Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
02/02/2026 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 | |
| Overview: Governor's Fy 2027 Budget Overview by the Department of Administration | |
| Overview: Statewide Salary Study Update by the Department of Administration | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 263 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 265 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 2, 2026
1:33 p.m.
1:33:01 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Josephson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative Elexie Moore
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Stefanie Bingham, Director, Division of Administrative
Services, Department of Administration; Aimee Devaris,
Director, Division of Personnel, Department of
Administration.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Bill Smith, State Chief Information Officer, Department of
Administration; Kathleen Wallace, Director, Division of
Motor Vehicles; Terrance Haas, Public Defender, Public
Defender Agency, Department of Administration; James
Stintson, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department
of Administration.
SUMMARY
HB 263 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET;AMEND;SUPP
HB 263 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 265 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 265 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
OVERVIEW: STATEWIDE SALARY STUDY UPDATE BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION
OVERVIEW: GOVERNOR'S FY 2027 BUDGET OVERVIEW BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 263
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
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. 265
"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."
^OVERVIEW: GOVERNOR'S FY 2027 BUDGET OVERVIEW BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
1:34:15 PM
STEFANIE BINGHAM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, introduced the
PowerPoint presentation, "Department of Administration
FY2027 Governor's Budget Overview" dated February 2, 2026
(copy on file). She noted that she was new to the
Department of Administration (DOA) and had served in the
position for six months. She began on slide 2 and gave an
overview of the mission and organization of the Division of
Administrative Services (DAS). She explained that the
department's mission was to provide consistent and
efficient support services to state agencies so they could
better serve Alaskans. She outlined services to the public,
including legal and advocacy services, the Alaska Public
Offices Commission (APOC), public communications services,
and the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). She also outlined
services to state agencies, including the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH), DAS, the Division of Finance
(DOF), the Division of Personnel (DOP), and the Office of
Information Technology (OIT).
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 3, which reflected budget
trends from FY 21 through FY 27. She reported that DOA's
proposed FY 27 budget totaled $350 million, up from $340
million in FY 26.
1:35:52 PM
Representative Stapp welcomed Ms. Bingham and expressed
appreciation for her coming before the committee. He
understood that she was new but expressed confidence that
she would give a great presentation.
Ms. Bingham thanked Representative Stapp. She continued the
presentation on slide 3. She reported that unrestricted
general funds (UGF) totaled $99.8 million, up from $96.6
million in FY 26. She reported that designated general
funds (DGF) totaled $36.5 million, up from $35.4 million.
She reported that other funds totaled $212.3 million, up
from $207.6 million in FY 26, and primarily included
interagency receipts and the OIT service fund. She added
that federal funds totaled $1.3 million which was an
increase of approximately $23,000.
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 4, which displayed the FY 27
budget by fund group and provided an additional perspective
on the previous slide. She continued to slide 5, which
showed how funds were allocated across results delivery
units (RDU), which represented appropriations in the
budget. She noted that the department was primarily funded
by the other fund group, including interagency receipts and
the OIT Information Services Fund. She detailed that
centralized administrative services (CAS) totaled $104.8
million, OIT totaled $68.2 million, and the Division of
Risk Management (DRM) totaled $35.2 million. She reported
that the largest portion within UGF was in legal and
advocacy services at $85.7 million and the smallest share
was under $11.6 million. She added that Shared Services of
Alaska (SSA) was eliminated in the FY 27 budget.
Representative Hannan noted that she had received an
inquiry from a state employee regarding SSA positions being
moved back to departments during the hiring freeze. She
asked if employees would move laterally with their
positions rather than needing to reapply.
Ms. Bingham clarified that SSA and payroll were separate,
and payroll fell under DOF while SSA was its own division.
She explained that accounting and travel functions would
return to the departments and that filled positions would
move with the employees. She added that if positions were
vacant, agencies would work collaboratively to recruit new
candidates.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that current
employees would not lose their jobs, but that some vacant
positions might need to be reevaluated and reapplied for.
She asked if vacant positions might be affected by the
hiring freeze.
Ms. Bingham replied that the hiring freeze should not
impact the transfers because the department was receiving a
blanket waiver to continue recruitment. She noted that one
position would be eliminated, which was the SSA director.
1:40:31 PM
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 6 which showed FY 26 requests
that were not funded. She reported that the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA) had requested three positions: an
administrative officer, a paralegal, and an attorney V. She
added that OIT had requested Microsoft 365 Copilot AI tools
and related projects, and DMV had requested additional
programming capacity through an analyst programmer
position. She explained that the requests were not
resubmitted for FY 27 because the department prioritized
its most critical needs given statewide budget constraints.
