Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2018 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB285 || HB286 | |
| Overview: Department of Corrections | |
| Overview: Department of Public Safety | |
| Overview: Department of Natural Resources | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 286 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 285 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 285
"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."
HOUSE BILL NO. 286
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
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."
1:35:34 PM
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the day.
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
1:35:41 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
introduced himself and introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: "Department of Corrections FY2019 Department
Overview." He preferred that questions from members be held
to the end of his presentation.
Commissioner Williams began with slide 2: "Mission and
Sources." He wanted to acknowledge and identify that the
Department of Corrections (DOC) in the governor's proposed
budget showed an increase of $22 million. He relayed that
he had been in his position for 2 years and had looked at
the department's history and budget. The Department of
Corrections had been on a glide path of reductions over
several fiscal years with anticipation that the department
would arrive at a certain place in the prison population
that would allow it to take advantage of certain savings.
He reminded members that starting in FY 15, the department
lost $1 million out of its operating budget; in FY 16, the
department lost $8.5 million; in FY 17, the department lost
$10.8 million; and in FY 18 the department lost $11.8
million. The total reductions were about $32 million. There
were certain expectations of the department. He had made
the difficult decision to close a facility about 9 months
into his tenure to get particular savings. Even with the
closure, he still found the department approximately $22
million short in the operating budget. He requested that
the governor and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
team had full funding in the budget to get a clear picture
of what it would cost to run the department.
1:39:17 PM
Commissioner Williams indicated Ms. Wilkerson would review
the following several slides.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, discussed slide 3:
"Department of Corrections' Share of Total Agency
Operations (GF Only)." The slide was a representation of
the overall general funds (GF) for the department over the
previous 10 years. In 2019, the department was requesting
$297 million be added to the general funds for the agency,
an increase over FY 18. The general funds made up just over
6.3 percent of the overall governor's budget request. It
was an increase of $79 million from ten years prior. In FY
09 the department had a budget request of $217 million.
1:40:23 PM
Ms. Wilkerson moved to slide 4: "Department of Corrections
Line Items (All Funds)." She relayed that the slide was a
representation of how the funds were allocated. The
majority of the department's funds were dedicated to
personal services at just over $210 million. The next
highest line was the department's services line, which
included the department's utilities, contractual services,
and halfway houses which made up $98 million of the
department's budget. The commodities equaled $19.8 million
and included food, housing, clothing, bedding, and all of
the operational costs for commodity purchases. The
department also had a small travel line of $1.8 million The
majority of that amount was associated with prisoner
transports between Alaska's institutions and to and from
medical appointments. The department also had a small
appropriation of just over $600,000 dedicated to returning
inmates to their point of arrest upon release. The
department was asking for $1 million in the governor's
budget for capital outlay to address any annual maintenance
and repair. Of the institutions that were operating, the
department was responsible for the facility upkeep of its
institutions.
1:41:32 PM
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 5: "Appropriations within
the Department of Corrections (GF Only)." She indicated
that the department's budget was allocated through six
result delivery units (RDU)s. Population Management was the
largest RDU within the budget. It included three divisions:
The Division of Institutions, the Division of Probation and
Parole, and the Division of Pretrial Services, as well as
the Board of Parole. The overall allocation made up 80
percent of DOC's overall general fund budget. Health and
Rehabilitative Services (HARS) made up the additional 15.6
percent of the budget. Administrative and Support made up 3
percent of the budget, and Offender programs in recidivism
reduction budgets made up just over 1 percent of the
budget.
Ms. Wilkerson continued that the Population Management
budget had an increase. In FY 19 the department was asking
for 10.4 million which would be allocated throughout the 12
operating institutions to bring them up to full funding.
Their budget was reduced in FY 17 and FY 18 in anticipation
of further closures or constrictions of the beds, which
were not being achieved presently. Therefore, the
department was asking for full funding. The department was
also asking for $10.3 million be added to HARS. The request
was associated with increased medical costs of prisoner
inmate care.
1:43:11 PM
Ms. Wilkerson moved to slide 6: "Appropriations within the
Department of Corrections (All Funds)." The slide was a
representation of the overall funds - all funds within the
department broken out by various allocations. The federal
funds increased by $4.6 million. They were primarily
dedicated to receipts the department collected for the
housing of federal inmates within its various facilities.
Co-Chair Seaton recognized that the committee had been
joined by Representative Mark Neuman.
1:43:47 PM
Ms. Wilkerson continued to slide 7: "Department of
Corrections Total Funding Comparison by Fund Group (All
Funds)." She reported that the slide showed the
distribution of the department's overall budget by fund
source. The department collected federal receipts used for
the housing of federal inmates detained within Alaska's
various institutions. Unrestricted general funds made up 85
percent of the department's overall budget at $289 million.
The department also had other funds allocated within the
department in the amount of $25.7 million that included
items such as the facilities Capital Improvement Project
(CIP) authorization, the mental health trust authority, and
interagency receipts. The department had a small amount of
$8.5 million of designated general funds. The department
collected funds from inmates assigned to electronic
monitoring as well as the collection of funds from other
municipalities for the housing of inmates held on local
municipal charges. The department also had a collection
from the cost of incarceration that was collected through
the Department of Law and the courts.
1:45:01 PM
Commissioner Williams scrolled to slide 8: "Division of
Institutions." He mentioned that the slide broke out the
different offices within the Divisions of Institutions. The
subsequent slides did the same for each of the other
divisions. He thought that in the previous year, when the
department made its presentation to the legislature, he had
been too broad in saying that the department served all
Alaskans. He had been asked by the committee to be more
specific. He had taken the request to heart but may have
overdone it. He mentioned one example in the institutions
line that indicated the department was serving 4,800
Alaskans. The number reflected the average capacity for
incarceration. The number went up and down throughout the
year. Some of the things he was not mentioning was that the
department had about 30,000 bookings per year, and the
number of Alaskans' served was conservative. The bookings
of people coming into the state's facilities involved a
significant amount of work, and they did not stay very
long. In each of the areas in which he talked about
Alaskans served, he was trying to get it right with
legislators on how members wanted to describe the
information. He was certain that in terms of Alaskans
served, he was missing many Alaskans that were served due
to budget cuts. He wanted guidance on how the legislature
wanted to see the information presented.
Ms. Wilkerson continued to review slide 8, a representation
of the Division of Institutions. The budget had decreased
overall, and the department was asking that a portion of it
be restored. Alaska was one of six unified states
throughout the country. The division handled prisons, the
unsentenced population, and the sentenced population upon
conviction. The division operated twelve institutions
throughout the state that was handled by the classification
and furlough office for appropriate placement of housing of
those offenders. The division was also responsible for the
inmate transportation that was delegated to the department
by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). That delegation
allowed the department to move inmates between institutions
for population purposes as well as to and from medical
appointments. The point of arrest component rested within
the division. It returned offenders to their point of
arrest. The division had a $1.5 million budget dedicated to
education and vocational educational opportunities in
efforts to assist individuals upon reentry into communities
to obtain employment. The division had $16.8 million
dedicated for the department's community residential
centers (CRC). She reported that $7 million was allocated
to the Regional and Community Jail Program. The department
had contracts with 15 local entities throughout the state.
1:48:28 PM
Ms. Wilkerson detailed slide 9: "Division of Health and
Rehabilitation." The overall budget for the Division of
Health and Rehabilitation was $58.559 million and included
the ask of $10.3 million that was identified as a
shortfall. It would also be reflected in the supplemental
bill for FY 18. The division encompassed the phisical
health care component required under statute to provide
essential care to individuals placed under the department's
custody. It also included the behavioral health component
as well as the department's substance abuse treatment
programs, sex offender treatment, sex offender management
programs, and domestic violence programs.
