Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/02/2015 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Fy 16 Budget Overview: Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| Fy 16 Budget Overview: Alaska Court System | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 2, 2015
1:32 p.m.
1:32:16 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Neuman called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lance Pruitt
ALSO PRESENT
Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Doug Wooliver, Deputy Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, Judiciary.
SUMMARY
HB 72 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET/LOANS/FUNDS
HB 72 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 73 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 73 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
HOUSE BILL NO. 72
"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."
HOUSE BILL NO. 73
"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."
^FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
1:33:17 PM
LARRY HARTIG, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, highlighted the PowerPoint presentation "FY
16 Department Overview: Department of Environmental
Conservation."
Commissioner Hartig began with slide 2: "DEC's Mission."
Protect human health and the environment.
Commissioner Hartig reviewed slide 3: "Outcomes."
-Clean water, healthy air, and good management of
hazardous materials and waste
-Safe drinking water and sanitary waste disposal
-Food safe to eat
-Low risk of spills and efficient, effective response
when spills occur
-Wise resource development for a growing state
Commissioner Hartig turned to slide 4: "Means."
-Science-based standards
-Permits and authorizations incorporating these
standards
-Monitoring, outreach, compliance assistance, and
enforcement
-Emergency response and oversight of spill clean-up
-Meaningful and effective public processes for
developing standards and permits
-Technical assistance, grants, and loans to
communities for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure
Commissioner Hartig discussed Slide 5: "What Alaskans Get
for Their Money."
According to calculations by Legislative Finance,
DEC's FY2016 general fund budget is equal to $144 per
year per resident worker - that's just 39¢ a day for:
clean air to breathe
clean water to drink
safe food to eat
clean land and waters
responsible resource development
If you look at the numbers by total population, that
number drops to roughly 18¢ a day per Alaskan
Commissioner Hartig commented that the Department of
Environmental Conservation's (DEC) mission benefitted the
general population of the state as well as, future
generations of Alaskans, tribes, and communities. The
department benefitted businesses by ensuring safe economic
development through its permits, authorizations, and
oversight.
Commissioner Hartig continued with slide 6: "Existing
Budget Conditions."
-Federal Sequestration and declining federal funds
-Ex: Drinking Water program lost $267.2 federal
revenue in FY2014, more than 3% of all funds
-Budget cuts in recent years
-Declining balance in the Prevention Account
-Not all fees reflect the actual cost of the work
-Ex: Fees for permitted Direct Market Fishing
Vessels < 65 feet are set in statute and
cover approximately 12% of the cost to conduct
vessel inspections
-DEC has implemented cost saving measures in FY2015:
-Retaining vacancies
-Avoiding non-essential travel
-Additional review of pending contractual
solicitations
-Department-wide vacancy rate is currently about 12%,
but varies across the five divisions
Commissioner Hartig discussed budget cuts and how DEC had
been cutting the budget over the years. He remarked that
the Village Safe Water Program lost 60 percent of its
federal funding and currently the department was $2.1
million short funded out of a $15 million budget for the
Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) program due to less
than expected interest earnings income on the response
account.
Commissioner Hartig emphasized that the department's
vacancy rate was one indication of the agency's stress
because of budget constraints. He detailed that a typical
vacancy rate was 10 percent and that the vacancy rate in
the SPAR division was 15 percent and 13 percent in the
Division of Water.
1:39:09 PM
Commissioner Hartig advanced to slide 7: "Budget Reduction
Criteria."
-Services that are mandated by statute
-Services that are necessary to implement DEC's
mission and core responsibilities
-Services that can't be performed by local government,
federal government, or others
-Services that will be difficult to restore
-Services that are a foundation for economic growth
and prosperity
-Services that enjoy strong public support
-Services that leverage other resources
Commissioner Hartig emphasized that regardless of budget
cuts he wanted permitting programs to improve and progress.
Co-Chair Neuman explained that he instructed the House
Finance Subcommittees to review statutes that burdened a
department but did not provide a benefit. In order to
achieve more effective cuts, he requested that the
departments recommend outdated statutes for elimination
that increase costs and burden staff. Commissioner Hartig
concurred and noted that the department was in the process
of identifying cuts whose impacts could be mitigated.
Commissioner Hartig turned to slide 8: "Division of
Administration."
Commissioner: Larry Hartig
Deputy: Lynn Kent
Director: Tom Cherian
Components:
-Commissioner's Office
-Administrative Services
-Information Services
-Financial Services
-Budget Services
-Procurement & Building Management
-Environmental Crimes Unit
-State Support Services
-Leases and Contracts
Challenges & Opportunities:
-Decreasing Budgets
-Unfunded Administrative Cost Increases
-Succession Planning and Workforce Development
Commissioner Hartig moved to slide 9: "Division of
Environmental Health."
Director: Elaine Busse Floyd
Components:
-Director's Office
-Food Safety & Sanitation
-Laboratory Services
-Drinking Water
-Solid Waste Management
Also:
Building Maintenance & Operations - Environmental
Health Lab
Challenges & Opportunities:
-Declining Federal Funding for the Drinking Water
Program
-Complex Federal Requirements
-High Risk Food Safety Inspections
-Unique Laboratory Technology & Equipment Needs
Commissioner Hartig reported that Federal Sequestration had
long-term impacts on the division's budget.
