Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/22/2016 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 22, 2016
1:33 p.m.
1:33:20 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Thompson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:33 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 Lance Pruitt
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Quinlan Steiner, Director, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; April Wilkerson, Director,
Division of Administrative Services, Department of
Corrections; Kelly Cunningham, Analyst, Legislative Finance
Division; Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; Diane Casto, Behavioral Health Policy Advisor,
Division of Behavior Health, Department of Health and
Social Services; Matt Davidson, Program Coordinator,
Division of Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and
Social Services; Lauree Morton, Executive Director, Council
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of
Public Safety; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System; Michele Michaud, Chief Health Officer, Division of
Retirement and Benefits, Department of Administration;
Senator John Coghill; Representative Lora Reinbold;
Representative Liz Vasquez.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Richard Allen, Director, Office of Public Advocacy,
Department of Administration; Amy Erickson, Director,
Division of Motor Vehicles, Department of Administration;
Tony Piper, Program Manager, Alcohol Safety Action Program,
Department of Health and Social Services; John Skidmore,
Director, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Kelly
Howell, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Public Safety; Gary Folger, Commissioner,
Department of Public Safety; Susanne Di Pietro, Alaska
Judicial Council.
SUMMARY
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM
OMNIBUS CRIM LAW & PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the meeting agenda.
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN) am
"An Act relating to criminal law and procedure;
relating to controlled substances; relating to
immunity from prosecution for the crime of
prostitution; relating to probation; relating to
sentencing; establishing a pretrial services program
with pretrial services officers in the Department of
Corrections; relating to the publication of suspended
entries of judgment on a publicly available Internet
website; relating to permanent fund dividends;
relating to electronic monitoring; relating to
penalties for violations of municipal ordinances;
relating to parole; relating to correctional
restitution centers; relating to community work
service; relating to revocation, termination,
suspension, cancellation, or restoration of a driver's
license; relating to the excise tax on marijuana;
establishing the recidivism reduction fund; relating
to the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission; relating to
the disqualification of persons convicted of specified
drug offenses from participation in the food stamp and
temporary assistance programs; relating to the duties
of the commissioner of corrections; amending Rules 32,
32.1, 38, 41, and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and repealing Rules 41(d) and (e), Alaska
Rules of Criminal Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
1:34:02 PM
Co-Chair Thompson discussed that the committee would
address the packet of fiscal notes. He relayed that they
would begin with the Department of Administration (DOA).
[Note: the committee addressed a packet of fiscal notes
numbered 1 through 20 for clarity. These numbers do not
actually correspond with the formal fiscal note numbers.]
RICHARD ALLEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
addressed the previously published zero fiscal note FN16
from the Office of Public Advocacy [labeled 1 at the top of
the packet; OMB Component Number 43]. He was available for
any questions.
Representative Gara asked if they could add some guardian
ad litem positions to the fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson replied in the negative.
Representative Gara asked about adding positions the
following year.
Co-Chair Thompson replied "maybe."
1:36:17 PM
AT EASE
1:37:07 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wilson asked how much of the returning
population was made up of second and third offenders who
would not recidivate again if the programs were successful.
Mr. Allen responded that the answer would be purely
speculative at the current time. The department was very
hopeful there would be a reduction in recidivism as a
result of the programs. He was uncomfortable providing a
speculative answer.
Representative Wilson asked how many repeat offenders
needed help multiple times. Mr. Allen replied that the
number was significant; about two-thirds of offenders
reoffended in some way.
Representative Wilson asked if there was any way to know
how many of the repeat offenders needed a public defender
versus a private attorney. Mr. Allen replied that the
majority of offenders received public defenders.
1:39:14 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, addressed the zero fiscal
note FN17 from the Public Defender Agency [labeled 2 at the
top of the packet; OMB Component Number 1631]. He
communicated that although the agency anticipated benefits
from the legislation, they were entirely speculative until
it was determined which programs would be funded and their
effectiveness was measured. He stated that recidivism had
been consistent; therefore, he had not been able to make
any projection about what kind of reduction in workload
would occur. Additionally, it was important to remember
that caseloads had far exceeded the budget growth for many
decades. He noted that the agency had never really caught
up completely. He reiterated that it was difficult to know
what fiscal benefit may occur.
Representative Wilson asked if the agency would be keeping
statistics on whether the growth kept outweighing what the
agency had or if a decrease occurred.
Mr. Steiner replied that the agency tracked its
appointments and could determine the number from year-to-
year. He noted that the actual workload per case was harder
to estimate objectively; the agency did not have the tools
to measure the objective workload.
Representative Wilson wondered if the agency kept track of
repeat clients. Mr. Steiner answered in the negative. He
elaborated that it would require an audit of the workload.
