Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/29/2018 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: University of Alaska | |
| Overview: Department of Labor and Workforce Development | |
| Overview: Department of Transportation and Public Facilities | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 29, 2018
1:33 p.m.
1:33:06 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Mark Neuman - Alternate
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tammie Wilson
Representative Scott Kawasaki
ALSO PRESENT
James Johnsen, President, University of Alaska; Michelle
Rizk, Associate Vice President, Statewide Planning and
Budget, University of Alaska; Greg Cashen, Acting
Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; Mark Luiken, Commissioner, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities; Amanda Holland,
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities. Paloma Harbour, Director, Division
of Administrative Services, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development.
SUMMARY
HB 285 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 285 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 286 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 286 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the day. He
indicated that Representative Neuman would be filling in
for Representative Wilson for the week.
^OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Co-Chair Seaton asked the presenter when he wanted to take
questions from committee members.
1:34:23 PM
JAMES JOHNSEN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, responded
that he wanted to take questions at the end of his
presentation. He introduced the PowerPoint presentation:
"University of Alaska FY 19 Budget Overview." He noted the
sources on slide 2: "Sources."
Mr. Johnsen turned to slide 3: "University Mission." He
indicated the University's mission was standard for a
public university system. There were three parts to the
mission - education, research, and service. He pointed out
that what was unique to the University of Alaska's mission
was that it served Alaska. Alaska was geographically the
largest state. He elaborated that the Ketchikan Campus was
1,342 miles from the Kotzebue Campus.
Mr. Johnsen continued that the University's geographical
reach was unlike any other institution in the U.S. In terms
of research, the University was unique in that it's focus
in research was on the arctic and on the North, highly
relevant to Alaska. He reported that the University of
Alaska (UA) ranked number one in the world in arctic and
Northern topics.
Mr. Johnsen reviewed the third piece of the University's
mission - service. It was uniquely focused on Alaska. The
Marine Advisory Program, for example, focused on the unique
qualities of Alaska and the unique needs that Alaskans had
for higher education.
Mr. Johnsen detailed the areas in which the University
served Alaska on slide 4: "Serving All Alaskans." He
suggested that if the picture on the slide was transposed
onto the Lower 48 states, Alaska would touch two oceans and
the Ketchikan Campus would be in South Carolina. There
would be campuses in Iowa, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. The
University would also have a National Science Foundation
(NSF) funded world class research facility in Wisconsin,
and it would have a federally funded arctic research vessel
operating off the coast of Montana. He emphasized the
breadth of the University's mission covering all of Alaska
through its three universities; the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA), the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF),
and the University of Alaska Southeast (UAS). The
University also had 12 community campuses and several
learning centers across the state. He thought it
understated the University's service to Alaska offering
dozens of online academic programs as well.
Mr. Johnsen turned to slide 5: "Legal Authority." He
provided a brief history of Alaska's university system. In
1956 the delegates to the constitution saw the wisdom of
including UA in the constitution. The territorial
legislature in 1917 created the Alaska Agricultural College
and School of Mines renaming it in 1935. The delegates knew
that a strong higher education system, a strong university,
was required for statehood. At the time, it was a top
priority of state leaders. He was hopeful it would remain a
top priority for leaders in Alaska. The University of
Alaska was separate from the executive branch, although
subsect to the Executive Budget Act as provided for in
various statutes. Consequently, the University had a Board
of Regents appointed by the Governor and a president
appointed by the board. The board and president were
empowered constitutionally and by statute to operate UA on
behalf of the state.
1:39:31 PM
Mr. Johnsen moved to slide 6: "University of Alaska Share
of Total Agency Operations (GF Only)." He pointed to
numbers from the FY 10 management plan where the University
counted for 15.35 percent of total agency operations. In
FY 19, in terms of the governor's adjusted budget, it would
be 13.81 percent - a decline of about 10 percent. He noted
that general funds only included designated general funds
(DGF) in addition to undesignated general funds (UGF). The
University's focus was primarily on UGF. Included in DGF
were tuitions and other revenues appropriated in DGF but in
a different way than UGF.
Co-Chair Seaton acknowledged the arrival of Representative
Pruitt to the meeting.
Mr. Johnsen moved to slide 7: "University of Alaska Line
Items (All Funds)." He indicated the slide went into more
detail than the previous slide. Over the previous 10 years
there was significant declines in personal services,
roughly $16 million or 11 percent. There was also a
significant decline in grants and benefits of about 25
percent. There was a 32 percent decrease in travel. The
story of funding decline was made up in part by increases
in tuition rates charged to students.
Representative Neuman asked for information about the
original sources of designated funds and also other funds.
He wanted to see how much had come from charitable
contributions.
Co-Chair Seaton reiterated that members should hold their
questions until the end. Vice-Chair Gara had joined the
meeting.
Mr. Johnsen continued to slide 8: "University of Alaska
Appropriation (GF Only)." He reported that the slide showed
general funds (GF) only for the previous 10 years. It
reflected an increase through FY 13 with a decline in FY 14
and a bump. There was a considerable disinvestment in the
University since FY 15. He noted that the year-over-year
reduction in UGF over the period was $378 million down to
$317 million reflecting a cumulative reduction of $145
million.
Mr. Johnsen moved to slide 9: "University of Alaska
Appropriation (All Funds)." He indicated the slide showed
the same story and pattern as seen in the previous slide
reflecting a decline. The slope was negative.
Mr. Johnsen advanced to slide 10: "Program Areas." The
University organized its program areas by the primary
mission around education, research and service and the
amount of UGF, DGF, and other funds going into each
component of the mission. Also, the chart showed the number
of full-time and part-time employees who directly supported
the specific missions, the number of credit hours produced,
students served, degrees conveyed, invention disclosures,
and members of the public who had benefited from the
University's multiple and widespread service programs
across the state. He highlighted that some of the costs
were recuperated in the education area through tuition and
fees. In the area of research, it was federal and other
grant dollars leveraged by the state's general fund
investment. In terms of service, the funds were recuperated
in various fees. All three activities were directly tied to
the University's mission on behalf of the state. He was
proud of the effectiveness of the faculty, staff, students
across the university system, especially in light of the
significant decrease of investment in the University and
consequently the reduction of its capacity to meet its
mission for the state.
