02/19/2002 03:32 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
February 19, 2002
3:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Chenault, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Joe Green
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Sharon Cissna
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act making supplemental and other appropriations for
homeland security; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 370
"An Act relating to the issuance of state-guaranteed revenue
bonds by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to finance
mortgages for qualifying veterans; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 370 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 324
SHORT TITLE:HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1972 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1972 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
01/16/02 1972 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/16/02 1972 (H) SPREADSHEET BY DEPT. COST
01/16/02 1972 (H) REFERRED TO MLV
02/12/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/12/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(MLV)
02/19/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 370
SHORT TITLE:GUARANTEED REVENUE BONDS FOR VETERANS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/01/02 2117 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/01/02 2117 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
02/01/02 2117 (H) FN1: ZERO(REV)
02/01/02 2117 (H) FN2: (GOV)
02/01/02 2117 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/19/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JULIE STINSON, ALMR Project Manager
Information Technology Group
Department of Administration
5900 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 324, presented
information and answered questions on the Alaska Land Mobile
Radio (ALMR) project.
LARRY WALSH, Director/Chief Technology Officer
Information Technology Group
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110206
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0206
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 324, presented
information and answered questions about the ALMR project.
DIANE SCHENKER, Criminal Justice Information Services Manager
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 324, explained Item 17
of the priority recommendations and answered questions on Items
99 and 101.
RANDY CRAWFORD, Colonel, Director
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1224
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 324, explained Items
87-100 and Item 102; answered questions.
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 111200
Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 324, answered
questions on Items 100-102.
JUDITH DeSPAIN, Deputy Executive Director
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 101020
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-1020
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 370.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR MIKE CHENAULT called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.
Representatives Chenault, Masek, Murkowski, Green, and Hayes
were present at the call to order.
HB 324-HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
Number 0053
CHAIR CHENAULT announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 324, "An Act making supplemental and other appropriations
for homeland security; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CHENAULT informed participants that the committee would
consider Item 17, followed by Items 87-102 [of the document
"Terrorism Disaster Policy Cabinet: Cost Estimates for Highest
Priority Recommendations," dated 1/14/02]. First, however, he
asked whether Ms. Stinson wished to add to her previous
testimony.
Number 0247
JULIE STINSON, ALMR Project Manager, Information Technology
Group, Department of Administration, informed members that Mr.
Walsh would address a document regarding financial matters
relating to the [Alaska Land Mobile Radio (ALMR)] project.
Number 0311
LARRY WALSH, Director/Chief Technology Officer, Information
Technology Group, Department of Administration, referred to the
two-page document, including a pie chart, mentioned by Ms.
Stinson. [Titled "ALMR Project Funding Responsibilities," it
was dated February 19, 2002.] Mr. Walsh explained that it shows
what would be required to fund the ALMR project, from the
state's perspective, and sets out the current financial plan.
MR. WALSH informed members that although the state funding
responsibility would be $55,300,000, the hope is that the
majority would come through a federal request and that the total
state funding would be $6.1 million, of which $2.3 million
already has been appropriated. He acknowledged there may have
been confusion at the previous hearing because of talk about a
different funding requirement by the different partners in the
project. Returning to the two-page document, he noted that the
second page breaks out the $3.8 million still required, in order
to give an idea of when the [legislature] would receive a
request for that amount. He added:
We believe we have the funds available already to move
ahead with Phase 0 and Phase 1, to some extent, in
that the balance of Phase 1 and Phase 2, 3, and 4
would require the [$]3.8 [million] phased over the
fiscal year 04 through 07. So, from a bottom-line
point of view, we think it's important to move ahead
with Phase 0.
We think Phase 0 will answer a lot of questions with
[regard] to the business model - how the partners will
participate in the partnership, [and] also illustrate
for the participants ... the features of the
technology and how they could take advantage of it -
and that we, in fact, have the funds available to move
ahead, but that we wanted to make sure the committee
understood, Mr. Chair, ... the state funds that will
be required in future years to complete the [$]6.1
million necessary to move ahead for the full
implementation.
Number 0584
CHAIR CHENAULT surmised that the foregoing was a best-guess
scenario, hoping the state receives roughly $43 million in
federal matching grants or money from other sources.
MR. WALSH noted that provided at the previous hearing was a
document showing the different funding sources being pursued.
However, those funding commitments hadn't been nailed down.
Number 0660
CHAIR CHENAULT suggested if those funding sources weren't
viable, then the state's share to fully implement the program
according to the schedule would increase from $6.1 [million] to
the total estimated $55 [million].