1:49:18 PM
Commissioner Williams scrolled to slide 10: "Division of
Probation and Parole." He made a caveat comment about the
department's probation counts. The issue had been a source
of significant discussion the previous year. The department
had 3075 as the number of Alaskans served, which was the
department's capacity. It was an important issue to bring
up in terms of budgeting for the department. The
department's average count was about 5100 people on
probation in the prior year. Currently, the department had
about 3900 people on probation. The reason for the
reduction had to do, in part, with earned compliance
credits and changes in reform to the department regarding
technical violations. He explained that putting someone
back in jail had to be related to something larger than
missing an appointment or some other technical violation,
which brought the count down. He explained that with some
of the changes under SB 54 [Legislation passed in 2017 -
Short Title: Crimes; Sentencing; Probation; Parc] the
department was set at a cap of 3075. As the commissioner,
he thought the division had a reasonable chance of getting
to that number. At the same time, the department was being
very strategic about who it had on probation and for how
long. It was a part of the department's operations that he
continued to watch very closely to make sure it had the
right people on probation for the right period of time. He
wanted to continue to work the issue to make sure the right
supervision was in place for the offender population upon
release.
Ms. Wilkerson reported on slide 10. She relayed that the
Division of Probation and Parole encompassed about $21.2
million of the overall budget. It was broken up into
statewide probation and parole which covered 13 regional
locations and provided supervision to individuals under
probation and parole who were released into Alaska's
communities. Electronic monitoring was also a part of the
division and was currently operating in six locations with
expansion to two additional locations, Sitka and Barrow.
The department was also actively expanding the electronic
monitoring program to other areas.
1:52:12 PM
Commissioner Williams reported that the Division of
Pretrial Services was a new division that went into full
operation in January [2018] and had been in operation for
four weeks. He looked forward to subsequent conversations
to talk about the division and its efforts. He thought the
division would be a critical piece of the department. He
anticipated more discussion on the division in the
subcommittee process. He wanted to make sure the department
had clarity about what it was doing in the pretrial
enforcement division and for what reasons. He indicated
that in the prior 10 years, the department's largest growth
in prison population had been in the pretrial area, like
most other states in the nation. The people in prison
pretrial cost the state a significant amount of money. Some
of the individuals in jail pretrial needed to be there due
to their charge and potential risk. The department had
about half of the needed employees hired for the division.
Commissioner Williams continued that he had put some of the
money back into enhancing local community jails to do some
of the work, rather than the state being solely
responsible. In the following week he would update the
subcommittee on the topic. Most communities were supportive
of the change and others were waiting to see results. He
thought support for the division and keeping it on
trajectory was important for a host of reasons. He though
the division was the greatest promise in improving public
safety, especially for the pretrial people who had never
had any monitoring previously. The department was using a
risk tool as another option for a judge to use to decide
who should stay in or out of prison. In every other state
where pretrial services were offered, it had improved
public safety when done appropriately. He was pleased with
the direction of the division.
1:55:19 PM
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that Representative Guttenberg
had joined the meeting.
1:55:39 PM
Ms. Wilkerson moved to slide 11: "Division of Pretrial
Services." She reported that the new Division of Pretrial
Services had an allocation of $10.2 million. One of the
things the division had achieved to-date was negotiating
with 11 of 15 community regional jails to provide pretrial
level services on behalf of the pretrial unit.
1:56:10 PM
Ms. Wilkerson scrolled to slide 12: "Board of Parole." The
Board of Parole was housed within DOC and had a budget of
$1.7 million. The board was responsible for determining the
suitability of individuals for potential release onto
parole from custody. The board oversaw the mandatory
parole, the discretionary Parole, and the special medical
parole. They also oversaw the geriatric parole and were
working with the governor's office on the new clemency
elements being implemented.
Commissioner Williams believed the parole hearings would at
least double. The parole board had a full schedule of
hearings and was doing a great job of managing the
workload. He reemphasized that there would likely be a
dramatic increase in parole hearings.
1:57:33 PM
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 13: "Division of
Administrative Services." She explained that the Division
of Administrative Services oversaw the administrative
functions for the department. The allocation to the
division was $9.7 million and included all items such as
recruitment, human resources, procurement, budgeting, and
financials. It also encompassed the offender management
system and certified the breath and alcohol ignition
interlock devise program. The division was responsible for
employee background checks and APSE [Association of People
Supporting EmploymentFirst] certification. The division
oversaw all offender records including those that were
active and inactive. The division was also responsible for
maintenance for all institutions within the department. The
division was actively coordinating with the Department of
Administration (DOA) on shared services elements.
1:58:48 PM
Ms. Wilkerson reviewed slide 14: "Office of the
Commissioner." She reported that the allocation for the
Office of the Commissioner was $3.76 million consisting of
funding for the correctional academy. She elaborated that
the academy provided Alaska Police Standard Counsel
Training required for all probation officers and
correctional officers. The professional conduct unit and
the recidivism reduction component were housed within the
Office of the Commissioner.
1:59:22 PM
Ms. Wilkerson turned to slide 15: "Department of
Corrections Five-Year Health Care Trends." The slide showed
the department's 5-year health care trends. The allocation
for health care including inmate health care was 23.3
percent. The department's employer contribution was just
over $30 million, and workers compensation was just over
$3.8 million. The inmate health care portion of the
allocation was almost $40 million. The employee allocation
was 11 percent of the 23 percent. The rest was made up of
inmate health care contributions. The department made every
effort to reduce health care costs such as posting
information on the department website and sharing
information with employees. Each of the institutions were
putting forward employee wellness programs within the
facilities. The department coordinated with the unions to
have on-site wellness resources including training,
webinars, and group activities. For inmate efforts, the
department was moving higher cost cases out of state. The
department had been successful in placing two high cost
dialysis inmates in a lower cost facility outside of
Alaska. The department reviewed its high cost medical cases
as soon as they came to the attention of the department for
a community placement to see if it could get them out of
custody and under Medicaid. The department was making other
efforts such as providing information to inmates, focusing
on heart-healthy diets, and coordinating efforts to issue
Vitamin D throughout the institutions.
2:01:30 PM
Ms. Wilkerson explained slide 16: "What is Vacancy Factor?"
She explained that a vacancy factor meant intentionally
underfunding positions in anticipation of turnover of
positions by long-term employees and hiring newer employees
into those positions.
2:02:02 PM
Ms. Wilkerson continued to slide 17: "Department of
Corrections FY2019 Personnel Vacancy Factor." She reported
that of the department's 1895 budgeted positions, if they
were to be filled 100 percent all year long, the cost would
be $217 million. The department had an average statewide
vacancy of 4.47 percent which equated to just over $9.7
million that was unfunded. The department had the parole
board and a lump-sum premium pay added back in, $2.8
million, for an overall personal service authorization of
$210.4 million. She indicated that she had reached the end
of the department's presentation.
2:02:49 PM
Commissioner Williams reiterated that the department was
looking for full funding for FY 19. He had looked at a
supplemental. The department had a supplemental for about
$10 million the prior year. In the current year's budget,
the department would have a supplemental request, despite
every effort his team had made to avoid one. The department
would have a difficult time making its budget in the
present year. As the Commissioner, he had advocated that in
running the systems there should be a full accounting and a
full transparency of what it would cost the state. He did
not like supplementals. He thought it was important to have
a fair accounting of what it would cost to run the
department. If the state wanted to do something different
as a policy call, a substantial major change to the state's
correctional system, everyone should be upfront about that.
He thought the budget presentation was a fair assessment of
what it would cost to run the correctional system as it
stood for the following year.
2:04:46 PM
Representative Grenn asked about the Division of
Institutions on slide 8. He pointed to line 7 regarding the
education and vocational programs. It listed a high number
of offenders served in the program. He asked if the
commissioner had details of what the budget looked like in
the past 3 years including reductions. Ms. Wilkerson
responded that the budget Representative Grenn spoke of had
remained flat funded for the last 3 years and had not had a
decrement. She relayed that the number of offenders that it
served could include an offender that had received multiple
certifications.
2:05:30 PM
Representative Grenn asked if the number of offenders
served had increased. Ms. Wilkerson responded, "Yes it
has."
Representative Grenn thought the information would be
helpful for the committee.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified the number of years
Representative Grenn was requesting.
Representative Grenn responded, "Since 2015." He brought up
pretrial services. There were several positions that were
not filled. He asked the commissioner to comment on why the
department was having trouble with recruiting.