1:44:56 PM
Mr. Johnsen scrolled to slide 11: "Building a Culture of
Education." The University was trying to create a culture
of education in Alaska. By the numbers, it was falling
short. Folks at the University believed that it was
critically important to use the tremendous resources and
assets of the University of Alaska to meet the state's very
serious challenges including the highest healthcare costs
in the country, the very high energy costs, the high rates
of crime, the highest unemployment rates in the state, and
a very narrow economic base. He reported that it had been
shown in state-after-state and nation-after-nation that by
increasing educational attainment, life expectancy went up,
and healthcare costs went down; unemployment went down, and
income went up; incarceration rates went down, and
recidivism went down. It was the University's view, based
on its mission, that higher education was a wise
investment.
Mr. Johnsen advanced to slide 12: "Strategic Pathways." He
thought everyone was aware of the strategic pathways
process. The University tried to answer the question of how
to restructure itself in order to meet the mission in light
of the significant budget cuts. He reported that 230
faculty, staff, and students staffed 22 committees going
through the university system from A to Z. They reviewed,
came up with options, and made a number of very dramatic
organizational changes in order to make itself as effective
as possible.
Mr. Johnson thought the slide summarized the University's
statewide mission on behalf of the state. He drew attention
to the middle of the slide which focused on each of
Alaska's universities and their unique contributions to the
mission. He emphasized the word, "unique." The University
wanted to take advantage of the special characteristics of
each of the universities while trying to build on what was
common about them. The slide also captured the tension
needed for the University to manage in the diverse
university system between what made sense to be distinctive
at each university and what made sense to be in common
across the university system.
1:47:46 PM
Mr. Johnsen reported that the Board of Regents had
developed 5 objectives shown on slide 13: "Strategic
Objectives." He explained that in looking forward at the
ways to create a culture of education in the state and to
meet the state's needs for higher education, the Board of
Regents adopted five goals. They had also adopted measures
going out 8 years to 2025. The top priorities included
economic development on behalf of the state, workforce
development, research growth, degree attainment, and more
cost-effective operations.
Mr. Johnsen explained the goals and measures on slide 14:
"UA 2018-2025 Goals and Measures." The Board of Regents
adopted the goals in November. He reported that there were
two ways in which the goals would be measured in
accomplishment going out to 2025. In some cases, the goals
were extremely ambitious. However, he believed the
University had to set ambitious goals given the huge
education gaps in Alaska and the state's serious
challenges. He pointed to the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Math (STEM) graduates. The STEM program
was a critical component for economic development. The
University hoped to increase the number of STEM graduates.
The university also hoped to increase invention
disclosures, a standard way in which universities
contribute to economic development.
Mr. Johnsen addressed workforce development. While the
University would continue to focus on welders, accountants,
engineers, and others, the Board of Regents asked
themselves, if they were to focus on only two occupational
areas, what would be the most impactful areas to the state.
The Board decided that education and healthcare would be
the most important areas of focus. The University wanted to
remain number one in the nation. He relayed that a standard
measure for research effectiveness was expenditures. The
University wanted to drive the number up by increasing its
competitiveness and by increasing receipts from the federal
government. Much attention would be focused on health
research.
Mr. Johnson explained that there were two elements to
increasing degree attainment. The first was driving
enrollment up from 29,171 to 45,000. He elaborated that as
a percentage of the state's population, 45,000 would be the
same percentage of the state's population who were students
at the University of Alaska in 1975. Over the period since,
the state had declined in its percentage of Alaskans in
higher education. He opined that it was critical for the
state to drive up the number. There were other states with
a higher percentage: Oregon was 7 percent. He thought it
was reasonable to be at 6 percent. Increasing completion
rates had been a tough issue for the University for years.
Mr. Johnson continued that in addition to increasing
enrollment, the University wanted to increase thru-put and
the number of people getting degrees. A major focus would
include not only bachelorettes but workforce credentials,
endorsements, and associates degrees. He relayed that an
element of the University's budget request was to offer a
25 percent tuition discount in occupational endorsements -
short-term, highly focused on high-demand workforce areas.
The idea was to provide Alaskans the opportunity to move up
quickly through university and community campus training.
Finally, the Board of Regents set goals to operate more
cost-effectively and to measure increasing its top line
faster than its bottom line over the period.
1:51:47 PM
Mr. Johnsen spoke of the state trend on slide 15: "State
Operation Budget Trends." The state operating budget trend
had been decreasing for the prior 4 years. In FY 19 the
governor's budget was at $317 million. The Board of Regents
was proposing an operating budget of $341 million for
FY 19.
Mr. Johnsen advanced to slide 16: "FY 19 Operating Budget."
He explained that the slide showed a breakdown of the FY 19
operating budget. There was a significant amount of detail
which he imagined would be looked at carefully by the
finance subcommittee as the session moved forward. He noted
the delta between FY 18 and FY 19, about $24 million. He
indicated that $9.7 million was for fixed-cost increases.
Strategic investments were at about $15 million. Specifics
were listed underneath each of the strategic investments.
Mr. Johnsen scrolled to slide 17: "Workforce Reductions FY
15 - FY 18." He reported that the University had suspended
or discontinued about 50 academic degree and certificate
programs. The University had 1200 fewer employees than a
few years previously. He indicated that 36 percent
statewide administration had been reduced. He pointed to
the percentage change in personnel head count under the
heading "SW" - a dramatic change in any other unit within
the University. Staff had taken a larger share of the
reductions than faculty over the period. He clarified that
the position reductions were not all layoffs. There was
attrition built into the numbers. Many times, if a faculty
or staff position became vacant and the decision was made
not to fill it, there would be one less headcount and were
included in the counts.
Mr. Johnsen discussed slide 18: "Program Reductions FY 15 -
FY 18." The slide showed examples of some of the program
reductions taken. He noted a few of the strategic pathways
implementations. The University had three schools of
management with three deans and three bureaucracies reduced
to two. The University was leveraging its purchasing so
that it was being coordinated across the system as opposed
to being done individually by each university. The
procurement offices were lining up under a single
leadership. A similar structure was being implemented for
grants and contracts administration. The University was
also streamlining and automating administrative processes.