Commissioner Hartig turned to slide 10: "Division of Air
Quality"
Director: Alice Edwards
Components:
-Director's Office
-Air Quality
-Permitting and Compliance
-Community Air Quality
-Air Monitoring
Challenges & Opportunities:
-Continue to meet industry needs for air permits
-Fairbanks Air Quality/ Woodsmoke
-Changing Federal Rules and Standards
Commissioner Hartig relayed that the Division of Air
Quality was the only division that was adding a position
due to increasing demands from the AKLNG pipeline project.
1:44:23 PM
Co-Chair Neuman thought that projects like the AKLNG
project were required to pay for its own permitting costs.
He asked for clarification. Commissioner Hartig responded
that certain federal air quality permit costs were required
to be paid by the permitee. However state permits were
issued for smaller projects when requirements "fell under
the criteria" of federal permits and were called, "minor
source permits." Minor source permits were not mandated for
cost recovery. In addition, other duties performed by the
division such as monitoring, establishing air quality
standards or plans required undesignated general funds
(UGF).
Representative Wilson asked whether the Fairbanks North
Star Borough would need DEC approval to charge fines for
air quality violations if the local ordinance was adopted.
Commissioner Hartig responded that under state statute the
borough had the ability, as an "approved local air
authority" to implement their own air program. He added
that if the borough went beyond the state plan to contain
emissions, DEC could adopt the additional measures into the
state plan; subsequently under federal law the state would
also assume the oversight to enforce implementation of such
measures. Representative Wilson asked if DEC chose not to
adopt any additional measures the borough might implement,
would that produce savings for the state. Commissioner
Hartig responded in the negative and explained that DEC was
relying on existing resources for Fairbanks air quality
enforcement.
Representative Gara asked whether DEC was charging for
costs associated with issuing state permits and if not, was
DEC considering cost recovery for state permits.
Commissioner Hartig responded that if a project fell below
certain thresholds for a federal permit, the state still
required a minor source permit. He indicated that a fee
structure was set in statute regarding what costs were
recoverable. The fees for recoverable costs were currently
being increased for air quality permits, but he could not
change via regulation statutory provisions relating to what
was considered an expense.
Representative Gara asked for additional information
regarding whether the state was losing money because of the
provisions in stature. Commissioner Hartig agreed to
provide the information.
1:50:08 PM
Commissioner Hartig moved onto slide 11: "Division of Spill
Prevention and Response."
Director: Kristin Ryan
Components:
-Spill Prevention & Response
-Prevention, Preparedness, and Response
-Contaminated Sites
-Response Fund Administration
Challenges & Opportunities:
-Prevention Account Sustainability
-Managing Risk Associated with New Natural
Resource Development Activity and Marine
Transportation
Commissioner Hartig pointed to slide 12: "Division of
Water."
Director: Michelle Hale
Components:
-Water Quality
-Wastewater Discharge Permitting
-Cruise Ship
-Water Quality Standards, Assessment, and
Restoration
-Compliance
-Facility Construction
-Village Safe Water Program
-Municipal Grants & Loan Program
Challenges & Opportunities:
-Continuing to Develop Depth in APDES
-Improvements to Federal 404 Dredge & Fill
Permitting and Mitigation
-Declining Federal Funding in the Village Safe
Water Program
Commissioner Hartig related that water quality fell into
two categories: water quality standards and facilities. He
noted that the Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination
System program was delegated to the state from the federal
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which regulated waste
water discharges and was developing well. The division
caught up with the inherited backlog of permits and was
issuing an increasing number of permits and authorizations
in a timely manner.
Co-Chair Thompson read reports about sewage lagoons in
small communities that were degrading and the absence of
federal funds to mitigate the problem. He asked whether DEC
had and inventory of the failing sewage lagoons and the
costs to address the issue. Commissioner Hartig responded
that the department was examining the issue and would
provide the information. He remarked that with the decline
in the Village Safe Water funds the department was
prioritizing water and wastewater systems versus landfills.
Commissioner Hartig discussed slide 13: "FY2016 Endorsed
Budget Request."
Operating Request: $85,864.7
•Unrestricted GF: $20,454.6
•Designated GF: $27,392.4
•Other State Funds: $14,388.9
•Federal Receipts: $23,628.8
•Positions: 537
Capital Request: $64,014.9
•Unrestricted GF: $18,738.6
•Other State Funds: $3,026.3
•Federal Receipts: $42,250.0
Lowest capital request since FY2006
DEC has the second smallest UGF budget of all State
agencies, behind DMVA.
Commissioner Hartig pointed to the pie chart on slide 14:
"FY2016 Operating Budget By Fund Source." He communicated
that each colored section represented DEC's funding sources
and that federal receipts were a major source of funds.
1:55:11 PM
Commissioner Hartig highlighted slide 15: "FY2016 Budget
Changes." He relayed that the chart indicated that the
department was decreasing the budget by 9.5 percent in FY
2016 along with eliminating 24 positions.
Commissioner Hartig presented slide 16: "FY2016 Significant
Budget Changes."