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 7, which showed the status of
FY 26 items. She reported that OPA included $450,000 of UGF
and associated authority for guardian eligibility and a
public guardian position related to Child in Need of Aid
(CAN) casework. She reported that the Public Defender
Agency (PDA) included $1.5 million of statutory designated
program receipts for contractual assistance to the
Municipality of Anchorage for misdemeanor cases. She added
that OIT included $529,000 of other funds to address rising
software and contract costs associated with increased usage
and inflation.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that the items identified on slide
6 were requests made the prior year that were not funded
and were not being re-requested. He asked for clarification
on whether slide 7 reflected items that had been funded. He
asked if the department was reporting on the status of the
funding.
Ms. Bingham responded in the affirmative.
Representative Stapp asked for more information about the
OIT fund source listed as other. He asked whether the
source was program receipts or a licensing fee.
Ms. Bingham responded that it was the OIT Information
Services Fund.
Representative Stapp noted the paragraph under OIT on slide
7 referencing increased usage and inflation through ongoing
contract review, careful service prioritization, and long-
term lifecycle planning. He asked what the terms meant in
relation to licensing and software costs. He suggested that
the department could follow up in writing if necessary.
Ms. Bingham deferred the question to her colleague.
1:44:14 PM
BILL SMITH, STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), explained that
licensing and software costs were driven both by
inflationary increases in per-license charges and by
increased utilization by departments. He added that as more
employees used certain services, costs rose, and OIT
adjusted in response to departmental needs. He noted that
there were additional steps the office was taking to manage
overall operational costs.
Representative Hannan noted that in the prior year, the
legislature had denied funding for one DMV item to expand
its IT capacity. She observed that the division generated
revenue for the general fund and asked whether broader IT
improvements elsewhere would benefit DMV. She noted the
division had identified a need for its own IT capability
and asked if the division would benefit from the expansions
occurring in other areas.
Mr. Smith responded that the answer was yes and no. He
explained that the DMV benefited from enterprise services
within OIT. However, he clarified that the specific request
in question involved a system unique to DMV and not an
enterprise-wide system. He explained that such systems were
generally managed, resourced, and provided by the divisions
or departments themselves and were not part of the OIT
service catalog. He suggested that the committee could
consult the DMV director for more information about the
specific impacts on DMV.
Representative Hannan asked if the FY 26 requests on slide
6 that were not included in the budget in the prior year
and were not being resubmitted had been stopped at the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) level. She asked for
confirmation on whether the DMV had made the same requests
again to improve service and efficiency, but the requests
were not included in the OMB budget delivered to the
committee. She asked if DMV had made the requests.
Ms. Bingham replied that the request had not been for IT
capacity but rather for a position to work on IT capacity.
She explained that the division had been able to manage the
work within existing resources and the item had not been
re-requested.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that he had a similar question
regarding OPA and PDA. He assumed the requests would rise
to a high level of priority if the entities were not
meeting their obligations and had constitutional
responsibilities and needed more resources. He expressed
hope that OMB would be responsive.
Ms. Bingham responded that she believed OPA Director James
Stinson was available online for questions. She reported
that the department was working with OMB on its needs and
discussing the needs internally as they arose, but the
current budget did not reflect an increase other than
salary adjustments.
Co-Chair Josephson indicated he would set aside the matter
for now rather than questioning the online testifiers.
1:49:52 PM
Ms. Bingham continued at slide 8, which showed the enacted
FY 26 management plan by line item. She reported that
personnel services accounted for the largest share at over
$70 million for legal and advocacy services. She noted that
the smallest share was APOC. She reported that services
were significant for CAS at $55.5 million, OIT at $37.2
million, and DRM at $34.2 million. She added that the
smallest share for services was APOC at $89,600. She stated
that commodities and capital outlay remained minimal across
the department, with the largest share being $1.3 million
for DMV. She reported that travel was also minimal across
the department, with the largest share being for OPA and
PDA at just over $1 million.
Representative Galvin noted that APOC appeared to be the
only line item showing a reduction in funds for the
upcoming year. She asked whether the commission was already
meeting its mission or if there was another reason for the
reduction.
Ms. Bingham responded that she would follow up with more
information.
Representative Allard asked if the presentation listed the
number of employees under APOC and the amount of funding
designated to their income.
Ms. Bingham replied that she could follow up with the
details.
Representative Allard asked for the information to be fully
broken down to show the amounts APOC received and where the
funding went. She requested that the details be provided to
all members by email.