MR. WALSH offered his belief that the phases could stand alone,
and that in the event of a funding shortfall, "we could regroup
and reattack that problem" and a lot of the investment in place
wouldn't go to waste.
CHAIR CHENAULT said he was just interested in the [state's]
total cost, although it would be great if the federal matching
money came through.
Number 0761
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Phase 0 is approximately "50-50"
and asked why, after that, there is "this strong leveraging."
MS. STINSON answered that the initial funding had gone to the
90-10 split because there was reason to believe - through
homeland security funding and other national programs - that
this is possible. However, the money hasn't come through yet.
She added, "Regardless of where we go from here, we need to have
a business model in place when we do decide to implement the
system so we know how it will be operated."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to concern expressed by Chair
Chenault about what happens if this [money doesn't come
through]. He asked whether the project may be phased out or
whether the state will spend $55 million more.
MS. STINSON said Chair Chenault's concern is valid. She added,
"We can only speculate at this time, ... and that's what we're
presenting you."
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked when there might be greater
certainty regarding either the percentage that the federal
government is willing to pick up or what the federal financial
commitment will be to the project.
MS. STINSON offered that there will be a better idea of funding
in the next six months, and more certainty about the percentages
by the end of the year, after the concept demonstration.
Number 1008
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what Alaska's competition is for
these funding sources.
MS. STINSON responded that only perhaps five other states are
ahead of the game in asking for money like this. Furthermore,
Alaska is unique in its military involvement and its statewide
approach to this project. There may be funding associated with
the "public safety wireless network program" sponsored by [the
U.S. Departments of] Treasury and Justice.
Number 1125
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether other states are showing this
kind of leveraging, or whether the uniqueness is due to being a
huge state with few people. He asked whether other states are
projecting a 90-10 split as well.
MS. STINSON said she didn't know, but could get back with other
states' requested percentages. She offered her understanding
that unlike Alaska, however, many states have a tax base that
could cover this with relatively little impact on constituents.
Referring to a "funding options" page provided the previous week
and alluded to by Mr. Walsh, she said some of those options
would be explored.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether other states' total budgets
are similar to this, bigger, or smaller.
MS. STINSON answered that they are all relatively the same - in
the hundreds of millions of dollars.
MR. WALSH, in response to a question from Chair Chenault,
referred to the two-page handout and explained that the $680,000
for FY 04 to complete [Phase 1] would not be required at this
time to do the demonstration project. He added, "Our numbers
are starting to firm up, and we may have led the committee ...
or the legislature at some point to believe we needed that at
this time." He acknowledged that a lot of information has been
thrown at several committees. He clarified that the attempt
today, with this pared-down approach, is to focus on what is
needed to complete the demonstration project; that will answer a
lot of questions and will illustrate "the partnership, the
business model, and the features and functions that we can
realize by pushing ahead."
Number 1464
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether "local government users" refers to
municipalities and boroughs.
MR. WALSH answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether it refers to Juneau, Fairbanks,
[and Anchorage]. He referred to a memorandum from the Alaska
Municipal League and said "their portion is [$]29.4 million."
Suggesting that the Kenai Peninsula Borough is probably ahead of
some others regarding disaster planning, Chair Chenault said he
didn't know what the "hit" on his borough would be, but it seems
like a fairly big sum to be asking for. He expressed curiosity
regarding how and why that number was arrived at.
MR. WALSH deferred to Ms. Stinson.
MS. STINSON answered that the "local government users" numbers
came from the system design and analysis performed about a year
and a half ago; local governments filled out a survey regarding
types of equipment they had and radio usage they needed. She
added that these ballpark numbers came from "the number of users
out there, calculated by a radio cost." Ms. Stinson offered her
belief that many government grants exist for user or subscriber
equipment for emergency management and law enforcement. She
added, "We ... have a couple of documents written already to
assist local governments in finding and writing the grants."
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether local municipalities know what they
might be getting into by signing on regarding this project.
MS. STINSON replied that currently it isn't a mandate for local
governments to use the system. The state needs a new system,
however, because its system is aging. Furthermore, the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) has a mandate, "and the other
federal agencies need to move over to a new system." Although
$29 million looks like a big number, she expressed confidence
that there is at least that amount of radio gear already owned
statewide by local governments.
MS. STINSON suggested there are several options for local
governments such as planning a transition to the new system as
funds become available through grants. As their equipment ages,
perhaps they could buy a new [Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials (APCO)] "P-25" that would be able to
talk on the ALMR system as well, rather than older-style
equipment. "We would integrate their existing system until they
could afford - or not - getting on the backbone or the statewide
system," she added.
