Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/13/2019 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 | |
| Fy 20 Department Budget Overview: Department of Military and Veterans Affairs | |
| Fy 20 Department Budget Overview: University of Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 13, 2019
1:32 p.m.
1:32:39 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Lacey Sanders, Budget Director, Office of Management and
Budget; Donna Arduin, Director, Office of Management and
Budget; James Johnsen, President, University of Alaska.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Stephanie Richard, Acting Administrative Service Director,
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
SUMMARY
FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEWS:
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY and VETERANS AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda and invited
testifiers to the table.
^FY 20 DEPARTMENT BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY
AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
1:33:35 PM
LACEY SANDERS, BUDGET DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, indicated Stephanie Richard was online and would
walk the committee through the presentation for the
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA).
STEPHANIE RICHARD, ACTING ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS AFFAIRS (via
teleconference), introduced the PowerPoint presentation:
"FY2020 Governor's Amended Budget." She would be presenting
a technical overview of the department's FY 20 proposed
operating budget.
Ms. Richard began with slide 3: "FY2020 Budget: Department
of Military and Veterans' Affairs" showing the funding
comparison and the budgeted position comparison. The graph
on the left side was a funding graph that broke down the
department's budget by general funds (GF), federal funds,
and other funds. Other funds for the department included
interagency receipts, statutory designated program
receipts, capital improvement receipts, and Alaska
Aerospace receipts. The total change in general funds from
the FY 19 management plan to the FY 20 proposed budget was
a reduction of $940,100 or 5.5 percent of DMVA's total
budget. She pointed to the chart on the right-hand side
which showed a budgeted position comparison between the
FY 19 management plan and the proposed budget for FY 20. In
the FY 20 proposed budget the department saw the deletion
of 2 permanent full-time positions and an addition of 1.
The department had 2 position adjustments changing part-
time positions to full-time positions. There was also a
deletion of 2 long-term non-permanent positions.
Ms. Richard scrolled to slide 4: "FY2020 Budget: Department
of Military and Veterans' Affairs Snapshot ($ Thousands):
New Funding for Honor Guard Support for Alaska Veterans:
$50.0 GF." The slide reflected the first of the
department's budget changes in the FY 20 proposed budget.
the department was requesting new funding for Honor Guard
support for Alaska Veterans in the amount of $50,000 in
unrestricted general funds (UGF). The funds would allow for
a 4 to 5-person detail consisting of Alaska National Guard
and/or Alaska State Defense members on active duty to
conduct funeral honors for Alaska Veterans. The department
estimated that the additional detail would allow for
support for approximately 25 more funerals annually. She
noted that Alaska's Veteran population was the highest per
capita in the United States.
Representative LeBon suggested the detail was an expansion.
He asked how many details the state currently had and how
many funerals they provided service for on an annual basis.
Ms. Richard relayed that through 2013 the Alaska National
Guard was funded and had 3 full-time Honor Guard teams.
They also received additional funding for travel. Over the
4 preceding years they were able to support an average of
450 funerals annually. She reported 4 structure changes in
2013. The funeral honor support team through the National
Guard decreased significantly in size. She indicated only 3
individuals were left and there were no funds for travel.
The department received approximately 275 requests in 2014
and 2015 but could only support about 70 of those requests.
Working to improve its reach, the department stretched to
support an average of about 110 funerals annually between
2016 and 2018. However, the number of funerals was less
than the number of requests received.
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Craig Christiansen, the
Deputy Commissioner from Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs, was available for questions.
1:38:25 PM
Ms. Richard moved to slide 5: "FY2020 Budget: Department of
Military and Veterans' Affairs Snapshot ($ Thousands):
Remove Funding for Statutory/Volunteer Programs Which Are
Subject to Funding Appropriation." The slide listed the
removal of funding for statutory or volunteer programs
which were subject to funding appropriations. The first
reduction of $300,000 GF was for the Local Emergency
Planning Committee (LEPC). The Local Emergency Planning
Committee was a state program funded completely through
UGF. There were 21 LEPCs statewide with an average grant
per community of $13,100. The second item was the removal
of funding for the Alaska State Defense Force in the amount
of $210,900 GF. The Alaska State Defense Force was a state-
initiated force comprised of approximately 135 volunteer
members. She provided a brief history of funding for the
Alaska State Defense Force. In FY 19, the department
received an increment of $210,900 to expand the rural
presence of the Alaska State Defense Force. The purpose of
the increment was to increase rural community capacity and
resiliency. The department would continue to support the
Alaska State Defense Force as it had done prior to
receiving the increment in FY 19.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the mission of the Alaska
State Defense Force. Ms. Sanders explained that the Alaska
State Defense Force was a group of volunteer members that
were called in times of emergency or in support of
something occurring in an area. There were groups
throughout the state currently providing the service. The
increment was to expand the function to rural areas.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the Alaska State Defense Force
participated in the Anchorage Earthquake. Ms. Sanders
responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Wilson asked about the effects of the reduction of
$210,000. She wondered whether the department would
supplement the cut. Ms. Sanders responded that a portion of
the funding was for 4 non-permanent positions that
performed administrative functions. The department would no
longer have those positions. The funding was also for
equipment and supplies. However, the department would
continue to support the groups in a management function.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for further clarification regarding
the equipment and supplies. Ms. Sanders suggested that the
communities could also support the costs if they had funds
available.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the equipment and supplies would
have to be handled by volunteers. She wondered if they
would be bringing supplies at their own cost. Ms. Sanders
responded that the communities could support the costs if
they had the funds available.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that the fund was the state's
defense fund rather than the communities' defense fund. She
asked if the volunteers were called out for issues of the
state. It was her understanding that volunteers of the
State Defense Force were called out for state emergencies
more than for anything else. She was not aware of the
communities having the ability to call upon the group. She
needed additional clarity.
1:43:21 PM
Ms. Sanders asked if she could provide clarification
regarding the expectation of volunteers. She understood
there was the Alaska State Defense Force, but there was
also state active duty. In the time of an emergency the
state could call volunteers under the state active duty
role. She thought she might be getting the two confused.
She would provide additional details to the committee.
Co-Chair Wilson asked for further detail about how the
$210,000 was spent. She thought the reduction meant the
state was essentially saying to volunteers that they were
no longer needed. She was concerned.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the amount was the only money
provided to local communities for emergency planning. Ms.