1:53:03 PM
Ms. Bingham continued to slide 9 and reviewed some of the
department's recent accomplishments. She reported that the
department maintained retirement and benefits operations
during system outages, automated payroll timesheet
approvals, which eliminated manual review of 7,500
timesheets per pay period, completed the statewide salary
study and implemented based recruitment, migrated disaster
recovery and Oracle systems to the cloud, which reduced
recovery time from days to minutes, and stabilized defense
services while reducing attorney vacancies.
Ms. Bingham reviewed slide 10 and summarized some of the
high level FY 27 budget changes department wide. She
reported that there was an addition of $2 million for an IT
class study implementation and $7.7 million for salary and
AlaskaCare rate adjustments. She explained that SSA
included 57 positions transferring back to original
agencies for accounts payable, travel, and expense
activities. She added that 24 permanent full-time positions
and 6 non-permanent positions were transferring from SSA to
DOF and the SSA director position was deleted due to the
reorganization.
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 11 and provided additional
detail on division changes and position transfers. She
reported that 40 permanent full-time payroll positions in
DOF were moving back to agencies. She listed position
transfers from DOF to agencies as follows: eight for the
Department of Corrections (DOC), six for the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG), one for the Department of Law (DOL),
one for the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
(DMVA), four for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
three for the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and 17 for
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT). She added that one accountant position transferred
to the Office of the Governor, OIT deleted one long term
vacant position for a reduction of $140,000, and PDA added
one holistic defense worker funded by the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority (AMHTA).
Ms. Bingham continued to slide 12 and explained that it
provided a consolidated view of the FY 27 proposed budget
by division and fund source, showing total allocations and
changes from FY 26. Some of the major shifts included the
elimination of SSA and an increase for DOF due to the
deconsolidation of SSA and the movement of procurement and
print services to CAS.
Ms. Bingham moved to slide 13 and reviewed vacancy trends.
She reported that vacancy rates had varied over time,
peaking in some divisions such as DOF and OIT for IT and
accountant positions. She noted that DMV positions were
experiencing high turnover in lower range positions such as
range 10 and range 12, but the department was prioritizing
the positions.
Co-Chair Josephson asked what the salary looked like for a
range 10 employee.
Ms. Bingham replied that she would need to follow up with
the information.
Co-Chair Josephson observed that employees at a range 10
did not appear satisfied with their wages and there was
notable turnover.
Ms. Bingham responded that employees typically moved up
from lower range positions, which contributed to the higher
turnover. She noted that range 10 was one of the lowest
range positions.
1:57:39 PM
Representative Hannan asked what a range 10 employee at DMV
would be doing.
Ms. Bingham deferred the question to her colleague.
KATHLEEN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES (via
teleconference), responded that a range 10 DMV employee was
frontline staff who helped customers in person, over the
phone, through the mail, and through online services. She
explained the employees processed everything the public
would need at the DMV short of the road skills test, which
were performed by range 12 employees and above. She
explained that range 10 employees processed driver's
licenses, commercial driver's licenses, and vehicle
transactions. She reiterated that anything the public would
go to the DMV for was processed by a range 10 employee.
Representative Hannan remarked she was somewhat surprised
by the response. She observed the range 10 employees
generated money for the state and interacted heavily with
the public. She noted that there was a stereotype about
negative experiences at DMV offices but she had generally
had positive experiences with DMV staff who were helpful
and able to solve problems quickly. She referenced examples
such as obtaining a permanent identification card and a
temporary handicap placard during knee surgery recovery.
She emphasized the extraordinary aptitude required to
interact with the public and solve problems and expressed
that the state needed to retain DMV employees. She
suggested the salary study might recommend placing those
positions at a higher range and stressed the importance of
strong frontline service delivery for Alaskans.
Representative Allard asked how much a range 10, step A
employee made.
Ms. Wallace responded that the total cost for a range 10,
step A was $79,820 per year and that the base salary the
employee took home was $40,599.
Representative Allard asked for confirmation that a step A
range 10 made almost $80,000 to process driver's licenses
and related work.
Ms. Wallace clarified that the $79,820 figure included all
benefits, including health insurance.
Representative Allard asked what the actual salary was as
compared to the full benefits amount.
Ms. Wallace responded that the base salary minus benefits
was $40,599.
Representative Allard commented that the salary was a
"stinger" and she wanted the information out in the open.
2:02:44 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how many range 10
employees moved up into new positions. He thought it would
be useful to know whether employees were being promoted
rather than leaving for outside employment.
Ms. Bingham responded that obtaining the information would
be somewhat challenging because employees could move to
other agencies and the department might not have full
statewide visibility. She indicated the department could
look into the matter and provide whatever additional detail
was available.
Representative Tomaszewski expressed his appreciation but
advised the department not to spend excessive time on the
request.