Number 1633
MS. STINSON, in response to a question from Chair Chenault,
referred to the pie chart showing [$29,400,000] for local
government [users] and [$16,075,000] for federal non-DOD users.
She explained:
Both of those numbers ... are figured by subscriber or
portable units; they're not ... in the mix for paying
for any of the infrastructure or backbone of the
system. The state and the DOD - the Department of
Defense - are trying to take on paying for the
infrastructure between the two of them because they
have the most sites out there. So the state and the
Department of Defense are trying to ... get federal
money to pay for ... all of the infrastructure.
Number 1703
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that completion through Phase 1 would
require state funding of about $3 million [$2.3 million for
Phase 0 and $680,000 for Phase 1]. If there were a problem at
that point with cost sharing, for example, or if the program
didn't appear as good as previously believed, he asked what the
state would end up with. He offered his understanding from the
previous hearing that the new equipment could "talk" to the old
equipment, but that the old equipment "can't talk back."
MS. STINSON offered a scenario in which $6 million has been
received from the federal government to do Phase 1, which she
called "a build-out of the northern area." She explained:
We would build out the north zone, and the people in
the northern regions would have the new system online
and available. ... Then we wanted to move on to Phase
2 but didn't have any money. What would happen is,
our existing system would just be hooked into the
newer-technology system. They could still talk. They
don't lose features, but they don't have the new
features available to them of the new radios.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested in that case, the state would be
"down" a little bit of money, but communications would still be
at least as good as currently.
MS. STINSON answered, "Yes, and in the Fairbanks region they
would be much better. They would have interoperability amongst
all the different agencies."
Number 1929
MS. STINSON, in response to a question from Representative
Murkowski, explained that the $29 million [for Phase 0] was
based on sending out a survey and then having "state and
Motorola individuals" go to communities and interview people to
see what equipment existed, how many radios they had, and what
their needs were. The system was designed around the radio
count, not necessarily in the communities, but [in total].
Fairbanks is included in this number and is getting grants right
now. Ms. Stinson added, "They have a million dollars, and
they're looking for a little bit more for centralized dispatch,
and then the radio equipment as well." She continued:
We get calls on a daily basis from even state agencies
or some federal agencies, local governments, saying,
"I understand you're putting in a system. What kind
of radios should I buy? I'm going to get money in two
years." Or, "I'm going to get money next year that
only has a 12-month cycle on it; what should I buy?"
And it's very difficult for us to tell them because we
don't know what our implementation schedule is,
because of the funding issues. And ... through the
concept demonstration, [we're] hopefully going to find
out many different things to bring back to local
governments about the costs, the operating costs.
Basically, the radio costs should come down because
more of this type of equipment's coming out, so that
... $29 million may be very high.
Number 2054
MR. WALSH referred to a brochure in the packet titled "Alaska
Land Mobile Radio Project"; on the back cover, there is a short
listing of communities involved in the interviews. He offered
his belief that over 50 separate interviews were taken during
that design analysis, to get an understanding of what "kind of
quantities and device counts" communities would bring to the
table. He said that is where the $29 million figure came from.
MR. WALSH further explained that in the past, communities have
put in stand-alone systems that were unable to "interoperate."
With this new approach, however, the state and military take
care of the infrastructure, and then the community just has to
worry about its devices to plug in to participate. He added,
"So it actually affords them the opportunity to get onboard
without having to worry about the backbone, if you will, as long
as they buy radios that participate in this open standards that
... the partnership has adopted."
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether, midway through this four-
year program, some equipment that has been purchased might start
to become obsolete.
MR. WALSH noted that for a long project, a big concern for
participants is that the standard will somehow change. He
expressed confidence, however, that the APCO P-25 standard has
"enough forward vision plus enough backward compatibility that
we can bring this train along." He added:
If we leapt as far ahead as some of the vendors'
products would allow us to do, we would leave a lot of
the municipalities behind; so it's ... sort of a
delicate balance to work both ends of that spectrum.
We feel that the vendors that have signed on to
participate in this P-25 standard understand that;
they're already looking at some of the new
capabilities of the digital technology that are just
emerging, and ... that standard will actually evolve
and give us a growth pattern to move forward that we
can feel comfortable that we have ... some headroom
in.
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether there is the ability, then,
for a feature to be added in the third year, for example, to
bring [the first-year technology] forward to be compatible with
[fourth-year technology].
MR. WALSH explained that many features coming online now are
software-based, rather than requiring a hardware change. That
flexibility adds a lot of efficiency and doesn't require the
amount of investment seen in the past with older technology.
Number 2260
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to testimony that Motorola
[personnel] had gone out in the field. She sought assurance
that this isn't a sole-source situation, but that a whole array
of eligible contractors could participate.