· Administration
· CO -Efficiencies due to Reorganization of
Administrative Functions: -$114.1; -1 PCN(-$43.1
UGF/ -$71.0 I/A)
· AS -Efficiencies due to Reorganization of
Administrative Functions: -$25.0 UGF
· AS -Replace Federal Receipts with Existing Clean
Water Administrative Fees: $0.0($84.0 Other / -$84.0
Fed)
· AS -Rebalance Funding of Core Service Lease Costs:
$0.0($400.0 CAPF/$110.0 CPVEC/-$510.0 FED)
Commissioner Hartig pointed to slide 17: "FY2016
Significant Budget Changes."
· Environmental Health
· FSS -Reduce Inspections of Retail Food, Public
Accommodations, & Non-Food Facilities-$869.3 UGF;
-8 PCNs
· EHL-Delete two Microbiologists Positions-$170.0
UGF; -2 PCNs
· EHL -Maintain Fish Tissue Monitoring Program$0.0
($250.0 OR/-$250.0 UGF)
· DW -Reduced Capacity in Drinking Water Program-
$507.3 UGF; -4 PCNs
· SWM -Efficiencies due to Implementation of New
Regulations-$85.6 UGF; -1 PCN
Commissioner Hartig noted the large reduction in the food
safety program and thought that the function could be taken
over by local governments.
Commissioner Hartig advanced to slide 18: "FY 2016
Significant Budget Changes."
· Air Quality
· AQ -Expand Air Permitting Program to Meet
Industry Needs$123.0 DGF; 1 PCN
· Spill Prevention & Response
· SPAR -Reorganization and Consolidation of SPAR
Programs-$520.0; -4 PCNs
Commissioner Hartig turned to slide 19: "FY2016 Significant
Budget Changes."
· Water
· WQ -Efficiencies due to Reorganization of
Administrative Functions-$95.0 UGF; -1 PCN
· WQ-Offset Ocean Ranger Fees for Fish Tissue
Monitoring Program-$250.0 OR
· WQ -Delete Environmental Program Manager-$103.4
UGF; -1 PCN
· FC -Replace Federal Receipts with Existing Clean
Water Administrative Fees$0.0($700.0 Other/-
$700.0 Fed)
· FC -Maintain Operator Certification
Program$0.0($101.1 DGF/-$101.1 Fed)
Commissioner Hartig discussed slide 20: "Department
Challenges."
-Prevention Account Sustainability
-Village Safe Water
-Federal Funding Decline
-Alaska Challenge Project
-Fairbanks Air Quality/ Woodsmoke
Commissioner Hartig explained slide 21: "How the Response
Fund Works."
"It is the intent of the Legislature and declared to
be the public policy of the State that funds for the
abatement of a release of oil or a hazardous substance
will always be available." (A.S. 46.08.030)
-Response Account
-Funded by 1¢ surcharge on each barrel of oil
-Surcharge suspended when fund exceeds $50
Million
-Pays for emergency response activities
-Department recovers costs from identified
responsible parties
-Prevention Account
-Funded by a 4¢ surcharge on each barrel of oil
-Pays for operational costs and readiness
activities within the Spill Prevention & Response
Division
Commissioner Hartig scrolled to slide 22: "Oil and
Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund"
which was a graphic depicting how the fund worked.
Commissioner Hartig discussed Slide 23: "Status of the
Prevention Account." He explained that the light blue bar
on the graph represented the accounts general fund dollars;
if funding was maintained at current levels into the future
the account would have to be offset by up to $7.5 million
per year with other funds in light of declining oil
revenues. He concluded that if other funding sources were
not identified SPAR would lose 46 percent of its budget or
approximately 70 positions in the future.
Co-Chair Neuman asked for further discussion regarding the
.04 cents surcharge and whether the department had any
recommendations on restructuring the fund to be sustainable
into the future without additional general fund
expenditures. Commissioner Hartig directed attention to the
following slide in response to the question.
1:59:17 PM
Commissioner Hartig turned to slide 24: "Considerations in
Addressing the Shortfall."
-Do not increase the risk from spills
-Recognize declining production and the impacts of
this to the sustainability of the Response Fund
-Collaborate with existing and potential payees into
the Response Fund to identify the correct amount and
allocation
-Look to other sources to identify fair and reasonable
alternatives to help sustain the fund
-Continue to look for efficiencies in SPAR,
partnerships, new technologies, better assessment of
risks, and improvement to cost recovery
Commissioner Hartig conveyed that the department was
engaged in discussions with the oil and gas industry. He
related that the larger issue was why the oil and gas
industry should pay for the entire fund when other sources
of spills and industries were involved. Some of the
discussions that were taking place was how much
responsibility was fair to the oil and gas industry and
alternative revenue sources. The department was also
examining consolidations and efficiencies within the
division.
Representative Gara asked about the possibility of an
inflation adjustment on the .05 cents per barrel surcharge
and what that would amount to. Commissioner Hartig replied
that the SPAR budget had not kept up with inflation in
relation to the Anchorage Consumer Price Index (CPI) and
that the surcharge had not increased since its introduction
in 1989. In addition, the division had taken on added
duties over the years with a flat surcharge.
Commissioner Hartig advanced to slide 25: "Village Safe
Water."