Ms. Bingham continued with slide 14 and explained that it
showed vacancy percentages by RDU. She reported that the
overall vacancy rate for FY 26 was about 17 percent. She
clarified that the data represented full-time positions
only as of December 15, 2025. She added that if full-time
and non-permanent positions as of January 15 were combined,
the department's vacancy rate would be 13.1 percent. She
explained that the department elected to use full-time
positions when presenting vacancy rates because of the
seasonal nature of non-permanent positions.
Co-Chair Josephson observed that DRM staff were highly
skilled and educated and asked what conclusion should be
drawn from the vacancy rate in the division.
Ms. Bingham confirmed the positions were highly skilled and
explained there were three vacant positions in a small
division of six. She reported the department was actively
recruiting for all three positions and noted the director
of DRM was available for further questions.
Representative Galvin noted that funding had not increased
for APOC and it had a 33 percent vacancy rate. She asked
whether the high percentage was due to the small size of
the commission.
Ms. Bingham responded that APOC was very small and the
vacancy percentages could increase quickly when even a few
positions were vacant. She added that the department
prioritized filling positions in small divisions with
limited staff.
2:06:11 PM
Representative Stapp remarked that the state had shifted
back and forth for decades between centralizing and
decentralizing functions such as payroll. He suggested the
department and OMB document the reasons for the current
decentralization so future decision makers would understand
the rationale.
Ms. Bingham agreed and indicated the department would work
to ensure the reasoning was documented.
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 15 and explained that it
provided additional vacancy detail by component. She noted
that DOF and DOP had prominent vacancy challenges and
reported that recruitment and retention remained priorities
across the department. She stated that vacancy rates by
division ranged from 4.9 percent to 33.3 percent.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Mr. Terrance Haas was online.
After learning that he was, he asked Mr. Haas to describe
how he would solve the trial delay issue referenced in the
ProPublica stories if he had full authority.
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference),
remarked that if he were a benign dictator with unlimited
resources and power, the answer would be partially
procedural and outside his control as a public defender,
specifically the way cases moved through the court system.
He explained that his two consistent needs were employing
enough lawyers and employing lawyers with sufficient
experience. He conveyed the agency was working toward the
goal but he would prefer to progress faster. He reported
that he was hiring lawyers at a rapid pace, but it took
time to train them. He indicated that with unlimited
authority he would ensure a large group of highly
experienced lawyers were ready to handle serious cases at a
reasonable speed. Under current conditions, he emphasized
the need for time to train staff and noted that effort was
ongoing.
Co-Chair Josephson posed the same question to Mr. Stinson
regarding the trial backlog and frequent waiving of the
speedy trial rule.
2:09:37 PM
JAMES STINTSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference),
remarked that he appreciated that Mr. Haas had addressed
the question first. He explained that in a resource-
constrained system, the key issue was overall capacity: how
many cases the system could process, at what speed, and how
many trials could be handled. He indicated that the answer
depended on staffing levels, experience, and court
capacity, including the number of judges and courtrooms. He
explained that many cases had been waiting a long time for
a trial and would not resolve without a trial, which
required significant time and resources. He noted that
attorneys could not talk to other clients or resolve other
cases when they were in trial. He added that the entire
system was feeling the strain and he had been having
productive discussions with Ms. Bingham and OMB regarding
agency challenges. He expressed appreciation for the
resources provided by the legislature and the governor's
office and acknowledged the broader resource constraints.
Representative Allard asked if she could be provided with a
breakdown of vacancies by department.
Ms. Bingham responded that the information was being
prepared. She reported that a memo had just been completed
and was undergoing internal review and would be transmitted
to the committee soon.
Representative Allard asked if the information would
include position titles, pay, and length of vacancy.
Ms. Bingham replied that she would provide as much detail
as possible.
2:12:01 PM
AT EASE
2:14:03 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: STATEWIDE SALARY STUDY UPDATE BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION
AIMEE DEVARIS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, thanked the committee for the
opportunity to provide a status update on the salary study.
She noted she was just shy of her three-month anniversary
in state service and asked for patience as she navigated
procedures and expectations. She introduced the PowerPoint
presentation "Department of Administration Statewide Salary
Study" February 2, 2026 (copy on file).
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 2 and relayed that the
statewide salary study was launched following a legislative
appropriation in FY 24 of about $1 million. She explained
it was a multiyear appropriation to account for the large
scope of the project. She relayed that the primary goals
were to increase applicant pools for state positions by
making the state a more competitive employer, and to
identify potential cost savings for job classes where the
state was over market in its salary structure.