Commissioner Williams responded that there were several
reasons for the positions being open. First, the start date
for the division was January 1 at which time the division
would start the process of doing assessments provided to
the courts. It was clear that certain people would go on
supervision. The division was going to grow. There was no
point having 60 employees at the inception of a system. He
argued that it was better that as the division grew it
could slowly bring in people as they were trained. He
continued that standing up 60 people at the capacity of the
academy was impossible. The wise and frugal way was to
slowly grow the number of employees as the division
workload increased over time. The real division workload
would be about a year out. Having said that, there was some
recruitment and retention issues. Presently, the division
was having people apply and get into the pretrial
enforcement division. The division was being wise about how
it was advancing the workforce with the workload.
Representative Grenn asked if the vacant positions were not
holding him back from standing up as much as he wanted to.
Commissioner Williams responded that his director would
feel a little better if the division had a few more staff.
He thought the division was in the ballpark of where it
wanted to be.
2:08:05 PM
Representative Thompson referred to slide 11. He asked if
the department broke out the transportation costs for
people in pretrial having to go to court. He asked if it
was broken out from other transportation costs for
prisoners. Commissioner Williams replied in the negative.
He relayed that the transports were on another slide. It
was really considered an institutional cost. The cost of
moving people between cities was still borne by the
institution. The division was not showing any
transportation costs of offenders in the slide because if
someone was in violation the community jail or the
department's pretrial officers would arrest them and bring
them back in. He thought there were places in the budget
that rested on the institutional side.
Ms. Wilkerson asked Representative Thompson to clarify his
question. Representative Thompson indicated a large portion
of the correction population was awaiting pretrial. They
had to get to trial. He wondered if the transportation cost
was paid for by the department. He was talking about people
in jail having to get to pretrial. He asked if the
transportation costs were paid for by the division. Ms.
Wilkerson relayed that court service officers were housed
within the Department of Public Safety. She thought it
would be better to hear from the department.
Commissioner Williams added that the department did
prisoner transport. It was not in the Division of Pretrial
Services, but it was in the Division of Institutions
budget. There was a substantial cost to moving prisoners.
Part of the costs were borne by DOC and DPS.
Representative Thompson asked how much of inmate health
care was offset by monies from their Permanent Fund
Dividend (PFD). Ms. Wilkerson responded that the department
received $11.9 million in the FY 19 budget that was
specifically associated with the Permanent Fund criminal
fund. They were funds allocated to the department from
those inmates that were ineligible due to being
incarcerated who would have been eligible had they not been
incarcerated for that year.
Representative Thompson thought that originally a portion
of an inmate's Permanent Fund Dividend was supposed to go
to victim restitution. He asked if the information was
being broken out as required by statute. He asked her to
explain. Ms. Wilkerson replied that the Department of
Revenue (DOR), Division of the Permanent Fund identified
the amount that was eligible for allocation and provided
the information to OMB. The Office of Management and Budget
would fund the victim's restitution (about $1.4 million)
and allocate the remaining funds to the department's
budget.
2:12:06 PM
Representative Neuman asked about the victim's compensation
fund. He pointed to the note on slide 5 in the box
regarding $8.6 million of UGF replacing PFD criminal funds.
He thought a prisoner's PFD check was garnished by the
department and was supposed to go into the victim's
compensation fund. He understood those monies were used for
operating costs. He also asked why the state had to replace
UGF with PFD criminal funds. Ms. Wilkerson responded that
the amount was reallocated by the governor's office and
then placed into the governor's budget. As the amount of
PFD criminal funds were adjusted up or down there was a
like fund change that was then put into DOC's budget to
maintain a flat amount available for inmate health care.
Representative Neuman mentioned that with SB 91 the
legislature intended to see a reinvestment for the funds
that were supposed to be the savings resulting from SB 91.
He asked Ms. Wilkerson to show the committee where in the
budget those savings were spent. Commissioner Williams
responded that he was unsure how to answer Representative
Neuman's question. He thought that there was an
anticipation that through some of the reform efforts the
state would receive more savings. To capture a savings, the
state would have to have substantially less inmates so that
a facility could be closed. He had not seen the projected
savings, although he had closed one prison. The savings
from that closing did not make up for the assumptions that
were made of closing an additional facility.
2:15:05 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the amount of
savings the state was not accruing because of an
inefficient state system. He asked about electronic
monitoring. He brought up the issue of internet costs and
phone costs. He asked about statewide probation and parole
and about the number of people in a community with a
probation officer. He spoke to the idea of someone being
able to go home with direct monitoring with the use of
broadband. He wondered about the cost of the inefficiencies
of the system. He mentioned the cost of transporting
inmates to court hearings that lasted only a few minutes
versus participating telephonically. He wanted to highlight
the cost to the state of having an inefficient broadband
system.
Commissioner Williams was keenly aware that the department
needed to have the video court systems greatly enhanced.
The attorney general, DPS, and DOC were working on the
issue. It would require capital investment. If he could
avoid moving inmates to attend court hearings, it would
result in a cost savings and increased safety. It was safer
for those doing the transfers, his staff and the Alaska
State Troopers staff. It was an area he continued to work
on. Some progress had been made. Currently, there was video
conferencing in Nome and Kotzebue. A willful effort was
necessary to address the issue.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that Nome and
Kotzebue were on fiber.
2:17:43 PM
Representative Pruitt relayed that 30 percent to 40 percent
of inmates were Alaska Natives. Representative Kopp had
brought up the notion of the state partnering with some of
the native health organizations to provide health care to
some of the state's inmates. The native health
organizations might have the opportunity to have some of
their costs offset by federal funds. It would provide the
organizations the opportunity to interact with some of the
inmates assisting some of their own members. He wondered if
the department had considered the idea.
Commissioner Williams responded in the negative. He did not
think there was much opportunity. He had asked the same
question. He relayed that the federal guidelines and
statutes under Indian Health Services and Veterans
Administration were very prescriptive: If a person was
inside a prison, they were not covered. He was hoping to
put a fix into place in the following week. The answer was
to have more flexibility for the department to place people
in locations that did not represent a risk in halfway
houses or community reentry center environments. The idea
was to have a broad array of places people could go to
finish out the rest of their sentence safely and
strategically. He reported that the department had very few
problems with people at the end of their sentences. He
argued that the more flexibility he had in the department
to put people out into halfway house locations, the more
likely they would become eligible for Medicaid. He hoped to
provide more diversity as to where people finished their
sentence. He had asked the director to relook at the issue
again and to poor over the topic looking for wiggle room.
He admitted he did not think there was much wiggle room to
find. He thought there might be flexibility in other areas.
He noted having 2 patients in the cue to testify. Both
dialysis patients represented a $20,000 to $30,000 savings
per month for DOC. There were certain people that were high
cost patients. He had been pressing about looking at other
options. He was happy to look at the issue again with the
legislature.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that the meeting was a high-level
look at the department. The subcommittee would get into
more of the details with DOC.
2:22:03 PM
AT EASE
2:23:06 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2:23:13 PM
Co-Chair Seaton noted the presentation would need to end by
3:00 p.m. He asked members to hold any policy questions
until the end of the presentation.
WALT MONEGAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
introduced himself and his staff. He provided a PowerPoint
presentation: "Department of Public Safety Department
Overview" dated January 30, 2018 (copy on file). He began
on slide 1: "Our Mission":
"The mission of the Department of Public Safety is to
ensure public safety and enforce fish and wildlife laws."
Commissioner Monegan turned the presentation over to Ms.
Howell.
KELLY HOWELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, began on slide 2:
"Department of Public Safety: Share of Total Agency
Operations (GF Only)." She indicated that the following 5
slides contained graphs prepared by the Legislative Finance
Division. The current slide showed a 10-year lookback of
the department's general fund budget, which included
unrestricted general funds (UGF) and designated general
funds (DGF). She shared that from FY 09 to FY 19 governor's
request the department's budget grew by $49 million, an
average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent. From FY 09
through FY 14, DPS experienced increases in its general
fund budget with decreases beginning in FY 15. She reported
that the total general fund reduction from FY 14 to FY 19
governor's request was $7.4 million. Speaking specifically
to the department's FY 19 governor's request, it was
slightly above FY 13 levels by approximately $1 million.
The general fund category comprised 86 percent of the
department's overall budget. Of the general fund budget, 95
percent of it was unrestricted general funds at $163
million.