Sanders responded that it was the only grant funding
supplied for local emergency funding. She mentioned that
Homeland Security and Emergency Management might provide
additional grant funding. However, she was unsure if it was
specifically for emergency planning.
Vice-Chair Johnston queried the reason for taking the
$300,000. Ms. Sanders responded that when working with the
department in developing the budget, they had reviewed the
core programs and functions of the agency. She offered that
while emergency response was absolutely necessary and a
priority of the department, the funding was optional grant
funding to communities and was a lower priority.
Co-Chair Foster asked if federal funds were being obtained
to pay for the 21 LEPC positions. He wondered whether the
reduced funds had been used to leverage federal funds or
other funds or whether local communities were helping to
pay for the positions. Ms. Sanders relayed that the
$300,000 for the LEPC were grant funds for communities. The
communities essentially received a check and did their own
planning. She was unaware that the money was match funding.
She would get back to the committee with an answer.
Co-Chair Foster mentioned having one person in his
community and was unsure whether the city paid for any
portion of that position.
Representative Carpenter asked if the $300,000 LEPC grant
was tied to 21 individual positions. Ms. Sanders reiterated
that it was up to the communities to determine how to spend
grant monies. She could ask the department to find out from
communities how they spent the money.
1:48:02 PM
Representative Carpenter thought it would be helpful to
have the information. He also asked whether the $210,000
was the total budget for the Alaska State Defense Force.
Ms. Sanders understood it was all the funding the
department had within its budget for the Alaska State
Defense Force. It was an increment added the prior year.
Representative Carpenter clarified that prior to last year,
there was nothing in the budget for the Alaska State
Defense Force. Ms. Sanders responded, "That's correct."
Representative Knopp asked Ms. Sanders to recall what had
been done in the prior year. He thought the Alaska State
Defense Force had been included in some additional training
and had been included in the worker's compensation pool, in
case someone was injured during the training. There were a
couple of other items passed in legislation in the previous
year. He asked her if she remembered any details. Ms.
Sanders was not familiar with the legislation
Representative Knopp mentioned. She offered that if members
were called into state active duty, they were covered. She
was not clear what Representative Knopp was referring to.
She offered to talk to the department and get back to the
committee.
Ms. Richard indicated that regarding the grants received by
LEPC communities and other grants received, the state's
Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division had 2
other grants that were awarded to communities; The
Emergency Management Preparedness Grant and the Homeland
Security Grant. Both grants were not necessarily awarded to
LEPC communities. She reported that there was not a federal
match associated with the LEPC grant. She understood that
several years prior, a portion of the funds could be used
as matching funds, but it was no longer the case.
Ms. Richard discussed slide 6: "FY2020 Budget: Department
of Military and Veterans' Affairs Snapshot ($ Thousands)."
The slide showed a 50 percent travel reduction for the
executive branch. She furthered that the total impact to
general funds was a reduction of $103,300. Two of the
department's budgetary components were exempt from the
travel reduction: Homeland Security and Emergency
Management and State Active Duty. The exemption allowed the
department to continue to provide responses to requests for
assistance from other states and territories through the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact. Another item on
the slide was a fund swap within the Alaska Military Youth
Academy. The net impact to the total budget was zero. The
swap reflected moving $100,000 GF receipt authority to
statutory designated program receipts. The swap would allow
the Alaska Military Youth Academy to collect funds from
corporations or tribal entities wanting to contribute
financially in support of the program.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the amount of $100,000 was the
only funding the Alaska Military Youth Academy received.
Ms. Richard replied that it was only a small portion of the
youth academy's total GF budget.
Vice-Chair Johnston wondered if the funding swap was to
enable the youth academy to further develop public-private
relationships with the hope of obtaining community
financial support. Ms. Richard responded affirmatively. She
offered that she had the Alaska Military Youth Academy's
total general fund amount and general fund match amount.
The total general fund match for the FY 20 proposed budget
was $1,226,700 and the total general fund amount was
$3,319,900.
1:53:49 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked how many youths
participated in the program on an annual basis. She also
queried whether there had been an increase in the number of
applicants. Ms. Richard would get back to the committee
with the figures.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard wondered if, in the past,
organizations had wanted to contribute but had not been
able to. Ms. Richard was not certain. However, the Alaska
Military Youth Academy already received community support.
The youth academy was a 501c3 organization which allowed
the receipt of funds for expenditures that were not
specifically covered under the academy's Master Cooperative
Agreement with the National Guard Bureau.
Co-Chair Foster asked if corporations were eligible for tax
credits when contributing to the Alaska Military Youth
Academy. Ms. Richard did not know the answer to Co-Chair
Foster's Question. Ms. Sanders would look into it. She was
uncertain about any requirements having to do with donating
to an educational facility.
Ms. Richard concluded her overview of the department's
proposed budget and was available for questions.
Co-Chair Wilson commented that there was not a policy
director from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
present at the meeting. She asked about the roles of policy
directors within OMB and the department commissioners. She
wondered who was making decisions within each of the
agencies.
1:57:10 PM
DONNA ARDUIN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
explained that within OMB (charged with developing the
governor's operating budget) there was a budget director
(Ms. Sanders), a policy director (Mr. Barnhill), and a
management director. All of the agency administrative
services directors and analysts were on staff at OMB. The
group worked together to develop the budget proposals. The
administrative services directors and staff worked with the
agencies. The budget plan was generated at OMB.
Co-Chair Wilson noted she had directed her policy questions
to the commissioners of each department. She wondered if
she should have been directing her questions to the OMB
director. Ms. Arduin replied that that questions could be
directed to any of the group. At the subcommittee meetings,
OMB attempted to have administrative services directors and
budget staff available to answer questions. Commissioners
were present to discuss agency operations, as that was what
they were in charge of. The Office of Management and Budget
was aware that the legislature might have questions about
agency operations and what effects the budget plans might
have on their operations.
Co-Chair Wilson appreciated having people from OMB present
at the meetings. However, she was trying to establish who
was making policy decisions within each of the departments.
