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 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 began on page 2 and gave an overview of
the mission and organization of the Division of
Administrative Services (DAS). She continued to slide 3 and
the proposed FY 27 budget //
1:35:52 PM
Representative Stapp appreciated the presenters //
Ms. Bingham continued on slide 3 // DGF and // other funds
were // up from 227.6 // primarily included interagency
receipts //
Ms. Bingham continued to slide 4 and the FY 27 budget by
fund group. She continued to slide 5 and how funds were
allocated by results delivery unit (RDU) // the largest
share was in legal and advocacy services // central
administrative services were at 11.6 million //
Representative Hannan asked // hiring freeze // she
understood that people at shared services but doing payroll
at DOT, her position would move to DOT // she asked if her
understanding was correct //
Ms. Bingham responded that shared services was under the
division of finance, while // those positions //
Representative Hannan asked if anyone who had a job would
be losing their job. Some vacant positions would need to be
reevaluated and reapplied for // // the hiring freeze //
Ms. Bingham responded // one position was being eliminated
1:40:31 PM
Ms. Bingham continued on slide 6 // represented the FY 26
requests that were not funded // three requests for //
Microsoft 365, AI projects, // DMV // prioritizing critical
needs //
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 7 // represented the FY 26
items and their status // there were 450k UGF //
eligibility // public defender agency, 1.5 million //
municipality of anchorage for misdemeanor cases // rising
software and contract cost //
Co-Chair Josephson asked slide 7 were things that were
funded
Ms. Bingham responded that he was correct //
Representative Stapp asked // asked about the fund source
for the office of information technology //
Ms. Bingham responded
Representative Stapp asked about licensing and software
costs // careful service prioritization // he asked what
the words meant in regards to
1:44:14 PM
Ms. Bingham responded
BILL SMITH, STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), responded that they
tried to convey the licensing and software costs were
driven by // increased utilization by the departments // as
more employees used the services, the costs increased //
Representative Hannan asked about slide 6 // denied
expansion of IT capabilities // she asked if DMV benefited
from the expansions
Mr. Smith responded yes and no. DMV benefited //
Representative Hannan // the fy 26 requests // were they
are the OMB level or did DMV request it // not been put in
the OMB budget // did DMV request it
Ms. Bingham clarified that it was not for the IT capacity
// position request //not re-requested //
Co-Chair Josephson had a similar question about OPA and the
public defender // he assumed that those would rise high //
he hoped that OMB would be responsible //
Ms. Bingham deferred the question //
1:49:52 PM
Ms. Bingham continued on slide 8 // services were
significant with a centralized // information technology /
the smallest share was // 89.6k // commodities remained
minimal // largest share was // legal and advocacy services
for //
Representative Galvin asked // the only line item with
fewer funds for the following year was for APOC//
inflationary costs // what the department had responded //
Ms. Bingham would follow up
Representative Allard asked how many employees were with
APOC and the amount
Ms. Bingham would follow up
Representative Allard // asked if she could break it all
down
1:53:03 PM
Ms. Bingham continued on slide 9 // reducing recurring
vacancies //
Ms. Bingham continued to slide 10 // $2 million
implementation // $7.7 million //
Ms. Bingham moved to slide 11 // continuation of slide 9 //
payroll position moving back to the agencies //
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 12 and a consolidated view //
deconsolidation of shared services and movement of print
services //
Ms. Bingham continued to slide 13 // vacancy trends over
multiple years //
Co-Chair Josephson asked what a range 10 earned
Ms. Bingham responded she would follow up
Co-Chair Josephson thought it sounded like they were not
happy
Ms. Bingham responded that there was high turnover because
they were moving up
1:57:39 PM
Representative Hannan asked what a range 10 position at DMV
be doing
Ms. Bingham deferred the question
KATHLEEN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES (via
teleconference), responded that a range 10 DMV employee was
frontline staff that helped customers // processed
everything at the DMV // driver's licenses, etc//
Representative Hannan was surprised because DMV generated
money // she had always had a positive experience at DMV
// the aptitude to interact with the public // she hoped
that the salaries could increase // there was a lot of
legalese //
Representative Allard asked how much they made //
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Ms. Wallace knew
Ms. Wallace cost of 79,820 per year // 40,599 base salary
Representative Allard asked if she misunderstood //
Ms. Wallace responded that it included benefits and health
insurance //
Representative Allard asked what the salary was //
Ms. Wallace responded 40,599 was the base salary //
2:02:44 PM
Representative Tomaszewski asked how many moved up into a
higher position
Ms. Bingham noted that it would be hard to determine //
Ms. Bingham advanced to slide 14 // 17 percent vacancy
Co-Chair Josephson thought they were highly skilled
Ms. Bingham responded that there were 3 vacant positions //
Representative Galvin there was no lift for APOC //
Ms. Bingham responded that they were small divisions //
2:06:11 PM
Representative Stapp asked about the centralization of
payroll //
Ms. Bingham would make sure it was documented
Ms. Bingham advanced to slid 15 // vacancy rate by
component //
Co-Chair Josephson asked //
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference), //
having enough lawyers to do the job// he was hiring lawyers
at a quick pace //
Co-Chair Josephson asked the same question to
2:09:37 PM
BILL SMITH, STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, (via teleconference), responded that at the
end of the day, // he tried to have gratitude for the
resources //
Representative Allard asked // could he break down the
vacancies //
Ms. Bingham would get it over
Representative Allard // the whole thing
Ms. Bingham responded yes 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
Co-Chair Josephson introduced the second presentation //
AIMEE DEVARIS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"Department of Administration Statewide Salary Study"
February 2, 2026 (copy on file).
