Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/25/2015 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB27 | |
| Overview: Fy 16 Department of Corrections | |
| Overview: Fy 16 Department of Fish and Game | |
| Overview: Fy 16 Department of Public Safety | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 27
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs, capitalizing funds, making
reappropriations, and 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."
9:11:32 AM
^OVERVIEW: FY 16 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
9:12:03 AM
RON TAYLOR, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
presented Slide 2, "Mission":
The Alaska Department of Corrections enhances the
safety of our communities. We provide secure
confinement, reformative programs, and a process of
supervised community reintegration.
Commissioner Taylor joked that the department was good at
secure confinement. He added that the department had been
working diligently at helping people be successful at
community reintegration.
9:12:48 AM
REMOND HENDERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, referred to Slide 2, "Corrections Comparison -
FY2015 Management Plan to FY2016 Work In Progress", which
reflected the adjustments that were made between the FY 15
management plan and the Work In Progress budget submitted
by the governor. He shared that the department had taken an
overall 6 percent reduction between FY2015 and the amended
budget. He made note of the individual reductions, pointing
out that the first was the Physical Health Care/PFD Fund
Change, the reduced GF would be replaced with PFD criminal
funds and totaled approximately $9.5 million. He explained
that under AS 43.23.005(d), individuals were not eligible
for a permanent fund dividend if they had been
incarcerated, convicted of a felony, or convicted of a
misdemeanor with a prior history of a felony. He continued
that the slide reflected and increase in the vacancy
factor; historically, throughout the institutions there had
been carried a zero percent vacancy factor, a 2 percent
vacancy factor had been allocated throughout each component
in the institutions, totaling roughly $3 million. He
pointed to the next deduction, which was a $601.2 million
reduction in the Fairbanks Community Residential Center. He
said that the contract that the department had with the
center had been reduced by 20 beds to more appropriately
reflect actual usage. He spoke to the reduction in regional
and community jail contracts, which had been reduced to the
FY 14 level of $283.2 million, removing the CPI and the
geographical increase that had been received in FY 15.
9:15:59 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked whether the residential center was
Northstar Center in Fairbanks.
Mr. Henderson replied in the affirmative.
9:16:09 AM
Mr. Henderson stated that the bottom of Slide 2 listed the
allocation from the Governor's Budget in secure
confinement, supervised release, and reformative programs.
The slide reflected a 3.8 percent reduction in UGF.
9:16:42 AM
Mr. Henderson moved to Slide 3, which moved from the Work
In Progress budget to the FY2016 Governor's Budget, prior
to amendments. He said that the first reduction was for
$316,000 and would reduce excess authority that the
department had in agency receipts. The next reduction was
$28.4 million and would eliminate CIP receipts. The
department no longer had capital dollars in the budget for
prison expansion.
9:17:22 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked about the 3.8 percent reduction
reflected at the bottom of Slide 2.
Mr. Henderson responded that the 3.8 reduction was in the
UGF; the $11,423.0, divided by the beginning balance was
equal to 3.8 percent.
Senator Dunleavy clarified that the overall reduction was
0.5 percent, as reflected at the bottom of the slide.
Mr. Henderson replied yes.
9:18:27 AM
Mr. Henderson returned to Slide 3. He said that the $339.9
reduction in GF program receipts would more accurately
reflect what was actually being collected. He identified
the GF reduction for Medicaid expansion; citing a
nationwide study that estimated that 80 to 90 percent of
the inmates within the institutions would be eligible for
Medicaid; the department had conducted research using its
own facility numbers and discovered the possible savings
through the expansion.
9:20:47 AM
AT EASE
9:21:32 AM
RECONVENED
9:21:36 AM
Senator Dunleavy surmised that the slide worked under the
assumption that the state would be choosing Medicaid
expansion.
Mr. Henderson responded in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy asked whether there would be legislation
that would explain the whole concept of Medicaid expansion.
Mr. Henderson replied that the Department of Health and
Social Services (DHSS) would offer a broad perspective on
the entire Medicaid expansion during that department's
budget overview.
9:22:16 AM
Senator Hoffman asked whether the department anticipated
the expansion to be implemented on July 1, 2015, or a later
date.
Mr. Henderson he said that the numbers on the slide spoke
to what the department projected over the course of one
year. He deferred further explanation to DHSS. He did not
believe that the savings would begin on July 1, 2015.