She used the Department of Corrections as an example to
illustrate her question. She wondered whether the
commissioner or the OMB policy director would decide to
close a facility. Ms. Arduin relayed that all would be
involved including policy staff inside the Office of the
Governor. Once the budget was finalized, the agencies would
carry out their missions and statutes with the amount of
appropriations provided to them. The agencies occasionally
sought and received policy direction from OMB's policy team
and the policy team inside the governor's office.
Co-Chair Wilson wondered if there was someone other than
the Board of Regents to discuss the University of Alaska
(UA) budget. She further inquired whether state funding
would be given, similar to a grant, to the Board to be used
in whatever way it thought best served students. Ms. Arduin
reported that Mr. Barnhill was the policy director for all
of OMB. She suggested that because the administrative
services director for the University did not work under the
canopy of OMB, Mr. Barnhill was before the committee to
present the governor's budget proposal for the University.
Co-Chair Wilson clarified that Mr. Barnhill was making the
presentation but was not involved in the decision making
for the University. The Board of Regents made the decisions
about how the funds were used. She asked if she was
correct. Ms. Arduin responded in the affirmative.
Representative Merrick asked whether there was state
oversight regarding the LEPCs in communities. Ms. Arduin
replied that the representatives from DMVA were no longer
online. She would follow up with the representative later.
Representative Merrick asked Ms. Arduin to inquire whether
communities were penalized for non-compliance and in what
way.
Ms. Richard was aware that the Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management had reporting
requirements in place which were outlined in statute.
Reports were received regarding expenditures for grants
that were awarded. She could provide the information to the
committee.
2:02:40 PM
Representative Josephson referred to slide 3. He asked for
clarification regarding changes in statutory program
receipts in the governor's budget. Ms. Richard indicated
that the department had a fund swap within the Alaska
Military Youth Academy in the amount of $100,000 to allow
the academy to collect funds from corporations and tribal
entities. There was also an increase of $300,000 in
statutory designated program receipts within the Homeland
Security and Emergency Management component to allow for
sending its personnel to other states in response to
requests for assistance from the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact. The expenditures were reimbursed by the
requesting state or territory.
Representative Josephson asked if she was talking about the
same program used to send Alaskans to the boarder for
security issues. Ms. Richard replied in the negative. The
example Representative Josephson provided was through the
National Guard Unit and was paid for by the federal
government. It did not have to do with state designated
program receipts within the State Active Duty component. An
example of support within the State Active Duty component
would be when Alaska sent National Guard members to help
with hurricane relief.
^FY 20 DEPARTMENT BUDGET OVERVIEW: UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
2:05:15 PM
JAMES JOHNSEN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA, introduced
the PowerPoint presentation: "University of Alaska: FY20
Budget Discussion." He thanked members for the opportunity
to speak to the committee. He had been in Washington D.C.
on a hunting trip for research, policy, and a land grant.
The trip reinforced the importance of the undesignated
general fund as leverage for successful hunts for research
funding and other funds from the federal government and
other sources.
Mr. Johnsen began with slide 2: "University Mission." He
conveyed that the University had a 3-part mission similar
to other land grant universities such as in Michigan,
Oregon, California, and other states. The University's
mission three components: education, research, and service.
The mission had remained roughly the same since 1915 when
it was founded by congress as the Alaska Agricultural
College and School of Mines. The mission was two-fold
through the three pathways. First, the mission was for the
University to serve the post-secondary, higher education
needs of Alaska. Second, the mission was to provide
opportunities for Alaskans to create their own state. He
spoke to a pride in education within Alaska. The University
of Alaska performed 90 percent of the post-secondary
education within the state. The University graduated
approximately 5,000 students per year and had over 100,000
alumni. Last year, for the first time in the University's
history, one of the alumni received the Rhodes Scholarship,
the single-most prestigious scholarship in the world. The
University of Alaska was the number one arctic research
university in the world. In terms of service, the
University was all across the state. He noted the Marine
Advisory Program, the Cooperative Extension, and 4-H. The
University reached out and extended the knowledge of
faculty and students.
Vice-Chair Johnston mentioned that through the years she
had heard positive feedback regarding alumni engagement.
She queried about what kind of engagement the University
participated in with its alumni and what kind of growth in
alumni contributions had occurred in the prior 10 years.
Mr. Johnsen was happy to provide the numbers to the
committee.
Mr. Johnsen scrolled to the map on slide 3: "Serving All
Alaskans." He emphasized the vast reach of UA. Geography
was a major cost driver and was also an opportunity to
provide service and access to people from Ketchikan to
Kotzebue, a distance of about 1300 miles. He was often
asked whether the University was three universities or one.
He typically responded, "Yes." The University was one
institution statutorily, one institution under the Alaska
Constitution, one financial entity with one financial
statement, one Information Technology system, and one set
of Human Resource policies. In terms of academics, UA had
three separately accredited universities. The system's 13
community colleges reported in to their regionally
respective university.
Mr. Johnsen continued that the benefit to the University's
structure was that it allowed students an array of choices.
He suggest that if a student wanted to study at a STEM
intensive research university, they would have access to
the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). For students that
wanted to study in the state's largest city with high
connectivity and engagement with business in Alaska's
economic hub, they could study at the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA). If students wanted to study on the edge of
a glacier and focus on maritime trade or mining education,
they could study at the University of Alaska Southeast
(UAS). In addition, UA had at least 50 completely online
programs available to students across the state.
2:10:41 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked about the
transference of credits within the university system and
any associated issues. Mr. Johnsen relayed that Regent Dale
Anderson pressed the issue and pushed a policy through that
required the transfer of all credits. Presently, all
credits transferred. However, credits might not transfer
for a particular major. For instance, if a student took a
statistics class for economics but changed their major to
psychology, the statistics class might not transfer for the
specific major degree requirements. However, the credits
would transfer towards the 120 needed for a bachelorette
degree.
Representative Knopp asked about the transfer of credits as
they related to colleges in Alaska but outside the UA
system. He mentioned Alaska Pacific University (APU). Mr.
Johnson relayed that UA had an agreement with APU, a
regionally accredited institution. The University worked
closely with APU. He noted that the UAA library was a
consortium library jointly funded by APU and UAA. The
University's credits transferred to other accredited
universities across the country. He added that when
students came to Alaska with credits from other accredited
universities 90 percent of the time the credits
transferred.