2:26:40 PM
Ms. Howell slide 3: "Department of Public Safety: Total
Comparison by Fund Group (All Funds)." The slide reflected
a 10-year lookback of the department's annual operating
budget totals by fund source. The department's total FY 19
budget request was $199.3 million a 2.7 percent increase
over FY 18. She would be reviewing the department's
increment requests as she went through the components in
upcoming slides. She reported that UGF comprised 82 percent
of the department's overall budget with federal funds being
8 percent. Other funds, which included funds such as
interagency receipts, was 6 percent of the budget and DGF
was 4 percent. Speaking specifically to the department's FY
19 budget request, the department made reductions of nearly
$3.8 million in hollow authorization or uncollectable
receipt authority to more accurately align the budget with
the department's anticipated revenues.
2:27:45 PM
Ms. Howell moved to slide 4: "Department of Public Safety:
Line Item Comparison (All Funds)." The slide provided a 10-
year lookback at the department's annual operating budget
by line item by all fund sources. Like most other
departments, personal services comprised the largest
percentage of the department's budget at 57 percent. She
relayed that the department's FY 19 budget request included
804 permanent full-time positions, a net decrease of 4
positions from FY 18 and a net decrease of 81 permanent
full-time positions since FY 15. The budgeted positions the
department had in FY 19 were at the same levels as FY 2006.
2:28:32 PM
Ms. Howell advanced to slide 5: "Department of Public
Safety: Appropriations (All Funds)." The slide provided a
10-year lookback of the department's budget by
appropriation including all fund sources. The department
had 6 appropriations, or results delivery units (RDU), that
made up the budget. She reported that when looking at all
fund sources for the FY 19 governor's proposed budget, at
$131.4 million the Alaska State Troopers appropriation was
the largest share at 66 percent of the department's overall
budget. She noted that the Alaska State Troopers
appropriation included both the Alaska State Trooper and
the Alaska Wildlife Trooper divisions.
2:29:22 PM
Ms. Howell scrolled to slide 6: "Department of Public
Safety: Appropriations (GF Only)." The slide showed a 10-
year lookback of the department's general fund budget by
appropriation. The slide was similar to the previous slide,
just limited to general funds. Also, like the previous
slide, the Alaska State Trooper's appropriation was the
largest at 72 percent of the department's general fund
budget. She indicated the following 5 slides would provide
a breakdown of the department by allocation.
2:29:55 PM
Ms. Howell detailed slide 7: "Department of Public Safety
by Allocation." The first allocation on the slide was fire
and life safety. The Department of Public Safety was
statutorily required to foster, promote, regulate, and
develop ways and means of protecting life and property
against fire and explosion. Most of the allocation went
through the state fire marshal's office. Their statutory
mission was to prevent the loss of life and property from
fire. They had statewide jurisdiction for fire code
enforcement and plan review authority except in communities
that had received deferrals. She reported that the
allocation included an increment in the FY 19 budget of
$75,000 in UGF and $125,000 in DGF, a $200,000 increment
request to conduct fire safety inspections and for rural
firefighter training. The Alaska Fire Standards Council
established professional standards for fire service
personnel and curriculum requirements for the certification
of training programs in support of legislative findings
under Alaska Statute (AS) 18.70.320.
Ms. Howell continued that the department's special projects
allocation was comprised of primarily federal funds for
special projects such as public safety services within the
Chugach and Tongass National Forests through US Forest
Service contracts, overtime costs associated with
participation in federal task forces through the US Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the department's domestic
violence and sexual training for law enforcement through
the US Department of Justice Office of Violence Against
Women. She addressed the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol
allocation. The troopers within the allocation helped
maintain the safety of Alaska's highways through targeted
enforcement, speeding violations, distracted and impaired
drivers, and other driver behaviors that contributed to
serious injury and fatal crashes.
Ms. Howell reported that positions budgeted in the Judicial
Services Bureau allocation were primarily court services
officers. They conducted most of the state prisoner
transports throughout Alaska. They provided security for
Alaska's courts and court facilities. They protected the
judiciary and provided timely service of legal process.
There were no positions budgeted in the prisoner
transportation allocation. The allocation funded the
transportation of prisoners needing pre-arraignment or
post-arraignment escorts as well as the transport of
convicted prisoners between in-state facilities. There was
a small amount of funding in interagency receipts to
transport individuals with mental health issues from their
communities to either the Alaska Psychiatric Institute or
to a community with a hospital providing local designated
treatment and evaluation services. Those funds came through
the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS).
2:33:13 PM
Ms. Howell reviewed the allocations listed on slide 8:
"Department of Public Safety by Allocation - Continued."
She reported that the search and rescue allocation
supported search and rescue operations for the recovery of
lost or missing persons. It was used to reimburse public
and private organizations for the resources spent during
search and rescue operations. There were no employees
budgeted under the allocation. The resources were also
coordinated with the rescue coordination components of the
Alaska National Guard and the US Coast Guard. Under rural
trooper housing, the department operated state housing in
support of its statutory responsibilities. The department
charged rent consistent with the applicable collective
bargaining agreement or with competitive market conditions
if it was not addressed within the collective bargaining
agreement. Rent paid by the troopers staying in state
housing was deducted from their payroll and deposited into
this allocation. The department currently had 63 housing
units located in Rural Alaska where housing was
traditionally scarce. It helped to have troopers based in
the rural communities. She continued that 14 of those
properties were state owned and 49 were leased throughout
20 communities.
Ms. Howell continued that the department's statewide drug
and alcohol unit have troopers that investigate trafficking
of both controlled substances and illegal alcohol
throughout the state. She reported that with respect to the
Alaska State Trooper (AST) detachments allocation, it was
the department's largest in terms of budget and personnel.
It covered all the trooper posts across the department's 5
geographic detachments. Most troopers were budgeted within
the allocation. Services included patrol, enforcement, and
search and rescue areas across the state. The allocation
included an incremental request in the FY 19 budget of $2
million in UGF to expand the troopers' ability to conduct
more proactive policing and enhance the level of service
provided, primarily in rural Alaska. She mentioned that the
increments the department was asking for in the FY 19
budget were primarily associated with the governor's public
safety action plan.
Ms. Howell advanced to the Alaska Bureau of Investigation
allocation. The unit focused on major crime investigations
including homicides and sexual assaults and in providing
investigative assistance to other law enforcement agencies
across the state. The allocation included an increment
request of $570,000 in UGF to add 2 non-permanent trooper
investigator positions that would be embedded in the
Department of Law and would provide vital follow-up
investigative activities for domestic violence, sexual
assault, and sexual abuse of minor cases. The Alaska
Wildlife Troopers allocation was where the bulk of the
state's Alaska Wildlife Troopers were budgeted. They
performed statewide patrol of commercial big game services,
commercial fisheries, sport fish and sport fish guiding,
and game and trapping. The also provided enforcement and
education regarding boating safety, and in safeguarding
habitat through reduction of watershed damage and
non-compliance with environmental permits.
2:36:52 PM
Ms. Howell advanced to slide 9: "Department of Public
Safety by Allocation - Continued." She explained that the
Alaska Wildlife Troopers Aircraft Section maintained the
fleet of department aircraft and provided aircraft services
for prisoner transports, search and rescue missions,
emergency response, and basic law enforcement patrols. The
allocation included an increment request in the FY 19
governor's budget of $570,000 to add 2 permanent full-time
aircraft pilot positions to provide a broader level of
service to rural Alaska. The 2 additional positions would
enable the department to staff both of its complex fixed
wing aircraft which was the King Air 350 and its primary
search and rescue helicopters, the A-Stars, nearly 7 days
per week.
Ms. Howell relayed that the Alaska Wildlife Troopers Marine
Enforcement Section maintained the fleet of department
vessels for search and rescue missions, emergency response,
and basic law enforcement patrols. Funds from the
allocation for the Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO)
program were granted to 10 organizations to hire VPSOs and
to administer the program within their region. The Alaska
Police Standards Council allocation was 100 percent
supported with general fund program receipts through the
Alaska police training fund. The fund was comprised of
surcharges on fines that were associated with criminal
offenses and violations. She noted that the administration
introduced House Bill (HB) 294, which proposed to increase
by 100 percent, the surcharge amounts imposed for a
defendant who pled guilty to, forfeited bail, or was
convicted of a felony offense, misdemeanor offense, or a
violation. Should money from the Alaska police training
fund continue to be appropriated to the Alaska Police
Standards Council, it would result in an increase in the
ability to provide training to law enforcement across the
state.