MR. WALSH responded:
The P-25 standard that the partnership has adopted has
a number of vendors that can participate with the
handhelds and the mobile and console devices. And we
believe that number will just continue to grow. In
fact, a big part of ... one of the nine things that we
want to prove in the Phase 0 demonstration is that
different vendors' equipment can play in the system
and ... we don't lose functionality. And so,
therefore, we can tell a municipality, "Here's the
list of vendors that you could procure through," so
that we do leave ... the multiple-vendor options open,
because we think that's very important ... to the
credibility and to the liability of the system.
CHAIR CHENAULT thanked Mr. Walsh and Ms. Stinson.
Number 2392
DIANE SCHENKER, Criminal Justice Information Services Manager,
Anchorage Office, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference
regarding Item 17 of the priority recommendations, "Implement
security measures to protect criminal history (APSIN) data and
conform to NCIC [National Crime Information Center] security
policies."
MS. SCHENKER explained that Item 17 relates to improving
security for the Alaska Public Safety Information System
(APSIN), the statewide law-enforcement computer system. It
would bring the state into [alignment] with new, higher Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) security standards with regard to
preventing and responding to terrorist attacks or "any other
unauthorized access, tampering, or destruction of these
records." The budget is based on an estimate from other states
- specifically Kansas, which has met the FBI's newer
requirements - but is "scaled to Alaskan size."
Number 2429
MS. SCHENKER, in response to a question from Chair Chenault,
explained that the three main areas that require upgrades
involve encryption of data, user authentication, and intrusion
detection. Today, data is encrypted only from APSIN to the
FBI's NCIC system, whereas the future requirement is encryption
from beginning to end. User authentication will be upgraded to
something more reliable such as tokens, which require a password
but generate many passwords that are only good for two minutes;
another conceivable option is having people identify themselves
at their devices through a biometric identification such as a
fingerprint, although there may be technology constraints when
the department is ready to go forward. And future intrusion
detection will require "much more active, real-time types of
detections," rather than passive logging and monitoring.
Number 2533
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled that a few years ago, there was
some problem with APSIN. He asked whether this system, even
with the rotating password and so forth, allows the ability to
go back and find out who entered the system, and for what sort
of information.
MS. SCHENKER answered that no current capability would be lost,
"and we're capable of always identifying who's made any inquiry,
and we retain those logs for three years." This [system] would
be in addition.
Number 2583
RANDY CRAWFORD, Colonel, Director, Division of Alaska State
Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), came forward to
testify, noting that from the department's perspective, Item 87
would be removed because of timing issues with the academy.
[Item 87 read, "Add 17 state troopers to handle increased
security requirements statewide."]
Number 2783
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 88 ["Add 2 state
troopers and two civilians for additional analysis and field
surveillance capability"]. He suggested that two court-service
officers need to be hired in places where troopers now serve
process and so forth, to free up those who aren't entirely doing
trooper work. He mentioned proactive intelligence gathering,
for example, and the relationship with the FBI in that regard.
For preventive law enforcement, he surmised that this would be
some of the most valuable money spent.
Number 2898
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 89 ["Add 2 troopers to
increase security in the Valdez area"]. He noted that there is
a timing issue here as well because the next academy is in FY
03. In response to a question from Chair Chenault, he affirmed
that there has been an increase in troopers [in Valdez], but
said they are rotated from other areas, which taxes other
[communities]; he indicated that practice may be ceasing.
CHAIR CHENAULT commended the department for its efforts since
the September 11 [2001 terrorist attacks on the East Coast].
TAPE 02-10, SIDE B
Number 2962
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that the private sector is increasing
security in [the Valdez area] as well. He asked whether this
whole concept allows a fairly good interplay among
jurisdictions, duties, or areas covered. He requested
confirmation that there wouldn't be duplication.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that there is too much work for
duplication. He pointed out that private security personnel
often are reluctant to take action without a trooper on the
scene. He mentioned cutbacks dating to the early 1990s that
have affected the number of available personnel.
Number 2889
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 90 ["Homeland Security
Supplemental Costs"]. He pointed out that after September 11,
2001, the entire "commission division" was put on standby for
the first several days, incurring costs; in addition, state
troopers involved in moving prisoners both in Alaska and in the
Lower 48 were impacted because of the cancellation of all
flights at the time. There also were exercises conducted on
November 1 in conjunction with both the "FBI oversight" and
pipeline security people. And because of the subsequent
anthrax-related scares [and deaths elsewhere], substantial costs
were incurred because the troopers coordinated and facilitated
information as well as transportation to the labs; furthermore,
masks and protective equipment were purchased, even though the
purchases were temporary and stop-gap types of gear. Colonel
Crawford indicated details could be provided.