Mr. Johnsen informed the committee of the consolidation or
creation of the Alaska College of Education. Rather than
three deans and three schools of education, the University
was consolidating to a single executive dean and the
faculty and staff would continue at the other universities
ensuring access for students across the entire state.
However, there would be much enhanced coordination and
alignment of teacher education programs statewide. The
change was met positively by the 54 superintendents who had
been calling for much more alignment of the University's
programs and standardization. It was not an uncontroversial
action taken by the Board of Regents.
1:55:48 PM
Mr. Johnsen had other legislative priorities as listed on
slide 19: "Other Legislative Priorities." The University
had legislative priorities other than the operating budget.
He spoke of the $50 million capital request for deferred
maintenance. He mentioned the education tax credit which
would expire at the end of the year. He believed
legislation was already in play to continue the beneficial
program linking business interests in Alaska with interests
of the University. It was a positive investment in
workforce development and research and other connections
between the University and employers.
Mr. Johnsen reported that another priority was protecting
the higher education fund that funded two scholarship
programs, one was a merit-based system (Alaska Performance
Scholarship), and the other was a needs-based scholarship
program (Alaska Education Grant). It was critically
important for the grants to be funded. The University had
seen clear evidence of the value of the Alaska Performance
Scholarship in terms of increasing readiness of students
for university studies. He noted that Alaska ranked among
the lowest in the country in the availability of needs-
based grants. It was critical to maintain the funding to
ensure that Alaskans, no matter what socio-economic
backgrounds they come from, have the opportunities to
achieve through higher education.
Mr. Johnsen spoke of the importance of solving the
University's land grant deficit. It continued to work the
issue in close cooperation with the administration and in
collaboration with the state's federal delegation and
federal agencies. He recalled that only Delaware received a
small land grant than the University of Alaska. He thought
it would be critically important to diversify its revenue
sources within about 5 to 10 years. He concluded his
presentation and was happy to take questions.
Co-Chair Seaton acknowledged Representative Grenn and
Representative Ortiz at the table.
Co-Chair Foster referred to slide 16. He wondered what
comprised the bulk of the $7 million for degree attainment.
Next, he referred to slide 19 regarding extending the
education tax credit. He commented that it was a simple
concept but a complicated statute. He understood the
formula to be simple but asked what was complicated.
Mr. Johnsen responded that in the increased degree
attainment the money was primarily for additional online
courses. Alaska ranked number one in the country in the
percentage of the population with some college and no
degree. Folks were not quitting their jobs or leaving their
families at night to attend classes. He asserted that the
University needed to step up availability of online courses
for students. It was the University's intent to increase
its collaboration with K-12 school districts. He indicated
dual enrollment programs or concurrent enrollment programs
were incredibly affective in preparing students for college
and work. An example was the middle college high school
that the University operated in conjunction with the Mat-Su
School District. He conveyed that 75 percent of the
completers attended a UA campus with an average of 30
credit hours completed requiring zero developmental or
remedial work when they got to a university. In addition,
the University wanted to increase scholarships in high
demand areas.
Mr. Johnsen responded to Co-Chair Foster's question about
the education tax credit. It applied to about 10 different
tax credits. The title was complex and the language of the
bill, as a result of the sheer number of corporate income
taxes it applied to, made it complex. He agreed that the
concept was very simple.
2:00:43 PM
Representative Grenn referred to slide 17. He asked if
there was a specific number of teachers that had been
reduced. He asked if a correlation could be made with the
discounted or suspended programs on slide 18. Mr. Johnsen
responded that he could provide the number for him. There
was a correlation to some extent between faculty line
reductions and discontinued programs. The challenge of the
University was its obligations to students to teach them
out. For example, if the University were to discontinue a
sociology degree or a resource economics degree, the
University had an obligation to make sure the students got
the courses they needed to complete their degree.
Therefore, it could not turn a program off, leaving
students hanging. There was a lag in terms of making
reductions to faculty, particularly tenured faculty. He
noted that adjunct faculty or term faculty were hired on a
year-to-year basis and tended to be reduced more quickly.
Representative Grenn indicated that he wanted the number.
Representative Guttenberg referred to slide 16. He wondered
about the funding for the UAF engineering building
operating costs. He had assumed that the amount was built
into its budget base. He suggested closing the building or
taking the cut. Mr. Johnsen responded that it was an
absolutely critical building for the University's mission
and he thought it was appropriate for the state to pay the
operating costs for the facility. If the costs were not
funded, the University would have no other choice than to
continue operating the facility which would force
reallocation - reductions in other places to continue
operating. It was absolutely mission critical for the
University for engineering education and engineering
research. The Alaska Center for Energy and Power, a world
class alternative energy research organization, was housed
in the facility. The University would be forced to make
reductions in other places.
Representative Thompson turned to slide 7 and asked what
comprised the miscellaneous category. Mr. Johnsen deferred
to Ms. Rizk.
2:04:04 PM
MICHELLE RIZK, ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, STATEWIDE PLANNING
AND BUDGET, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, responded that the
University aligned the definition with the state's
definition: It represented the University of Alaska's debt
service.
Representative Thompson asked about the tax credits. He
wondered how many of the tax credits were used to match
federal grants. He queried whether the number was sizable.
Mr. Johnsen replied that typically the large expenditure
was for scholarships. He indicated that the fish processing
industry had been a major contributor to the University for
workforce and research. He thought it had provided a
tremendous benefit to fisheries faculty and oceanography
faculty as they competed for funds at the national level.
Representative Pruitt mentioned the land grant deficit. He
asked if there was a way for the legislature to Help. It
had previously passed a resolution to assist with the
opening of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He asked
if a resolution from the legislature would help the
University. He was willing to help with legislation if
necessary and wondered if Mr. Johnsen was willing to work
with him on a resolution.
Mr. Johnsen responded affirmatively. The land grant deficit
was more of a federal issue given the state constitution's
prohibition on the dedication of land to the University as
learned by a 2009 State Supreme Court decision. He believed
a resolution by the legislature would be helpful in the
University's push to achieve satisfaction of its long-time
deficit.