Representative Knopp asked about the transfer of credits
between UA and nationally accredited Christian colleges in
Alaska. Mr. Johnsen replied, "On a case-by-case basis." He
noted that the accreditation Representative Knopp was
referring to was not regional accreditation. It was also
not accreditation recognized by the Council of Higher
Education - accreditors empowered by congress to approve
the accreditors. In order for UA's students to qualify for
federal funds UA had to be accredited by a regional
accreditor approved by the national accrediting body.
Mr. Johnsen reviewed slide 4: "Education is a Core State
Function." He reported that the making of the constitution
occurred at the University. He noted the reference to the
University in the state's constitution. There were two
sections highlighted on the slide. He pointed to the
personal property reflecting the land grant status of the
University. The University of Alaska was the land grant
university without land. The University was due, under
congressional authority, 500,000 acres but was granted only
110,000 leaving Delaware as the only state that received a
smaller land grant. The University of Alaska had been
working very diligently to remedy the issue. He commended
the governor, the commissioner of Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the federal delegation, and the Department
of Interior for working with UA to resolve the 103-year
land grant deficit. He surmised that some progress had been
made.
Mr. Johnsen pointed to the second constitutional item on
the slide. The Alaska Constitution provided broad
discretion to the University's Board of Regents to lead the
University. The University of Alaska's regents served
8-year terms. They were appointed by the governor and
confirmed by the legislature. He relayed that the
University received an appropriation annually. There were
two appropriation lines for the University in the
governor's proposed budget.
2:15:52 PM
Mr. Johnsen continued to the spreadsheet on slide 5:
"University's Three-Part Mission." The table laid out how
UGF, designated general funds (DGF), other funds, and
federal funds were allocated across the University's three
major missions: education, research, and service. He
relayed that 80 percent of university funding went towards
the education mission, 11 percent to the research mission,
and 9 percent to the service mission. He pointed to the
totals in the bottom left corner of the table. The
undesignated general funds equaled $327 million, 37 percent
of the University's total budget. He continued that the
remaining 63 percent of the budget was money the University
received through enrollment, tuition, federal research
grants, contract fees, and axillary revenues.
Mr. Johnsen advanced to the pie charts on slide 6:
"Operating Expenditures by Category." The table reflected
the FY 18 actuals. The total budget in FY 18 was $820
million. The general fund dollars equaled $317 million and
the rest was money raised by the university. He pointed out
to the left-hand pie showing the allocation of funds across
the various components. The funds included UGF, DGF, and
other funds. The large components of the University's
expenditures (41 percent) went towards academics. The
right-hand chart supplied a breakdown of expenditures. He
noted that instruction was the largest expenditure. Other
components included academic support, student services,
scholarships, libraries, and intercollegiate athletics - a
$12.7 million expenditure.
Mr. Johnsen moved to slide 7: "Regent's Strategic
Objectives: 2017-2025." He reported the regents looking
forward rather than simply reacting to the budget
appropriated each year. In 2017, the regents looked at how
to better serve the state's need for higher education. They
also looked at how to stimulate Alaska's economy in order
to have a more developed and diversified economy with more
opportunities for Alaskans. He shared that Alaska led the
nation in the percentage of its population having some
college and no degree - a market the University had been
pursuing aggressively.
Mr. Johnsen continued that the Board came up with several
goals after talking with each other from across the state.
There were 5 goals decided upon including economic
development, a skilled workforce, research, degree
attainment, and cost-effective operations. Some of the
goals stretched to 2025 and some were for the interim. He
pointed to one of the 2025 goals which was to increase the
number of STEM graduates by 50 percent. He illuminated that
the number of STEM graduates was a major predictor for a
state's knowledge economy. He reported that states with
knowledge economies had a strong population of science,
technology, engineering, and math graduates. He relayed
that economic development frequently came from universities
in other states. The University had done a good job of a
developing a strong workforce. He reported that increased
training for teachers was a high priority.
2:20:45 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston liked the strategic objectives and
understood why only one year of data had been observed. She
surmised that the percent change was hopeful anticipation.
However, some of the observed data was not meeting the mark
in 2018. She asked Mr. Johnsen to speak to the data.
Mr. Johnsen responded that in two slides her question would
likely be answered. He went on to explain that degree
attainment was critical. Alaska had the lowest college
going rate in America. If the state was at the national
average, it would be at 28,526. He relayed that 4 percent
of Alaska's population was attending higher education. The
national average was about 6 percent. He noted that in 1974
Alaska was at 6 percent. Since then, Alaska had declined.
He spoke of the cost effectiveness numbers which were used
nationally. They enabled the University to compare itself
over time and to the rest of the nation. The figures were
challenging. One of the problems with comparing Alaska to
national averages was that not everything in Alaska was
average. He noted that Alaska's geography, population,
personal income tax, PFDs, and educational attainment were
different from the rest of the country. He suggested that
sometimes it was more important to look at variances rather
than averages. However, the Board of Regents recognized the
University needed to operate more cost effectively, hence
the reason it was a strategic objective.
Mr. Johnsen discussed the challenges Alaska faced on
slide 8: "Alaska's Challenges Are Real." The slide showed
Alaska's ranking in a number of key areas. He thought it
was important to recognize, when looking at the numbers,
that UA faced some serious challenges. Alaska's university
had certain advantages such as location, natural resource
development, Alaska Native issues, business development,
and climate issues. There were also some very positive
things about Alaska. The slide showed some of the headwinds
Alaska faced.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the governor's performance
scholarship had an impact on student performance. Mr.
Johnsen responded affirmatively. Alaska's students were
performing more rigorously through high school in order to
qualify for the scholarship. He highlighted a slight uptick
in students staying in state. The University had
interviewed students who confirmed they took a more
difficult curriculum because of the Alaska Performance
Scholarship. He could follow-up with more detail about the
decline in the requirement for developmental or remedial
education. It had declined substantially over the past
several years.
2:25:15 PM
Co-Chair Wilson had been asked a question by a high school
teacher. She relayed that unlike other universities where
certain tests were required to attend, UA did not have such
requirements; anyone could attend. She asked if there was a
set of standards people could reference to know what level
a student had to be at in order to attend the University
without having to take remedial classes that did not count
towards a degree.
Mr. Johnsen believed the Alaska Performance Scholarship
standards were not developed by the K-12 community alone.