-Over 4,500 homes in rural Alaska lack running water
and sewage systems
-Lack of sanitation poses serious health threat
-Health studies show a direct correlation between
clean water in sufficient quantities and
significant reductions in diseases and infections
that can sometimes be fatal
-Children in Southwest Alaska suffer some of the
highest rates in the world of a serious
pneumococcal bacterial infection which can affect
the brain, blood or lungs
-This bacterial infection is linked to inadequate
sanitation infrastructure
Commissioner Hartig discussed the budget challenge of
carrying out the program to communities of 1,000 residents
or less with a decline in federal funds of over 60 percent
within the prior ten years for needs that are constant.
Commissioner Hartig identified slide 26: "Rural Alaska
Water & Sewer."
Funding for rural Alaska sanitation projects has
declined by over $61 Million, or 64% between 2004 and
2014
· Reduced funding means making choices:
· First time water and sewer service where feasible
· Upgrades or replacement of existing systems to
address significant health threats
· Stretching limited funds
· Prioritize for greatest need and biggest impact
Commissioner Hartig pointed to the bar graphs on the slide
that depicted the decline in funding over the last 10
years.
2:05:13 PM
Commissioner Hartig moved on to slide 27: "Alaska Water &
Sewer Challenge."
-Innovative international research and development
effort
-Goal is to significantly reduce the capital and
operating costs of in-home running water and sewer in
rural Alaska homes
-Recently launched Phase 2
-Focus is on "Decentralized" approaches
-Household based systems
-Water re-use technologies
-To date $4 million in State and Federal funds have
been secured, but there may be a future request to
support completion
Commissioner Hartig discussed that the department assembled
a team of professionals and experts in water and sewer
systems who subsequently issued a RFP (Request for
Proposal) to industry to develop innovative methods for
sewer and water in rural areas that were less expensive to
operate. He detailed that the department would choose the
best ideas and fund the resulting refined pilot projects
and eventually build some projects for testing. Essentially
the department was "leveraging" a company's research and
development efforts to produce a product for a ready market
in Alaska and other Arctic nations. The department was
currently working with the state department to make the
challenge a United States project as part of the Arctic
Council and planning an international conference that
showcased the best ideas that sprang from the challenge.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether there were any "economies
of scale to be achieved by having larger village water and
sewage systems" or conversely were very small systems
"tremendously expensive." Commissioner Hartig responded
that larger centralized systems were complicated and
expensive. The challenge team was exploring decentralized
systems for individual homes or smaller subsets of homes
that would be easier and cheaper to run in smaller
communities. He added that the goal was to adapt existing
technologies in new ways and he thought that the effort
would be successful.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether DEC was looking to the
University of Alaska first, for innovative ideas before
seeking proposals from outside of the state. Commissioner
Hartig responded that the university was on one of the
teams, but added that DEC did not choose the university
exclusively because the department wanted to cast a wide
net and also include companies and manufacturers in order
to bring their expertise and money to the table.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether the smaller systems were
less safe. Commissioner Hartig responded that the RFP set
strict requirements and that the entire goal of the program
was to meet clean water standards.
2:09:38 PM
Commissioner Hartig directed attention to slide 28:
"Fairbanks Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)."
-Fairbanks/North Pole area exceeds the 24-hour PM2.5
ambient air quality standard
-Initial air quality plan submitted to EPA on December
31, 2015
-Plan and control options have been controversial in
community
-Home heating sources (wood and coal) are
important contributors
-Continued change outs of wood heaters and
expansion of natural gas important to attaining
the standard
-Implementing initial plan and working with
community as they explore additional options to
improve air quality
Commissioner Hartig elaborated that the Fairbanks area was
designated a "non-attainment" area by the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) due to the fact that more
residents were turning to wood stoves as energy costs rise,
causing the air quality to fail federal standards. If the
state could not bring the area back into attainment,
federal sanctions could be applied making it more difficult
to spend other federal dollars in Fairbanks and the
withholding highway funds. He listed three main strategies
for compliance that included a better supply of dry wood,
more efficient stoves and boilers, and ultimately
conversion to liquefied natural gas.
Representative Wilson stated that other countries were able
to contain emissions innovatively and wondered why DEC was
not looking at other countries solid fuel burning devices
for answers. Commissioner Hartig answered that the devices
had to be certified as "compliant" by the EPA after import
to the U S. He delineated that the state was trying to
press the EPA to set standards and create a methodology to
test compliance for certification, which was a complicated
and expensive process.
Representative Wilson remarked that the devices existed,
particularly in Canada. She wondered why the department was
not approaching the problem similarly to the approach to
rural sewer and water issues. Commissioner Hartig responded
that DEC did establish its own performance standards for
the non-attainment areas.
Co-Chair Thompson commented about the millions of dollars
spent on the stove exchange programs as well as
weatherization. He wondered whether there was any
assessment to determine the programs' effectiveness.
Commissioner Hartig responded that the weatherization
programs had not had an impact on reducing wood smoke
emissions and neither had the stove exchange program.
Co-Chair Neuman noted that there were wood stoves with
catalytic convertors that reduced emissions and were
covered under the weatherization program. Commissioner
Hartig indicated that changing out wood stoves was not the
weatherization programs' mission and typically was not
covered under the program.