Ms. Howell conveyed that the Council on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault provided for planning and coordination
of services to victims of domestic violence or sexual
assault, to their families, and to perpetrators of domestic
violence and sexual assault. They also provided crisis
intervention and prevention programs. The allocation
included an increment request for increased federal receipt
authority in the amount of $4 million based on a growth in
the federal grant received by the council from the victims
of crime act.
2:39:44 PM
Ms. Howell scrolled to slide 10: "Department of Public
Safety by Allocation - Continued." She relayed that the
Commissioner's Office allocation funded the commissioner's
office staff and included the department's office of
professional standards. The allocation included a one-time
funding request of $150,00 in UGF to conduct a feasibility
study for purposes of determining whether creating state
managed centralized dispatch centers would benefit the
state more than the existing structure. The public safety
training academy, located in Sitka, provided initial and
continuing law enforcement training to troopers, state fire
marshals, court service officers, park rangers, airport
police, municipal law enforcement agencies, and VPSOs.
Ms. Howell continued to the Administrative Services
allocation provided centralized administrative support for
the other divisions within the department in the areas of
finance, general administration, budget, grants
administration procurement, and supply management. Funding
in the allocation for the Alaska Wing Civil Air Patrol was
appropriated by the legislature to DPS and was passed
directly through to the Alaska Wing Civil Air Patrol as the
state's contribution in support of the Civil Air Patrol's
mission. The Civil Air Patrol currently used the funds to
pay operating costs for the Lake Hood aircraft maintenance
facility and maintained 12 existing hangers. The department
worked with the Civil Air Patrol on search and rescue
missions and the department accessed use of some of the
hangers maintained by the Civil Air Patrol.
A mutually beneficial relationship existed. She reported
that he information system allocation contained the
department's information technology section which provided
programing and support for the state's critical criminal
justice information systems.
2:41:59 PM
Ms. Howell continued to slide 11: "Department of Public
Safety by Allocation - Continued." She explained that the
criminal justice information systems (CJIS) program was a
new allocation. The previous allocation of information
systems and CJIS were one allocation in the prior budget
cycle - the statewide information technology services
allocation. The component was split into 2 allocations: the
information technology allocation and the CJIS programs
allocation. The purpose of the split was to better
differentiate the services that each allocation provided,
and also was a result of the administration's consolidation
of information technology through the Office of Information
Technology Services.
Ms. Howell explained that the CJIS program allocation
provided and maintained centralized information pertaining
to state criminal history records, finger prints, and sex
offenders. The program conducted process server and
security guard licensing, administrated the concealed
handgun permit program, and was responsible for collecting,
tabulating, reporting, and publishing the uniform crime
report data provided by state and local law enforcement
agencies. The program submitted information to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for inclusion in national
crime statistic reports. The allocation included an
increment request in the FY 19 budget of $595,000 to add 6
new permanent full-time positions to establish a records
and classification unit in preparation for the FBI's
transition to a new reporting system for crime statistics.
Ms. Howell detailed that the CJIS program would be moving
from summary based or uniform crime reporting (UCR) to
incident based or the National Incident Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) format. The new format required more detail
and intricacies in reporting. The unit would review law
enforcement case reports for completeness, accuracy, and
consistency under the new NIBRS format which would
ultimately allow for more timely and robust crime
statistics reporting and hopefully provide better data for
policy making. Additionally, the allocation included a
request for $1 million in increased federal receipt
authority based on a new federal grant that the component
received for NIBRS compliance. The funding received from
the US DOJ was to prepare the department's information
systems for the new reporting format that was being
implemented by the FBI. She elaborated that the federal
funding side was to do the programing and the department
was asking for the operating budget increment to staff the
unit that would be performing the work.
Ms. Howell reported that the department's laboratory
services allocation performed forensic services across the
state for law enforcement agencies. Staff at the
department's laboratory provided expert court testimony on
the results of tested evidence. They trained law
enforcement officers in proper evidence collection and on
evidence preservation techniques and administered the
statewide breath alcohol program. The facilities
maintenance represented annual expenditures for scheduled
and preventative maintenance to keep the department's
facilities operational and in a continued state of
readiness. The state facilities rent allocation represented
the public building fund rent that was paid to the
Department of Administration for the Juneau public safety
building.
2:46:02 PM
Ms. Howell turned to slide 12: "DPS Health Care Cost
Trends." The slide represented the trend in health care
costs for the department from FY 14 to the proposed FY 19
budget. It had remained relatively stable across the 5
years with FY 19 reflecting 18.2 percent of the
department's budget being dedicated to health care costs.
The department took the health and wellness of its
employees very seriously, particularly its troopers, court
service officers, and deputy fire marshals who were out
doing work that was both physically and mentally demanding.
Some of the efforts the department had taken to ensure the
health and wellness of its employees as well as to reduce
health care costs included establishing a voluntary
wellness program. It had been in effect for a year since
January 2017. The program incentivized employees to take
part in general health activities such as annual physical
exams, health screenings (including blood test for vitamin
D levels, thyroid, and metabolic panels), stress management
activities, and oral and eye health examinations. The
department incentivized its employees by providing
administrative leave to participate in those activities. In
addition, the department shared information as received
through the union health trusts and DOA sharing the
information with employees as it was available. She
concluded the presentation and was happy to answer
questions from the committee.
2:47:53 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked Ms. Howell to return to slide 7. He
asked about the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol rate of
effectiveness being ineffective. He asked her to discuss
the rating. Commissioner Monegan responded that the
original set up of the Alaska Bureau of Highway Patrol was
staffed with about 21 troopers. Since the past few budget
cycles, the department had reduced the number from 21 down
to 3 troopers on the road and other individuals that
supported some of the grants through the allocation. The
department reduced the number by reallocating the troopers
from a specialized to a generalized patrol. However, he
thought the change was ineffective.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the department was considering a
change in allocations. Commissioner Monegan replied that it
was important to keep the positions in tact because of the
federal grants the department received and shared with
other local entities such as the Anchorage police or the
Palmer-Wasilla police, especially on the designated safety
corridors. He wanted to build staff back up at some point.
2:49:57 PM
Representative Ortiz mentioned unfilled positions of
troopers. He asked for an update on the numbers.
Commissioner Monegan responded that there would be a
hearing in the upcoming subcommittee meeting that would
address his question in depth. The department had put
together a more robust plan to address vacancies.
Representative Ortiz shared that a constituent that worked
in the public safety field had brought a concern to the
representative about troopers being hired away.
Commissioner Monegan agreed that his constituent was
correct that employees had been hired away including
troopers and VPSOs because of better pay or benefits. He
would present some of the incentives that the department
was considering. He indicated that retaining 5 of the
current staff was equal to saving $1 million for the
department. He thought it was crucial to resolve the issue
for the state, as it was a matter of public safety.
Recruitment and retention was a national problem for a
variety of reasons. The department was trying to address
the problem as best as possible given the restraints it was
under.The department was trying to resolve the problem in
the best way possible given the restraints the department
currently faced.
2:53:09 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the difference
between the trooper detachments that were considered
constitutionally required, and the VPSOs that were not.
Even though both officers had different or similar
functions they were still required under public safety for
the State of Alaska. He asked the commissioner to address
the differences between the 2 types of officers.
Commissioner Monegan responded that the VPSO program
started about 40 years prior. The program was started to
supplement the Alaska State Troopers because there were
several communities that did not have any form of law
enforcement. Most police departments, the state's included,
had to combat two things: crime and fear of crime, which
could be just as devastating to a community. Having
individuals out in the communities who could function in
addressing low level crime or disorder was better than
having no law enforcement at all. The largest support for
the VPSOs came from Alaska's villages.
Representative Guttenberg commented that he did not
understand why both did not fall under a constitutional
requirement.