Senator Hoffman surmised that if the expansion began in
January of 2016, half of the projected savings could be
expected.
Mr. Henderson understood that even if the expansion did not
begin on July, 1, 2015, the department had the ability to
bill for services 90 days retrograde once the expansion
took effect.
9:23:37 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that there had been a legal
challenge concerning the department billing Medicaid. She
felt that, beyond the Medicaid expansion discussion there
was the issue of whether DOC could even bill, and recoup
any money from, Medicaid. She requested a legal opinion on
the matter.
Mr. Henderson understood that it had not been the federal
regulations or Alaska Statutes that had been preventing DOC
from billing Medicaid, rather it was the regulations of
DHSS. He relayed that DOC had been working with DHSS and
the Department of Law (DOL) in order to change the
regulations to enable DOC to become eligible for the
Medicaid expansion. He noted that regulations had been
drafted but had not yet been put out for public comment. He
offered to provide further information on the issue.
9:25:19 AM
Co-Chair Kelly queried whether the department any
alternative plan if the state failed to expand Medicaid. He
asked whether a supplemental request would be made by the
department.
Mr. Henderson replied that if the department took the
reduction, and the state failed to expand Medicaid, a
supplemental request would be imminent.
9:25:54 AM
Mr. Henderson continued to the next item on Slide 3, which
he characterized as the most difficult reduction in the
budget: Regional & Community Jail Contracts. He said that
the roughly 10.3 million reduction was not intended to
close community jails, but to eliminate contracts. He
opined that what had been discovered was that the reduction
would cause major issues with community jails. He said that
all of the contracts were under scrutiny and that the funds
had been intended to fund a portion of the operations of
those jails. He stated that the funding had been used to
pay for up to 20 percent of police officers and
dispatchers, as well as utilities and clothing for the
facilities. He explained that the department had
discovered, while intending to reduce the portion that it
was providing to operate the jails, that the reduction had
caused a significant strain on the communities. He revealed
that this was what had led to the Governor's Amendment to
put $7 million back into the budget to address community
contracts. He stressed that the department had looked at
simply closing institutions, but that closing institutions
was not easy.
9:28:29 AM
Co-Chair Kelly requested a brief overview of community
jails and how they operated.
Commissioner Taylor said that community jails were where
people were held at the point of arrest; local police
departments and communities had contracts with the
department for people arrested for state crimes. He
furthered that people were brought into custody and held
for up to 30 days, depending on the location, and then
transferred to one of the larger institutions. He disclosed
that half of the beds were underutilized and there were a
number of communities outside of the community jails
structure that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) used
as emergency guard services.
9:30:00 AM
Senator Hoffman felt that the problem was with the cost
shift; the question was what happened when people were
arrested and could not be detained in a community jail. He
related that Kotzebue had closed their community jail,
which led to an increase in the overall state budget
through DPS because troopers had to transport individuals
back and forth from city to city. He added that members of
the courts had required travel as well, in order to ensure
due process for offenders. He concluded that cuts in the
DOC budget would often become additions to the DPS budget.
He reiterated that the judicial system needed to be able to
represent in all communities.
9:32:16 AM
Mr. Henderson returned to Slide 3. He pointed out to the
committee the $1 million increase, which had been made
necessary because the 24 hour utility component funding for
fuel trigger had been eliminated. He asserted that there
had not been a reduction in community jails to fund the
line item, although it was listed as a Regional & Community
transfer to 24-hr. Utility Component. He explained that the
listing was a technical way of showing what had happened
without the allowance of increments.
9:32:59 AM
Senator Olson contended that energy costs were higher for
community jails in rural areas. He wondered how much of the
$1 million was for the heating of community jails.
Mr. Henderson replied that he did not know.
9:33:57 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the department had discussed
the idea of a 25 percent overall reduction in the DOC
budget within the next three years.
Commissioner Taylor responded that it had been discussed.
He lamented that a 25 percent overall reduction in the
department would most likely result in the closing of
institutions and the shipment of inmates out-of-state.
9:34:52 AM
Co-Chair Kelly requested a projected timeline that could
plot when the state would reach capacity and need to either
build a new facility or begin shipping inmates out-of-
state.