Ms. Devaris reported that the salary study was conducted by
Segel, finalized in January of 2025, and released in April
of 2025. She conveyed that the study provided insight into
how the state's base pay compared with market benchmarks.
She highlighted that the report identified complexities in
the state's current classification and pay system,
particularly challenges created by broad pay structures
that grouped diverse occupational roles under a single pay
plan. She explained that the structure limited the state's
ability to make across-the-board changes. She added that
Segel's recommendations focused on modernizing
classification and pay plans in a manner that was equitable
and agile in response to changing workforce conditions.
Ms. Devaris advanced to slide 3 and explained that DOA
issued a request for information (RFI) to move the
initiative forward. She reported that the RFI was open from
December 18, 2025, through February 2, 2026, to gather
input from qualified vendors regarding timelines and costs
associated with implementing structural changes to the
state's classification and pay plans.
Representative Stapp asked if the state had paid for a
study, received information from the study, and was now
requesting another study to explain how to implement the
prior study.
Ms. Devaris responded that DOA learned a great deal from
the salary study and the resulting report. She explained
that because the department was considering structural
changes to the state's classification system, which would
be a complicated project, it issued the RFI to obtain
refined information to help create plans, scope costs, and
identify potential implementation phases.
Representative Stapp asked when the study was expected to
be completed and implemented.
Ms. Devaris clarified that as the RFI closed earlier that
day, the department would receive information from
qualified vendors to help create a plan or strategy for
moving forward. She emphasized that it was not another
salary study but rather information needed to scope a
comprehensive project to revamp the classification system.
Representative Stapp acknowledged the distinction and asked
when the process would be completed. He noted that the
study had taken considerable time. He asked if the process
was planned to be completed later in the current year, next
year, or much later.
Ms. Devaris replied that it would take time to establish a
plan and anticipated costs, and to coordinate with OMB and
the governor's office to determine a timeline. She noted
that nothing had been allocated in the proposed FY 27
budget and the planning process would likely take at least
a year.
2:20:47 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked how many iterations of reports
Segel had provided to the department. He asked how many
times the state returned to Segal and requested that
adjustments be made to the report.
Ms. Devaris responded that she did not have the
information.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether Ms. Devaris knew if the
state had ever asked Segel to change its report.
Ms. Devaris responded that since joining DOA in November of
2025, she had focused on the existing salary study report
and had drafted the RFI early in her tenure to move the
process forward. She reiterated that she did not know the
requested historical information.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the report included any
analysis of geographic differentials.
Ms. Devaris replied that the report did not. She explained
that geographic differentials were a separate compensation
element negotiated with the unions and were not included in
the salary study.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the state took the position
that its communications with Segal were proprietary. He
wondered whether the report had been influenced based on
what was asked of Segal could be made public.
Ms. Devaris apologized and indicated she did not have the
information.
2:23:19 PM
Representative Galvin understood that no changes would be
made for FY 27. She asked if another update might be needed
later in the year because the data would no longer apply to
FY 28. She asked whether the data would remain applicable.
Ms. Devaris responded that the request for information was
not intended to update salary data for job classes but
rather to inform how the state might approach an overhaul
of the pay and classification system. She indicated that
there might be some refinement of data as changes were
pursued, but she believed the 2025 salary study would
remain useful.
Representative Galvin asked for more information about the
cost of the updates. She asked if there would be any
additional cost beyond the initial $1 million.
Ms. Devaris replied that the RFI was only a request for
information and had no associated cost.
Representative Galvin asked whether three-year-old salary
data would be sufficiently current for a salary structure
change that might not occur until FY 28.
Ms. Devaris responded that the salary study and the
structural review were different efforts. She noted that
the salary study provided benchmark comparisons to market,
while future structural work would focus on classification
changes. She added that the state used more current data
when it implemented changes for specific job families, such
as for the IT class study.
2:27:01 PM
Representative Bynum asked for clarification about Ms.
Devaris' background. He asked if she was new to the
division or if she had been promoted internally.
Ms. Devaris responded that she was new to state service and
had recently retired from federal service after a 31-year
career.
Representative Bynum noted there had been significant
discussion about the salary study, including questions
about when the legislature would see results and what
information had been used. He asked whether there was an
overall strategy for deploying the study and implementing
the RFI, and what expectations the legislature should have
moving forward.
Ms. Devaris responded that the salary study was among
several high-priority efforts she was undertaking. She
indicated there would be a collaborative approach to
developing a strategy to pursue the study's results, should
the state move forward with comprehensive changes to the
classification plan and related pay scales. She noted that
the planning would occur in partnership with OMB and the
governor's office, would be reviewed by the legislature,
and would involve the unions. She emphasized that the
effort would be a comprehensive project.
