Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/02/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB300 || HB302 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 2, 2010
1:36 p.m.
1:36:46 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Hawker called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mike Hawker, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Vice-Chair
Representative Allan Austerman
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Les Gara
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Daniel S. Sullivan, Attorney General, Department of Law;
Craig Tillery, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law; Richard Svobodny, Deputy Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Chris
Christensen, Deputy Administrative Director, Alaska Court
System.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Rhonda McLeod, Chief Financial Officer, Alaska Court System.
SUMMARY
HB 300 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 300 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration. The following departments presented
overviews:
Department of Law
Alaska Court System
HB 302 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 302 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 300
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government, for certain
programs, and to capitalize funds; making supplemental
appropriations; making appropriations under art. IX,
sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of Alaska; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 302
"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."
1:38:22 PM
DEPARTMENT OF LAW OVERVIEW
DANIEL S. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
emphasized that the budget for the Department of Law (DOL)
is principally personnel driven; the budget increases
indicate the addition of attorneys or support staff. He
complimented personnel at the department.
Mr. Sullivan pointed to the one-page summary of his
presentation on a handout (copy on file), noting that the
first item gives a sense of the size of the department:
I. Department Overview
· DOL employees: 283 lawyers and 278 support staff
· Total budget: FY11 - $86.9 million; FY10 - $85.4
million
· GF budget: FY11 - $57.3 million; FY10 - $56.3
million
· DOL offices: Anchorage, Barrow, Bethel,
Dillingham, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kenai, Ketchikan,
Kodiak, Kotzebue, Nome, Palmer, and Sitka.
Mr. Sullivan believed that the second item summarizes DOL
core services and was the most important for the Finance
Committee:
II. Department's Core Services
A. Protecting the Safety and Physical and Financial
Well Being of Alaskans
B. Fostering the Conditions for Economic
Opportunity and Responsible Development and Use
of Our Natural Resources
C. Protecting the Fiscal Integrity of the State
D. Promoting and Defending Good Governance
Mr. Sullivan believed sub-item (A) was most important and
that (B) was not usually associated with DOL. He noted that
the department had recently intervened in three cases that
it believes are critical to (B) related to the Southeast
timber harvest and to outer continental shelf (OCS)
exploration plans in the Chukchi Sea.
Mr. Sullivan maintained that sub-item (C) related to
protecting the fiscal integrity of the state; he gave the
Mercer case as an example. He explained that (D) related to
issues including legal and regulatory work with the
legislature on legislation such as certifying citizen
initiatives.
1:44:56 PM
Mr. Sullivan turned to the Item III on the summary sheet, a
table outlining the budget allocation of the department's
core services. He opined that the numbers on the chart were
apportioned correctly, particularly with the "Protecting
Alaskans" as the majority of the budget.
Co-Chair Hawker clarified that the analysis was prepared by
the department before the "other" fund designation had been
changed, which was why the short form did not reconcile to
the short-form totals. He pointed out that the "other" fund
would be high ($24 million) due to the nature of the
department's work; roughly $4 million would move to the
designated other category.
Mr. Sullivan turned to the next item:
IV. Return of Investment
· Department's ROI [Return on Investment] based on
entire budget: 6 to 1.
· Department's ROI based on general fund: 10 to 1.
· Civil Division sections that generate revenue ROI:
35 to 1.
Mr. Sullivan emphasized that much of what DOL does cannot be
quantified; however, much of what the civil division does
can be quantified. In the prior year, the state received
approximately $560 million in collections and awards. He
believed the return on investment for the state would be of
interest to the committee.
1:47:55 PM
Mr. Sullivan listed the cases the department is currently
focused on that will impact the budget either positively or
negatively depending on the outcomes:
V. Litigation Update
· Mercer
· Cruise Ship
· Carlson
· BP Corrosion
Mr. Sullivan stressed the department's desire to keep the
committee updated on the cases. He added that some updates
would have to be given in executive session.
Co-Chair Hawker acknowledged confidentiality parameters and
requested allowable background regarding the cases.
1:50:08 PM
Mr. Sullivan responded that the Mercer case involves the
state's former actuarial; the department believes Mercer
made mistakes and possibly committed fraud and cover-up that
significantly damaged the state's ability to fund the
retirement system. The state has sued the company. Recent
events created a motion to dismiss a ruling in superior
court that he believed was in the state's favor. He referred
to a New York Times article about the lawsuit and asserted
that DOL was pressing for a July 2010 trial.