They were developed in conjunction with the University. The
University of Alaska faculty met regularly with leaders in
the school districts across the state to discuss the
concept of college preparedness. He thought that an APS
qualified student was college ready. He mentioned several
programs and their success. He reported working very
closely with Commissioner Johnson and with school district
superintendents to strengthen the bond between UA, the UA
community campuses, and the K-12 system.
Co-Chair Wilson had received feedback from high school
teachers that when students had a goal, it made things go
smoother before students reached the university level. She
looked forward to receiving additional information.
Representative LeBon noted that Alaska was ranked fiftieth
in post-secondary participation among the states. He asked
about the success of Alaska's high school graduates who had
entered the university system. He wondered about the
standard number of years to obtain a degree in Alaska and
statistics pertaining to the number of students who became
degree holders.
Mr. Johnsen relayed that the national standard to obtain an
associate degree was 3 years and to obtain a bachelorette
degree was 6 years. The University had improved its numbers
which he could supply to the committee later. He added that
the University also looked at retention from freshman to
sophomore and sophomore to junior years. The university was
low and there was a dramatic difference between the three
universities. He reported that UAF had a substantially
higher 6-year completion rate followed by UAA then by UAS.
He mentioned that because of Alaska's culture, most 6-year
students took 8 years to graduate. Alaska's university
student was not a full-time student. A model student was a
person taking 1 or 2 courses per semester and graduating
with four kids running around them. He had personally been
at commencements in Nome and Kotzebue. Even though Alaska
applied the national standard and it looked bad, it was
actually a win for the state.
2:30:25 PM
Mr. Johnsen detailed the bar chart on slide 9: "University
UGF Funding History." He thought the slide provided a clear
picture of the challenges the University faced. Beginning
in FY 14 - FY 15 the University took a $3 million UGF
reduction. The University had experienced reductions since
that time with one exception - a moderate increase in
FY 19. He pointed out that if the orange portion
representing the cumulative reduction including the
governor's proposal was totaled, it would equal $380
million. The University had borne a significant financial
impact over the last several years.
Vice-Chair Ortiz wondered if Mr. Johnsen would be
discussing some of the lost opportunities and programs
resulting from the reductions since FY 15. Mr. Johnsen
responded affirmatively. He indicated the picture would get
gloomier. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if Mr. Johnsen would
highlight the costs and cuts to programs that the
legislature had seen in the past few years. Mr. Johnsen
responded positively.
Mr. Johnsen turned to slide 10: "Governor's FY20 Budget
Proposal: By Major Fund Type - FY19 Mgmt Plan to FY20
GovAmd." He explained that the slide showed a side-by-side
comparison of the governor's FY 20 budget proposal on the
right-hand side to the current FY 19 management plan budget
on the left-hand side. He pointed to the blue highlighted
area representing the dramatic reduction in UGF. The green,
grey, and beige areas represented the monies the University
raised. The appearance of the governor's FY 20 amended
budget was that it was going up - a function of a dramatic
increase in DGF (money the University was apparently
supposed to raise somehow by either doubling tuition,
doubling research dollars, or by some other means). He did
not think it was a reasonable appraisal of what would
happen if the funds in blue were reduced. He indicated that
UGF was what the University used to leverage for getting
additional funds. If the University leveraged $2 of non-
general funds DGF for every dollar of UGF, it would not be
unreasonable to apply the same factor to the scenario on
the right-hand of the slide. If the university reduced UGF,
other funds would be reduced as well.
Representative Josephson mentioned a previous hearing on
February 19, 2019 before the other body. In the hearing the
administration conceded that it would be impossible for the
UA system to double tuition. He wondered how the University
would accommodate the proposed cut. He asked if one
possibility of addressing the shortfall would be to shutter
a campus.
Mr. Johnsen explained that there was no accommodating a cut
of the proposed magnitude. He had a slide that showed that
the University would have to close UAA and UAS to get to
the $134 million reduction. He mentioned that accreditation
would be lost and there would still be a teach out
obligation. The University had an obligation to see that
students in the middle of their degree had the opportunity
to finish. He suggested that the programs with students
with declared majors was analogous to a jet being in the
air. The University would have to make extremely difficult
decisions with huge negative ramifications.
2:35:40 PM
Representative Josephson also recalled a member of the
other body asking what part of DGF and federal funds the
University could rely on with a substantial cut to UGF. Mr.
Johnsen had responded with a negative number. He wondered
how hunting for other funding would go if the cut of $134
million remained in the budget.
Mr. Johnsen thought it was already being impacted. Students
were currently deciding where they would go to college. He
noted that when he was in Washington D.C. in the previous
week he had met with some of the most senior research
administrators in the country. They were familiar with the
state's institution because UA led the world in Arctic
research. They reported getting calls from UA's faculty
asking for references. He supposed their resumes were in
the mail. He reiterated his concern. He reasoned that
investment was necessary to generate revenue. If the
University cut back on the competitive faculty who were
raising the research dollars, it would lose the revenue
from the grants and contracts, research students from
classrooms, and intellectual property. It was the exact
opposite direction the University needed to be heading in
to develop and diversify its economy.
Representative Carpenter asked about the other portion of
revenue. Mr. Johnsen replied that the University had
auxiliaries and fees. For example, the University sometimes
rented its facility space for revenues. It also received
overhead monies in addition to specific research grants.
The University charged students fees as well. He could
provide specific accounting information to the committee.
He confirmed that the University had a number of revenue
sources. He also noted building sales and gravel sales.
Representative Carpenter asked about the land grant funding
and where it was deposited. Mr. Johnsen responded that when
the University sold land or timber, the funds went into the
land grant endowment. The earnings off of the invested fund
funded research activity. He noted that the funds for the
scholarships granted within the Alaska Scholars Program
came out of the land grant endowment.
Representative Carpenter asked if the funds were DGF. Mr.
Johnsen responded affirmative.
Representative Carpenter commented that the $154 million
was a large amount to have to raise at one time. The bullet
on the slide indicated that the amount was unrealistic. He
wondered if the commissioner meant that it was never
obtainable, or not realistic in the timeframe the
University faced. Mr. Johnsen thought it would be possible
sometime in the future if the University was sustainable
and it could grow over time. He could not provide a time
estimate because of recent history.