Representative Bynum explained that he wanted to understand
whether the division would develop and present an overall
goal or strategy, or whether the administration had already
established goals that the division was being directed to
carry out.
Ms. Devaris responded that she would take the lead in
reviewing the RFI results and developing a suite of
potential options for next steps.
Representative Hannan noted that there had been significant
tension and expectation surrounding the salary study. She
asked if OMB had calculated the cost of implementing the
benchmark jobs at both the fiftieth and sixty-fifth
percentiles and whether those figures could be provided to
the committee.
Ms. Devaris responded that she did not have the numbers
available and would follow up.
Representative Hannan remarked that she found it shocking
that the commissioner was not present for the meeting given
the level of legislative interest in the salary study. She
reiterated her request for the information and noted the
committee had spent a year seeking specificity on the
study. She emphasized that the information would not bind
the legislature to act, but it would help inform its
decision-making. She hoped that the calculations in the
study that cost the state $1 million would illustrate the
costs of implementing the study. She requested that the
commissioner bring the information to the committee.
2:33:16 PM
Co-Chair Josephson expressed appreciation to Ms. Devaris
for appearing before the committee. There had been concern
about commissioners not making themselves available, which
he had generally not found to be the case until the current
day.
Representative Allard commented that transitioning from
federal to state service was difficult. She asked whether
the commissioner was currently in Juneau and why the
commissioner had not appeared.
Ms. Devaris replied that she did not believe the
commissioner was in town and she was unsure of the
commissioner's travel plans. She explained that the
commissioner had asked her to present because the
department had interpreted the agenda item as a brief
update and anticipated returning later for a more detailed
discussion after reviewing the RFI results.
Representative Allard remarked that commissioners were
generally present for similar meetings.
2:35:09 PM
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 4. She explained that while
the broader statewide salary study effort was ongoing, the
state was implementing the completed IT job class study.
She noted that the IT study began in 2020 and its
implementation represented the culmination of a multiyear
effort to modernize state IT job classifications. She
explained that the modernization was intended to support
recruitment, retention, and career progression by aligning
job architecture with current workforce needs. She reported
that the first phase rollout was scheduled for April 13,
2026, and that the modernization affected more than 600
positions across all 15 state agencies.
Ms. Devaris added that, in addition to the IT job class
modernization, nine job class studies were actively
underway at the request of state agencies to address
identified recruitment and retention issues. She explained
that Administrative Order (AO) 343 was continuing to
advance forward and would modernize hiring practices by
redefining minimum qualifications for more than 350 job
classes. The modernization included using competency-based
standards rather than relying solely on degree
requirements. She reported that 10 agencies were
participating in the effort to strengthen recruitment.
Representative Galvin asked what the difference was between
the reference to 600 positions in 15 agencies and the later
reference to 10 participating agencies.
Ms. Devaris explained the two figures referred to different
efforts. There were over 600 IT positions across 15
agencies that would be impacted by the IT job class study.
She noted that the work to advance AO 343 involved
competency-based minimum qualifications for jobs, which was
broader and currently involved 10 agencies.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether there was a simple way to
explain the difference between the IT job class study and
the nine a la carte studies. He asked if one was complete
while nine were pending. He wondered if the other studies
were operating on a different schedule than the larger
Segel salary study that was awaiting implementation.
Ms. Devaris replied that staff in the classification
program routinely received requests from agencies to
conduct job class studies, typically due to slow
recruitment or high turnover. She explained that the work
was part of the ongoing maintenance of the state's
classification plan, for which DOP and the personnel
director were statutorily responsible. Comparatively, the
Segel statewide salary study had been conducted on an
entirely different scale as a benchmarking exercise to help
the state understand potential systemwide improvements. She
emphasized that the efforts were very different in scope
and purpose.
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether the IT study should be
interpreted as reflecting that there was an urgency to
recruit and retain IT employees.
Ms. Devaris responded that the issue predated her tenure
but she understood that the state's IT job classes had
become significantly outdated. She explained that some
position descriptions no longer reflected current work,
which had made recruitment and retention of IT
professionals difficult. She noted that the IT study was
much larger than typical classification studies, which
usually examined five to ten positions, whereas the IT
effort involved more than 600 positions.
Representative Hannan understood that the salary study
compared similar job titles across markets, while a
classification study evaluated whether the duties being
performed matched the assigned job level. She asked Ms.
Devaris to identify the nine job classification studies
currently underway and whether they were concentrated in
particular occupational areas.
