Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS 519
02/26/2020 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 | |
| HB205 || HB206 | |
| Amendments | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; making
appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 206
"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."
2:13:18 PM
^AMENDMENTS
2:13:33 PM
Co-Chair Foster directed members to the next amendment. He
noted that the committee had left off on page 8 [of the
"2020 Legislature - Operating Budget Transaction Detail -
House Structure" document (copy on file)], Amendment
H HSS 2. [Note: amendments were heard on 2/25/20 during the
1:30 p.m. meeting and 2/26/20 during the 9:30 a.m. meeting.
See separate minutes for detail.]
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H HSS 2 (copy on
file):
Children's Services
H HSS 2 - Part-time OCS Caseworker in Wrangell
Offered by Representative Ortiz
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) 32.8
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 58.4
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained the amendment. He shared that
over the past several months he had heard about a
continuing lack of Office of Children's Services (OCS)
services in Wrangell. He detailed there was currently one
OCS worker serving Wrangell out of Petersburg; however, the
person also had caseloads in Juneau, Hoonah, and Sitka.
There had been a problem getting needed attention to
specific issues that had developed in the Wrangell
community. The amendment would fund a half-time position
for an OCS worker in Wrangell. He referenced comments made
from the community of Wrangell during public testimony on
the particular issue. The community had come to a consensus
that something needed to be done and had committed to work
within the framework of a half-time caseworker. The
community would cover housing costs for the worker. He
noted that no added lease space would be required. The
community was committed and had communicated with the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Deputy
Commissioner Clinton Lasley and OCS Director Natalie
Norberg.
Vice-Chair Ortiz explained there was an overall
understanding the department would pilot the project to see
how it worked. The community would pay the other half of
the position's duties that would involve other types of
things that would be upstream in nature in relationship to
some of the issues existing in Wrangell. He believed
Mr. Lasley and Ms. Norberg were on board with the pilot
project. He asked for the committee's support.
2:16:37 PM
Co-Chair Johnston spoke in support of the amendment. She
believed it showed a good faith effort on the part of the
community of Wrangell. She was appreciative of programs
that communities found important enough to put skin in the
game. She noted it was "these kind of partnerships" that
the state would be looking for going into the future.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked what the caseload was
like for one OCS worker in Wrangell. She asked what had
occurred in the past when there had been an increased need
for an OCS worker in Wrangell. She asked if a caseworker
had been pulled from Juneau, Sitka, or elsewhere to help
assist the community.
Vice-Chair Ortiz answered that the issues in Wrangell had
started to emerge a number of years back. He detailed that
at one point OCS had a full-time position in Wrangell.
After the position had been pulled in the past several
years, two OCS positions had remained in Petersburg, which
meant Wrangell had still been getting adequate attention.
He elaborated that Petersburg was down to one OCS worker
who was responsible for Petersburg, Wrangell, Kake, and
sometimes Sitka and Juneau. He communicated that some
unfortunate incidents had occurred in relationship to the
duties of the OCS worker. He clarified there were no
problems with the particular worker in terms of their
diligence and ability to do the best they could. However,
some holes had caused unfortunate situations in Wrangell,
which had resulted in the position request. He relayed that
specific caseload numbers varied, and he did not have the
detail. The agency was stressed thinner and thinner around
the state and Wrangell had seen some very negative impacts
over the years due to shrinking resources.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard reasoned that an increase
in PCNs was considered to help alleviate some of the stress
caused by an increase in caseloads. She wondered if
something dire had occurred that had led to the need for a
half-time position [in Wrangell].
Co-Chair Johnston believed the committee had heard in
public testimony that the caseworker in Petersburg had well
over 60 cases at any given time. The issue was compounded
by weather because it was difficult for the person to get
into Wrangell, which had the bulk of the caseload work.
2:21:01 PM
Representative Carpenter addressed the part-time nature and
the travel associated with the position. He thought the
position cost $72,000 plus $19,000 in travel per year. He
asked if the individual would work only in Wrangell or if
they would travel to other communities. He asked what part-
time meant.
Vice-Chair Ortiz answered that the $19,200 was a one-time
cost for initial training of the OCS position.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H HSS 2 was
ADOPTED.
2:22:20 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H HSS 3 and
H HSS 4 (copy on file):
Public Health
H HSS 3 - Restore separate Emergency Medical Services
Grants allocation, reversing consolidation to
Emergency Programs
Linked to H HSS 4 - Restore separate Emergency Medical
Services Grants allocation, reversing consolidation to
Emergency Programs TrIn 367163
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) -401.3
1003 GF/Match (UGF) -2,632.4
Public Health
H HSS 4 - Restore separate Emergency Medical Services
Grants allocation, reversing consolidation to
Emergency Programs
Linked to H HSS 3 - Restore separate Emergency Medical
Services Grants allocation, reversing consolidation to
Emergency Programs TrOut 367162
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) 401.3
1003 GF/Match (UGF) 2,632.4
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained that the amendments would
restore funding for the emergency medical services grants
into its own separate allocation, similar to historical
funding. The FY 21 governor's budget proposed to
consolidate the funding for emergency medical services
grants from its own allocation into the emergency program's
allocation for the purposes of management efficiency. He
continued that given the importance of emergency medical
service regional organizations in managing pre-hospital
care across Alaska, having their own allocation provided
greater transparency in how and where the funds were used.