2:16:34 PM
Commissioner Hartig advanced to slide 29: "Status of FY2015
Budget Increments."
-Federal Authority for Contaminated Sites $959.5 Fed
-Allows the Contaminated Sites component to
collect federal grants to perform cleanup and
oversight of cleanup activities on federally
owned contaminated sites
-Federal budget issues, including sequestration,
resulted in the Department of Defense and other
federal agencies not scaling up their clean-up
activities as anticipated
-Additional federal grant funding is uncertain in
FY2016
-The Division expects to collect and expend
$534.5 of this federal authority in FY2015
-Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (HB4) $106.0
ISPF-I/A
-Allows for additional contractors to work with
the Division of Air Quality on construction and
permit applications related to the small-diameter
in-state gas pipeline
-The Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit as
well as one of the Minor Source Specific permits are
anticipated to be submitted during FY2015
-The Division expects to expend $91.6 of this
increment in FY2015
Commissioner Hartig moved to slide 30: "Status of FY2015
Budget Increments."
Regulations: Notice, Review, Comment (HB140) $250.9
UGF+1 PCN
-The Economist III was hired 12/1/2014 in
Anchorage
-The Division expects to fully expend this
increment in FY2015
404 Wetlands Program (SB27)-$1,434.7 UGF -5 PCNs
-The State has been completing tasks that were in
progress in FY2014 on a time available basis
-Two of those staff were transferred to vacant
PCNs in the wastewater discharge program
-A third PCN has been retained to work
independently on an Alaskan wetlands program plan
(funded by an EPA grant) and to work with the
Army Corps of Engineers on streamlining the
permitting process, with a comparable vacant PCN
deleted to offset this retention
-RSAs with DNR and Law specific to 404 Wetlands
primacy have been eliminated in FY2015
Commissioner Hartig explained slide 31: "Current Challenges
to Departmental Performance."
Increasing development activity and strained personnel
resources threatens permitting timeliness.
Burden of new EPA rules threatens drinking water
safety by limiting resources for technical assistance.
Commissioner Hartig noted that the lower bar graph on slide
31 depicted the decrease in assistance and enforcement
actions by DEC due to budget reductions. He remarked that
the department would limit the time spent on assistance
with federal compliance with drinking water systems in
rural communities and added that they would have to turn to
the private sector for help.
Commissioner Hartig looked at slide 32: "Long-term
Challenges to Departmental Performance."
Village homes served by safe water:
•More challenging communities
•Declining Funding
•Increasing Costs
•Innovation & Sustainability
Proposed budget cuts will impact the number of routine
inspections of retail food facilities which may
increase the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks.
Commissioner Hartig reiterated the challenges to the
Village Safe Water program as depicted on the bar graph.
Commissioner Hartig scrolled through slide 34: "Department
of Environmental Conservation's Share of Total Agency
Operations (GF Only) ($ Thousands)."
Co-Chair Thompson asked about charges in regards to the
food safety inspections. Commissioner Hartig responded that
a fee was charged but he was uncertain whether it covered
the department's costs. He remarked that in other parts of
the country local governments performed retail food safety
inspections unlike Alaska where only Anchorage performed
inspections. He delineated that in remote areas such as
Nome or Bethel, in order to curb costs, DEC performed food
inspections in conjunction with inspections of commercial
food processing operations acting in proxy for the federal
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, the costs
were covered by a mix of federal and state funds and it was
difficult to determine whether the fees covered the costs.
Co-Chair Thompson wondered whether the department could
increase the costs to cover food inspection similar to
other types of safety inspections. Commissioner Hartig
replied that he would examine whether the fee structure for
inspections were constrained by statute and provide the
information.
Representative Guttenberg asked how the food safety
inspection program worked in remote areas and wondered
whether contractors were utilized. Commissioner Hartig was
not aware of utilizing contractors for inspections. He
explained that the department issued food worker cards
through online training. The retail food inspections where
performed when possible in conjunction with travel to the
area for another purpose.
2:22:46 PM
Representative Guttenberg further inquired about what
happened with a facility waiting for an inspection.
Commissioner Hartig indicated that a business could operate
without an inspection and that when inspected DEC would not
close an establishment unless an immediate threat to human
health was discovered.
Representative Munoz wondered whether communities with
planning and zoning authorities worked with DEC to complete
a state requirement for inspection. Commissioner Hartig
answered that certain facilities such as seafood processing
plants or dairies had to meet certain state and federal
requirements and the state performed the inspections. He
was not sure how much DEC worked with the local planning
and zoning authorities.
Representative Gara recalled that food inspection fees were
restructured approximately 6 years ago that shifted more of
the fee on the certified food worker and reduced the fee on
businesses. He asked for clarification and requested the
amount of the food inspection shortfall. Commissioner
Hartig indicated that DEC instituted a nominal fee for a
food safety card and training. He interjected that DEC
could only perform one-third of the federally recommended
amount of annual inspections so the department decided to
focus on inspecting facilities that were associated with
the highest risk to the public such as day care centers. He
noted that, unlike restaurants the real risk to the public
was when a product went out to the public and the origin
was unknown.