2:42:53 PM
Ms. Devaris replied that the classification studies
included park rangers, positions under the Alaska State
Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR), community care
licensing specialists, vocational rehabilitation
specialists, public assistance field service workers,
forest and fire management positions, emergency services
dispatchers, and emergency services supervisors. The
studies were recently updated to include forensic
scientists and forensic lab managers. She noted that the
job classes were highly specific across multiple
departments.
Co-Chair Schrage asked whether there was any reason the
state could not implement the salary study without
conducting a classification study alongside it.
Ms. Devaris responded that the scope of the salary study
had been to provide data on how base pay in Alaska compared
to the external market. She clarified that the report had
never been intended to prescribe specific pay adjustments
for individual job classes. She noted the study had used
benchmark jobs to inform where the state generally stood in
the market. She added that the purpose of issuing the
request for information was to obtain more detailed
implementation planning to determine appropriate next
steps.
Co-Chair Schrage asked if it had ever been the intent to
implement salary adjustments based solely on the salary
study. He asked whether it had always been understood that
classification work would also be necessary.
Ms. Devaris responded that she could not speak to the
original intent because it predated her tenure. Based on
her current review of the salary study results, she
believed an additional step was necessary to develop a
strategy or plan for how the state might proceed with
changes to the classification plan.
Co-Chair Schrage remarked that the presence of new
directors made implementation and fact-finding more
challenging, although he appreciated their willingness to
serve. He expressed concern that the legislature had funded
a $1 million salary study that now appeared dependent on
further classification work that could take at least a
year. He commented that vacancy rates remained high and
that the state faced a "hollowed-out" workforce with
uncompetitive salaries and no clear cost estimate for
fixing the problem. He observed that the timeline appeared
likely to extend into the next administration. He struggled
with understanding how to address the workforce challenges.
2:46:08 PM
Ms. Devaris replied that the department was not proposing
another salary study. She emphasized that the department
believed the best path forward was to consider structural
changes to the classification system because it was
extremely complex. She explained that the structural
improvements would make it easier to address compensation
issues in the future. She added that the department was
still addressing urgent issues through targeted job class
studies in areas experiencing recruitment problems, high
turnover, or misalignment between duties and
classifications.
Representative Stapp commented he had always wondered about
the meaning of the phrase "Byzantine bureaucracy" and felt
the discussion had illustrated it. He noted the issue had
been ongoing for a long time and he did not recall any
previous indication that a classification study would be
required. He thought the situation felt like being stuck in
a "bureaucratic malaise" and he was irritated by it. He
asked if Ms. Devaris had any suggestions for how DOA might
avoid a bureaucratic system that delayed desired results.
Ms. Devaris responded that the salary study had been one of
the key topics raised during her interview with the
department. She explained that she had conducted research
to understand what had been occurring, what the state
system looked like, and what changes were being considered.
She expressed that she was excited about the work ahead.
She believed improvements could be made and she was eager
to review the RFI responses once the solicitation closed.
She added that working on the project had been one of the
reasons she accepted the position.
Representative Stapp remarked that Ms. Devaris had made him
feel better already.
Representative Galvin asked what the cost was of the IT
classification study.
Ms. Bingham responded that the IT classification
implementation totaled approximately $2 million. She
clarified that OMB had elected to implement the IT
classification changes across all agencies and that the
department would need to follow up with OMB regarding the
total statewide cost.
Representative Galvin remarked that she believed the
statewide figure was higher, possibly around $9 million.
She remained concerned about high vacancy rates and the
state's ability to deliver services. She noted that there
were recurring challenges with administering the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) due to
staffing shortages. She expressed frustration with delays
and the pace of implementation. She agreed with
Representative Stapp's comments about bureaucracy. She
questioned why the RFI had been issued in November rather
than June so that it could be implemented in the budget.
She asserted that the process needed to be quicker and she
encouraged the department to think about the timing. She
commented that she had just read that the IT class study
implementation was $7.66 million.
2:53:39 PM
Representative Bynum asked for clarification on the cost of
the study.
Representative Galvin responded that the cost was $7.66
million.
Ms. Bingham agreed that the implementation cost of the IT
classification study across all agencies was $7.66 million.
She explained that DOA would receive $2.2 million of that
total. She clarified that the job classification work
referenced by Ms. Devaris was not being conducted to pick
apart or redo the salary study. She explained that job
class studies were routine maintenance performed on an
ongoing basis when specific service areas showed
recruitment or retention issues. She noted that the work
had existed prior to the statewide salary study. She added
that the IT job class study had been needed for years and
had been underway well before the completion of the salary
study.