Number 2792
COLONEL CRAWFORD addressed Item 91 ["Temporary checkpoint at
Yukon River Bridge"]. He said this is fairly important to the
department "because we're pretty much operating in the red
because of this issue." He explained that this checkpoint has
been very expensive, and is a result of responding [to the
September 11 events]. In response to a question from
Representative Murkowski, he explained that the Dalton Highway
has been handled by the Fairbanks Rural Unit - troopers
stationed in Fairbanks who are assigned to this unit and whose
presence there is greatest during the tourist season. That has
been beefed up substantially [since September 11].
Number 2724
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed her concern about having
[public] access on the Dalton Highway, which just goes up to a
private facility, although perhaps there are a few villages
along the way. She suggested perhaps the first mistake was
having the federal government pay to pave it.
Number 2702
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN turned attention to Item 92 ["Add 6
troopers and 1 civilian for a permanent post south of the Yukon
River Bridge on the Dalton Highway"]. Comparing figures with
the request in Item 89 for two troopers, he asked why the amount
for Item 92 appears double what it would seem.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that the trooper posts on all the
highway systems ideally would involve a sergeant and six
troopers, to allow 24-hour coverage. Item 92 has "dusted off"
the original Dalton Highway proposal for a trooper post with six
troopers, so there would be a trooper on duty somewhere on the
highway 24 hours a day. The difference is that Valdez is part
of the Glennallen post. Regarding the dollar difference, there
would need to be housing [provided for the troopers] on the
Dalton Highway, which has no housing.
COLONEL CRAWFORD, in response to a question from Chair Chenault,
said Item 92 is for a trooper post similar to that at Homer,
Seward, or Girdwood, with the ability to respond by road or air
to incidents up and down the highway north of the bridge. He
added that it needs to be pushed out a year because of the
budget timing, if considered. In response to a further question
regarding ticket revenues, he said there would be commercial
enforcement along that highway during the winter, when there is
substantial commercial traffic. Furthermore, the troopers would
be given responsibility for the villages to the east of the
Yukon River bridge, in the Fort Yukon area and so forth. "There
would be plenty to do, I think," he concluded.
Number 2539
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 93 ["Add 6 state
troopers for ground patrols along the pipeline"]. He said it
isn't possible during the FY 02 supplemental budget, but
provides 24-hour coverage for the Delta Junction and Glennallen
posts and includes an additional post in the Paxson area; those
would be in addition to the existing posts, to allow 24-hour
coverage along the Richardson Highway. Referring to overtime
worked, he pointed out that since security was increased after
September 11, a couple of people ended up being deported by the
INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] and there was
follow-up by the FBI, just based on troopers' ability to "get to
a civilian who had someone cornered they thought was suspicious,
foreign nationals ... this year, on two occasions after 9/11
that wound up not having a good reason to be in Alaska."
Number 2461
COLONEL CRAWFORD addressed Item 94 ["Add 29 troopers and 20
civilians in FY03 to handle increased security requirements
statewide"]. He said this would be pushed to the '04 budget
because he couldn't find, hire, and train that many people on
the original schedule. [Item 94] would allow trooper posts
around the state to meet 24-hour coverage and "the requests
placed on us ... by the committees that put together the
homeland security package." In response to a question from
Chair Chenault regarding the 20 civilians, he said as trooper
posts are increased, there needs to be enough clerical support
so that troopers aren't doing clerical tasks [instead of their
intended work]. Although the [current] infrastructure could
handle an initial increase of 30 [troopers], there will need to
be an increase in [clerical support] beyond that in order for
the troopers to be effective.
Number 2371
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 95 ["Add 4 troopers in
FY03 for increased field surveillance and analysis capability"].
He said this increase is what the department would ideally like
to end up with in the intelligence unit in Anchorage. Although
field troopers and agencies, including federal agencies, route
[gathered intelligence information to the DPS], he indicated the
department doesn't have the capability to gather that
intelligence or do surveillance itself; he cited wiretapping as
an example.
CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether this would be in addition to [Item]
88, which is the two troopers for additional analysis.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that it would be part of the same
unit. As with some other requests, this will be a FY 04 request
because of the logistics of hiring and training. He added:
This is where we'd like to see that unit from [Item]
88 ultimately expand to. They would not necessarily
be in Anchorage. We would probably assign them to the
detachments, but specifically for intelligence
purposes. I've kind of got philosophical issues with
... having troopers sitting in Anchorage someplace -
no offense to any Anchorage Representatives, Mr.
Chairman.