Commissioner Monegan responded that 40 years ago they were
not primarily law enforcement but rather a generalized
public safety individual. They were trained in first aid,
helped with search and rescue efforts, addressed low-level
crime, and assisted with fire prevention. Over time VPSOs
became more of a law enforcement entity. The department has
escalated and improved their training, and VPSOs were now
attending the trooper academy. He thought the situation was
evolving. Time would tell what the state and communities
could do together. He believed there was a place for VPSOs
in many communities but thought an ongoing dialog with
tribes would continue. He hoped that the parties could come
up with a solution that satisfied everyone.
2:57:10 PM
Representative Grenn referred to slide 10. He had two
questions regarding the Civil Air Patrol. He wondered about
the pass-through grant and what it represented as a
percentage of the Civil Air Patrol's budget. Ms. Howell
responded that she would get back to him. The department
did not know the total budget for the Civil Air Patrol or
the sources of its funding. It was a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization and an axillary arm of the US Air Force.
Representative Grenn asked about the public safety training
academy. He asked for the number of people served in a
year. He asked if the other funding source was from
municipalities or fees. Ms. Howell responded that it was
the receipt authority for the training academy to receive
fees from local law enforcement or self-paying individuals.
The academy ran two Alaska Law Enforcement Training
Academies per year and provided recertification training
and ongoing training throughout the year. In terms of
numbers, the training facility could provide the
information.
2:59:08 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked about the department's plan to get
officers to communities. He wondered how many communities
did not have a public safety officer. Commissioner Monegan
replied that the department had a VPSO coordinator meeting.
He noted that Andrew Merrill had been the VPSO coordinator
for the previous two years, and his plan was to embed a
VPSO within the department's recruiting team trying to fill
the vacancies. He estimated that currently 44 communities
were being served by VPSOs. The department was working with
the grantees, the employers of VPSOs, regarding recruitment
and retention. There was discussion about a schedule of 2
weeks on / 2 weeks off schedule for posts the department
was having a difficult time filling. It was an evolving
situation. He suspected it would be years before there was
a VPSO in every community.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if it was true that the money for
VPSOs could not be used for recruiting. He asked about
mechanisms the department might use to improve flexibility
for recruitment purposes. Commissioner Monegan relayed that
the department was relaxing unused funds for recruitment.
3:02:48 PM
Representative Thompson referred to slide 8. He noticed
there was of shortage of 60 positions filled: 43 in the AST
detachments unit; 12 in the Alaska Wildlife Troopers unit;
3 in the Alaska Bureau of Investigation unit; and 3 in the
statewide drug and alcohol enforcement unit. He assumed
that most of the positions had vehicles assigned to them.
He wondered if there was a fleet of vehicles in storage
waiting for someone to be hired. Commissioner Monegan would
have to check. He understood that vehicles were ordered
when they needed replacement.
3:03:48 PM
Representative Thompson relayed that a few years ago the
legislature had removed funding for the helicopter pilot
position in Fairbanks. He asked if the helicopter was back
online or in storage. Commissioner Monegan responded that
the aircraft was back online and was functioning out of
Fairbanks. He noted it was being used in the present day.
Co-Chair Seaton informed the committee that it needed to
move on to the next presentation.
Representative Guttenberg asked about restrictions on VPSO
grant funds. As he understood, the grants could only be
used to pay salaries. He asked the commissioner to get back
to him. Commissioner Monegan responded that the department
was available to the grantees. The department received
several requests that were often approved. He would get a
complete answer for the committee.
3:05:30 PM
AT EASE
3:07:05 PM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3:07:05 PM
MARK WIGGIN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, introduced himself.
FABIENNE PETER-CONTESSE, SUPPORT SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, introduced herself.
Co-Chair Seaton asked members to hold their questions until
the end of the presentation.
Ms. Peter-Contesse introduced the PowerPoint presentation:
"State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources FY2019
Budget Overview." She noted that the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) Program Guide was in member's packets and
provided much greater detail about each of the programs
within DNR. The presentation would be a high-level overview
of the department's budget. The financial information in
the program guide was from FY 18 management plan. She began
with slide 2: "Department of Natural Resources: Mission,
Core Services, and Division Measures." The department had
been focused on its 4 core services. The department had
been focused since the FY 15 budget forward on pairing down
or trimmed any program that was not specific to its core
services. The department's overall budget for FY 19 was
$152 million down approximately 15 percent since FY 15. The
department's UGF budget $58.7 million UGF, 39 percent of
the department's budget and down 33 percent from the FY 15
budget. The designated general fund budget was $33 million,
about 22 percent of the department's budget. The department
had increased its program receipt budget by about 24
percent over the previous 3 years. She would be talking
about the department's focus on generating revenue and
using those receipts for operations. She noted that the
other category which included statutory designated program
receipts, interagency receipts, and capital improvement
projects equaled about 23 percent of DNR's budget down
about 15 percent since FY 15 to about $25 million.
Positions were down 207 positions since FY 15. The
department currently had 900 position control numbers
(PCN)s. The department had taken a 19 percent cut in
positions since the high number in FY 15.
3:11:07 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse turned to slide 3: "Department of
Natural Resources Share of Total Agency Operations
(GF Only)." She reported that the Legislative Finance
Division (LFD) graph showed general funds only, designated
general funds and unrestricted general funds. She pointed
out the high in FY 15, much of which was the Alaska
Liquified Natural Gas (AKLNG) project ($10 million). The
drop in FY 16, because the project, was recategorized as
in-state pipeline funds, an "other" category. The
department had steadily decreased its general funds. She
noted the bump in FY 18, which was an increase of
reappropriated capital funds for the A-Star project. It was
a multi-year operating project. The large bump did not show
up in the governor's adjusted project yet. It would show up
in the management plan in the following year.
Ms. Peter-Contesse continued that there were two things
that were not included in the department's budget that had
been included on the slide previously, adjustments made by
LFD including boating receipts and contingency language for
fire crew. Boating receipts had previously been categorized
as "other" but was recategorized in the FY 19 governor's
adjusted budget as "designated general funds" in the amount
of $300,000. Additionally, the department had had
contingency language in the budget for the past 3-5 years
for fire crew. If the department did not receive federal
funds for fire crew there was contingency language that
would allow the department to use general funds for fire
crew. The department had never used the money to-date, but
because the federal funding for fire was volatile, the
department liked to keep it in the budget. The legislative
Finance Division wanted to see transparent budgeting and
because the potential for DNR to ask for the money was
there, it was included in the budget. There was a small
increase in the budget of $1.125 million because of the
contingency language. The department's general fund budget
decreased about $6.8 million since FY 09. The department
decreased its UGF about 21 percent since FY 15. However,
DGF increased due to the department trying to increase its
reliance on program receipts and decrease its reliance on
UGF.
Ms. Peter-Contesse relayed that some of the areas in which
the department collected receipts included park passes,
parking, public use passes, mineral sales on the North
Slope, mining leases, and other categories. The department
had new fees in place for the sale of seismic data. The
department was looking for ways to increase revenue and to
find new revenue rather than relying on the revenue the
state was already generating. Since the fees had been put
in place, the department had collected about $130,000 for
seismic data sales and potentially another $160,000 to
$170,000 was in the works. She was conveying only initial
available information. She thought there would be a
significant amount available in FY 19. She reported that
the department was looking for new fee regulations in FY
19. The department would be looking to use some of the
increased revenues from those fees. Overall, the department
had about $1.4 million in fund source changes in FY 19. She
clarified that the fund source changes were not from
existing revenue but new revenue the department projected
from the new fee packages.
3:16:06 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse continued to slide 4: "Department of
Natural Resources Line Items (All Funds)." She reported
that the slide showed all funds by line item. The bulk of
DNR's expenditures were in personal services. Even though
the department reduced its PCN count from 1095 in FY 09
down to 900 in FY 19, the department's costs had still gone
up. The average cost of a PCN in FY 09 was $75,000. In FY
19 the estimated cost was $98,000. Most of the cost was out
of the state's control. Much of it had to do with
bargaining unit agreements for cost of living increases and
health care cost increases. There were other bargained
personal services costs. Since FY 15, the department had
reduced about 19 percent of its staffing.