Representative Gara thanked agency staff for working very
long hours. He surmised that even though the number of
cases may decrease, an increase in the number of intensive
therapeutic court cases would add more work. Mr. Steiner
affirmed that therapeutic court cases tended to involve
more work than one that resolved as a plea agreement
because the case would continue and would require advising
the client and participation. He spoke to the difference
between caseload and workload; one was easy to measure
objectively, while the other was not.
1:42:41 PM
Representative Guttenberg recognized that Mr. Steiner could
be criticized for almost any number put in the fiscal note.
He surmised that zero may have been the safest bet because
the number was not known. He remarked that throughout the
bill hearings the committee had heard that they would get
to the cost when the fiscal notes were discussed. He
communicated that the commissioner had spent some time
talking about the success of the various programs in other
states. He furthered that portions of the agency's workload
may get bigger or smaller as a result of the legislation.
He asked if the agency had looked at a change in caseloads
and the type of work it would have to do compared to what
was happening in other states.
Mr. Steiner answered "not specifically." He elaborated that
the agency used the current standard from the American Bar
Association (ABA) on how many cases a public defender could
handle in one year. Currently, the agency had more cases
than the standard allowed. He furthered that some states
had done specific workload studies and ended up having much
lower maximum caseloads than the ABA standard. However, it
required a level of work that the agency did not currently
have. He explained that there was a substantial study that
went along with keeping track of time to come to a
defensible number. He stated that they were very
jurisdiction specific. He had looked at other states in
regards to how they looked at workload versus caseload, but
not with respect to the changes in workload as a result of
the initiatives. He relayed in the future he would like to
get a better, more objective measure of workload.
Representative Guttenberg stated that "we're all looking
forward to the success" of the bill. He reasoned that part
of the success would be requiring the agency to have the
ability to monitor the information. He asked if the agency
currently had that capability.
Mr. Steiner answered that the agency would have the
capability to keep track of time. He expounded that
technically it was not that difficult as it could be
written down. The ability to process, collate, and analyze
the information would require something that the agency did
not have funding for. He referred to the work as a
qualitative adjustment. For example, the information may
show what a person was doing; however, it was difficult to
show if a person was not doing something they were supposed
to be doing. Compiling and analyzing the information would
require additional funding.
Representative Guttenberg stated that much of what the
committee was trying to do was to have the agency
communicate what it would not need to do. He acknowledged
that was difficult.
Vice-Chair Saddler did not know how there would be a zero
impact on the agency if there was more court activity. He
wondered if the fiscal note should be indeterminate because
the agency did not quite know what the effects would be. He
remarked that a zero note was pretty definitive.
Mr. Steiner estimated that there would not be overall
additional work as a result of the bill. He estimated that
additional work that may occur in therapeutic courts may be
offset by the daily jail trips the agency would not have to
make. He noted that the time the agency spent visiting
jails on a daily basis was very time consuming. He reasoned
that with fewer people in jail, lawyers would have more
time to work on their cases in their offices. He had no way
of estimating the exact impact. He continued that because
caseloads had exceeded budget growth for decades, even if
there was a benefit in the short-term, there would not be
an immediate decrement the agency could take; they would
still be around the maximum caseload. He stated that the
issue needed to be figured out in the future. He explained
that if the changes under the bill worked properly, it was
theoretically possible that a caseload would decrease
enough for the agency to ethically take a decrement.
However, the agency had already taken decrements over the
past few years to staffing, which was pushing the maximum
caseload over the limit.
1:48:01 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler thought an indeterminate fiscal note may
be more accurate.
Mr. Steiner answered that he had always used indeterminate
fiscal notes when he knew there would be a fiscal impact
increasing the agency's costs, but the actual cost could
not be determined. He did not believe there would be
additional work as a result of the bill; therefore, he
submitted a zero fiscal note.
Representative Gara stated that it would be a zero fiscal
note because the agency was used to working longer hours;
it would be the same number of people, but working longer
hours if needed. He believed it was unfortunate, but it was
the current reality.
Co-Chair Thompson moved on the next fiscal note from DOA,
specifically related to the Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV).
AMY ERICKSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
addressed a new zero fiscal note from the House Finance
Committee for the Department of Administration [labeled 3
at the top of the packet; OMB Component Number 2348]. She
explained that DMV had originally submitted a fiscal impact
note due to provisions related to an off-highway licensing
amendment; however, the committee had changed the note to
zero impact. The division believed it would require a new
position for DMV and the annual loss of approximately
$137,000 in vehicle registration fees.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the zero fiscal note
accurately reflected the bill given the inclusion of the
off-highway provision.
Co-Chair Thompson replied that there would be a change to
the bill that would account for the zero fiscal note.
Representative Gattis relayed that the committee was still
working on the bill and it would reflect the zero fiscal
note.