Number 2256
COLONEL CRAWFORD explained Item 96 ["Add 6 constables and
support for regional hub areas"], saying it is a continuation of
the rural public safety officer program introduced by Senator
Halford. It would free up troopers currently in Western Alaska.
Number 2234
COLONEL CRAWFORD addressed Item 97 ["Add 20 VPSOs and associated
support"]. Referring to the village public safety officers
(VPSOs), he offered the department's philosophy that public
safety should be "dealt out equally across the state." He
pointed out that even small communities can have anthrax scares,
for example, and that it is more difficult to respond in remote
locations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled hearing from rural legislators
that VPSOs are "scarce and stretched in the villages." He asked
whether there has been any thought that with some additional
training, the VPSOs' abilities would be expanded, or whether the
VPSO positions [already] cover as much as is necessary in these
villages.
COLONEL CRAWFORD replied that he feels strongly that they do
what needs to be done currently. He added:
One of the issues that the program dances around very
well, and has for 20-some years, is that we have a
nonprofit, nongovernmental agency that is technically
supervising them. I feel very strongly that turning
professional law enforcement over to private agencies
that don't have a responsibility to answer to the
public is a very bad idea. Right now, the way the ...
substance of the program is set up is that they are
employed by a civilian agency, but their oversight,
such as it is, is done by the troopers for criminal
and law-enforcement activities. To give them any more
authority in law enforcement - especially when it
comes to reoccurrence with firearms and use-of-force
training - is wrought with danger, in our opinion.
Number 2090
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 98 ["Continue to
practice and expand TAPS defense drills through joint annual
training with the State Troopers & FBI"]. He noted that this is
a personal preference on this list. There has been a gearing up
to address Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) problems. He
explained that there have been repeated drills with private
security and some federal agencies. About two years ago, the
FBI had approached [DPS], along with Alyeska [Pipeline Service
Company] security, to discuss a large exercise with federal
agencies and the state and local response [teams] regarding the
pipeline. For budgetary reasons, this coming summer was
selected; he indicated there would be exercises in early June of
2002.
COLONEL CRAWFORD pointed out that the troopers are an intricate
part of any pipeline response or oil spill; he cited the
criminal prosecution regarding [the Exxon Valdez oil spill] as
an example where the state, rather than the federal government,
took action. He indicated the FBI has informed the state that
it will expect the state to "hold the fort" on any major
incident for 48 hours or more. He mentioned that the upcoming
exercise would actually begin in Salt Lake City and would
include NORAD [North American Air Defense Command], use of an
aircraft for a simulated hijacking, and coordination with
Canadian agencies including the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted
Police], along with SWAT [Special Weapons and Tactics Team]
teams brought in from Utah and California by the FBI. He said
the cost is rather high, unfortunately. He emphasized the
importance of [this exercise] to integrate the state teams with
the FBI teams from the West Coast, in particular, to be able to
communicate with Alyeska and the security people, and to work
together. He noted that [the out-of-state agencies] hadn't
adhered to the [DPS] requests regarding timing or fiscal issues.
Number 1754
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what funding, if any, the FBI is
contributing to this training. She also asked whether it is
truly annual or will be a one-shot deal.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that the 64.9 [thousand dollars] for
the first year is entirely for this exercise. The request in
the '03 budget onward relates to an exercise involving the APD
[Anchorage Police Department] tactical team, one from Fairbanks,
the FBI's small tactical team here, and the troopers' teams.
Thus the subsequent requests are to continue this training,
probably three times a year on a smaller scale at different
areas along the pipeline, using different scenarios, with the
troopers as the lead agency.
COLONEL CRAWFORD said contributions from elsewhere would include
aircraft and logistical support, as well as probably some
training. At this point, no travel or per diem has been
offered, although he indicated he didn't know whether something
would be offered if the state backed out [regarding funding].
Colonel Crawford said much of this [request] is for personal
services because all three tactical teams will be there for 12-
to 14-hour days in order to accomplish the mission of the
exercise. He indicated a small piece of [the request] is for
travel and per diem.
Number 1693
COLONEL CRAWFORD informed members that he would call on Ms.
Schenker to address Item 99 ["Provide four border crossings with
access to criminal information (APSIN and NCIC)"]. He offered a
brief outline of what occurs at the border currently, noting
that customs officials do have access to APSIN and NCIC through
the state system, although the system is old and slow.
MS. SCHENKER offered to respond to questions regarding costs.
She agreed that the purpose is to beef up access to the law-
enforcement computer system, noting that any agency with
authorization can access, through APSIN, the FBI's National
Crime Information Center (NCIC).