2:07:21 PM
Representative Neuman asked about research and Alaskan's
served on slide 10. He asked about the University's policy
regarding intellectual property. He thought the University
could make a considerable sum off the intellectual property
of the inventions coming out of the institution. He asked
if the University of Alaska owned the patents. Mr. Johnsen
replied positively and could provide a revenue distribution
schedule that was negotiated into the collective bargaining
agreement with the faculty union.
Representative Neuman wanted the information. He also
referred to slide 18 regarding the strategic pathways
implementations. He noted the first item on the list and
thought the legislature had tried to persuade the
University to move into one university system as opposed to
the tree systems currently in place. He asked Mr. Johnsen
to explain his goals and how he intended to reach them.
Mr. Johnsen responded that there were very serious
institutional and accreditation issues that the University
faced. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and
Universities down in Washington accredited UA's
institutions rather than programs. To move in the direction
of a reduction would take several years of effort. The
University had had active communication with the
commission. He had engaged an expert in accreditation to
study the issue. His view and the view of the Board of
Regents was that it would be a massive distraction to
trying to generate enrollment and meet the needs of the
state. Therefore, instead of applying resources to a
regulatory process from people outside of Alaska, they
decided to focus on what the University needed to achieve
given its three accreditations.
Representative Neuman thought the goal was to consolidate
to one administrative cost for the sake of efficiency. He
also understood that another large problem was the
transferring of credits. Mr. Johnsen responded that he
could provide information to confirm that there was not a
problem transferring credits between the University
campuses.
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the focus on increasing STEM
graduates. He wanted to make sure there was no decrease on
the emphasis on liberal arts education. He asked Mr.
Johnsen to speak to the subject. Also, he asked if the
decrease in funding for the University had led to a
decrease in grant funding it had been able to leverage. He
referred to slide 18 which indicated that the University
discontinued the GC clinical social work practice program.
He asked Mr. Johnsen to explain the program. He did not
know what "GC" meant. Mr. Johnsen would have to get back to
Vice-Chair Gara.
Vice-Chair Gara reported some discussion by folks that were
Children's Services Agency hires, case workers who were not
social work graduates, about a decrease in the number of
social work graduates. He remarked that a decrease would
not be helpful. Ms. Rizk thought GC stood for graduate
certificate.
Representative Guttenberg asked about a line item taking
over a seismic buoy-rey across the Gulf of Alaska. It was
his understanding that the federal government was about to
move it to another location in the world. He thought it was
valuable to keep it in the gulf. He asked about its status.
Mr. Johnsen would be happy to follow up with that
information.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated there would be more details in
the finance subcommittee process. He thanked the
presenters.
2:12:39 PM
AT EASE
2:14:07 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
2:14:07 PM
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that members should hold their
questions to the end.
GREG CASHEN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, thanked the committee for hearing
the department's presentation. He introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: "FY2019 Department Overview." He reviewed the
department mission on slide 2: "Department Mission and
Resources." The mission of the department was to provide a
safe and legal working conditions and advance opportunities
for employment. The department accomplished its mission by
protecting Alaskan workers through statutory and regulatory
consultation and enforcement, developing an Alaska's
workforce for Alaska's jobs, and income replacement for
injured, disabled, and unemployed workers. He pointed out
that the slide included links to the department's mission
and key performance indicators, the FY 19 budget details,
and the performance measures from all of the department's
divisions. He turned the remainder of the presentation over
to Ms. Harbour.
PALOMA HARBOUR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
would walk the committee through the 10-year look back
slides generated by the Legislative Finance Division (LFD).
She highlighted that slide 3 showed the department's
general fund (GF) budget since 2009. She pointed out that
GF included unrestricted general funds (UGF) and designated
general funds (DGF). The slide indicated there had been
significant cuts to the department's state-funded programs
since FY 15. She reported that UGF for the department had
been reduced 38 percent over the period. The department was
$7.3 million below where it had been in FY 09.
Ms. Harbour moved to the chart on slide 4: "Department of
Labor and Workforce Development Line Items (All Funds)."
The chart showed changes in the department's budget since
FY 09 by expenditure category. The department's personal
services budget was almost at the same level that it was in
FY 09, yet it had 224 fewer budgeted positions. It was
because position costs such as wages and benefits had
increased over the period. She also noted the significant
reduction to the department's grants and benefits of $22.3
million partly due to the significant state funding
reductions and partly due to federal and other declines.
Ms. Harbour moved to slide 5: "Appropriations within the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (GF Only)."
She reported that the chart showed the department's GF by
division. The slide could be hard to follow because in FY
17 the department consolidated 2 divisions, Business
Partnerships and Employment Security, into 1 division -
Employment and Training Services. She highlighted that the
Commissioner's Office and Administrative Services budget
for FY 19 was almost $1.9 million less than in FY 09. The
reduction was due to the department focusing its cuts on
reducing administrative and overhead expenses in the
department. The department analyzed every position that
became vacant and reviewed every lease that came up for
renewal. The department had cut UGF spending on leases by
$1.2 million since FY 15.
2:18:59 PM
Ms. Harbour moved to slide 6: "Appropriations within the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (All Funds)."
She indicated that the chart showed a similar picture to
the previous slide but included all funds. The division
consolidation in FY 17 made the chart difficult to follow.
As noted on the slide by LFD the department's budget since
FY 09 had decreased 15 percent or $26.4 million. As she had
stated earlier it was partly due to state funding
reductions and also federal and other funding reductions.
Ms. Harbour continued to slide 7: "Commissioner and
Administrative Services." As requested, the following
several slides reflected the department's budget by
division broken down by component or program. The
department's rating of importance to the mission was based
on guidance provided by the co-chairs. Critical meant a
program that was directly meeting the department's mission.
Important meant a program that provided indirect support
that would need to be reassigned if the program did not
exist. Status quo meant a program that had historically
been funded because of statutory requirements but had no
real impact on the department's mission or potentially
hampered the department's functioning. The department was
not given specific guidance on rating the effectiveness.
Therefore, the department used "high, moderate, and low."
Using very strict criteria for determining what was
constitutionally required, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) determined that the commissioner's office was
the only thing in the department that was partially
constitutionally required.