Co-Chair Hawker queried the financial stakes. Mr. Sullivan
replied approximately $2 billion. He warned that the outcome
is not certain, although the state feels it has a strong
case.
Co-Chair Hawker emphasized the significance of the
litigation.
Mr. Sullivan described the cruise ship litigation; the
cruise ship industry sued the state. He reported that DOL is
in the process of discovery and the trial date is scheduled
for the beginning of next year.
Mr. Sullivan explained that the Carlson case is a class-
action lawsuit that is 25 years old and has been to the
Alaska Supreme Court four times. The case involves a class-
action suit by out-of-state plaintiffs. Non-resident
fishermen sued the state based on in-state and out-of-state
differentials with regard to permits and crew fees. He noted
that the case would be appropriate for executive session.
Mr. Sullivan reported that final judgment had been received
the day before and that the state's liability is very large.
He explained that the case is very complicated and has huge
financial implications for Alaska.
1:54:28 PM
Co-Chair Hawker asked for monetary figures. Mr. Sullivan
replied approximately over $70 million.
Co-Chair Hawker clarified that the ruling was against the
state, so the state would pay.
Mr. Sullivan detailed the British Petroleum (BP) Corrosion
case subsequent to a 2006 spill. He noted that the case
involved the federal government and criminal action and that
the state was expecting lost revenues and royalties. There
had been oral arguments in December 2009 for a motion to
partially dismiss some of the claims; the judge in Anchorage
had not yet ruled.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the ruling would affect the
department's need for funds. Mr. Sullivan responded that he
could not speculate without access to the ruling.
Mr. Sullivan assured the committee that the department is
very focused on the four cases.
1:57:29 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze referenced other litigation related to
fishery trade associations suing the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development over the establishment
of personal-use fisheries and violation of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. He queried commitment to protecting Alaska
resident fisheries and asked for more information. Mr.
Sullivan responded that he had not been briefed on the
subject.
CRAIG TILLERY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, answered that he was also unaware of the
status of the case in question.
Co-Chair Stoltze wanted the priority to be protecting
Alaskan resident-based fisheries against federal intrusions.
He did not want to wait for a Senate resolution and
emphasized the importance of timing. He did not want the
state to lose the case in federal court due to a missed
opportunity. He strongly reiterated the urgency and the
importance of the issue to many Alaskans.
2:02:15 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas asked about court rulings and potential
change regarding the interest amount. He believed that the
interest was most destructive in the particular [Carlson]
case.
Mr. Sullivan responded to Co-Chair Stoltze's question,
stating that the department was committed to intervening in
the case.
Mr. Sullivan responded to the question posed by Vice-Chair
Thomas. He explained that the department was working on a
recommended statutory amendment that would address the
Alaska Supreme Court ruling in the Carlson case, but noted
that the ruling could not be addressed in a retroactive
fashion. He opined that the court was wrong regarding its
ruling on the 11 percent quarterly-compounded interest. He
noted that the earlier number was largely interest. The
department had made a recommendation and intended to not let
the situation happen again.
Co-Chair Hawker clarified that the answer was yes. Mr.
Sullivan emphasized that the ruling cannot be undone.
Vice-Chair Thomas wanted to undo the ruling. He noted that
the interest could amount to a great deal of money, almost
equivalent to the operating budget. He suggested making the
courts pay jointly with the fishermen.
Mr. Sullivan cautioned against the idea. He commended the
Alaska Supreme Court and the justice system.
2:06:55 PM
Representative Gara asked for more information regarding the
personal-use fishery case. Mr. Sullivan stated that he was
not particularly informed about the case.
Representative Austerman believed the department should
answer the committee in writing regarding intentions related
to the personal-use fishery case. He thought the Carlson
case should have been settled long ago, which would have
saved the state a great deal of money.
Mr. Sullivan wondered if the question was whether the state
should intervene in the case.
Representative Gara requested a memo listing the pros and
cons of intervening.
Co-Chair Hawker thought the issue should be discussed in
executive session in order to protect the interests of the
state. He recalled past executive meetings dedicated to
freely discussing litigation.
2:10:34 PM
Representative Austerman asked whether or not DOL planned to
get involved in the case.
Representative Gara stated that he was sympathetic but
needed more information, especially regarding subsistence
implications.