Ms. Bingham continued that the statewide salary study
provided a higher level comparison of state pay relative to
national markets, while job class studies examined specific
occupational areas to allow DOP to address recruitment and
retention issues in targeted job classes. She emphasized
that the two efforts were separate bodies of work and that
the job class studies were part of routine maintenance
rather than work conducted in conjunction with the salary
study.
Representative Bynum indicated he had misunderstood and
that the full implementation figure now made more sense. He
noted he was new to his position as well and had been in
the position just over a year. He relayed that legislators
consistently heard that statewide vacancies were impeding
the state's ability to execute services for Alaskans. He
noted that one of the legislature's core responsibilities
was appropriating funds so the state could carry out its
duties. He was concerned that agencies continued to report
challenges tied to staffing shortages and competitive
compensation, and he noted that the statewide salary report
had taken a long time for the legislature to receive.
Representative Bynum asked whether any actions in the
salary study were being executed already or whether the
state was still waiting. He acknowledged the question might
be difficult to answer. He was frustrated because his
constituents were not receiving services they were supposed
to receive despite the legislature appropriating funds for
the services. He asked whether the study had been
implemented and if personnel shortages and pay
competitiveness were the primary barriers.
Ms. Devaris replied that she was not certain how best to
address the question. She explained that the division was
working to develop a plan to implement the results of the
salary study and emphasized that the effort would be
complex and would take time. She noted that the state
continued to use other mechanisms to address specific job
classes with recruitment or retention challenges, including
competency-based minimum qualifications to reduce hiring
barriers. She added that vacancies could stem from multiple
factors, including compensation, the nature of the work, or
recruitment barriers. The department was approaching the
issue from several angles.
2:59:38 PM
Representative Bynum expressed appreciation for the
response and acknowledged that Ms. Devaris was new to the
role. He conveyed frustration that agencies continued to
report under-execution due to staffing shortages and
noncompetitive wages. He remarked that auditors had raised
similar concerns the previous year and he anticipated the
committee might hear similar comments again. He emphasized
that the legislature faced an ongoing challenge in ensuring
the state delivered services to Alaskans.
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 5 and summarized the next
steps. She explained that DOP would assess the RFI results
once received to determine the viability of a large-scale
project to update the state's classification plan. She
added that the state would continue prioritizing targeted
job class studies to address immediate maintenance needs
within the current system while evaluating broader updates,
and longer-term implementation plans would be developed
based on the RFI findings.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that the phrase "immediate
maintenance needs" under the second bullet on the slide
appeared to refer to urgent areas such as IT positions. He
asked what would determine whether large-scale updates were
viable.
Ms. Devaris explained that the state was statutorily
required to maintain internal alignment under the State
Personnel Act, which established that fair and reasonable
compensation would be provided under the principle of like
pay for like work. She explained that when the department
referred to prioritizing immediate maintenance needs for
the current classification plan, it meant responding to
agency requests for job class studies when agencies
believed positions were out of alignment. She indicated
that the division reviewed the requests and moved them
forward. The statewide salary study operated at an entirely
different scale and used a different approach by examining
the system as a whole. She explained that the study was not
necessarily about funding but about the scope of
potentially updating the entire classification system or
large portions of it versus continuing the current practice
of addressing individual job classes or targeted
occupational studies.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that the nine job classes on
slide 4 involved forensic scientists and forensic lab
technicians. He understood that the salary studies for the
aforementioned forensic positions had reportedly been
completed two years earlier and resulted in range
increases. He acknowledged that there might be a
distinction between a technician and a scientist. He added
that he had been told that the nine job class studies were
previously published publicly, but a login was now required
to view the information. He stated he did not know whether
the information was accurate but suggested the department
review the matter and remedy it if appropriate.
Co-Chair Josephson acknowledged that the presentation had
not been easy. There was concern about inflation, out-
migration, workforce churn, and competitiveness. He
remarked that many believed the state remained an excellent
place to work with strong staff, but state employment used
to be even more competitive. He added that many believed
the defined benefit approach under HB 78 would help address
workforce challenges.
HB 263 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 265 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the meeting agenda for the
following day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:05:47 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| DOA Mid Year-StatusReport 013026.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
|
| LFD DOA-Graph 013026.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DOA SalaryStudyFullReport 042025.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB 53 DOA LFD IntentMemoFY2026 013026.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |
| DOA HFIN Department Overview 02.02.2026 Final V3-2.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 263 |
| Salary Study Update Briefing for House Finance 2-2-26.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 2026.02.05 HFIN DOA Follow-up to Salary Study 2026.02.02 Hearing - Salary Study.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 263 |
| DOA Response HFIN Overview FY2026 Management Plan PCN Vacancies as of 12-15-2025.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2026 1:30:00 PM |
HB 263 |