Ms. Harbour scrolled to slide 8: "Worker's Compensation."
She explained the slide reflected the programs within the
Worker's Compensation Division. While the department had
rated the effectiveness of the Worker's Compensation
Program as "high" the department recognized there was room
for improvement. The department had worked with the
governor's office on HB 79 [Omnibus legislation introduced
in 2017 regarding Worker's Compensation] and HB 303
[Worker's Compensation legislation introduced in 2018
regarding the rehabilitation and reemployment of injured
employees]. The Department had rated the importance of the
Second Injury Fund as status quo and its effectiveness as
moderate. The program was meant to facilitate the
reemployment of injured or disabled workers. Although the
program worked, many other states had eliminated the Second
Injury Fund because the American's with Disabilities Act
largely fulfilled the same purpose by prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of disability. The sunset of
the fund was included in HB 79. The department also rated
the importance of the Worker's Compensation Appeals
Commission as status quo and its effectiveness as low. The
department had worked with the governor to introduce HB 69
[Introduced in 2017] which would repeal the specialty
commission and return the appeals to the courts.
Ms. Harbour explained the information on slide 9: "Labor
Standards and Safety." She conveyed that the programs
within the department's Labor and Standards Division were
critical to the department's mission of protecting Alaska's
workers and were highly effective. The one item rated
status quo within the division was the Alaska Safety
Advisory Council, which, according to statute, was
responsible for organizing the governor's annual safety
conference. Members of the council took their
responsibilities very seriously and did a great job with
the conference. In fact, they brought in more money through
sponsorships than necessary to cover the cost. The
department ranked the council's effectiveness as moderate
because it believed the group could be even more effective
if it were privatized. The council was interested in
privatization, but more worked needed to be done before
moving forward with the required legislation.
Ms. Harbour advanced to slide 10: "Employment and Training
Services." She conveyed that the programs within the
Employment and Training Services Division were critical to
the department's mission of advancing employment
opportunities for Alaskans and the department's core of
providing income replacement for temporarily unemployed
workers. The division was relatively new and by far the
largest in the department because it represented the
consolidation of 2 other divisions into 1. Through the
consolidation the department was able to eliminate 10
positions, reduce UGF spending by $300,000 and reduce
administrative costs which put more funds out on the
streets to train Alaskans.
2:23:38 PM
Ms. Harbour continued to slide 11: "Employment and Training
Services - WD Programs." She indicated that the
department's workforce development component of the
Employment Training and Services Division had some ongoing
annual programs displayed on the slide. The programs were
highly effective and critical to achieving the department's
mission. As mentioned previously, there were fewer ongoing
programs than there once was. However, the department had
been successful in seeking one-time competitive grant
opportunities to help try to fill the gap. In fact, the
department currently had competitive federal grant awards
to expand apprenticeship to non-traditional industries such
as health care, to help reduce recidivism by providing
employment and training services to inmates before release,
and to provide disabled youth with work experience to help
them obtain and maintain employment. The department was
using non-permanent positions for the temporary grants to
ensure no further state obligation once the grant funds
end. The department hoped to be equally as successful in
the future as other grant opportunities arose.
Ms. Harbour moved to slide 12: "Vocational Rehabilitation."
She reported that the department's Vocational
Rehabilitation Division was focused on delivering services
to disabled Alaskans. The federal and statutory programs
were highly effective and critical to the department's
mission of advancing employment opportunities for all
Alaskans and the core service of providing income
replacement for disabled Alaskans. She highlighted the
department's special project component meant for special
federal grants that enhanced the services the department
provided through its client services program. They included
supported employment which was allocated to individuals
with the most significant disabilities and an assisted
technology program that helped disabled Alaskans test and
identify technology that could assist them in their daily
lives and in seeking employment.
Ms. Harbour explained slide 13: "Alaska Vocational
Technical Center (AVTEC)." She continued that AVTEC, in
Seward, was critical to the department's mission of
advancing employment opportunities for Alaskans. Alaska
Vocational Technical Center was highly effective with an
average graduation rate of 92 percent over the previous 5
years and an average of 90 percent placement rate for their
graduates in their area of training within a year. The
department's budget for AVTEC included 2 changes in FY 19.
First was a change of $250,000 UGF to $250,000 DGF. Due to
AVTEC's continued efforts to raise revenue through
increasing partnerships the department believed that 5
percent of AVETEC's UGF could be replaced with program
receipt authority without negatively impacting services.
The second change reflected a DGF cut of about $173,000
related to the Technical Vocational and Education Program
(TVEP). When overall employment in Alaska declined, revenue
to the TVEP account declined. She explained that TVEP
funding reductions were necessary to avoid a shortfall.
Ms. Harbour explained slide 14: "Department Five-Year
Health Care Trends." AS requested by the committee, the
slide showed the department's health care costs over the
prior 5 years compared to the department's total budget
during the same period. While total health care costs were
down, the percentage that they represented of the
department's budget had increased. It was worth noting that
the department's position counts were down significantly
over the period. If they were not, the department would be
paying much more in health care costs. In order to help
drive down health care costs, the department was committed
to doing more to promote vitamin D and overall health with
its employees. She spoke of the department hosting a
wellness event in the previous week in its conference room
over the lunch hour. It provided employees with a
convenient opportunity to talk with a health coach about
how they might improve their personal wellbeing. She
concluded the presentation and thanked the committee.
Co-Chair Foster asked how many job centers had been closed
in the prior few years and their locations. Ms. Harbour
responded that there were 4 job centers closed in Kotzebue,
Utqiagvik, Seward, and Eagle River.
2:28:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked if there had been discussions of
closing any other job centers. Ms. Harbour replied that as
she had indicated, the department looked at every position
that became vacant and every lease that came up for
renewal. She noted that if a position were to become vacant
due to retirement or attrition at any of the smaller job
centers the department might consider closing them.
Representative Ortiz noted that Ms. Harbour had talked
about an overall 22 percent cut in funding since FY 15. Ms.
Harbour replied that the overall reduction since FY 15 was
38 percent UGF.
Representative Ortiz asked her to summarize some of the
opportunity costs resulting from the reductions. Ms.
Harbour reported that the majority of the reductions had
been in state funded workforce development grant programs.