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 2// the salary study was
launched following an appropriation // increase applicant
pools //
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 3 //
Representative Stapp asked // information from one study to
implement
Ms. Devaris responded that they learned a lot from the
study // looking at the potential for making structural
changes //
Representative Stapp asked when they expected the
implementation study to be completed
Ms. Devaris responded that it was not another salary study,
but a look at the scope //
Representative Stapp // based off the study that was funded
that took a long time to // he asked when should they
expect finality to the lengthy process //
Ms. Devaris responded that she understood the reason for
asking the question. It would take a while to establish a
plan and anticipated costs.
2:20:47 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked how many iterations of reports
were provided by segal. The publishing date spanned 1.5
months //
Ms. Devaris did not have the information
Co-Chair Josephson asked //
Ms. Devaris responded that on her second or third day of
employment //
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the report included anything
about geographic differentials //
Ms. Devaris //
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the position was that //
MS. Devaris did not have the info
2:23:19 PM
Representative Galvin understood that there were not to be
changes made for FY 27 //
Ms. Devaris // in the realm of how an overall might be
approached // some refining of data as they pursued changes
// she did not believe the info would be useful //
Representative Galvin asked what the costs of the updates
were //
Ms. Devaris responded that it was just a request for info
//
Representative Galvin three year old salary date would be
appropriate enough to use for salary structure change //
Ms. Devaris responded that they were two different things
// she had a slide on the IT job class study //
2:27:01 PM
Representative Bynum asked if she came from outside the
division //
Ms. Devaris responded that she was new to state service and
had come from federal service //
Representative Bynum asked if there was a strategy on how
it would be employed//
Ms. Devaris responded that the easy way to say it was that
it was among a set of high priority areas of work // it
would be a comprehensive project
Representative Bynum noted that for clarity, //
Ms. Devaris would be taking the lead in reviewing the
results for the RFI //
Representative Hannan asked // there was a lot of tension
about the salary study // she was looking for a narrow
scope //
Ms. Devaris//
Representative Hannan thought it was shocking that the
commissioner was not present // knowing that there would be
questions // the calculations would tell that it would cost
/ she requested that the commissioner bring the information
2:33:16 PM
Co-Chair Josephson noted that there was concern that
commissioner's
Representative Allard appreciated the time// she was
concerned // was the commissioner in Juneau or why did she
not show up //
Ms. Devaris responded that she did not think the
commissioner was in town. She was asked to be present
because it was anticipated that it was a short update //
Representative Allard commented that commissioners were
generally present //
2:35:09 PM
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 4 // modernizing the hiring
practices // competency based standards rather than // 10
agencies participating //
Representative Galvin //
Ms. Devaris responded that // competency based memo //
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there was a way to explain the
IT job class study //
Ms. Devaris responded // slow recruitment or high turnover
// part of the maintenance of the state's classification
plan // help the state understand //
Co-Chair Josephson the IT study meant that it was urgent //
// WORD CRASHED//
Representative Hannan asked questioned
2:42:53 PM
Ms. Devaris responded //
Co-Chair Schrage asked if there was a reason why the salary
study could not be implemented without the classification
study //
Ms. Devaris //
Co-Chair Schrage // it was challenging to understand hw to
address //
2:46:08 PM
Ms. Devaris responded that they were not talking about
doing another study // there was a recruitment problem //
responsibilities were out of alignment
Representative Stapp // wondered what the term byzantine
bureaucracy /
Ms. Devaris responded that the salary study was brought to
her in her job interview //
Representative Stapp / made him feel better already //
Representative Galvin appreciated // how much the
classification study cost to put together
Ms. Bingham responded that it was bout $2 million // she
noted that it was a portion
Representative Galvin noted that her recollection was about
9 // trying to help // what was returned was the need to
get a new computer system // she was frustrated because
putting money into paying more // it felt like the
bureaucracy was creating a death spiral// she thought
partnership would be helpful // she encouraged them to
think about the timing // not able to get something done
2:53:39 PM
Representative Bynum // 7.66 million to do the
Ms. Bingham responded that it was the cost // across all
agencies // the job classification study was not intended
to pick apart the study, but routine maintenance // Work on
one specific area at a time// not doing a job class study
// separate bodies, one was for teamwork //
Representative Bynum appreciated the clarification // he
noted that he was also new to the job // impeding the
ability to execute work and things Alaskans wanted the
legislature to do. He stated he had two jobs, to uphold
statute and to appropriate funding. // inability to execute
// they heard about it in the media and in finance
committees // one of the major problems they were told was
the lack of individuals to do the work //
2:57:29 PM
Representative Bynum continued //. He asked if they were
executing anything in the study or waiting. He was very
frustrated because Alaskans in his district were not
receiving services they were supposed to receive.
Ms. Devaris responded that she was not sure how to address
the question. She shared that the department was looking at
a plan to develop the results of the salary study and it
would be a complex project that would take time. There were
other mechanisms for addressing job class // retention and
recruitment challenges // there could be many reasons for
vacancies in certain areas, sometimes it was due to
barriers to recruitment //
2:59:38 PM
Representative Bynum understood Ms. Devaris had only been
in the position for three months and that she was coming in
to solve the problem. He was frustrated departments would
come to the committee and tell them they did not have staff
//
Co-Chair Josephson appreciated the comment
Ms. Devaris continued to slide 9. The division of personnel
would discuss the results // determined whether the state
could take on larger updates //
Co-Chair Josephson noted that the second bullet was
buzzling. The sentence came to whether they had the will to
fund// whether the updates were viable. How was viability
determined //
Ms. Devaris responded that the state was required to
maintain // receiving requests for salary studies because
agencies felt something was out of alignment // taking on
more occupational studies //
Co-Chair Josephson the 9 job classes // there was some type
of work that // received increases // the 9 classes used to
be published publically but now required // the sensitivity
was // incredible staff // the defined benefit route //
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.
| 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 |