He explained that by consolidating the funds, there was no
delineation that the funds were used for the EMS regional
grants. He added that the amendments did not add any new
spending, they only impacted how the funds were tracked by
the department.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendments H HSS 3 and
H HSS 4 were ADOPTED.
2:24:08 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H LAW 1,
H LAW 2, H LAW 3, H LAW 4, and H LAW 5 (copy on file):
Civil Division Except Contracts Relating to
Interpretation of Janus v AFSCME
H LAW 1 - Restore Funding Associated with Outside
Counsel Contractual Expenditures
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 400.0
Civil Division Except Contracts Relating to
Interpretation of Janus v AFSCME
H LAW 2 - Remove Wordage
Civil Division Except Contracts Relating to
Interpretation of Janus v AFSCME
H LAW 3 - Undo renaming to "Civil Division Except
Contracts Relating to Interpretation of Janus v
AFSCME"
Legal Contracts Relating to Interpretation of Janus v
AFSCME Decision
H LAW 4 - Remove Wordage
Legal Contracts Relating to Interpretation of Janus v
AFSCME Decision
H LAW 5 - Remove New Appropriation and Allocation for
Interpretation and Application of the Janus v AFSCME
Decision
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -20.0
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Carpenter discussed the governor's endeavor
to align state policy with a recent Alaska Supreme Court
decision commonly known as the Janus decision. He stated it
was an attempt to protect the state workers' civil rights.
The legislature was faced with deciding whether to defund a
program when it disagreed with policy decisions. In the
specific case, if the program was defunded, the legislature
had to acknowledge it would put child protection and
natural resources cases that fell within the Civil Division
in jeopardy because of defunding. He was against defunding
the Department of Law merely because the legislature did
not like the policy. He explained that defunding the
department would jeopardize other cases. He highlighted
that the cost of the Janus contract was speculative. He
reasoned that making cuts would impact current cases. He
remarked that the concept of the Janus decision was
controversial. He believed the committee should look at the
finance aspect of the issue, not the policy piece. He did
not believe the committee should legislate policy by
stripping money from the budget.
Representative Josephson opposed the amendments. He agreed
that it was not a policy call, it was a budget tightening
finance call. He noted that the matter in question was
still in trial court in Anchorage. He highlighted the bond
case where the state was trying to sell bonds to pay off
its oil and gas tax credit obligation. He stated that the
appellate court that would follow could be years away, but
the contract was slowly being drawn on at present. He
elaborated that $100,000 had already been extended on the
contract. He reasoned it was money that could be saved at
present, given that according to the administration, the
contract was for a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.
Representative Josephson noted that Representative
Carpenter had stated that the attorney general was hoping
to bring the state into consistency with the Janus
decision. He countered that the amendments would bring the
state into a new world beyond the Janus decision. He
clarified there was no threat to the Child in Need of Aid
office or the natural resources office because the cut in
question came from Labor and State Affairs where the
contract money had come from. He noted there was a
12 percent vacancy factor, which the committee and
subcommittee had heard about.
2:28:32 PM
Representative Merrick opposed the amendment. She found the
increment of nearly $500,000 to be unacceptable in the
current fiscal situation. She had spoken with the attorney
general directly who had assured her that the Department of
Law had highly qualified attorneys capable of handling the
issue in-house for a fraction of the cost. She stated that
the challenge was not one of competency but one of
capacity. She asked the attorney general to prioritize his
cases within the limits of the department's existing
funding. She believed the money in the amendments seemed
like a discretionary expense that could not be afforded
during the current fiscal time.
Co-Chair Johnston noted that committee members likely had
varying opinions on the Janus decision. She had not been
encouraged by the attorney general's approach. She
appreciated the Janus ruling because she believed it gave
some options to state government at a time when options
were needed, particularly as downsizing was occurring. She
believed putting the issue on the national scene had been
too hurried and too much. She remarked that the case was in
the state courts and not at the Supreme Court level. She
stated that the number of cases that made it to the Supreme
Court was very limited. Additionally, Supreme Court
decisions took time. She shared that a friend/constituent
had just finished two rounds at the Supreme Court. She
stressed that it was a finance decision and she believed
the amendments did not reflect money well spent.