Mr. Sullivan requested further clarification regarding the
question. He stated that the department would be willing to
provide as much information as it could to the committee.
Representative Kelly stated that his need for an executive
session had been addressed by an earlier meeting in
Anchorage where DOL made a presentation to the committee. He
acknowledged that there may be other information that would
require an executive session.
Co-Chair Hawker wondered whether the question was if the
department would pursue the case.
Representative Austerman agreed; he believed that the
committee would want to know if the case is a states-rights
issue.
Co-Chair Hawker noted that there had not been a confirmation
regarding the attorney general and requested a statement
regarding Mr. Sullivan's suitability for the position.
2:14:04 PM
Mr. Sullivan stated that he had been involved in public
service his whole career. He believed his experience has
prepared him to be Alaska's attorney general.
Mr. Sullivan detailed that he came to Alaska in 1997 and
spent four years in active duty with the Marine Corps. He
clerked for a judge in Fairbanks and a chief justice on the
Alaska Supreme Court, acquiring a good overview of how the
Alaska legal system works. He was in private practice in
Anchorage where he focused on small businesses and Native
Corporations. He was in the Marine Corps Reserves during the
period. He worked in the White House on the National
Security Council for three years on economic and energy
issues. He spent time in the Middle East serving in the
Marine Corps then served as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State covering energy and global economic issues. He was the
President's negotiator at eight summits, a U.S. governing
board member at the International Energy Agency, and ran a
bureau at the State Department.
2:18:50 PM
Mr. Sullivan concluded with his current position in the
Alaska Department of Law. He emphasized how strongly he
believed in the issues. He noted his long involvement in
public service.
Co-Chair Hawker stated his confidence in Mr. Sullivan. He
was pleased with Mr. Sullivan's application for state
service.
Co-Chair Hawker noted that the DOL budget could be primarily
characterized as litigation and increments related to oil
and gas. Mr. Sullivan agreed.
Co-Chair Hawker queried increments and support in the DOL
budget. Mr. Sullivan responded that the large increments
involve the department's core mission of protecting
Alaskans, including the new sexual assault and domestic
violence coordinator position. He highlighted a funding-
source change for several prosecutors and support staff due
to expiration of a federal grant. The department continues
to work with the federal government to get additional
funding to decrease the $2.3 million increment.
Mr. Sullivan pointed to a request for an additional child-
protection attorney in Kenai and noted the increment request
of an additional attorney in DOL focusing on Endangered
Species Act issues.
2:23:09 PM
Mr. Sullivan explained a $150,000 capital project request
for key card access in Anchorage and Fairbanks to enhance
safety.
Co-Chair Hawker discussed supplanting existing federal money
with general funds when federal authority expires related to
the one-time earmark for domestic violence and sexual
assault grants. He referred to a meeting with U.S. Senator
Daniel Inouye [Hawaii] who supported earmarks for domestic
violence efforts and was a friend to Alaska; Co-Chair Hawker
wondered whether the contact would help in retaining the
federal funding. Mr. Sullivan replied that he had not spoken
to Senator Inouye but had been meeting at senior levels with
U.S. Department of Justice officials, including the
associate attorney general, and that he had informed them of
Alaska's actions regarding the sexual assault and domestic
violence issue. He believed progress had been made.
RICHARD SVOBODNY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, detailed that there were
challenges with the way the federal government worked
related to the budget. He explained that the state could
keep applying for different grants or earmarks through
Senator Inouye; however the federal government might provide
a six-month "cover" to fund until the next federal fiscal
year in October, and then say that they are not going to
allow federal grant money to supplant general funds money.
He stated that in the past the money has taken two years to
get to Alaska from the federal government. The state does
not have that two-year leeway.
2:28:31 PM
Co-Chair Hawker supported pursuing political remedies in
Washington D.C.
Representative Doogan queried the $2.3 million change in
funds on page 2 of the document (DOL Budget Overview, copy
on file). He wanted to translate people into money. Mr.
Svobodny clarified that the issue was the number of
personnel. He stated that the $2.3 million dollars would
ensure employment for DOL staff for a full fiscal year. The
goal is to manipulate the funds for greater savings. Mr.
Sullivan stated that the $2.3 million represents the funding
lost due to federal grants.
Co-Chair Hawker added that the money currently supported 16
full-time positions and 6 part-time positions. Mr. Svobodny
broke the number down further: 8.5 attorneys, 5.5
paralegals, and 3.5 law-office assistants in the criminal
division. Mr. Sullivan hoped the numbers would be a bit
less.