The department had cut the Alaska Youth First Program which
provided career experience and training opportunities for
youth. The department also cut the Career and Technical
Education Grant Program that helped provide grants to
school districts for career and technical education. The
department cut the Oil and Gas Training Program which was
trying to develop an Alaska workforce for oil and gas. She
indicated that the construction academies were funded at
about half of their previous levels.
Representative Ortiz asked how an average person came to
attend AVTEC. He wondered where clients were coming from to
attend AVTEC. Ms. Harbour did not have all of the pertinent
information with her. She was aware that AVETEC had served
students from over 100 Alaskan communities. Many students
were from rural Alaska. There were 2 programs recently that
brought students to AVTEC to see if there were continued
training opportunities available. Excel Alaska was a group
that brought 60 students to AVTEC to get some training
experience to see what life would be like on campus. The
majority of the students came from the Kenai area because
of AVTEC's location.
Co-Chair Seaton mentioned that there were also self-pay
students that graduated from AVTEC.
2:32:31 PM
Representative Pruitt asked about the funding for AVETEC
and its receipt authority. He asked for further
clarification of the $250,00 she had mentioned. Ms. Harbour
responded that the amount was receipt authority from
student tuition and fee revenue and contract training
revenue.
Representative Thompson asked about the AVTEC program and
other programs within the University with vocational and
technical training such as the nursing program within each
entity. He wondered about other competitive programs. Ms.
Harbour replied that the University of Alaska had cut the
Allied Health Program at AVTEC 2 years prior. In reviewing
AVTEC's programs, the department made sure there were no
other alternatives or duplications.
Representative Grenn asked about enrollment and reductions
to AVTEC. He asked Mr. Harbour to send more details prior
to the subcommittee process. Ms. Harbour would provide the
information.
Representative Neuman thought the presentation was
interesting. He asked about unfilled positions. Ms. Harbour
answered there was a difference between the number of
budgeted positions and the number of filled positions. As
she had noted on the slide, the number of filled positions
changed constantly. The department made hires every day and
received resignations every day. The data contained in the
slide was as of December 15, 2017. It reflected a point in
time. The department had been asked to provide the number
of positions within the department. It was normal to have
vacancy within a department which was the reason OMB
required that departments had a vacancy factor that they
unfunded.
Representative Neuman interjected that it seemed like a
high number of unfilled positions. He asked about funds
being moved from UGF to DGF suggesting that it was an
accounting practice that made funds less visible. He
wondered why it had been done.
2:36:59 PM
Ms. Harbour replied that it was different types of money.
If AVTEC generated the money, it was coded as general fund
program receipts and was automatically called a designated
general fund. By AVTEC supporting itself, the designated
money was used rather than UGF to support it. It was still
in the budget and the department reported on it.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified that it was the proposed budget
and fund sources by the department. The legislature would
either approve or not approve it. He noted that
Representative Neuman had not been on the committee the
previous week when it had heard about vacancy factors. He
would pass the information along. He also commented that
the only way to control healthcare was to have a healthy
workforce. He spoke to the reduction in costs. He thanked
the department for its presentation.
2:39:26 PM
AT EASE
2:40:53 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC
FACILITIES
2:40:59 PM
MARK LUIKEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES, provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities Department Overview" dated January 29, 2018
(copy on file). He began on slide 2: Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities Core Services and
Sources." The department's mission was to keep Alaska
moving through service and infrastructure. Per Alaska
Statute 44.42 the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) was responsible for planning, research,
design, construction, operation, and protection of all
state transportation systems and many public facilities. It
was achieved through the department's core services and its
strategic approach known as results-based alignment.
Commissioner Luiken continued that the department preserved
Alaska's infrastructure by performing duties which included
projects and activities that extended the life of the
state's existing infrastructure. Infrastructure repair and
bridge preservation were two examples. The department
operated and supported safe and efficient movement on
existing structure. Snow and ice management and operating
certificated airports were two examples. Modernization
improved infrastructure to meet current standards and
capacity which the department did through product delivery.
Commissioner Luiken relayed that the department provided
services to move people and goods on the existing
infrastructure. Operating ferries and operating the Alaska
airport system were two examples. Results-based alignment
was the service delivery frame work the department used to
measure the contribution of services the department
delivered in support of its mission. He pointed out that
there were additional links provided on the slide.
2:43:13 PM
AMANDA HOLLAND, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, relayed that the
following 4 slides showed the budget charts prepared by
LFD.
Ms. Holland scrolled to slide 3: "Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities Share of Total Agency
Operations (GF Only)." The chart provided a 10-year look
back of the department's UGF and DGF funding. She reported
for the FY 19 governor's proposed budget the department's
UGF equaled $177.9 million and DGF totaled $97.9 million.
The numbers were close to FY 09 levels.
Ms. Holland turned to slide 4: "Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities Line Items (All
Funds)." She pointed out that the chart showed all funds by
line item. She noted the commodities and travel lines which
were below FY 09 levels. She highlighted that in FY 19 the
services line increased due to personal services being
transferred to the services line to fund shared services
reimbursable service agreements. The agreements were for
Shared Services of Alaska, the Office of Information
Technology, and the Division of Facility Services.
Ms. Holland moved to slide 5: "Department of Labor and
Workforce Development Appropriations (GF Only)." The slide
showed general funds only including UGF and DGF fund
sources. Highways, aviation, and facilities and the Alaska
Marine Highway System made up 94 percent of the
department's GF operating budget. It meant that 94 percent
of the general fund operating budget went to serving
Alaskans directly. In the FY 19 governor's proposed budget
all of the department's general fund appropriations were
below the FY 09 level.
Ms. Holland moved to slide 6: "Department of Labor and
Workforce Development Appropriations (All Funds)." She
reported that when looking at all funds for the FY 19
governor's proposed budget, Highways, Aviation, and
Facilities had the largest share of the operating budget.
The results delivery unit included $4.2 for the Division of
Facilities Services, a new division added for FY 19. The
statewide public facilities component was consolidated from
another appropriation into the new division which also
included the regional facilities components.