Representative LeBon acknowledged it was within the
legislature's power to specify how the department handled
the appropriations. He thought the legislature needed to be
careful about getting too involved in the specific
management of policy in the executive branch. He recalled
his banking days where legal matters had been handled both
in-house and outside the bank. He explained that at times
the bank used outside expertise that was appropriate for a
situation. He had confidence in the department's ability to
find a way to ensure that public employees' rights were
protected regardless of the outcome of the amendments. He
opposed the amendments.
Representative Carpenter provided wrap up on the
amendments. He stated that the actions taken in the
subcommittee were very deliberate. He believed the end
result and the goal was to hamstring the governor and the
attorney general in their ability to implement the Janus
decision.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
2:32:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton, Carpenter
OPPOSED: LeBon, Merrick, Ortiz, Wool, Josephson, Knopp,
Foster, Johnston
The MOTION to adopt Amendments H LAW 1, H LAW 2, H LAW 3,
H LAW 4, and H LAW 5 FAILED (3/8).
2:33:32 PM
Representative Merrick MOVED to ADOPT Amendments H MVA 1
and H DPS 4 (copy on file):
Military and Veterans' Affairs
H MVA 1 - Transfer Civil Air Patrol from DPS to DMVA
Linked to H DPS 4 - Transfer Civil Air Patrol from DPS
to DMVA TrOut 367173
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 250.0
Statewide Support
H DPS 4 - Transfer Civil Air Patrol from DPS to DMVA
Linked to H MVA 1 - Transfer Civil Air Patrol from DPS
to DMVA TrIn 367174
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -250.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Merrick expressed excitement about bringing
the noncontroversial amendments to the committee. She
explained that the amendments would transfer the Alaska
wing of the Civil Air Patrol and associated funding from
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to the Department of
Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA). She detailed that the
Alaska wing of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) was the nonprofit
auxiliary arm of the U.S. Air Force. Their headquarters
were located on the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER)
and were activated through the U.S. Air Force Alaska Rescue
Coordination Center. Although CAP assisted DPS in search
and rescue operations, DPS did not have the authority to
task CAP with conducting missions. She shared that in the
DPS subcommittee, people had expressed a desire to maintain
CAP funding and $250,000 was restored to its budget.
Representative Merrick elaborated that she had spoken to
DPS during the subcommittee process and the department had
indicated its support for CAP, but that it may not be the
department best suited to do so. The amendment would
transfer CAP and associated funding from DPS to DMVA where
it would better align with the department mission. She had
spoken with the adjunct general who had indicated DMVA was
ready and willing to take on the Civil Air Patrol.
Representative Knopp was extremely pleased with the
amendment. He had been interested in moving CAP from DPS
and had contemplated the Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development; however, he believed DMVA was a
much better fit. He noted there had been committee
discussions about the funding - the increment had typically
been funded at or slightly above the proposed range. He
highlighted that all of the pilots flying for CAP were
volunteers and did not receive wages or overtime. The funds
went to paying utility bills and airplane fuel. He
emphasized it was a very good value for the money. He
supported the amendment.
Representative LeBon thanked the amendment sponsor for
thinking outside the box. He shared that prior to 1985,
DMVA had been responsible for CAP. He reported that it had
been transferred by Governor Bill Sheffield to DPS. The
subcommittee had been told that at times DPS was pressed to
give CAP the type of support it deserved. He reported his
frustration at fighting the fight for two years in a row
and was pleased at the proposal to address the issue in a
different way to achieve success.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendments H MVA 1 and
H DPS 4 were ADOPTED.
2:37:29 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H MVA 2 (copy
on file):
Military and Veterans' Affairs
H MVA 2 - Requesting Report on ALMR/SATS Transfer
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment that included
intent language regarding the request for a report on the
Alaska Land Mobile Radio System (ALMR) SATS [State of
Alaska Telecommunications System] transfer. He read from a
prepared statement:
The governor's Fiscal Year 21 operating budget
transfers the Alaska Land Mobile Radio System,
commonly known as ALMR, and the State of Alaska
Telecommunications System (SATS) from the Department
of Administration into the Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs. The intent language would help
ensure that the legislature is kept apprised of the
progress and long-term outcome of the result of this
transfer.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H MVA 2 was
ADOPTED.
2:38:48 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DNR 1
(copy on file):
Fire Suppression, Land & Water Resources
H DNR 1 - Federal Receipt Authority for Hunting Guide
Concession Program
1002 Fed Rcpts (Fed) 1,000.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment pertained
to an item that had been vetoed the previous year. He
detailed that big game guides, supported by the Board of
Game and the Big Game Commercial Services Board, had tried
to develop a concession program on state lands for years
(they were currently on federal lands). He read from a
prepared statement:
A concession is fundamentally a lease to guide in a
specific area that is awarded on a merit base
criterion and with a limited duration, usually five to
ten years. Alaska's constitution's common use clause
prohibits sale of hunting guide concessions unlike our
fish limited entry permits. It requires guide
concessions to be awarded competitively. Concessions
restrict and separate hunting guides. They do not
restrict resident hunters; they benefit ethical
guides. Hunting guides concession programs are on
federal lands now, not state lands. DNR land and BLM
land are only land statuses that allow unlimited entry
of hunting guides.