Representative Kelly referenced Indian Law and Rural Issues
on page 10 and wondered whether he could meet with the
department regarding the state's position on the matter. He
questioned whether an executive session would be appropriate
for the discussion.
Co-Chair Hawker stated that he would be happy to entertain
any request.
2:34:15 PM
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM OVERVIEW
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA
COURT SYSTEM, explained that the judicial branch is
different than other agencies in that it is small, or about
one percent part of the state's operating budget. However,
the court system serves more private citizens every day than
any other governmental entity. The court system employs 775
permanent full-time and part-time employees, including 70
judges and 48 magistrates, and operates in 44 locations
around the state. He referred to a handout with a map
indicating the locations ("Alaska Court Locations," copy on
file). The court system had operated in about 19 rural
locations as well, but has downsized because of budget
changes.
Mr. Christensen continued that the court system handles many
things internally rather than delegating them to the
executive branch. For example, the court system has its own
human resources department to make personnel decisions
instead of delegating to the Division of Personnel.
Mr. Christensen remarked that Alaska's judicial system is
unique in the United States; like only seven other states,
it has a unified judiciary, which means no municipal or
county courts but only state courts. The system is efficient
and provides consistent results throughout the state.
Funding for the court system is derived solely from the
legislature as opposed to from municipalities or dedicated
funds. The position of the administrative director of the
court system was created by the Alaska constitution as
opposed to statute or court rule. Justices are appointed
based on competency.
Mr. Christensen observed that for budgetary purposes, three
things distinguish the court system:
· All actions are mandated by the constitution or by
statutes passed by the legislature.
· The courts are almost completely reactive in nature.
The courts do not initiate the work; others file cases
to create the work.
· All cases must be taken by the court system, while
other divisions may show discretion. The law also says
how quickly the work must be done; the legislature has
passed statutes with timelines.
Mr. Christensen asserted that the primary driver for
caseload is population. The caseload will grow as the
population grows. Beyond population growth, caseload is
affected by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and
municipal police departments putting more officers on the
street, by economic changes, by legislative statute, by
unfunded federal mandates, and other factors.
2:39:56 PM
Mr. Christensen reported that there is both good news and
bad news when looking at caseloads for FY 09 and the first
quarter of FY 10. In FY 09, the courts received about
154,000 new cases, a decrease of about 0.08 of 1 percent
from the previous year. The superior court's caseload
decreased by about that amount last year, with 20,000 filed.
The number included a 7.5 percent decrease in felony
filings; there has not been a decrease in felony filings in
a decade. While fewer crimes are being committed in the
state, a larger percentage of people committing the crimes
are being arrested, the result of more police officers. Even
with the recent decrease, the number of felony filings has
gone up 70 percent over the past eight years. Felonies now
make up 29 percent of the superior court's caseload, which
takes more resources, including jury trials and return
trials.
Mr. Christensen noted a 15 percent decrease in the juvenile
delinquency caseload and about 1 percent decrease in the
child-in-need-of-aid caseload. There were increases in
specific caseloads including sanity and alcohol commitments,
guardianships, and conservatorships. The general civil
caseloads (including tortes, contracts, and administrative
appeals) increased 3 percent. Domestic relations cases
(divorces, child custody, marriage dissolutions and support)
increased approximately 7 percent. The district courts
caseload decreased approximately 0.75 of 1 percent last
year. There was a 4 percent decrease in misdemeanors for the
first time in years and 1.3 percent decrease in requests for
domestic violence restraining orders. There was a 3 percent
increase in small claims and 1 percent increase in traffic
offenses and fish and game violations.
2:43:14 PM
Mr. Christensen explained that the department keeps the
caseload statistics on a quarterly basis. The bad news is
that the statistics for the first quarter of the current
fiscal year show a 19.5 percent increase in felonies; in
Anchorage alone the felony increase was 31 percent.
Co-Chair Hawker expressed surprise and asked the reason. Mr.
Christensen was not sure. He conjectured that the numbers
might be a continuation of the increase in felonies over the
past few years. He noted that misdemeanor filings had also
increased 7 percent during the first quarter. The overall
superior court caseload increased 8 percent.
Representative Doogan asked for more information. Mr.