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired whether any of the sharing
benefits Canada and if any sharing of costs could be involved.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that Canadian Customs is located
farther in, at Beaver Creek, and is well connected through its
own system. Furthermore, if there is a problem or trouble
identifying someone, Canadian Customs just sends that person
back [across the border]. By contrast, [U.S. Customs] is more
often dealing with its own citizens.
Number 1499
COLONEL CRAWFORD turned attention to Item 100 ["Provide modified
Level B HazMat [hazardous materials] suits for 480 State and
local law enforcement personnel (Phase 1 of 3)"]. He said this
is money set aside to let all law enforcement - not just the
troopers - have this equipment; it was a recommendation from
"the committees." In response to Chair Chenault's remark that
the $1,000 price seems steep, Colonel Crawford noted that
inclusion of a gas mask with a full-hazard filter, at the cost
of about $350 each, drives it up substantially. However,
anthrax and other biological terrorism must be dealt with, in
addition to chemical weapons.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned to the issue of sharing,
noting that this provides [protective] suits for local law
enforcement as well. She asked whether [the state] would
receive anything from [local governments] in this regard.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that this came from "the committees
that worked on the overall security measures, and not
necessarily from the Department of Public Safety." He then
explained:
The cities were not approached to contribute a
matching fund towards this, if that was the question.
But what we get in return is, the cities in almost all
law-enforcement capacity, across the state, work
without agreement and outside their jurisdiction ...
at the troopers' request. And that was one of the
things we had hoped to accomplish [in] places where
the troopers are fairly thin, by being able to provide
this kind of equipment, to ask the Wrangell Police
Department [for example] to go do something outside
the city limits, and that they would readily do those
things if they had the proper equipment.
Number 1282
DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety, explained it as a "federal funding
pass-through" as part of a federal grant, which would come
through the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA),
to his belief. It isn't a state general fund (GF) request.
CHAIR CHENAULT suggested, however, that the equipment must be
taken care of and that there will be upkeep costs, even if
minimal.
Number 1217
CHAIR CHENAULT turned attention to Item 101 ["Public safety
information system (APSIN) programming and data charges,
recruitment for additional troopers, support for Lab Services
and Search and Rescue, risk management and vehicle costs"].
MS. SCHENKER clarified that she would address one portion, the
APSIN programming. She said the funds would be used to support
computer analysts to modify the programs in APSIN and keep up
with the growing demand for criminal-history checks. She
pointed out that since September 11, there have been initiatives
at both the state and national levels that likely will increase
the number of background checks, "which are growing pretty
quickly anyway." She also reported that every year, "we have to
make changes to APSIN to comply with the various specifics of
each different type of background check." This would support
that work.
MR. SMITH pointed out that recruiting additional troopers will
require more time and energy in trying to recruit all over the
country; there is additional funding for that. [Item 101] also
includes support for lab services, which is the addition of
another clerical position. He noted that in fourteen years,
staff numbers have grown and demands have increased. Requests
for information from defense attorneys and others overload the
system. There are also demands for reports and information.
Mr. Smith said he felt it made more sense to have a clerical
person make copies, provide information, and gather information
for discovery [in legal cases], rather than have the "bench-work
crime lab people" do it. If troopers are added, there will be
additional impact on the lab as far as evidence flowing into it,
he noted, which was the rationale for requesting the additional
[clerical] position. Mr. Smith expressed hope that the costs
[in Item 101] for search and rescue, risk management, and
vehicles were self-explanatory.
Number 1028
COLONEL CRAWFORD addressed Item 102 ["Purchase computer hardware
and software for an expanded intelligence system to allow law
enforcement agencies to receive, store, analyze and disseminate
information"]. He indicated this is tied directly to the
expansion of the troopers' intelligence unit, for analysis
purposes on a larger scale. The ongoing costs relate to
"greater and easier access to the feds." He added that the
current intelligence system has a program that is obsolete.
Number 0953
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI returned attention to Mr. Smith's
comments about recruitment for additional troopers. She offered
her tabulation indicating the state would be looking for 66
troopers, 6 constables, and 20 VPSOs. She asked, "How in the
world are we going to find these people?" She remarked that she
believes the need is out there, but that it has been like
pulling teeth to get qualified men and women to serve. She
asked, "What can we do to enhance the recruitment?" She
acknowledged that the response would be just an opinion.
MR. SMITH answered that [the department] has recognized that in
recent years. It used to have public service ads on at 3 a.m.
or 4 a.m., which usually didn't reach the desired demographics.