This amendment, which costs the state nothing - it
would be receipt authority of federal dollars. This
amendment gives DNR authority to accept federal funds
to implement a guide concession program that would
apply to DNR and BLM federal land. There's a higher
rate of Alaska ownership of guide businesses that
operate on concession land because the competitive
criteria for winning a concession favors Alaskans.
Criteria such as years of experience hunting in a
particular area.
Unregulated state lands are where many nonresident
guides without Alaska experience and community ties
end up operating. They often don't win the bids that
Alaskan guides can win on federal lands. Unregulated
commercial hunting contributes to user conflict and
resource shortage and can force the decision to
restrict opportunity for Alaskans through drawing
hunts.
Representative Josephson reiterated that the amendment
would cost the state nothing; it would be supported by a
state fee structure in the event it came into place -
meaning the federal dollars were received and the operation
began. He read from a letter by former Deputy Interior
Secretary Joe Balash dated July 2018 (copy not on file):
The BLM agrees that it is in the best interest of all
stakeholders involved to work collaboratively to
update Alaska's guide concession program. A guide
concession program for the management of Alaska's
wildlife and public land resources for professional
big game hunting guides and outfitters, could lead to
a number of benefits including enhanced enforcement of
game laws.
2:42:02 PM
Co-Chair Johnston asked about the concessions' terms and
timeframe. She was concerned that concessions could build
equity in a way that could be dicey.
Representative Josephson answered that the amendment was
intended to mirror the federal lease system. The duration
of the concessions was five to ten years.
Representative Knopp opposed the amendment. He stated that
regardless of the federal receipt authority, the plan was
very controversial with many of the outdoor groups and
resident hunters. He did not know the position of the
Alaska Outdoor Council. He believed the plan had been
vetoed in the budget. He referenced Representative
Josephson's mention that it was guide concessions on DNR
and BLM land. He was uncertain whether there were any
federal guide concession programs. He was not willing to
support the program until the public had an increased level
of comfort.
Representative Josephson respected Representative Knopp's
position but clarified there was a concession on federal
land for guiding, which had been in effect for years.
Co-Chair Johnston MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson
OPPOSED: LeBon, Merrick, Sullivan-Leonard, Tilton,
Carpenter, Knopp, Ortiz, Wool, Johnston, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment H DNR 1 FAILED (1/10).
2:45:12 PM
Representative Knopp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 1 (copy
on file):
Fire and Life Safety
H DPS 1 - Add Director position to AK Fire Standards
Council
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) 166.4
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Knopp explained that the amendment would add
the director's position back to the Alaska Fire Standards
Council similar to the Public Safety Standards Council. He
stated that like the Civil Air Patrol, the entity fell
under the Department of Public Safety (DPS). He recalled
that DPS Commissioner Amanda Price had stated that DPS had
no statutory obligation or priority related to the Civil
Air Patrol and the Alaska Fire Standards Council. He
elaborated that the two entities had been somewhat defunded
and downsized. He furthered that the issue had been brought
to his attention by the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
during a recent visit. He reported that the association had
requested the restoration of the director position.
Representative LeBon shared that he had chaired the DPS
subcommittee and had no objection to the amendment.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Amendment H DPS 1 was ADOPTED.
2:47:04 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 2 (copy
on file):
Alaska State Troopers
H DPS 2 - Requesting report regarding Court Services
Officer job classification pay
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained that the amendment included
intent language that instructed the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) to provide a report analyzing the pay
disparity between a court services officer and state
trooper job classes. He detailed that court services
officers were responsible for transporting inmates to and
from correctional facilities for court appearances and
medical care as well as maintaining security in court rooms
and serving process documents. He elaborated that court
service officers were not included in the recent pay
classification increase for the state trooper job
classification. He explained that the disparity between
court service officer pay and state trooper pay had
subsequently increased. He relayed that a report on any
effects the situation could have on recruitment and
retention in the court service officer job class would help
with future policy.
Representative Carpenter asked if the intent language would
also to address the differences in job duties.
Representative LeBon answered that the depth of the dive
would be up to the process itself. He would welcome the
inclusion of that type of information.
Representative Carpenter requested a moment to write up
language that would include job duties in the amendment.
2:48:57 PM
AT EASE
2:50:02 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Carpenter MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DPS 2
to insert the words "job duties" following the word "the"
to read "analyzing the job duties and pay disparity."
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the information
Representative LeBon was seeking with regard to job
classifications, duties, and pay could be obtained from the
Department of Administration, Division of Personnel and
Labor Relations.
Representative LeBon responded that they would see how the
information flowed to the legislature via the department or
in the manner that was proposed. He was merely looking for
the information.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the amendment
sponsor had sought information from the department prior to
offering the intent language.