Svobodny did not have an explanation, but reported that the
Department of Law numbers were less dramatic. He detailed
that the court system numbers overall for felonies increased
approximately 10 percent over a 10-year period. He did not
know what the one-quarter statistics meant. He echoed
concerns and wondered if the state of the economy was
related. There were no increases in prosecutors. He noted
that DOL numbers are higher than the court system numbers
because although all cases are referred to the department,
but not all of them are filed.
2:47:36 PM
Representative Foster asked whether more offenses were now
being categorized as felonies. Mr. Svobodny replied there
seemed to be an increase in certain kinds of felonies. He
noted the inception of "three strikes you are out" [three
felonies would result in a 99-year sentence], but pointed
out that the first sentence did not take place for around
eight years. He thought the increases were more related to
the economy and the number of police officers on the street.
Mr. Christensen agreed that the number of officers was the
largest driver. He also pointed to the inflation of the
dollar value of a felony. In the early 1970s, $500 (the
amount set for felony theft) was a lot of money. Now, $500
is not a lot of money. He referenced several pieces of
legislation trying to increase the amount.
Co-Chair Hawker queried the 30 percent increase in felonies
in the first quarter of FY 10. Mr. Christensen replied that
the [31 percent] number applied to Anchorage; statewide the
number was 19.4 percent.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether the statistic justified the 20
percent budget increase.
2:51:01 PM
Representative Gara queried legislation to increase [dollar-
value] limits for felonies. Mr. Christensen believed
Representative Coghill had a proposal related to the
inflation rate; $500 would be worth over $1200 in current
dollars. He added that opposition largely came from the
business community.
Mr. Christensen referred to a handout, "FY2010 Authorized
Budget Overview, All Budget Units" (copy on file) showing
how the current year's money is being spent. He noted that
78 percent ***of the budget is for personnel, which is high;
for example, the Department of Public Safety has fewer than
10 percent more employees than the courts, but the DPS
budget is 50 percent larger because they are equipment
heavy. He maintained that 70 percent of court employees are
range 15 or less; most of the work is clerical work. Lower
paid employees means more turnover, which means
inefficiency, more training costs, and more supervisory
costs. He noted that the turnover rate has gone down over
the past year, reflecting the economy in general.
Co-Chair Hawker asked the proportions of union and non-union
employees. Mr. Christensen responded that the courts have
the largest group of non-union employees outside the
university. He provided history of past union and
legislative action related to pay increases. He noted that
the Alaska Public Employees Association (APEA) and Alaska
State Employees Association (ASEA) are looking into
organizing employees. He believed that employees were the
best judge of whether a union was needed. From a management
point of view, he believed a union shop is more expensive,
even if the employees are paid the same wage.
Mr. Christensen remarked that the turnover rate was as high
as 125 percent in one year, and that it was particularly
high in rural Alaska. He explained the travel expense for
jury sequestration or for judges who must be flown because
of timelines and the lack of judges in some locations.
2:55:48 PM
Representative Kelly queried turnover detail. Mr.
Christensen responded that turnover took place mostly in
ranges 15 and below. The largest group of court employees is
range 10, who understandably want to do better. He referred
to a joke that the court system is the training ground for
the North Slope Borough, where people can make more.
Representative Kelly emphasized that the court workers were
local residents. He thought it would be more cost-effective
to start people at a higher range. Mr. Christensen replied
that the legislature has been open to suggestions by the
department to raise the salaries of the lowest paid workers.
A "G" step had been added for employees in the 14 and below
range to increase longevity.
Representative Joule commented that legislators should be
familiar with range 10. Co-Chair Hawker pointed out that the
workers being discussed were range 10 without per diem.
Mr. Christensen drew attention to a supplemental request.
The department has been using Sprint pre-paid phone cards
for long-distance communication at considerable savings.
However, Sprint sold the service to another company, which
raised rates; in addition, the quality of the service
declined. Because of its substantial investment in the
cards, the court system filed a complaint with the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska and received a settlement of
$35,000, the amount of the extra phone costs for the year.
The $35,000 was turned over to the general fund; he hoped to
get the amount back through the supplemental request.
2:59:53 PM
Mr. Christensen informed the committee that the court system
currently had a 30-day hiring freeze for all positions;
there has been a 6 to 7 percent underfunding rate and jobs
need to be open 30 days to make up the amount.