Ms. Holland advanced to slide 7: "Administration and
Support RDU." She reported that the slide showed a
breakdown of the department by results delivery unit. It
was broken down by fund category and the number of
positions in the third and fourth columns. The three
furthest right columns showed constitution, federal, and
statutory requirements. The rating of importance column in
the middle reflected the department's rating as critical,
important, beneficial, or status quo. She pointed out that
the administration and support results delivery unit
included several types of services including measurement
standards, commercial vehicle enforcement, statewide
aviation, program development, and statewide planning. She
and the commissioner would address a couple of the columns,
specifically the number of Alaskans served and the rating
of effectiveness.
Commissioner Luiken indicated that they had left the
numbers of Alaskans served column blank. He claimed that it
was a challenge to measure the number quantitatively. The
state's transportation infrastructure directly or
indirectly impacted every Alaskan every day. The system
worked all the time providing connectivity and access to
drivers, pilots, and passengers in a direct way.
Indirectly, the system facilitated delivering goods such as
food and medicine, or services such as emergency response.
They had chosen an effective rating because the department
was currently meeting the department's mission. Results-
based alignment performance data confirmed the department's
effectiveness rating.
2:47:37 PM
Ms. Holland moved to slide 8: "Design, Engineering, and
Construction; State Equipment Fleet; Highways, Aviation and
Facilities International Airports RDU; and Marine Highway
System RDUs." The unit was responsible for design,
engineering, and oversight of the capital program. The
capital program included roads, bridges, and runways -
horizontal construction. The state's infrastructure had
been developed to address unique needs of Alaskans on the
move. She reported that only 2 percent of Alaska's land
area was accessible by road, and 82 percent of Alaska
communities were not connected to the road system.
Ms. Holland continued that the state equipment fleet
results delivery unit procured, maintained, and disposed of
vehicles, equipment and their attachments which were owned
and operated by the executive branch, Legislative Affairs,
and the court system. It was a shared service responsible
for approximately 7,129 pieces of state equipment, and
vehicles. She explained that the highways, aviation, and
facilities unit was responsible for the operation,
maintenance, safeguard, and control of the state's
infrastructure system of highways, airports, harbors, and
public facilities. She noted that the three regional
components had been combined into one line for design, one
for construction, and one for highways and aviation.
Commissioner Luiken turned to slide 9: "Safety and Health."
He remarked that safety was at the forefront of everything
the department did. Enhancing and further strengthening the
department's safety culture was part of the department's
strategic plan and included a focus on health, safety, and
environment. Safety of the traveling public was a top
priority. He explained that in addition, the department's
employees were its most valuable asset. The department was
working to reduce incidents of injuries for the traveling
public as well as its employees. At DOT everyone was seen
as a safety leader. An important aspect of safety was
employee health. In the department employees encouraged
each other to walk during breaks and lunch. It hosted AETNA
wellness functions and posted monthly health wellness-
related newsletters at various facilities. He noted that on
his Commissioner's Corner webpage he offered Vitamin D
awareness and education. The Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities' budgeted healthcare costs had
decreased by $2.5 million in the previous 6 years.
Healthcare costs had remained steady as a percentage of the
department's total operating budget over the prior 6 years
- between 8 percent and 8.5 percent. The percentage was
lower than the FY 18 statewide average of about 35 percent.
Commissioner Luiken concluded that DOT was an economic
driver for Alaska. The overall economic impact of
transportation included access, connectivity, and mobility.
Transportation was essential for economic activity to take
place in Alaskan communities. The infrastructure DOT
designed, constructed, operated, and preserved allowed
Alaskans to live and thrive in their communities. The
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities was
absolutely necessary for the economic health and vitality
of Alaska. He thanked the committee and made himself
available for questions.
2:51:07 PM
Representative Thompson referred to slides 7 and 8. He
noted there were several "other" funding sources. He asked
how much of "Other" funding was federal funding. Ms.
Holland responded that "other" was comprised of a number of
different fund sources. it included such things as
interagency receipts, international airport receipts,
capital improvement program receipts, the Whittier Tunnel
receipts, Alaska Liquified Natural Gas (AKLNG) and aviation
fuel tax receipts, rural airport receipts, and rural
airport interagency receipts. The "Other" column was made
up of about 11 different fund sources. One of the sources
was the department's capital improvement program receipts.
Representative Thompson asked if it was federal funding.
Ms. Holland replied that in the operating budget the
department had very little direct federal funding. She
explained that the department had its capital budget and
employees who were compensated through the operating budget
who could charge to a capital project which was what the
capital improvement program receipts allowed.
Representative Thompson asked about the department's
engineering and design services and whether they were
charged to federal projects. Ms. Holland responded that he
was correct that several of them were a direct charge to a
capital project. In the operating budget the department had
to have authority to charge to those projects.
Representative Grenn referred to the funding decrease noted
on slide 6 for the design and engineering construction
funding. He wondered if the reduction had to do with a
reduction in the capital budget. Ms. Holland responded that
as the department had looked for efficiencies and had
reduced UGF in the design, engineering, and construction
component wherever possible. It showed a decrease in the
area. Positions had also been deleted within the unit
reducing the budget overall.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to slides 7 and 8. He asked about
DGF, other funding, and hollow authority. Ms. Holland
reported having taken a look at unrealized authority and
reported that the department was eliminating some of the
authority in FY 19. However, most of the authority was
realized.
2:55:01 PM
Representative Ortiz asked about funding being reduced to
FY 09 levels. He wondered about the overall impact of the
department being able to meet its goals to preserve,
operate, modernize, and provide. He asked if there were
specific areas that were falling short due to reduced
funding. Ms. Holland brought up the example of highways and
aviation in terms of preservation and operation. The
department needed to care for its road system. Most of the
state's road system was funded with federal funds. In
accepting the funds, the state was responsible for keeping
its roads in good repair. An example over the previous few
years was the reduction in the quality of traffic signs. If
the signs were shot up, they were not immediately replaced.
The department had a conditions rating applied to Alaska's
roads and surfaces ranging from "A" to "F". The department
tried to maintain at least a "B" rating. The department had
seen some of the ratings slip over the prior few years for
surfaces, culverts, and potholes. It had been difficult to
meet the department standards recently.