Ms. Peter-Contesse conveyed that the other bulk of DNR's
expenditures was in the contractual line. Department of
Natural Resources spent a significant amount on
firefighting, air tanker contracts, helicopter contracts,
flying field surveys for data collection in the Division of
Geological and geo physical services. The department also
paid for core services costs such as leases, office of
information technology, risk management, and human
resources. She reemphasized that the bulk was in personal
and contractual services. The department's traveling
expenditures had gone steadily down since FY 15. In the
previous day she had looked in the actuals for FY 15, FY
16, and FY 17, and between those 3 years, the department
was down by 40 percent in its actual travel expenditures
excluding fire activity. Much of the fire activity
expenditures for travel was outside of the department's
control and much of it was federally reimbursed.
3:18:35 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse advanced to slide 5: "Appropriations
within the Department of Natural Resources (GF Only)." She
indicated the chart showed general funds by results
delivery unit (RDU). She relayed that the green line
represented the Division of Mining Land and Water, the
Division of Forestry, fire activity, fire preparedness,
forest management, and the Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys. She pointed to the uptick beginning in
FY 12, which reflected an increase in funding to cover the
permitting backlog, and some increases through FY 15. The
green line began to trend down later in FY 15. She
highlighted the last green triangle reflecting an uptick
which was the $1.125 million fire crew contingency
increase. The bump in the blue line referred to the A-Star
program equaling $7.3 million in reappropriated funds from
a capital project. The previous bump in FY 15 was the AKLNG
project. The remaining lines on the chart were steadily
going down. There was a slight bump in the Division of Oil
and Gas in FY 19, and there was a small increment in FY 19
to cover projects that she would discuss later that were
previously covered in the capital budget.
3:20:31 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse moved to slide 6: "Appropriations within
the Department of Natural Resources (All Funds)." The slide
showed all funds by delivery unit. Fire language was
represented by the top green line inclining. The department
privatized the Mount McKinley Meat and Sausage Plants in FY
18 which reflected a decrease. The department eliminated
about $2.4 million in empty authority to decrease its
budget for FY 19. The department scrubbed its budget to
ensure the right amount of allocation was in each of its
divisions.
3:21:37 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse advanced to slide 7: "Department of
Natural Resources: Division of Agriculture." She wanted to
give the committee an idea how the department had
approached the presentation. Every program was outlined
with funding source categories, budgeted and filled
positions, and other. Each of the programs was outlined in
the department's program guide. She spoke about positions
and relayed that the data in the presentation was as of
December 15, 2017. At the time there had been 81 vacant
positions. Presently, there were only 5 being held open to
meet the department's vacancy factor. Many of the 81
positions had been filled, others were out for recruitment,
and some had been reclassified through the Division of
Personnel. The department had considered whether positions
needed to be filled and then they went to the
commissioner's office for approval.
3:24:04 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification that the five
positions were being held open to meet the department's
vacancy factor. Ms. Peter-Contesse responded in the
affirmative.
Representative Neuman thought he just heard the department
was justifying adding additional PCNs to clarify the cost
of personnel. Ms. Peter-Contesse did not understand
Representative Neuman's question. Representative Neuman
thought he had heard that the department was adding PCNs to
cover additional costs.
Co-Chair Seaton interjected that the question was about not
having enough funding to fill the positions. He asked Ms.
Peter-Contesse to provide additional information in the
finance subcommittee about the vacancy factor and about
having to leave positions open. Ms. Peter-Contesse replied
affirmatively.
3:26:02 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse continued to review the Division of
Agriculture allocations. The division had 9 programs, 33
PCNs, and it had seen a 25 percent reduction in UGF since
FY 15. The division had eliminated 12 positions, 27 percent
of its positions. The division had no increments or
significant decrements in FY 19. However, there was a new
program in place in the FY 19 budget, the State
Agricultural Veterinarian, which was funded by monies being
moved from different areas within the Division of
Agriculture. The program did not require a funding
increment and the department was not requesting new
positions. The department had a very specific overview
planned for the Division of Agriculture in the finance
subcommittee on February 14, 2018.
3:27:09 PM
Co-Chair Seaton let members know that the subcommittee
schedules could be found online, and the meetings would be
recorded on legislative television.
Ms. Peter-Contesse continued to slide 8: "Department of
Natural Resources: Division of Mining, Land, and Water."
She reported that the division was the largest within the
department with 18 programs and 206 positions. There were
23 vacant positions as of December 15, 2017. Currently,
those positions were filled, in recruitment, part of budget
cuts in FY 19 and would remain vacant for the rest of the
year, or they were in the Division of Personnel for
classification. The division had seen a significant UGF
reduction since FY 15, 66 percent. It was also the division
that had generated a significant amount of revenue for the
State of Alaska. Over the past several years, the
department had done large fund source changes. The
division's DGF had increased 72 percent. In FY 19, the
division was anticipating an additional $1 million in fund
source change which would come from new revenue rather than
revenue that was currently over collected and lapsing to
the general fund. It was a net positive for the general
fund assuming the division collected the revenue in FY 19.
The Division of Mining, Land, and Water was reducing UGF In
FY 19 by $532,000 and 3 PCNs.
3:29:43 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse skipped slide 9: "Department of Natural
Resources: Division of Mining, Land, and Water
(Continued)."
Ms. Peter-Contesse scrolled to slide 10: "Department of
Natural Resources: Division of Forestry." She reported that
the Division of Forestry had 3 components and 9 programs.
The division had 2 fire-fighting components, fire
preparedness and fire activity. The third component was
forest management. The division had experienced significant
reductions until the previous year. She indicated that 36
percent of UGF was cut specifically in forest management.
There was a 31 percent reduction in PCNs. In FY 19, the
department was not proposing any reductions in the
governor's budget for the Division of Forestry. There were
21 vacancies as of December 15, 2017. The vacancies were
seasonal fire positions that would be filled, were being
recruited, or were filled since December. She noted that
the table did not include $1.25 million in fire contingency
language.
3:31:08 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse spoke to slide 11: "Department of
Natural Resources: Office of Project Management and
Permitting." The division had 5 programs and experienced a
9 percent UGF reduction since FY 15 and 5 positions had
been eliminated. She reported that in FY 19, there was a
$47,000 UGF cut planned for the division.
Ms. Peter-Contesse reviewed slide 12: "Department of
Natural Resources: Division of Parks and Outdoor
Recreation." The division had 2 components and 6 programs.
The division had experienced reductions of 52 percent since
FY 15 and a 17 percent increase in DGF for program
receipts. The Division of Parks and Recreation was another
division that had been increasingly relying on the revenue
it generated and looking for ways to increase revenue. The
division had eliminated 25 positions since FY 15. The major
change in the budget for FY 15 was a $500,000 fund source
change from new revenue that the department anticipated
collecting once the new fee regulations were in place prior
to FY 19. She mentioned that the boating safety fund source
change from other to DGF was not included in the dollar
amounts. She did not have the information at the time she
created the tables.
3:32:52 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse advanced to slide 13: "Department of
Natural Resources: Support Services Division." She relayed
that the division handled the back-end functions of the
department along with the recorder's office. There were 3
programs within the division. There had been a 5 percent
UGF reduction since FY 15 and a 24 percent reduction in DGF
in the recorder's office during that same period. She
elaborated that the program had experienced significant
cuts yet had not negatively impacted the division's ability
to generate additional funds. Overall, the division had
reduced positions by approximately 62 since FY 15. She
reported that 27 positions were deleted from the 3
programs. Some positions had been transferred to Shared
Services of Alaska, and 25 positions had been transferred
to the Office of Information Technology. However, the
division still had the budget to pay for the positions in
the programs. She continued to discuss the allocations
within the division. She reported a $50,000 UGF cut and a
cut of 1 position.
3:34:34 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse turned to slide 14: "Department of
Natural Resources: Other Components." She reported that a
group of other components included the commissioner's
office, the public information center, the Exxon Valdez Oil
Spill Settlement (EVOSS) trustee council office, the mental
health trust land office, the facilities maintenance
component, and the interdepartmental charge backs
component. She indicated that the major reduction in the
components was a $125,000 cut in the facilities maintenance
component as a result of consolidating 1 floor of the
Atwood Building in Anchorage. The department was pleased
with the savings outcome.