Representative Guttenberg asked if there were any states
that inspected less restaurants than Alaska. Commissioner
Hartig noted that Alaska was in an unusual situation with
very large remote areas.
2:28:39 PM
AT EASE
2:30:40 PM
RECONVEYNNED
^FY 16 BUDGET OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, JUDICIARY, introduced the PowerPoint presentation
"FY 16 Budget Overview: Alaska Court System."
2:31:23 PM
Mr. Wooliver explained the name change from the Court
System to Judiciary. The Judicial Branch of government in
Alaska was comprised of three entities: The Court System,
the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial
Conduct. The Court System was the largest entity of the
three. He noted that the overview would focus on the Court
System.
Mr. Wooliver began with slide 2: "Mission Statement."
The mission of the Alaska Court System is to provide
an accessible and impartial forum for the just
resolution of all cases that come before it, and to
decide such cases in accordance with the law,
expeditiously and with integrity.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 3: "Four Levels of Courts."
-Supreme Court - 5 Justices
-Court of Appeals - 3 Judges
-Superior Courts - 42 Judges
-District Courts - 23 Judges & 52 Magistrate Judges
Mr. Wooliver explained the difference between the two
levels of trial courts: Superior Courts and District
Courts. The Superior Court was known as the court of
general jurisdiction and heard cases regarding divorce,
felony crime, child need of aid, delinquency, property
disputes, etc. The District Court was known as the court of
limited jurisdiction and heard misdemeanors, small claims,
claims under $100 thousand, etc. The District Court was a
high volume court. He furthered that the state had
magistrate judges involved in District Court and often
served part-time in small communities and were not
typically attorneys.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 4: "Court System Non-
Judicial Employees."
723 Permanent Staff (GF-Funded)
-In-Court Clerks
-Customer Service Clerks
-Judicial Assistants
-Law Clerks
-Administrative Staff (HR, Fiscal, Computer
Services, Facilities)
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 5: "Distinguishing
Characteristics of the Alaska Court System."
-State Funded
-Unified Judiciary- No County or Municipal Courts
-Administrative Director Position Established in the
Constitution
Mr. Wooliver pointed out that a major advantage to a
unified Judiciary was that policy questions were dealt with
by himself or Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System, which was streamlined compared to other states with
local jurisdictions.
2:35:27 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued with slide 6: "Factors Impacting
Workloads."
-Population
-Police
-Economy
-Other
Mr. Wooliver indicated that when the state population or
unemployment rates increased caseloads increased.
Mr. Wooliver discussed slide 7: "Trial Court Caseloads -
FY14."
132,032 New Cases Filed in FY14
-59% of All Cases Originated in the
Anchorage/Palmer/Kenai Courts
Superior Court - 22,523 Cases
-Probate Cases - 25%
-Domestic Relations - 23%
District Court - 109,509 Cases
Mr. Wooliver observed that even though the bulk of cases
occurred in Southcentral Alaska the Court Systems policies
had to apply to all regions of the state.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to the pie chart on slide 8: "FY14
Trial Court Case Filings." He noted that 44 percent of the
volume of Court System filings were for minor offenses, but
took up a very small percentage of workload.
Mr. Wooliver pointed to the pie chart on slide 9: "FY14
Superior Court Case Filings." He conveyed that the chart
depicted Superior Court filings by case category which was
mostly criminal followed by probate and domestic relation
cases. He added that probate cases regarding guardianship
of elder Alaskans was steadily growing. Some cases dealing
with domestic relations, such as child custody cases can
last for years, but only had one filing.
Mr. Wooliver moved on to slide 10: "FY14 District Court
Case Filings." He offered that the district court filings
dealt with mostly minor offenses but also misdemeanors,
small claims, domestic violence, and civil law.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked what the timeframe was for the
case filing data included in the slides. Mr. Wooliver
responded that they were filings for one year.
Representative Wilson asked whether minor offenses were
mostly traffic offenses that were not heard in court. Mr.
Wooliver replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson requested the number of cases that
actually were heard in district court. She referred to the
109,509 number of District Court cases and thought that was
high. Mr. Wooliver replied that he would provide the
answer. He explained the electronic filing system for
traffic violations and stated that a court employee never
dealt with those cases.
2:40:59 PM
Representative Munoz cited the increasing involvement of
tribal courts and wondered whether that affected the
court's workload. Mr. Wooliver replied in the negative.
However, he anticipated that more cases would be diverted
to tribal courts in the future.
Mr. Wooliver remembered that 71 percent of traffic offenses
do not result in court proceedings.
Representative Wilson asked if the data reflected 71
percent of the 58,458 minor offenses.
Rhonda McLeod, Chief Financial Officer, Alaska Court
System, responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Wooliver continued with slide 11: "Criminal Jury Trials
FY12-FY14."
-Superior Court Felony Trials for FY14 are up 21% from
FY12 Trial Totals and up 15% from FY13 Trial Totals
-District Court Misdemeanor Trials for FY14 are up 13%
from FY12 Trial Totals and up 28% from FY13 Trial
Totals
Mr. Wooliver surmised that as the trial courts cases
increased so did the workload for the Court System,
prosecutors, public defenders as well as the Court of
Appeals caseload, which in turn impacted the appellate
attorneys in the Department of Law and Public Defenders
Office workload.