Representative Ortiz asked if she would agree that the
preservation of Alaska's transportation infrastructure was
beginning to suffer. Ms. Holland replied that he was
correct. The department was starting to see a faster
deterioration of its infrastructure.
Representative Ortiz asked about the chart that showed
funding for the different divisions which had all either
flattened out or declined. He wondered how much of the
design, engineering, and construction budget applied to
aviation and the Alaska Marine Highway. Ms. Holland asked
Representative Ortiz to clarify his question.
Representative Ortiz asked for clarification as to how the
design, engineering, and construction was spent in the
areas of highways and AMHS. Ms. Holland responded that the
majority of the funding for the design, engineering, and
construction group was focused on surface transportation,
the state's roads and highways. The department had some
capital funding that went to AMHS for vessel construction
and overhaul.
Representative Pruitt asked about maintaining the state's
infrastructure. He noted the appropriation request for a
commuter service from Anchorage to the Valley. He wondered
where the request came from. He wondered why funding had
gone to something that had not been requested. Commissioner
Luiken responded that the initiative was brought to the
governor's attention by the mayors of Anchorage and the
valley. There was a proposal to look at the viability of a
pilot project. There was a request for a repeal and re-
appropriation of the money that was identified. A portion
of the money was from the Knik Arm Crossing. He clarified
that it was capital funding rather than preservation
funding.
3:01:08 PM
Representative Pruitt suggested that the Commissioner
should have notified the legislature. He asked why the
legislature was not notified prior to a press release.
Commissioner Luiken did not have a good answer. He thought
the department could do a better job of communicating in
the future.
Representative Tilton brought up the subject of
maintenance. She understood that the department was doing a
comprehensive review of the state's public facilities and
leased buildings to determine whether it was worth it for
the state to own certain facilities. She asked him to
elaborate on the study and when the legislature might see a
report on the subject. Commissioner Luiken replied that the
department was getting ready to conduct a facility
inventory which was a part of an effort by the Division of
Facilities Service. The department was also conducting a
facility condition inventory to establish a baseline. The
inventory would capture the condition and square footage of
each of the facilities owned by the state. The department
would also be looking at opportunities for consolidation
and the potential to sell some of the facilities. He noted
that it was an ongoing process, as the state owned a
significant amount of property.
Representative Ortiz thought funding for the AMHS had been
reduced by about $38 million since FY 13. He thought the
reduction manifested in terms of weeks of service. He asked
for specific examples of who received less service than in
FY 13. Commissioner Luiken would have to get back to him
with specific examples. He emphasized that the department
had tried to minimize the impact to any one community. One
of the goals of the department was to avoid stopping
service to any of the 33 Alaskan communities AMHS currently
served, despite funding reductions.
3:05:09 PM
Representative Ortiz appreciated that the division would
not stop service to any of the communities. He suspected
reductions would mean significantly reduced service to all
of the communities that AMHS served. He asked if he was
accurate. Commissioner Luiken replied that he could confirm
that there was less service to Alaskan communities in terms
of frequency.
Representative Guttenberg referred to slides 7 and 8. He
pointed to the three highest percent of cost through fee
items. He asked about statewide aviation, the international
airport, and the state's fleet. He thought the fleet was
100 percent funded. He asked the commissioner to talk about
the other two items and Alaska's rural airports.
Commissioner Luiken began with the international airport
system, which he confirmed was 100 percent funded through
rates and fees collected at the two airports. They were 100
percent funded by users. There were 32 signatory carriers
that participated and any other carriers using the
international airport system.
Ms. Holland responded that the majority of funding for
statewide aviation came through leasing. The state
collected money from concessionaires leasing property from
the department, which was the reason for the 87 percent
listed under "percent of cost through fees" on the chart.
Co-Chair Seaton asked what line and page Ms. Holland was
referring to. Ms. Holland responded that statewide aviation
was on slide 7 on the third line up from the bottom.
Representative Guttenberg asked how much the department
paid for internet service. Ms. Holland did not have the
number with her but could provide it. Representative
Guttenberg asked her to break down the information by
region.
3:08:23 PM
Representative Neuman mentioned a review done regarding the
Anchorage International Airport and the ability for the
facility to generate revenue. He was hoping to get a report
of the review. There had been some high-level
recommendations on square footage that could be utilized.
He asked for the information.
Co-Chair Seaton asked the commissioner if there was a
report available. Commissioner Luiken supposed there was
probably a report but did not have it with him. Co-Chair
Seaton requested that the information be provided to his
office.
Representative Neuman asked who owned the large railroad
building in the middle of the Anchorage International
Airport. He thought the building was referred to as the
Sheffield Building. He asked if it was an asset of DOT.
Commissioner Luiken responded that it was owned by the
Alaska Railroad Corporation. Representative Neuman asked if
DOT received monies from the railroad in terms of the value
of the property. He commented that there was a huge
building sitting in the middle of the airport doing
nothing. He wondered why the building was not being used.
Co-Chair Seaton thought his question needed to be directed
to the Railroad Corporation. Commissioner Luiken was
willing to gather the answer. He thought it might be a good
discussion to have with the railroad.
Co-Chair Seaton appreciated the information presented
regarding health and safety. He indicated that
commissioners were the employers and responsible for the
health of their employees and their dependents through
their employment. He commented that whatever the state
could do to reduce health care costs, avoiding avoidable
health care circumstances such as diseases, was helpful. He
thanked the commissioner for including the information in
his presentation. He reviewed the agenda for the following
morning.
ADJOURNMENT
3:13:01 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 01 29 UA FY19 HFC Overview.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - UA Budget Overview |
| HFIN DOLWD Overview 1-29-2018 Final-adj.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - DLWD Budget Overview |
| Final HFC DOTPF Overview - 29 Jan 2018 revised.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - DOT Budget Overview |
| HFIN 1-29-2018 DOLWD Overview Notes.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DLWD Budget Overview Notes |
| DOLWD Overview to HFIN 1-29-18 Follow-up Letter.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Log 17 Response to HFIN Committee Questions 01.29.2018.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DOT Response Qs HFIN overview |
| AMHS FY13 - FY17 Port Calls by Port.pdf |
HFIN 1/29/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DOT Response Qs HFIN overview |