Representative LeBon replied that he had not.
Representative Wool asked if the intent was to identify how
similar court service officer positions were to state
trooper positions in order to determine how close the wages
should be. He thought it sounded like there was a pay
disparity between the two positions that performed
different jobs.
Representative LeBon answered in the affirmative. He
explained there was overlap in the duties of the two
positions, but he did not know the extent. The goal was to
understand that both groups were being treated equally and
fairly in terms of pay.
Representative Wool asked if court service officers were
armed in the court room.
Representative LeBon replied that he believed they were
armed. He thought Representative Josephson may have more
information.
Representative Josephson answered that officers were armed
and were called judicial services officers. He remarked
that the individuals brought people into custody and took
them away in addition to other duties.
2:53:45 PM
Representative Wool noted that the officers also
transported people from prison. He imagined the positions
interfaced with the Department of Corrections as well. He
remarked that there was a continuum of officers between
corrections officers, court services officers, and police
officers. He knew corrections officers were not armed. He
did not know if court services officers were armed when
transporting prisoners. He surmised they would find out in
the report.
Representative LeBon relayed that the intent language asked
DPS to evaluate all information available. Additionally,
the report to the legislature would include the
department's fiscal capabilities and its expectation of
employees. He communicated that any and all information
available should be considered in the analysis.
Co-Chair Johnston WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment H DPS 2 was
ADOPTED as AMENDED.
2:55:22 PM
Representative Merrick MOVED to ADOPT Amendment H DPS 3
(copy on file):
Village Public Safety Officer Program
H DPS 3 - Reduce Funding for Village Public
Safety Officer Program
1004 Gen Fund (UGF) -1,000.0
Co-Chair Johnston OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Merrick explained the amendment with a
prepared statement:
This amendment reduces funding for the Village Public
Safety Officer program. It is with somewhat of a heavy
heart that I offer this amendment again, this year.
That means that the program was not able to hire the
needed VPSOs to provide village public safety in the
capacity that it needs to. But it has been historical
that the village public safety officer program has had
difficulty recruiting and retaining VPSOs and has
historically had to lapse money due primarily to those
unfilled positions. For several successive years, the
program has lapsed funds and last year $3.3 million
alone was lapsed. With this unspent money it's
important to get an accurate accountability of what
our budget is, how much money we spend and on what.
It's hard to shore that up when we don't know what's
coming back and what hasn't been spent.
Our public safety subcommittee added the $1 million to
already $11 million that the governor proposed. I know
this was done with the best intentions to show support
for the VPSO program, which I support wholeheartedly.
But we can't keep giving more funds to a program that
lapses funds. I hope that I can be proven wrong, that
they can hire more VPSOs and that we can fund that
through a supplemental budget. This is no way to
slight the VPSO program, I very much support rural
public safety. Public safety is one of the most
important functions of government. This is just an
accounting issue.
Representative LeBon spoke in opposition to the amendment.
He relayed that the subcommittee had a thorough discussion
and debate about the VPSO program. He shared that he had
wanted to put more than $1 million back into the program;
however, he had hesitated to do so without further
discussion in the House and Senate. He reported that the
VPSO working group had studied the issue and had
recommended taking the funding back to FY 18 levels, which
would have been an increase in $3 million. He recognized
that some funds in the program had lapsed in the past;
however, he was confident the VPSO working group was making
progress in a number of areas where grantees believed the
program may not have been administered as effectively as it
could have been and that progress was being made. He stated
that the $1 million was a modest increase to the program's
budget.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard supported the amendment.
She stated that the committee had talked about the VPSO
program for the past four years. She found it challenging
that money set aside for public safety in rural areas was
not being used effectively. She elaborated that the money
was not used to provide the public safety that was
drastically needed in rural areas. She thought the $1
million reduction was important. She wanted to see what the
VPSO working group recommended in regard to a fiscal plan.
She reasoned that perhaps additional funding could be
considered by the legislature if the working group
specified it was needed. She highlighted that the program
already had a budget of $11 million and was not filling the
positions and its intent. She believed it was prudent to
reduce the $1 million.
Representative Knopp shared that he did not sit on the DPS
subcommittee and he was reluctant to undo its actions
because the increase was modest; however, he agreed with
the amendment sponsor that the program had experienced
problems and lapsing money was not favorable. He believed
the sponsor's request was reasonable. He was interested to
hear the number of employed VPSOs and the number of vacant
positions. He wondered if any progress had been made.
3:01:10 PM
Representative Merrick replied that there were 43 VPSO
positions filled and 5 vacant. She elaborated that 8
individuals were scheduled to attend the academy and 34
VPSOs were currently operational.
Representative LeBon responded to an earlier question by
Representative Sullivan-Leonard. He relayed that the VPSO
working group had recommended the funding at the full
amount he had mentioned previously. He explained that the
amendment would only partially fund the working group's
request.