Representative Edgmon referenced slide 7. He asked why
Fairbanks was not included in the number of new cases
filed. Mr. Wooliver responded that the bulk of the cases
were filed in Southcentral Alaska. Representative Edgmon
asked how closure of the Palmer correctional facility would
affect the Court Systems' efforts in Palmer. Mr. Wooliver
responded that the closure would affect the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) much more than the Court System.
Representative Edgmon commented that potential cuts in both
the Department of Corrections (DOC) and DPS often just
shifted costs from one agency or the other.
2:45:29 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked what the caseload percentages between
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough was. Mr.
Wooliver confirmed that Anchorage had 50 percent of all
cases statewide. He added that Anchorage had far more
judges and far more cases as well as the highest caseload
per judge.
Representative Gara referred to slide 11 and commented that
in the last 2 to 3 years the district attorneys were
requiring that all sentencing cases must go to trial
instead of allowing sentencing agreements, which increased
the number of trials. He wondered whether some of the
increase in felony trials resulted from the policy. Mr.
Wooliver responded that he thought so but qualified that
the felony trial rate had been increasing before the change
in the plea policy and was not sure of the extent of the
impact on the courts.
Mr. Wooliver pointed to the graph on slide 12: "Criminal
Case Dispositions by Jury Trial Fiscal Years 2009 to 2014,"
and commented that the slide depicted the increase in
trials.
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to slide 13: "FY15 State of Alaska
Funding - All Sources." He remarked that the pie chart
depicted that Judiciary funding was 1.4 percent of all
agency spending.
Mr. Wooliver identified slide 14: "Alaska Court System FY15
Operating Budget Appropriation All Fund Types." He
mentioned that the pie chart represented the breakdown of
spending by appropriation. He reported that the largest
portion of costs belonged to Trial Courts [79 percent].
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 15: "Breakdown of FY15
Funding (GF)."
-Personal Services Costs - 75.6%
-Travel Costs - 1.3%
-Services - 20.0%
-Supplies/Commodities - 2.8%
-Capital Outlay - .3%
2:50:34 PM
Co-Chair Neuman asked at what age a judge could retire and
what amount of compensation did a judge receive. Mr.
Wooliver responded that a judge vested in 5 years and could
retire after 15 years upon a retirement age of 60. The
maximum retirement rate was 75 percent of a sitting judge's
salary including health benefits. Co-Chair Neuman thought
that the rate encouraged judges to retire and wondered
whether the Court System was reconsidering the retirement
rate for judges. Mr. Wooliver replied that the Court System
supported the retirement system for judges that was on par
with other judicial retirement systems across the country.
He furthered that most judges already had an established
legal career in the private sector and took a significant
salary decrease to become a judge, therefore the generous
retirement package acted as an incentive. He emphasized
that the Court System required experienced candidates.
In response to a question by Representative Munoz, Mr.
Wooliver stated that a judge would have to pay into the
system for 15 years to receive the maximum retirement
benefit, could vest after 5 years, and could begin drawing
retirement benefits at 60 years of age. Representative
Munoz asked whether other state service factored into a
judicial retirement and what would happen if a judge
retired before the 5 year vestment period. Mr. Wooliver was
uncertain and would provide the answer.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the Court Systems retirement
unfunded liability was included in the personal services
costs. Mr. Wooliver responded in the affirmative. He added
that the governor vetoed the unfunded liability payment the
legislature previously appropriated.
2:55:29 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked what role geographical differences
played in retirement benefits. Mr. Wooliver indicated that
geographical differences was not a factor in judicial
retirement.
Mr. Wooliver moved on to slide 16: "Increments Funded in
FY15."
-Bandwidth to Improve Network Transmission Speeds
-Facility Maintenance Costs
-Security Screening
-Court Visitors and Interpreters
Mr. Wooliver discussed the additional funds for bandwidth.
He identified cost savings by use of video arraignments.
Co-Chair Neuman asked whether the increased bandwidth
capacity could be used for other state needs. Mr. Wooliver
replied that the increased bandwidth helped DOC and DPS
through video arraignments.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if there had ever been a challenge
to the adequacy of video arraignments. Mr. Wooliver did not
know of any challenges and that video arraignments took
place every day. Vice-Chair Saddler asked whether "anything
was lost" by means of video arraignments. Mr. Wooliver
indicated that there might be situations that would be
better in person but a lot of routine proceedings take
place before the court where the use of video was
beneficial.
3:00:18 PM
Representative Gattis asked whether it was possible for
police officers to employ video for mandatory court
appearances. Mr. Wooliver replied that the suggestion was a
good one and worth looking into. Representative Gattis
remarked that improved bandwidth offered potential cost
saving measures for the more populated and urban areas of
the state and not only benefitted rural areas.
Representative Gara discussed the court calendar process
where many attorneys and their clients must appear in court
and waste many hours waiting for deliberation regarding the
status of their cases. He opined that the practice was
antiquated and wasted a lot of time for prosecutors and
public defenders. He wondered whether there was a way the
court clerk could call the attorney near the time their
case would be heard in an effort to utilize the attorney's
productive work time. Mr. Wooliver relayed that he would
look into managing the court calendar in ways that would
work better for the attorneys.