Mr. Christensen maintained that a number of projects have
been expanded to increase efficiency and reduce costs and
improve service. For example, there is a new jury management
system in Anchorage; the system is planned for the rest of
the state as well. The current manual record-keeping for
jurors has been automated. In addition, jury questionnaires
are being processed electronically through a private-sector
company at substantial savings. Another example has been
moving communications off the state's wide-area network,
which was not adequate for their needs. The court system is
now on its own network and is in the process of
renegotiating the current contract for doubling the
bandwidth for less cost.
Mr. Christensen detailed travel savings through a program
that issues free tickets and described a federal grant used
to train judges and others in order to decrease trial rates.
3:03:45 PM
Mr. Christensen highlighted three projects in the FY 11
operating budget:
· No Dark Courtrooms initiative. In some places, there
are not enough in-state clerks for all the magistrates.
Unlike other states that have two or three personnel in
a courtroom, Alaska has historically had only one
person operating recording equipment. He described
conditions of bail improvements that improve efficiency
and public safety because the information is entered in
a timely manner.
· Judicial vacancy rate reduction. The overall rate is
about 7 percent. In recent years, the number of cases
has increased dramatically but judge positions have
not. In response, the court system has been filling
judicial positions as soon as the old judge retires or
resigns. Judges are cooperating by giving six-month
notice of their intent to leave. The program (funded at
$250,000 for the last two years and requesting another
increment) will allow for the elimination of the
vacancy rate for judicial employees. Filling the
positions right away in the recent period has forced
the system to dramatically increase the vacancy rate of
clerical employees.
· Nome Court Building: The current building is shared
with other operations and is going to be surplused. The
court system will be get the building first as long as
there is a budget increment of $278,000 (the extra cost
to operate the building). There would be capital
requests over the next two years to renovate the
building (approximately $3.8 million this year and $4.8
million next year). The court system will have to look
for more space if the state does not buy the building.
There is no other space available, so something would
have to be built.
3:08:55 PM
Representative Foster thought the current building would
have to be demolished if the court were to move to a new
office. He queried what had been done already. Mr.
Christensen replied that the federal government had only
decided to surplus the building in the past few months.
Legislative action was required. The building will be
offered to other agencies if the court system does not take
it.
Co-Chair Hawker asked whether there were potential
environmental issues with the existing structure. Mr.
Christensen answered that the building is over 50 years old
and has asbestos, which would have to be removed; this would
account for a large portion of the capital expenditures.
Co-Chair Hawker relayed historical experience with the
federal government abandoning buildings to the state,
including the closing of the airbase at Galena. The state
acquires everything in the building, including obligations.
3:12:55 PM
Representative Doogan queried the amount required to repair
the building. Mr. Christensen responded that the item was in
the capital budget; he believed the increment would be $3.8
million for the current year and $4.8 million the following
year.
Representative Doogan summarized the cost would be
approximately $8 million for the capital part and that the
operating budget would increase as well. Mr. Christensen
replied that the court system currently pays the federal
government rent of $183,000 per year (less than it costs to
operate the building), which is a bargain; the state would
pay an additional $278,000.
Co-Chair Hawker pointed out that the federal structure was
not adequate to meet the court system's need. The Barrow
facility was designed by and for the court system in
cooperation with the regional corporation that secured
financing. Mr. Christensen stated that the court system only
wanted an adequate building and stressed that there were
time considerations.
Representative Foster queried the deadline to decide about
the building. Mr. Christensen responded that the federal
government had agreed to wait until after the legislative
session to see whether the legislature would fund anything
in the current year. In theory, the federal government could
try and find someone else to take the building if the
legislature does not act; in that case, the court system
would have two years to vacate the premises (assuming the
federal government did not completely shut the building
down).
3:16:12 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas relayed experience with the transfer of a
building with asbestos issues. He asked whether the state
would have to sign a document holding the federal government
harmless. Mr. Christensen recalled an incident that taught
him about the costs of environmental remediation, especially
involving asbestos. He assured the committee that it would
be very clear who would be responsible.
Mr. Christensen turned to the final item, which was not in
the operating budget but in legislation requesting one new
superior court judge in Anchorage. He reminded the committee
that the courts had been warning the legislature of the
growing need for the position; backup would be provided.
Co-Chair Hawker referred to the fiscal note and questioned
the need for increased physical facilities. Mr. Christensen
did not know about the fiscal note. He noted that capital
budget items to remodel the old Boney Courthouse in
Anchorage have been vetoed in past years; as the judges move
in to the Boney facility, there will be space in the new
building.