Co-Chair Foster asked for the number vetoed by the governor
in the FY 20 budget. He believed it was $3 million.
Representative Merrick believed Co-Chair Foster was
correct.
3:02:23 PM
AT EASE
3:03:31 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster repeated the previous question. He asked
for the amount vetoed by the governor in the FY 20 budget.
Representative Merrick answered that the original FY 20
budget had been $14 million and $3 million had been vetoed.
She explained the amount that would lapse would not be
known until the end of the fiscal year. She detailed that
at the end of the second quarter only 35 percent of the
funding had been distributed. She believed it was likely
funding would be lapsed in the current year.
Co-Chair Foster considered the numbers. He reasoned that
the veto of $3 million reflected about 20 percent of the
original $14 million budget. He referred to the reference
to lapsing funds. He asked if the amendment sponsor had
read the VPSO working group report. He paraphrased from the
report that included nine recommendations. He detailed that
two of the findings under recommendation 3 specified that
the problematic approach to grant funding approvals had led
to artificial funding lapses that had been used as a
justification for reducing the VPSO budget. He had heard
numerous times from grantees that their requests were
constantly being denied. Grantees wanted the ability to use
the funds for small items like tires or fuel and larger
items like infrastructure. He explained that grantees were
not using all of the money because their requests were
being denied. He noted that the information was coming from
the [working group] report.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Representative LeBon had
mentioned FY 18 funding levels. The working group
recommendation was between $13.4 million and $13.5 million.
He explained that the amendment would decrease the funding
from $12 million to $11 million, which was $2.4 million
below the recommendation. He wanted the funding level to be
as close to the $13.4 million as possible. He had been
concerned with the disparity. He strongly supported what
the state was doing with troopers and correctional officers
in terms of recruitment and retention. He believed the
current governor and legislature had made public safety a
priority. He detailed that the House Finance Committee had
provided more funding for personnel, salary increases, and
recruitment and retention of troopers and correctional
officers. It was his desire to do the same with the VPSO
program. He referenced backup he had passed out showing
intent language (copy on file):
It is the intent of the Legislature that the
Department of Public Safety continue to collaborate
with the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) grantees
to strengthen a recruitment and retention plan. This
plan may include spending for infrastructure such as
VPSO housing, office space, and holding cells.
Co-Chair Foster suggested removing the decrement of $1
million and inserting the intent language. He relayed that
grantees had been working on a recruitment and retention
plan. He elaborated that audit findings had found some
fairly minor issues that were taking place. He wanted the
plan to be strengthened. He remarked there had been
significant media attention over the past year with the
Anchorage Daily News article series and ProPublica article
series. The series had highlighted villages where a cell
was merely a room and a person may just be handcuffed to a
chair. He explained that a lot of infrastructure was
lacking. He believed the $1 million could go a long way
toward helping to fix some of the problem.
Co-Chair Foster highlighted that the working group had
referred to unfunded mandates. He detailed that unfunded
mandates included things such as the state would provide a
VPSO to a village but the regional nonprofit Native
organizations responsible for coordination also needed to
provide things like office space, holding cells, and other.
He explained that the space ended up being a cabin or shack
that was nothing like a traditional jail or holding cell.
Meanwhile, any other public safety component in the state
had well equipped vehicles and jail space, yet at the
village level the state would not provide the
infrastructure. He believed the funding would go a long way
toward helping with the problem. He stated that recruitment
and retention and increasing the number of VPSOs was one
component, but the infrastructure was the other component.
He asked the amendment sponsor if she had interest in
removing the proposed decrement and adding the intent
language to Amendment H DPS 3.
3:10:35 PM
Representative Merrick knew that the issue impacted Co-
Chair Foster's district more than any of the other members
on the committee. She requested an "at ease" to consider
it.
3:10:51 PM
AT EASE
3:16:49 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked if Representative Merrick had time to
consider his suggestion.
Representative Merrick understood that the issue was very
personal for Co-Chair Foster and his district. She
considered the suggestion and MOVED to AMEND Amendment H
DPS 3 to add the intent language read by Co-Chair Foster
and to reduce the decrement to $500,000.
Representative Josephson felt badly that he had not been
able to study the issue as much as he wanted. He shared
that his life had intersected with VPSOs in Kotzebue and
Kalskag. He was concerned because the VPSO working group
(headed by Representative Chuck Kopp) had recommended a
higher budget increment than was included in the amendment;
therefore, he had concern about the amendment to the
amendment.
Co-Chair Foster thanked Representative Merrick for her
consideration. He believed it was a good discussion.
Representative LeBon appreciated the offer but opposed the
amendment to the amendment.
Co-Chair Johnston asked if the language suggested by the
cochair was included in the amendment.
Representative Merrick agreed that she would insert the
intent language suggested by Co-Chair Foster and reduce the
$1 million decrement to $500,000.