Co-Chair Neuman commented that the House Finance Judiciary
Subcommittee would look into the issue.
Mr. Wooliver discussed slide 17: "Funding Changes FY06 to
FY15 Personal Services."
-Salary Adjustments
-New Judges - Eight Superior Court and Three District
Court
-No Dark Courtrooms Initiative
Mr. Wooliver reported that 8 new Superior Court judges and
3 new District Court judges had been added over the last 10
years. The "No Dark Courtrooms Initiative" added 33
additional clerical staff.
Mr. Wooliver discussed slide 18: "Funding Changes FY06 to
FY15 Services."
-Leased Facility Expenses including Public Building
Fund Participation
-Utility and Maintenance Costs
-Software Support & Bandwidth Costs
-Therapeutic Courts
Mr. Wooliver commented that a new appropriation for
Therapeutic Courts was created and placed within the Court
System but presented as an increase in the Court Systems
budget. The appropriation consolidated of all of the prior
multiple appropriations which reached into other
departments and was not a true spending increase for the
Therapeutic Courts.
3:06:12 PM
Representative Guttenberg stated that he strongly supported
the Therapeutic Courts. He noted his appreciation for the
opportunity to "shadow" Judge Raymond Funk, Judge Pro Tem,
Trial Courts Fairbanks, Judiciary, while presiding over the
Therapeutic Court proceedings. Mr. Wooliver replied that
there was a judicial ride-a-long program for legislators
upon invitation to shadow a judge for a day which was very
beneficial.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 19: " Appropriations within
the Judiciary (All Funds) ($ Thousands)." He reported that
the graph portrayed the appropriations for the entire
Judicial Branch that was comprised mostly of Court System
appropriations.
Mr. Wooliver reported on slide 20: "Judiciary's Share of
Total Agency Operations (GF Only) ($ Thousands)." He
elaborated that the chart portrayed the Judiciary's Budget
which was 2.21 percent of all agency spending.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 21: "Appropriations within the
Judiciary (GF Only) ($ Thousands)." He explained that
Judiciary was almost exclusively funded with GF.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 22: "FY16 and Beyond."
Electronic Document Management (E-Filing) Project
-Impact to All Justice Agencies
-Improve Public Access to Data and Case
Information
-Facilitate Data Exchanges Between Justice
Agencies
-Improve Case Processing Efficiencies
Mr. Wooliver stated that E-Filing was the future of the
Court System and would offer future cost savings by
reducing clerical staff and creating efficiencies.
Mr. Wooliver reported on slide 23: "FY16 and Beyond…
(Cont.)."
-In the Near Term, New Superior Court Judges may be
needed for Juneau, Bethel, and Palmer Courts
-In the Long Term, New Judges may be Needed Due to
Population Changes in Southcentral Alaska
3:10:15 PM
Mr. Wooliver revealed slide 24: "FY16 and Beyond… (Cont.)."
-Improvement of Justice Facilities in Juneau,
Kotzebue, Bethel, and Nome and Additional Space in
Palmer
-Video Arraignment and Bandwidth Expansion
Mr. Wooliver discussed the court's capital requests that
were part of long range plans.
Mr. Wooliver moved to on slide 25: "FY16 Operating Budget."
-Annual Budget Development Process Commences in August
-FY16 Budget Approved by Supreme Court in October 2014
- Prior to the Severe Decline in Oil Prices
-FY16 Operating Budget Increment Requests Withdrawn
and Base Budget Reduced
Representative Wilson thought that judges should be able to
work longer than 70 years of age; as mandated by the
state's constitution.
Representative Gara declared that cases cost the state
significant amounts of money. He wondered whether the Court
System considered increasing court filing fees on a sliding
scale basis. Mr. Wooliver indicated that the Court System
was considering adjusting its fee structure.
Vice-Chair Saddler wanted to know how the courts measured
success in the Court System and particularly wondered
whether the Therapeutic Courts was effective. Mr. Wooliver
relayed that the measure for Therapeutic Courts was the
recidivism rate. He delineated that recidivism rates were
significantly lower for graduates of Therapeutic Courts.
Other measures of savings due to the Therapeutic Courts
that were difficult to quantify were less victims of crime
or less DUI accidents or deaths.
3:17:12 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler requested the information regarding the
recidivism rates related to the Therapeutic Courts. He
asked whether there were there objective measures for Court
System effectiveness besides the Therapeutic Courts. Mr.
Wooliver voiced that he could provide the committee with
the data from a recent Judicial Council study on recidivism
related to the Therapeutic Courts. He added that the Court
System had a six month rule statute that required judges to
sign an affidavit every two weeks stating that they do not
have work more than 6 months old or their pay is withheld.
Vice-Chair Saddler requested more information on the
relative effectiveness of the courts broken down by
different regions of the state. Mr. Wooliver responded that
he would provide the information broken down by district.
HB 72 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 73 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:19:52 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Judiciary HFIN Overview 2-2-15.pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2015 1:30:00 PM |
|
| DEC HFC Department Overview 02.02.15 (reduced file size).pdf |
HFIN 2/2/2015 1:30:00 PM |