2:40:06 PM
Representative Carpenter reflected on a comment made by Mr.
Johnsen previously about investing to grow revenue. He
wondered, when the trend appeared in FY 15 to FY 19, what
the University did to diversify its income away from UGF.
He asked what other strategies were used to increase the
University's ability to generate revenues.
Mr. Johnsen responded that the University increased its
land grant sales including selling buildings and timber. He
admitted that such activities took a long time to mature.
The monies went into an endowment and the resulting
earnings were used for operations. They were one-time
monies rather than a recurring fund source. He provided
several examples of the actions taken by the university to
cut deeper in response to the administration's goal.
Representative Carpenter understood that the state was
dealing with an ongoing budget crisis and did not believe
the legislature had dealt with the issue effectively. He
wondered what had been attempted in the previous 5 years to
deal with the crisis.
Mr. Johnsen countered that taking a cut as proposed would
eliminate the capacity to teach, to do research, to support
students, and to obtain grant monies. He has had to carry
out many difficult reductions. He had contemplated how to
manage a $134 million cut. He concluded that there was no
way to do so that would not be catastrophic. He conveyed
that the 15 percent reduction to the University budget from
1988 to 1999 and the University being flat-funded for 10
years took years to recover.
Representative Carpenter talked about the strategy choices
that had been made in the past about how the state would
fund its University. The strategy was catching up
presently. He was trying to understand what the right
strategy would be going forward. The state could continue
doing what it had already done or look to other states for
ideas.
Mr. Johnsen did not think the state's fiscal situation had
to do with how the legislature had previously funded
education. He believed there were other factors that were
influencing the situation.
2:45:13 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz referred to slide 9. He highlighted the
blue bar representing UGF funding several years prior to
FY 14. He asked if the UGF funding went up in those years
prior to FY 14. Mr. Johnsen replied that the blue bar had
been going down. He expounded that 4 of the previous 5
years the bar had been declining.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified that he was talking about the
period prior to FY 14. Mr. Johnsen answered that prior to
FY 14 the bar was moving up. The state was swimming in
money. Vice-Chair Ortiz remarked that it reflected
investment to allow for growth at the time. Mr. Johnsen
responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Ortiz reported the first budget he had worked on
was in FY 15. Prior to becoming a legislator, he had been a
high school teacher. He noted that as he got to the end of
his career more and more students were choosing to attend
UA. He supposed attendance was in response to the
investment in the university system. He spoke of all of the
advantages of keeping kids in the state. He agreed that the
greater the investment made in the University, the greater
the rewards would be. He thought the downward trend in
investment was influencing student choices.
Vice-Chair Johnston returned to the strategic objectives,
specifically number 5 on slide 7. The only observed data
the University had was from 2017 to 2018 - the time in
which larger cuts were applied and costs had increased. She
wondered if there was a way of mitigating the increase in
costs if the legislature strategically cut or flat funded
education.
Mr. Johnsen suggested that part of the story told by the
numbers was that the University's enrollment had declined
faster than it could reduce its costs. That was the reason
the costs appeared to go up. The calculation was completed
per student. Ideally, the University would be able to
generate more enrollment and grow. By driving enrollment
up, the cost per student would go down. He argued that the
to become more efficient, the University needed to reach
the national enrollment average. He continued that it had
been a challenge to reduce costs while enrollment-based
revenues and state funding declined.
2:51:24 PM
Representative Knopp appreciated the University. He
mentioned having several friends who had graduated from the
UA system with various degrees. He asserted that the
research component of the University was different from
other universities in the country. He was uncertain about
the endowment sustainability and enticing additional
students. He thought that self-sustainment would be sought
not only by the current administration but future ones as
well. He asked if the University would ever be self-
sustaining or whether it would always be subject to
subsidies.
Mr. Johnsen reported there was a handful of public
universities around the US that were self-supporting.
However, most universities received a state appropriation.
He thought the average subsidy of state funding for public
universities was about 25 percent. He pointed out that one
of the anomalies in Alaska was that Alaska's communities
did not contribute to the state's community colleges - the
typical way community colleges were funded across America.
The state had a few notable exceptions including the Kenai
Borough which contributed about $750,000 per year. Kodiak
and Valdez contributed also. He thought it was possible to
grow other funds over time. He mentioned the philanthropic
campaign in its early stages. He thought the land grant
remedy would help to generate revenues as well. He
speculated that if UA was at the national average for
enrollment, tuition would equal an additional $70 million
per year, equal to half of the proposed budget reduction.
He thought it was conceivable over time to increase
enrollment. It would also take positive support for the
University's mission and a willingness to make tough
decisions by the Board of Regents and the University. He
opined that nobody would be attracted to and institution
that appeared to be subject to a series of cuts. He agreed
with the committee's sentiment that the University needed
to be as self-sustaining as possible. He reiterated the
importance of time, a positive psychology, and a positive
vision for Alaska. He reemphasized the challenge the
University faced with repetitive reductions.
2:55:32 PM
AT EASE
2:56:31 PM
RECONVENNED
e argued that it wo
Co-Chair Foster explained the reason for the "at ease."
Mr. Johnsen skipped ahead to slide 13: "Magnitude $134 Mill
Reduction." The slide showed the costs for some of the
larger activities of the University. He pointed out that
often the statewide administration was a target of
potential reductions totaling about $18 million, only 10
percent of the goal. It would not be a cost that could
simply be eliminated. For example, there was no general
counsel or finance people at any of the individual
campuses. The University would have to replace much of what
the statewide administration did. Many people had suggested
closing all of the rural campuses which would equate to a
savings of only $38 million which would not solve the
fiscal problem. The University spent $45 million per year
maintaining its facilities. The amount did not include any
deferred maintenance. The entire budget for UAA was $120
million. Doubling tuition would equal $140 million. The
entire budget for UAF was $164 million.