Therefore, now there is prime-time advertising, for the most
part developed by "our internal folks that do video." He added,
"We are attending job fairs, tracking people down, I guess,
almost." Mr. Smith said it is an daunting task because APD is
recruiting at the same time, even though different kinds of
individuals may be attracted to be Alaska State Troopers or fish
and wildlife [officers] because of the ability to perhaps travel
more in the state and change assignments periodically. He
deferred to Colonel Crawford.
Number 0758
COLONEL CRAWFORD offered that a number of things have been done
differently the last couple of years. For recruiting field
troopers, for example, there has been radio advertising in rural
areas. When the committees came up with the desired number of
personnel, the department was very clear that it couldn't hire
more than 30 additional troopers, with normal attrition, in any
one year. It is expensive to advertise; even when the
department is innovative, [funding] is stretched to the limit.
Colonel Crawford related his belief that this [30-trooper
addition] is a realistic goal if the legislature is interested
in exploring it, although 35 would be over the limit for both
training and recruitment capacity.
Number 0614
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked how many people the [training]
academy can hold in one session.
COLONEL CRAWFORD answered that under a best-case scenario,
though not the current scenario, "we could train 85 people at a
time without dealing with any outside bed space." He added that
classroom space is right at 100, "and we probably could wedge in
another 10 if we had to," but that is the upper limit and would
be a problem for any extended training. He concluded, "We can
comfortably seat and train 85 people at a time."
MR. SMITH added that Alaska State Troopers and municipal police
are trained in the same academy, so all that space isn't readily
available because of the demands for providing training to a
number of other places. The APD has its own training academy,
and there is an academy operating in the Fairbanks area, but
still a "substantial number of municipal individuals" train in
Sitka [at the state academy]. Furthermore, some individuals who
aren't hired by any current law-enforcement agency pay their own
way, which is why it is called "Alaska law enforcement training"
as opposed to "the trooper academy," which it was referred to
previously.
COLONEL CRAWFORD concurred, adding, "We start each class with
about 50 individuals. To bump that to an additional 15 troopers
on top of that is not an unrealistic expectation. And we run
these classes twice per year."
Number 0455
CHAIR CHENAULT thanked participants and brought testimony to a
close for the day. [HB 324 was held over.]
CHAIR CHENAULT called an at-ease at 5:02 p.m. [Tape ends early;
no testimony is missing.]
TAPE 02-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR CHENAULT called the meeting back to order at 5:07 p.m.
HB 370-GUARANTEED REVENUE BONDS FOR VETERANS
CHAIR CHENAULT announced the final order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 370, "An Act relating to the issuance of state-guaranteed
revenue bonds by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to
finance mortgages for qualifying veterans; and providing for an
effective date." He noted that online from the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) were Judith DeSpain and John Bitney.
Number 0098
JUDITH DeSPAIN, Deputy Executive Director, Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation, Department of Revenue, testified via
teleconference in support of HB 370. She explained, "Over the
years, the veterans' mortgage program and the ability to issue
these tax-exempt bonds [have] given a lot of veterans some
lower-cost-interest home loans. There's no difference in the
program, and it's been how we've delivered this in the program."
She stated total support for the bill.
Number 0144
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the transmittal letter from
Governor Knowles, dated January 29, 2002, which says this is the
fifth such bond approval. She surmised, based on Ms. DeSpain's
testimony, that this is "the same as we have approved in the
prior four separate elections on these veterans bonds."
MS. DeSPAIN concurred.
Number 0190
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced support for the bill. He asked how
the default rate compares generally to that for "the average
loan."
MS. DeSPAIN said she didn't know that she'd looked at that data
specifically regarding veterans, but offered, "I would say it's
about the same. ... Our default rate right now is very low.
It's about 3 percent."
Number 0274
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES noted that the [governor's transmittal
letter] says the federal government might be looking at
expanding this program beyond [those who served in the military
before] January 1, 1977. He asked whether Ms. DeSpain or Mr.
Bitney had information about that.
MS. DeSPAIN explained:
When the federal legislation went through in the early
'80s, there were five states that went out, under the
IRS [Internal Revenue Service] code, and created
mortgage programs that took advantage of tax-exempt
bonds. ... About three years later, then, the IRS
changed its mind but grandfathered in the five states,
which Alaska is one of. And the "qualified veteran"
definition is that you had to have been in the service
prior to 1977 [and] out of the service no more than 30
years. So basically, without having a sunset date, by
the definition it does sunset.
So we're working hard right now, in Congress, to get
the support for doing away with that definition and
allowing all of those people that were part of wars or
[Desert Storm] ... and others, so that they could take
advantage of these bonds.
Number 0525
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report HB 370 from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. There
being no objection, HB 370 was moved out of the House Special
Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0631
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|