3:35:44 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse scrolled to slide 15: "Department of
Natural Resources: Division of Oil and Gas." The division
had 10 programs. The division had experienced a 17 percent
UGF reduction and a cut of 28 positions or 22 percent cut
in PCNs. The department was not proposing any reductions in
the Division of Oil and Gas for FY 19. The department had 2
increment requests. The first was a one-time request for
$250,000 for reservoir studies contractual services. The
second increment was for $250,000 to the base budget for
reservoir studies software licensing. The two items had
been paid for out of the capital budget for many years. She
indicated they were more appropriate in the operating
budget. Most of the capital budget was swept in FY 18.
There was enough in the capital budget for the current year
to cover the costs, but they would need to go in the
operating budget to continue the reservoir work.
3:36:54 PM
Representative Pruitt asked Ms. Peter-Contesse to restate
the increments. Ms. Peter-Contesse relayed that there were
two pieces regarding reservoir studies on the North Slope.
The first increment of $250,000 was for contractual
services to do reservoir studies, a one-time item for FY
19. The department had highly technical software that it
maintained for its staff in the oil and gas division to
assist with reservoir studies. The software licensing was
$250,000 per year and was a base budget increment.
3:37:54 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse advanced to slide 16: "Department of
Natural Resources: Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys." The division had 7 programs. The division had
experienced significant reductions, 36 percent since FY 15.
The division had eliminated 11 positions. The only change
the department was proposing for the division was a
$200,000 fund source change from new revenue from seismic
data sales.
3:38:30 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse turned to slide 17: "Department of
Natural Resources: Five-Year Health Care Trends." She
highlighted the top right-hand corner where it stated the
employer health contribution UGF was down $2.4 million
since FY 14. The main reason for the change was that the
fund sources had changed significantly. Previously, the
department was 48 percent funded by UGF, but now was only
38 percent funded by UGF. She indicated that the department
had control of one particular area, worker's compensation.
The department had reduced its worker's compensation
charges by approximately $500,000 over the previous 5
years. She reported that DPS, DOC, DOT, and DNR had the
highest worker's compensation rates, as these departments
had high risk jobs. The department prided itself on having
a healthy fire crew. They did a significant amount of
training, physical fitness, and safety training. She
pointed out that the department had held steady in terms of
the total percentage of the budget between FY 14 and FY 19.
She had looked at the total percent of the personal
services budget, and again the DNR percentage was 16
percent. The average cost per position was equal to $16,000
to $17,000 per year per employee. She reviewed other
efforts provided by the agency to encourage healthy
lifestyles.
3:41:42 PM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if she could provide the committee
with the numbers she read off. Ms. Peter-Contesse responded
affirmatively.
Representative Thompson mentioned that in 2012 DNR had a
backlog of over 800 permit applications. The legislature
felt that the issuance of permits resulted in people going
to work, therefore, $3.8 million was added to the budget to
help with processing of those permits. The backlog was
addressed, but when the department gave the legislature an
update there were about 200 new applications that needed
processing. He asked about the status of permit
applications presently.
Ms. Peter-Contesse responded that the current number was
938. She believed that the backlog at the time was about
2,000. She was uncertain about the total number in 2012. As
of December 2017, the number was 938. The year before that
the number was about the same at 950. While the department
had decreased the backlog significantly, it had sustained
additional cuts to the budget but was holding steady.
Although the number of permit applications to process was
decreasing, it was not decreasing significantly. She could
get the director to follow-up.
Representative Thompson confirmed he would like the
information. He also wanted to know the length of time it
took applicants to receive a permit.
Representative Guttenberg was concerned with the state's
responsibility regarding the permitting process. He was
aware that in the process applicants were asked for
addition items and information. Mr. Wiggin responded that
there was a permitting process in the Oil and Gas division.
The department had encouraged industry clients to visit
DNR's office if they had any problems or questions. The
department was cognizant of the fact that some people might
not understand all the pathways to get the correct permits
needed for oil and gas or for land. He offered to discuss
it further in the finance subcommittee.
3:45:58 PM
Representative Pruitt had questions about funding for the
geological center as a result of legislation a couple of
years prior. He asked about money shifting from UGF to
industry partner participation. He was hoping for an
estimated percentage. He also asked about potential changes
in the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. He asked
about the division's direction regarding changes and the
percentage shift in fees.
3:47:01 PM
Ms. Peter-Contesse replied that the Division of Geological
and Geophysical Surveys had about $329,000 in program
receipt authority in FY 18 which would increase to $529,000
with a funds source change in FY 19. The department hoped
the seismic data revenue would fill the bucket. She
encouraged Mark Wiggin to comment on the topic.
Mr. Wiggin responded that the department had approximate
relative seismic fees. It had issued a total of 8 data sets
with many more in the docket that would be coming out that
were shot between the 2006 and 2016 period. He reported
there were 12 additional sets that would be released in
2018. He anticipated an accumulation of receipts through
the seismic program.
3:48:22 PM
Representative Ortiz drew attention to the Division of
Forestry on slide 10. He asked about the location of state
foresters and whether there had been an overall reduction
in state forester positions. If so, he wondered if it had
had an impact in terms of the ability of timber companies
to develop the timber resource. Ms. Peter-Contesse deferred
to the director of the Division of Forestry.
JOHN "CHRIS" MAISCH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF FORESTRY,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via teleconference),
answered that the division had positions scattered
throughout the state in area offices. For example, in
Southeast Alaska, there were foresters in Ketchikan,
Juneau, and Haines. The division had taken a 35 percent
reduction in funding and staff in the forestry management
portion of the division. Southeast Alaska was hit
especially hard. The division had about half the staff in
Southeast Alaska than what it had had since FY 16. He
confirmed that the program had been slowed by the lack of
capacity. However, the division was doing its best to meet
the needs of the industry.
Representative Ortiz for an explanation of the Tongass
challenge cost share agreement and good neighbor authority
programs. Mr. Maisch replied that they were two federal
programs in which the division was assisting the US Forest
Service with management activities in the Tongass National
Forest, on federal lands. The inventory program helped to
look at young growth and accurately inventory the type of
timber available to do timber projects. The division was
doing a significant amount of work under the good neighbor
authority to do so. The division had its first large sale
in the current year on federal land. The state had done all
the work. The division was reimbursed for all the related
costs and hired back some of the laid off foresters to help
with the related work.
Representative Ortiz asked where the timber sale took
place. Mr. Maisch replied that it was on Kosciusko Island,
just North of Prince of Whales. It generated about $2.6
million in sales and about 3 million feet of timber. It was
a very important sale for the industry in the upcoming
year.
Representative Pruitt asked for an answer to his second
question. Ms. Peter-Contesse deferred to Ethan Tyler. The
question had to do with information about the change in
fund sources to the Division of Geological and Geophysical
Surveys and the expected percentage of change.
Representative Pruitt clarified that he wondered how the
shift would take place in terms of the total percentage
coming from fees. He wanted someone to speak to what the
fee changes would be such as commercial fee changes or
changes for private individuals.
ETHAN TYLER, DIVISION DIRECTOR, STATE PARKS AND OUTDOOR
RECREATION, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), responded that the division was looking at
several different ways to increase revenues coming into the
state park system. Currently, the division's revenues
covered about 51 percent of its operational costs. The goal
of the division was to raise the percentage rate to about
60 percent. He suggested that the division was looking at
initiating some pricing consistencies within the public use
cabin system, increased usage in the parks through
promotions, special use permit fees, and increasing some of
the areas where fees could be charged.
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY2019 DOC Overview House Finance 1-30-18.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - DOC Budget Overview |
| DPS H FIN Dept Overview 01_30_18 FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - DPS Budget Overview |
| SLA2018 HFin Budget Overview.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - DNR Budget Overview |
| Department of Natural Resources Program Guide updated Jan 2018.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN - DNR Budget Overview Supporting Document |
| DPS Responses to 013018 House Finance Committee Questions.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DPS Rsponse Qs HFIN Budget Overview |
| SLA2018 HFin Budget Overview with notes.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2018 1:30:00 PM |
DNR HFIN overview Notes |