Mr. Johnsen talked about headcount reduction on slide 14:
"Headcount Reductions." He reported that over the past
several years UA had taken several reductions. He'd
demonstrated the monetary reductions. The slide showed a
reduction summary of headcount. The numbers did not include
positions (or PCN's). The slide reflected the number of
people who were no longer working at the University. The
bottom line was that there were 1,283 fewer people working
at the University from FY 15 to the present. The slide was
organized across the top by major administrative units
which included, Statewide, UAA, UAF, and UAS. The
percentage reduction of the headcount of the Statewide unit
was 32 percent. The funding cut for the unit was about 37
percent to 38 percent. He summarized that there had been a
significant reduction of employment, including part-time
and full-time, at the University. He suggested that if the
University were to bare another large reduction, many more
full-time positions would be cut. He estimated an
additional reduction of personnel of about 1500 with a cut
of $134 million to the University's budget. Most of the
1500 employees would primarily be from the UAA and UAF
campuses. There would also be other impacts across the
state.
Mr. Johnsen advanced to slide 15: "Employee and Payroll."
The slide showed additional numbers reflecting the economic
impact to the institution. He reported that direct
employment in FY 15 was 7500 positions and indirect
employment was just over 15,000 jobs. The McDowell Group
had done an economic impact study a couple of years prior
and found that for a reduction of $350 million in UGF the
impact to the state's economy would be more than $1
billion.
3:00:31 PM
Mr. Johnsen moved to slide 16: "State Divestment Compounds:
Enrollment Challenges." He transitioned to the subject of
enrollment. He highlighted that budget reductions were
partially responsible for declines in enrollment. He noted
that the nature of Alaska's economy was a high wage, low
education economy compared to most other states. He thought
the issue was reflected on the slide. He indicated that as
economic activity was picking up, people were not pursuing
education. The chart tracked the decline in Alaska's
population. He reported that in the previous 6 years
Alaska's population had been declining.
Mr. Johnsen turned to slide 17: "UA Tuition History." The
slide showed what the University had done in the area of
tuition over the prior 10 years. The most recent increase
was at the Prince William Sound Community Campus in Kodiak.
The campus was below the other community campuses. The
increases were reflected from 2017-2020 to bring the Kodiak
campus in line with the other community campuses in the
state. He noted that the University reduced tuition by 25
percent in the high work-force demand occupational
endorsements. He thought it had been a positive move
bringing down the cost of vocational and technical
programs.
Mr. Johnsen turned to slide 18: "Tuition and Fees Public
4-Yr. Institutions." He reported that the University had
been driving tuition up, not as dramatically as the rest of
the country. He pointed to the green line representing the
U.S. Average of public university tuition beginning in
2009-2010. The yellow bar represented the 15 Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) states.
The University chose to show the WICHE states not only
because UA was a member, but a large majority of students
from Alaska who left to study in other states studied in
WICHE states. They moved up quickly in the 2009-2012
period. Alaska's tuition was below the tuitions in
comparable states across the country. The slide reflected
averages. Tuitions might be comparable in other states to
Alaska. Tuitions in states that had very strong dynamic
economies where demand for higher education exceeded supply
might be higher than the averages. He suggested that there
was an opportunity for more increases to tuition rates.
Mr. Johnsen looked at slide 19: "Tuition and Fees Public
2-Yr Institutions." The slide was a reflection of the
legacy of the decision made in Alaska the last time there
was a fiscal crisis in the late 1980s. At the time, Alaska
combined the community colleges with the universities and
set tuitions at the same level. The yellow bars again
represented the WICHE states, the green represented the
U.S. average, and the blue represented UA. Alaska's tuition
was nearly double the national average for the community
and technical programs. He believed it was in large part a
reason the University was seeing declines in enrollment in
some of the vocational and technical programs. Those
students were more price sensitive than students heading to
university programs. He reiterated that the decision the
Board of Regents made to move the University's tuition
rates for certain programs was a step in the right
direction.
Representative Carpenter commented that tuition and fees
comprised one piece of revenue for the University. He
suggested that another part of revenue, from 2009 to 2018
when the University had a lot of money, would be
investments made into endowment-generating income. He asked
Mr. Johnsen if he could follow up with more information on
the subject. Mr. Johnsen was happy to provide the
information.
3:05:26 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked about the effects of
parents donating a portion of their PFD checks to the
University for their kids. She wondered how many youths
were taking advantage of the option. Mr. Johnsen would
provide the information. The program was very important to
UA. Representative Sullivan-Leonard commented that she was
impressed with the program.
Mr. Johnsen continued to slide 20: "University's Statewide
Footprint." He reported that the University had the oldest
facilities in the state and a huge deferred maintenance
backlog. He spoke of closing facilities and selling off
properties. The University had eliminated all off-campus
leases. He thought brick and mortar requirements would be
looked at going forward. If the system were to grow in the
future, UA was looking at alternative means of financing
facilities using public-private partnerships. He spoke of
the constraint of certain facilities being tied to bonds.
In other words, some of the buildings had debt attached to
them, and the process of selling them was more complicated.
3:09:05 PM
Mr. Johnsen advanced to slide 21: "Strategic Pathways:
Continuous Improvement." The University had undergone a
process called Strategic Pathways. The slide reflected the
outcome of the process, which was a commitment to
continuous improvement. He reported learning that going
through the process was more important than the resulting
plan. The University generated over 100 options for ways to
streamline improved processes through the Strategic
Pathways process. The University had closed schools,
reduced degree and certificate programs by 50 percent, and
standardized travel and grants and contracts processes. He
pointed to the upper portion of the chart was what was
common about UA. The blue at the bottom was also what was
common and transferred across the university system. The
middle part described each one of the universities and how
they led academically in research, teaching, and outreach
for the entire state. Moving forward he would be honing
each one of the universities with the help of the Board of
Regents. They would be looking at each of the universities
and determining what was core to each of them and what was
not. They would then look at available funding and
determine what would be funded. He relayed that Research
was something that had to be funded as well as nursing and
healthcare education. Going forward with constrained budget
times, certain things would no longer be funded.
Representative Josephson asked Mr. Johnsen about the plan
to create a separate appropriation called "The Community
Campus Appropriation" giving it $25 million. He wondered if
Mr. Johnsen understood what was being asked of the
University.
Mr. Johnsen thought he understood. He remarked that it
would be interesting because the associated campuses did
not bare their full costs. There were large costs that
supported the operations of the community campuses borne by
the regional universities and at the statewide level. He
thought the University would need to go through an
extensive body of work to understand the intent and address
how the campuses would sustain themselves. Currently, they
had no ability to operate on their own.