Co-Chair Hawker requested a history of the past five years
of requests for facilities expansion, including what has
been appropriated, what has been vetoed, and progress made
statewide.
RHONDA MCLEOD, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
(via teleconference), replied that the fiscal note
identified courtroom space for the new judge.
3:20:21 PM
Mr. Christensen referenced the ten-year plan for the courts.
He recalled that HB 125 (passed two years ago) had
instructed the governor to prepare a ten-year fiscal plan
for the executive branch as part of the governor's duties
under the Executive Budget Act. The judiciary was not
subject to the act and was not required to prepare a plan.
However, the finance committees had asked the court system
to do so voluntarily; he pointed to the result depicted in a
handout ("Alaska Court System Ten Year Expenditure
Projection," copy on file).
Mr. Christensen emphasized the difficulty of predicting the
future because others decide what the courts will need to
do. Caseload is driven by population changes and other
factors, such as the number of police officers, the state of
the economy, laws enacted by the legislature, unfunded
mandates enacted by Congress, and policy decisions by the
attorney general. He recalled a past decision by DOL to ban
plea bargaining resulting in the number of cases going to
trial rising dramatically.
Mr. Christensen informed the committee that for FY 11, the
courts assumed two strategic initiatives: the completion of
the No Dark Courtrooms project and the addition of one
superior court judge in Anchorage. For future years, the 2.7
percent inflation factor suggested by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is used. He noted that the
previous year's ten-year plan included one new judge for
Anchorage and one new superior court judge in Juneau; Juneau
is the busiest superior court location in the state and
needs a new judge, although there is not space for the
position. He underlined that the Juneau judge had been taken
off the plan as the courts have figured out another way to
fix the problem. Superior court judgeships have to be
created by statute through the legislature; a statute gives
the state supreme court the authority to create district
judgeships. Two magistrates in Juneau have been funded. The
solution is to eliminate the two magistrates and fund a
district court judge who can do substantially more.
3:24:40 PM
Co-Chair Hawker referred to past budget problems with
therapeutic court funding. The committee had asked OMB and
the court system to aggregate the money under central
appropriation to the courts. The courts were willing to
administer the money through service agreements with other
agencies to accomplish the therapeutic courts. He thought
the therapeutic courts had proven a success; part of the
strategic plan was to expand them throughout the state. He
expressed disappointment and concerns regarding OMB notation
on the budget to take the issue to the criminal justice
working group.
Mr. Christensen supported consolidating the money in the
courts budget so that there is one clear source for the
legislature to consider.
Co-Chair Hawker queried historical resistance by judges to
therapeutic courts and evolution toward support. Mr.
Christensen explained that therapeutic courts were
originally started in Anchorage by two judges (one with an
alcohol court and one with a mental health court). The model
takes more time and effort, but is effective and has changed
the approach of judges.
Co-Chair Hawker pointed out that the amount referenced by
Representative Gara was only a small part of what has
historically been allocated for therapeutic courts
throughout a number of agencies.
Representative Gara had heard that the bottleneck for good
candidates for therapeutic court was the inability to get
people into treatment. Mr. Christensen was unsure about
waiting lists, but offered to research the issue. He related
that there are many therapeutic courts and a variety of
treatment sources. He conjectured that the issue might be
lack of treatment facilities in a given community. Regarding
the therapeutic court money, he noted that the money in the
budget is not kept by the court system but passed through
the other agencies. The proposal was to have all the money
pass through the courts system.
Representative Gara asked which funds were not passing
through the court system currently. Co-Chair Hawker did not
know but offered to get more information.
3:31:16 PM
Co-Chair Hawker referenced $65,000 going to Partners for
Progress, Inc. through the Department of Administration. The
outside company helps people in the therapeutic courts with
ancillary services.
Representative Gara recommended that the court system
provide clearer information about the therapeutic courts.
Representative Kelly queried the comfort level with the
dramatic increase in the budget. Co-Chair Hawker stated that
he was comfortable with the court's requests. In the past,
the agency has asked for more and been refused. He
anticipated a substantial reduction in the requests before
the process was completed.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:36 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Court System Budget Overview.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Court System Overview 10 Yr. Plan.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Court System Overview Budget Request.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| LAW budget overview 2-1-10 _DB_.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2010 1:30:00 PM |
|
| LAW Overview Admin Services Summary.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2010 1:30:00 PM |