Commissioner Taylor responded that the projected timeline
was 2016-2017. He opined that 128 beds had been taken
offline at Point MacKenzie. He said that the department was
working toward shifting some minimum security inmates from
the institutions and into halfway houses and electronic
monitoring situations. He thought that by the next
legislative session the department would be able to report
back with solid numbers. He assumed that legislative
recommendations would impact how the department served its
population.
9:36:13 AM
Senator Hoffman asked which facility was the most
overcrowded and what the department was doing to rectify
any issues of overcrowding at facilities.
Commissioner Taylor said that he would need to check the
most recent counts sheet and get back to the committee with
the information.
Senator Hoffman confirmed that the state's most crowded
facility was the Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Facility in
Bethel. He shared that he had toured the facility with the
previous commissioner and had been told that the
overcrowding would be rectified with the Goose Creek
Correctional Facility. He asserted that Goose Creek was
online and the problem had still not been rectified. He
bemoaned that Goose Creek had not been the "magic bullet"
that many people had thought that it would be.
9:37:42 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche suggested that the daily cost for
institutions was less than half at the community jail
level.
Mr. Henderson responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that the daily cost of out-of-
state institutions was 30 percent less than in-state.
Mr. Henderson replied that that was correct.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether an overall evaluation of
the cost efficiency of running the state's correctional
system could be made available. He understood that there
had been support in the past to bring home Alaskan's that
were incarcerated out-of-state, but that it was an
expensive proposition. He presumed that a 25 percent
reduction in the department's budget would make the
community jails and in-state institutions an unattractive
expense.
9:39:23 AM
Mr. Henderson returned to Slide 3 to explain that the $1.5
million reduction in the center in Palmer was the first of
several steps required to close an institution. He noted
that if DOC was going to achieve a 25 percent reduction in
4 years as previously mentioned, it would result in
multiple facilities being closed.
9:40:59 AM
Co-Chair Kelly queried the cost of switching some inmates
to electronic monitoring.
Commissioner Taylor estimated that the daily cost of
electronic monitoring was approximately $24 to $25 per day.
This service was contracted out and was not a capital
expenditure.
9:41:24 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asserted that a huge cost driver in the
DOC budget was labor.
Commissioner Taylor answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for a comparison of labor costs
in-state to labor costs out-of-state.
Commissioner Taylor replied that such a comparison had
never been done.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested the comparison. She said that
there had to be a reason that out-of-state facilities could
offer incarceration at lower cost value that made it
beneficial for Alaska to ship people out of state.
Commissioner Taylor contended that the department was
dealing with older facilities that required costly
maintenance and that out-of-state-facilities enjoyed newer
technologies unavailable to in-state facilities.
Co-Chair MacKinnon said that she hoped for a percentage
comparison number.
9:43:16 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche spoke to Slide 11. He asked whether it
had been a policy call by the legislature to drive toward
the most expansive option, or had the decision been
departmental.
Commissioner Taylor replied that the department did not
have the ability to make policy decisions; the decision had
been made through a combination of the legislature and the
governor's office.
9:44:04 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that it had been a legislative issue
in the 1990's.
Vice-Chair Micciche lamented that there was a 400 percent
difference in cost between out-of-state incarceration and
in-state community jails. He encouraged the department to
look into options that would make incarceration costs
manageable into the future. He felt that the legislature
could offer suggestions.
Co-Chair Kelly agreed. He suggested that low-risk prisoners
should be put on electronic monitoring.
Commissioner Taylor stated that DOC did have the ability
for electronic monitoring; however, it would mean an
increased risk to the public. He warned that reentry
management required a delicate balance.
9:46:10 AM
Senator Olson recognized that the issue of privatization of
correctional facilities was contentious. He shared that the
desire to bring down the recidivism rate in Alaska had
driven policy decisions in the past concerning in-state
incarceration. He believed that it would be short-sighted
to ignore that past work. He spoke of the comparison
between community jails and the cost of in-state
incarceration. He stated that two different functions were
at work; community jails were intended to hold people
temporarily until the next step in the legal process, a
holding facility would be cheaper to run day-by-day, but
rural areas needed community jails to use as temporary
holing cells to protect their residents. He feared for the
safety of rural communities that lacked community jails.
Senator Olson spoke if the $7 million that had been
reinstated in the budget, and wondered whether his district
would benefit from it. He said that communities in his
district were on hold with developing their budgets for the
next year because they did not know whether they were going
to receive the necessary supplemental funding to continue
to stay open.