Representative Josephson mentioned important sources
including the Higher Education Executive Officer's
Association and the National Center of Education Statistics
that came up with a mean per student national average of
$11,000 and suggested a premium multiplier. He asked Mr.
Johnsen to comment.
Mr. Johnsen thought their numbers were accurate. However,
he believed it was important to remember that Alaska was
not an average state. He suggested that to understand
Alaska it was important to look at variance rather than
averages. The University had conducted some analysis that
showed the University would have $62 million of local
government support for its community campuses, but it did
not. If Alaska was an average state it would be spending
less on small class sizes because of its relatively small
population. There were other factors that needed to be
considered. There was no question that the state analysis
was correct. However, he opined that there were significant
differences between Alaska and the averages across the
nation. He had noted previously that property taxes were
going into community colleges, income taxes that states
charged people, and college going rates. Several factors
played into Alaska's costs. He also noted Alaska's high
energy costs and health care costs.
3:14:57 PM
Representative LeBon relayed he had participated in the
Strategic Planning process a few years prior. Part of the
effort had to do with athletics. He noted that athletics
had not been included in the chart. He suggested that
athletics between UAA and UAF accounted for about $12
million or 1.5 percent of the budget. One of the tasks the
committee had been charged with was to find a way to fund
athletics at both campuses 100 percent through outside
sources with no university funding by 2025. The committee
had had several weeks to work on the challenge of finding
alternative funding for the University's athletics program
and looked to other colleges across the country. He
suggested the challenge was akin to finding a needle in a
haystack. He asked Mr. Johnsen if it was his vision to
continue intercollegiate athletics at UAF and UAA.
Mr. Johnsen replied that several years ago when the regents
had been asked the question, they had decided to continue
athletics and to increase the share of the cost of the
University's athletic programs with more private entities.
Currently, there was no plan other than staying the course
to try to generate more private support for the University
athletic programs. He was correct that there might be a
handful of athletic programs that were fully funded through
program revenues - they were all subsidized to some extent.
Mr. Johnsen elaborated on strategic pathways on slide 22:
"Strategic Pathways: Continuous Improvement." He indicated
the slide was a summary of what had already been presented
about continuing to put pressure on and continuously
improve what was being done at the University. He thought
the people of Alaska had an incredibly valuable asset in
the University and the university system. He admitted that
UA was not the most cost-effective organization. He had
discussed a number of factors that influenced its
efficiency. He surmised, that the University asset would
only perform if it was invested in driving change. The
University could be more cost-effective and generate more
internal revenue for investment in growth. However, growth
in the areas of enrollment, research, and philanthropic
support only came from targeted strategic investment. The
University was all about growth and a positive view of
Alaska. He thought there was no single instrument more
important for Alaska's future than Alaska's higher
education system. He thanked the committee.
3:19:44 PM
Representative Carpenter appreciated Mr. Johnsen's efforts.
As the legislature looked at the amount that needed to be
invested in Alaska's asset, he wanted to know if the
University was interested in being self-sufficient. If so,
he wanted to know the long-term plan to carry out the
vision of being self-supporting.
Mr. Johnsen reported that the University would like to be
less dependent but would always have some dependence on
state funding. He suggested that the constitution provided
for the University like it did schools. However, he would
like to see a more diverse revenue stream for the State of
Alaska. The University would, in turn, have more
flexibility to invest in things. It would allow the
University not to have to depend on an annual appropriation
cycle. Much of the University's commitments were long-term.
He would like for the University to become more dynamic and
nimbler.
Representative Carpenter appreciated Mr. Johnsen's
comments. He thought Alaskans would want the University to
be as self-supporting as possible. He wondered if any ideas
surrounding self-sufficiency came from Strategic Pathways
or an internal effort to do things better.
Mr. Johnsen replied that it was more internally focused
because of the University's recognition of its cost
structures and cumbersome processes. The University had
multiple processes for the same things. He reported that,
moving forward, the University would try to increase
revenue for athletics. The University was also in the early
stages of its first statewide philanthropic campaign. The
University's private 501c3 and the Board of Regents had
approved a campaign plan. He noted that such a campaign
cost money to hire fund raisers, consultants, and data
analysts. It was also necessary to have a positive story to
tell to attract support.
Representative LeBon returned to the issue of athletics. He
commented on the difficulty of outsourcing athletics in the
amount of $12 million on an annual basis. He spoke of his
13 years of experience supporting an annual women's
basketball tournament at UAF at Thanksgiving. The total
amount raised over the history of the tournament was about
$350,000 or $22,000 per year. He thought it would be a huge
undertaking to raise $12 million each year. He mentioned
having several volunteers for the one tournament. He
reiterated it being a big lift for the University to be
more efficient, meet its mission, and to do so
economically.
Mr. Johnsen highlighted that there were 230 Alaskans from
across the state including students, faculty, and members
of the community who generated over 100 options for how the
University could move forward. He noted having attended
over 182 meetings with faculty and staff on all of the
campuses to address the various options.
3:25:54 PM
Co-Chair Wilson inquired about the land currently owned by
the University. She asked when the University last
developed its property and whether it could be developed to
generate annual revenues.
Mr. Johnsen replied that the University had yearly revenues
from leased properties, but the income was minimal. Most of
the land granted to the University was not of tremendous
value. He reported that the University's largest revenue
came from timber. He spoke of a property in Haines with
potential for a timber project. He noted that the
University was also looking at carbon credits, as it had a
significant amount of black spruce. There were other
avenues the University was considering monetizing lands
that otherwise would not be valuable. He mentioned that the
University sold residential lots in Fairbanks, the
Interior, and in Southeast Alaska. He noted that it cost
money to develop land and the University had a land
management office. He thanked the committee for their
support and questions.
3:28:39 PM
AT EASE
3:28:57 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster indicated the rest of the agenda would be
heard the following day at 9:00 am. He also relayed the
agenda for the following afternoon.
ADJOURNMENT
3:30:42 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY2020 Gov Amend Budget to HFC 3.13.19 DMVA UA.pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Budget Overview DMVA/UA |
| 2019 03 13 UA House Finance.pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN UA Budget Overview |
| House Finance 3.13.19 DMVA.pdf |
HFIN 3/13/2019 1:30:00 PM |
Response to Q's DMVA Overview |