Representative Knopp supported the amendment to Amendment
H DPS 3. He reasoned that the art of compromise was about
getting what was fair. He believed the inclusion of the
intent language represented a win. Additionally, the
amendment would decrease the proposed decrement.
3:19:50 PM
Representative Wool had not delved into the topic
extensively; however, he recalled hearing substantial
testimony the previous year in the House State Affairs
Committee and perhaps the House Judiciary Committee. He
noted a task force had spent significant time on the topic.
He highlighted that the task force had requested more money
than was proposed. He realized funds had been lapsing;
however, he hoped that through the work of the task force
and media coverage on the severity of the issue that
efforts would be doubled down to fully staff and increase
the system's functionality. He did not believe it made
sense to hamstring the program by reducing access to
funding. He reasoned that any unspent funds would lapse at
the end of the year; the money was not lost.
Representative Wool thought the flexibility to utilize the
funds was positive. He highlighted that holding cells were
lacking in many communities. He supported the expanding the
ability to use VPSO funds as mentioned in the intent
language provided by Co-Chair Foster. However, he did not
support the intent language with a $500,000 decrement. He
stressed that the task force had recommended $3 million and
the subcommittee only got $1 million. He stressed that the
funding was already below the task force recommendation. He
pointed out that some of the task force members were former
law enforcement professionals who had more experience on
the subject than he did. He hoped the department could
double down its efforts and fill vacancies. He reiterated
his support for the intent language and opposition to the
decrement.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard supported the amendment to
Amendment H DPS 3. She appreciated the amendment sponsor's
offer for compromise. She considered the history of the
VPSO program and how its budget had been formed in the
past. She highlighted that the past budgets brought forward
for the program had not been fulfilled. She thought a
decrement of $500,000 was fine. She suggested that issues
pertaining to housing, office space, and holding cells
would be better addressed in the capital budget.
3:23:09 PM
AT EASE
3:23:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Knopp felt that Representative Wool missed
the takeaway from the amendment to the amendment. He stated
that the intent language did far more than leaving the
$1 million in the budget. He stated that in conversations
with grantees about being denied the use of funding for
holding cells, housing, office space, tires, and fuel,
there had been a need for the money but DPS had refused to
allow the expenditures. He emphasized that inserting the
intent language did much more than leaving the $1 million
in the budget. He explained that once the VPSO program had
the ability to use funding for the aforementioned needs,
there would no longer be lapsed funds. He believed it would
mean more need would be demonstrated the following year. He
thought it would go a long way for recruitment and
retention of VPSOs. He supported the amendment to Amendment
H DPS 3.
Co-Chair Johnston agreed with Representative Knopp that a
lack of access to funding for support services had been
hamstringing the VPSO program. Her concern with the
amendment to the amendment was that $500,000 would not go
very far for most rural communities for housing, a holding
cell, winter tires, and other. She supported the intent
language, but believed the decrement went in the wrong
direction.
Co-Chair Foster asked if Representative Merrick had stated
that 43 VPSO positions were filled and 34 were operational
because some of the individuals were in training.
Representative Merrick nodded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Foster pointed out that there were about 232 small
villages and there was a huge gap in what was needed. He
appreciated Representative Merrick's consideration, but he
did not support the amendment to Amendment H DPS 3.
Representative Merrick WITHDREW the amendment to Amendment
H DPS 3.
3:27:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked if the amendment sponsor had looked
into how the amendment may impact the state troopers. He
explained that with 232 communities and only 40 VPSOs,
there were many communities with no law enforcement or
public safety presence. He referenced the hub-and-spoke
model previously mentioned by the commissioner. He used
Nome as an example of a hub community. He elaborated that
if there was an altercation, a state trooper flew out to
the village to take care of the problem if there was no
other law enforcement presence. He explained that there
were numerous times where the situation was a problem. For
example, there could be a domestic violence situation that
occurred at 2:00 a.m., which could be very explosive. He
detailed that law enforcement officers approaching the
residence did not know whether there were weapons involved.
He furthered there could be a situation where there was a
trained and experienced law enforcement responder such as a
VPSO. Alternatively, if a trooper had to travel to reach
the location, they may have to charter an airplane to deal
with the situation.
Co-Chair Foster shared that there were 17 villages in his
region and 32 in his district. He explained that at any
given time there could be a sexual assault, an alcohol
related assault, a search and rescue, or many other things.
He applauded the troopers in his community who worked very
hard. He wondered how the proposed decrement would impact
state troopers. He relayed that fewer VPSOs in a village
meant more traveling and callouts for troopers. He
expounded that VPSOs were working 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, year-round, with no backup. He explained that VPSOs
eventually burned out. At some point the troopers felt the
issue as well or they were unable to respond to all of the
situations, in which case village residents were short
changed. He wondered if the amendment sponsor had an
opportunity to talk to any of the grantees or state
troopers about their view on the impact of a $1 million cut
to the VPSO program.