9:50:50 AM
Commissioner Taylor replied that the department had
examined the FY 11 numbers with the understanding of what
the rural communities were facing. He explained that the FY
11 budget numbers were the baseline for what was awarded to
the communities; $6.4 million. He stated that those
communities would receive the funding.
9:51:38 AM
Co-Chair Kelly hoped that the department could come before
the committee again in the future.
9:52:50 AM
AT EASE
9:54:49 AM
RECONVENED
^OVERVIEW: FY 16 DEPARTMENT OF FISH and GAME
9:55:24 AM
SAM COTTEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME,
commented that the department faced challenging
relationships with several different federal agencies whose
mission statements differed from that of the Department of
Fish and Game (DF&G). He shared that DF&G's biggest
challenge was the ability to have adequate management
information through stock assessment and research in order
to allow the public access to the resources. He felt that
the department benefited through their ability to raise
funds through user fees. He believed that a lot of user
groups were realizing and accepting responsibility that
pay-as-you-go might be something that would be common in
the future.
9:56:58 AM
Senator Dunleavy suggested the department begin their
presentation on Slide 6.
9:57:13 AM
KEVIN BROOKS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
GAME, referred to Slide 6, "FY2016 Budget By Division
($214,975.5)". He pointed out to the committee the three
largest management divisions illustrated on the slide:
Commercial Fisheries, Wildlife Conservation, and Sport
Fisheries, constituted 80 percent of total funding. He said
that smaller divisions and entities made up the remaining
budget balance. He turned to Slide 7, "FY2016 Budget By
Funding Source ($214,975.5)". He stated that GF dollars
constituted $71,245.6 million (40 percent), federal funds
were $66.853.9 (30 percent), and Fish and Game funds
derived from hunting and fishing licenses totaled $24,287.7
(11 percent).
9:58:29 AM
Senator Dunleavy queried the $109.7 million for IA/Oil Haz
reflected on the slide.
Mr. Brooks replied that the funds were a small inner-agency
agreement with the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), and came in through the Division of Habitat.
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the funds came out of the
Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) budget.
Mr. Brooks replied in the affirmative.
9:59:04 AM
Mr. Brooks moved to Slide 8, "FY2016 Budgeted Positions".
He explained that DF&G had a very seasonal workforce; 922
full-time positions, 1683 total positions. He stated that
the department doubled in size during the busy field
season, and the majority of the positions resided in the
aforementioned three large management divisions.
9:59:33 AM
Mr. Brooks presented Slide 9, "FY2016 Operating Budget by
Division," noting the negotiated salary increases had grown
the budget by $2.7 million overall and were a mixture of
funding sources, half of which was UGF. He highlighted the
small reduction in healthcare costs and the $810 thousand
UGF reduction for three temporary increments that had been
added in previous years and were scheduled to roll off at
the end of 2015; $300 thousand of which was in sport
fisheries, and $510 thousand in commercial fisheries.
10:00:44 AM
Senator Dunleavy understood there was an increase over the
previous year's budget.
Mr. Brooks replied that the increase was only in the
adjusted base.
10:00:53 AM
Senator Hoffman asked why the health insurance rate
reductions were not proportionate to the amount of money
that the department received in general, federal and fish
and game funds. He asked about the increases in contracts;
over 50 percent of the increases were from general funds,
but general funds was only one-third of the charted funding
sources.
Mr. Brooks explained that the adjustments were tied to the
detailed budget put out by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and that each specific position control number
(PCN) had a funding source ratio.
10:02:18 AM
Mr. Brooks moved to Slide 10, which took the numbers from
the previous slide and adjusted them to reflect the
governor's endorsed budget. He pointed out small reductions
in commercial and sport fisheries, and in the smaller
divisions of administrative services, habitat, and
subsistence research. He summarized that there was
approximately $7.3 million in UGF reductions and some
proposals to off-set with available revenue from the
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, as well as some
federal receipts.
10:03:15 AM
Mr. Brooks presented slide 11, "Highlights in Operating
Budget":
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 022515 ADF&G Senate Finance Overview FY2016.pdf |
SFIN 2/25/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 27 |
| 022515 DPS Budget Overview.pdf |
SFIN 2/25/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 27 |
| 022515 DOC Budget Overview.pdf |
SFIN 2/25/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 27 |
| 022515 LAW Budget Overview.pptx |
SFIN 2/25/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB 27 |