondered whether DOL would rely on DPSs
know how. Mr. Skidmore replied that the statute that
authorized the purchase of housing also authorized rent
collection. The rent allowed for DOL to contract out for
maintenance. He noted that guidance from DPS and AHFC would
be beneficial in how to manage property maintenance.
4:05:13 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued that the housing component was a $3
million request, but the total request was $4 million. He
addressed the recruitment and retention request for $400
thousand. He related that the request involved developing
recruitment strategies and professional materials. In
addition, he wanted targeted aggressive recruitment of
talent in the lower 48 or headhunting for experienced
prosecutors especially around sexual assault and sexual
abuse of minors as quickly as possible. He cited the
approval for 10 new prosecutors for sexual assault and
sexual abuse of minors. He shared that DOL had created a
Prosecutor Training Specialist position in the past year to
help with training and the position remained open for 9
months. There had been limited interest expressed and the
interest generated was not experienced as deemed necessary.
He believed that targeted recruitment was crucial. The item
was in the Capital Budget because it would be a one-time
spend.
Mr. Skidmore furthered that training for prosecutors was
another key area for recruitment and retention [$300
thousand]. He determined that the quality and quantity of
training provided to prosecutors needed improvement. The
department wanted to develop off-the-shelf materials to be
used internally for training for trial advocacy and best
practices for sexual assault and sexual abuse of minors. He
exemplified the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interviewing
that was a trademarked program found to be a best practice.
He reported that another aspect of training was facility
needs. He voiced that the department "struggled to provide
adequate trial advocacy training to the state's
prosecutors. He proposed partnering with the university to
create a training facility for ongoing in-state trial
advocacy training needs by remodeling a classroom to look
like a courtroom. The university was also interested in the
project for their own uses.
4:10:19 PM
Mr. Skidmore spoke about the final request; the
installation of secure Wi-Fi in court houses [$300K
Improved Technology for Efficiency]. He explained that
prior to 2014 DOL primarily relied on paper files. The
system shifted to an electronic file in 2014 that was much
more efficient but was not yet complete. The department
needed secure Wi-Fi access in courthouses to access case
files, e-file complaints and motions, and issue discovery
while in the courtroom. He noted that there was public wi-
fi in the court houses, but it was not secure. In addition,
the department needed to develop a secure interface with
the Alaska Court System to exchange case information, file
court dates, and receive court orders and decisions.
4:13:45 PM
Representative Josephson asked how long a prosecutor worked
in a typical work week. Mr. Skidmore did not have an exact
number. The department did not track the number of hours
people worked. He shared his personal experience of working
between 60 to 80 hours per week and when he was in a trial
it was much more. He knew that prosecutors worked much
longer than the 37.5 hours they were compensated for.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that there
had been no recent COLA increase for partially exempt
employees. Mr. Skidmore answered in the affirmative and
recalled that the COLA was not increased for 7 years.
4:15:36 PM
BRYAN BUTCHER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, ALASKA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, believed that Mr. Skidmore covered most items. He
added that AHFC was able to help DOL with the maintenance
issues. He related that the corporation ran over 100 public
housing units in Bethel and some in Nome and had staff to
maintain them. He furthered that AHFC was collaborating
with DPS on compiling a comprehensive list of housing needs
in rural Alaska.
HB 70 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
4:16:46 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 70 HFIN re AHFC Collaboration 4.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 70 |
| HB 70 HFIN DEC VSW Overview 05.10.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 70 |
| HB 85 Amendment 1 051221.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB 104 Public Testimony by 051221.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 104 |
| HB 70 FY21Supp Capital Law-Criminal Rural Housing Overview.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2021 1:30:00 PM |
HB 70 |