3:30:44 PM
Representative Merrick appreciated Co-Chair Foster's
comments. She believed there was confusion about the
intention of the amendment. She was not intending to reduce
the number of VPSOs. She stressed that it was a funding
issue. She would like to have a VPSO in all 232
communities; however, she believed it was impractical to
expect it to happen. She had read the VPSO task force
report and it had been covered a finance subcommittee
meeting. She shared it was her understanding VPSOs were
supposed to be first responders, not law enforcement
officials. She thought the VPSOs were not intended to do
the same thing that state troopers did. She believed the
intent was to tide the situation over until the troopers
arrived. She did not believe the $1 million cut would have
an impact on the troopers. She stated that the troopers
would still go to the community. She reiterated support to
have a VPSO in every community; however, she did not
believe it was practical. She did not think the proposed
decrement would reduce the number of VPSOs.
Co-Chair Foster replied that Representative Merrick may be
correct that the amendment would not reduce the numbers of
VPSOs, but it would not allow the number to grow if
spending was capped. He addressed Representative Merrick's
remarks that a VPSO was intended to take care of a
situation before a trooper could arrive. He was concerned
about the first moments of many situations including
assault or domestic violence where someone on the ground
was needed to respond.
Co-Chair Johnston MOVED to AMEND Amendment H DPS 3 to
insert the intent language provided by Co-Chair Foster.
Additionally, the amendment would be amended with
$1 million.
Co-Chair Foster asked for clarity on the amendment to the
amendment.
Co-Chair Johnston read the language that Co-Chair Foster
had provided earlier (copy on file):
It is the intent of the Legislature that the
Department of Public Safety continue to collaborate
with the Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO) grantees
to strengthen a recruitment and retention plan. This
plan may include spending for infrastructure such as
VPSO housing, office space, and holding cells.
Co-Chair Foster asked about the $1 million portion of Co-
Chair Johnston's amendment.
Co-Chair Johnston explained that the amendment to the
amendment would include an increment of $1 million.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that the amendment to Amendment
H DPS 3 would change the $1 million decrement to a
$1 million increment.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to the amendment to the amendment. He
highlighted the VPSO working group's third recommendation
to increase funding to FY 18 levels of $13.4 million. He
relayed that the VPSO budget was currently at $12 million
and adding $1 million would increase the number to $13
million. He supported the bipartisan working group's
recommendation. He detailed that the working group was
comprised of members from the House and Senate; it had
taken a substantial amount of public testimony and had
considered the subject in depth. He supported the amendment
to the amendment.
3:35:53 PM
Representative LeBon supported fully funding the program
back to the FY 18 level per the working group
recommendations. His decision to add $1 million for the
VPSO program was partially strategic after the large cut
from the prior year with the hope of finding a workable
number with the recognition that some funds had
historically lapsed. He shared that he had been looking for
a middle ground that would satisfy enough people and keep
the program moving forward. He supported the proposed
amendment to Amendment H DPS 3.
Representative Wool stated that the adoption of the
language would increase spending for things like housing,
office space, holding cells, etcetera. He noted that the
intent language specified that the plan was to address
recruitment and retention. He understood that one of the
problems with hiring additional VPSOs was a lack in housing
and adequate facilities such as holding cells. He reasoned
that the amendment to Amendment H DPS 3 would help hire
more people. He addressed the statement that troopers had
to respond to a situation. He thought having a person on
the ground to help diffuse a situation in the immediate
timeframe was positive and may mean a trooper would not
need to fly in.
Representative Wool thought the discussion was similar to
discussing a school that was failing. He provided a
scenario where an inner city school was underperforming,
and the response was to cut its funding. He thought the
opposite was the case. He remarked that sometimes it was
necessary to increase resources (e.g. additional teachers
or learning devices) if the goal was for a school to do
well. He stated that if something was underperforming and
the goal was for it to do well, the answer was not to make
financial cuts to use the funds elsewhere. He thought the
funds would be used elsewhere if money lapsed. He supported
the amendment to the amendment.
3:38:55 PM
Representative Merrick asked if she could withdraw
Amendment H DPS 3.
Co-Chair Johnston was open to the withdrawal of the
original amendment. She WITHDREW her amendment to Amendment
H DPS 3. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Merrick WITHDREW Amendment H DPS 3. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. She appreciated the
robust discussion and observed that much work was needed in
the specific area.
3:40:02 PM
AT EASE
3:41:40 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster reported that the meeting would adjourn for
the day. He relayed that amendments would continue the
following morning at 9:00 a.m.
HB 205 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 206 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 205 Amendment Action on 022620.pdf |
HFIN 2/26/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |
| HB 205 Public Testimony Rec'd by 2.23 to 2.26.20.pdf |
HFIN 2/26/2020 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 |