1:50:59 PM
Co-Chair Thompson noted that as any changes were made the
committee would receive updated fiscal notes from the
administration. He moved on to discuss fiscal notes from
the Department of Corrections (DOC).
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, spoke to a previously
published fiscal note FN18 from DOC [labeled 4 at the top
of the packet; OMB Component Number 698]. She relayed that
the fiscal note included the funding needed in order to
adjust the department's offender time accounting system
within the Alaska Corrections Offender Management System
(ACOMS) database to accurately reflect the good-time and
time accounting changes reflective in the bill. It was
anticipated that the department would need about $1.5
million to address the changes as well as any changes
associated with the department's Victim Information
Notification System.
Representative Wilson stated that the department already
kept track of good-time and ensuring victims were notified
about when it was time for them to arrive. She wanted to
know what needed to be changed. She opined that a better
system was needed if $1 million was required every time a
change was made.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the changes in the bill would
require a contractor to write a new program for ACOMS. She
explained that the current offender time management
accounting system was pretty complicated. She explained
that to increase and adjust the time calculated by the
database would require an additional contractor to come in
to make the changes. Given the short amount of time
available to deploy the changes, the department's
programmers could maintain the system; however, the changes
impacted many levels of the system and resulted in system
corruptions when applied.
Representative Wilson discussed that good-time and pretrial
were both currently used by DOC. She observed that the bill
opened up the options for a few additional people to
utilize. She did not see how the bill was actually changing
the system.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that the division had looked at the
issue and it did not currently have the ability to rewrite
the formula for the time accounting currently being
applied; they would need the additional resources to
rewrite the code.
Representative Wilson stated that good-time was currently
allowed and the bill would make a few more people eligible.
She asked if the fiscal note included costs of needed
upgrades that did not necessarily apply to the bill.
Ms. Wilkerson answered in the negative. She clarified that
it was not about fixing the database, it was taking the
database from its current spot and moving it forward.
1:55:53 PM
Ms. Wilkerson would follow up with the committee on the
question.
Representative Wilson surmised that the bill was not
changing the population and there were existing mechanisms
for everything currently provided. She furthered that the
bill broadened the spectrum of individuals eligible for the
option [good-time]. She wanted to understand the difference
between increasing eligibility and how time was currently
kept. She looked forward to the answer from DOC.
Ms. Wilkerson addressed a new fiscal impact note from DOC
[labeled 5 at the top of the packet; OMB Component Number
1381]. She explained that it reflected the anticipated
reduction in the prison population over the coming fiscal
years as a result of sentencing changes and good-time
credits. In the first year, DOC anticipated a reduction in
the population of 299 offenders that equated to $4.5
million. In FY 18 DOC anticipated a reduction of 1,363
offenders for an overall reduction of $20.6 million. She
furthered that the department anticipated a continued
reduction in 2019 of 205 offenders with an additional $3.1
million reduction. The department expected a slight
increase in inmates beginning in 2020 by about 112 totaling
$1.7 million. In 2021 and 2022 the anticipated increase was
139 and 172 inmates respectively. However, the overall net
impact was a reduction of $21.86 million.
Vice-Chair Saddler wondered about the reason for the
increase beginning in 2020. He asked if the trend was
expected to continue increasing, which would eliminate the
savings in another five or so years.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that the impacts of the legislation
were seen in the first four years; however, once the
impacts of the legislation were assumed, the net result of
the increases in the population would be witnessed. She
explained that murder charges would still go on and other
areas in other criminal activity would drive the population
back up. She explained that the trend did continue to
increase in the out years at a much slower and more leveled
off rate.
1:59:13 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the accelerated rate would
continue forward and for how many years. Ms. Wilkerson did
not have the data on hand. She would follow up with the
information.
Co-Chair Thompson remarked that hopefully the legislation
would change some behavior and reduce the number of violent
crimes in the future.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the projected population
reduction figures included individuals who would reoffend.
He stated that currently two-thirds of the offender
population reoffended within the first two years.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the negative. The recidivism was
not included in the numbers. The numbers illustrated the
anticipated reductions from changes to sentencing and laws.
Representative Kawasaki thought the point of the bill was
to develop a restorative justice model through the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission work. He reasoned that it
should be built into the fiscal note if the state was still
anticipating that two-thirds of the individuals would
reoffend.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that it should be reflected in the
other fiscal notes related to changes in probation,
credits, additional community treatments, and other areas
in the legislation.
Co-Chair Thompson recognized Senator John Coghill in the
audience.
Representative Gattis saw SB 91 as a way the state and
criminals would do business differently. She continued that
the bill looked at how to treat criminals. She decided to
hear about the remaining fiscal notes from DOC prior to
asking another question.
2:01:48 PM
Representative Pruitt did not see a reduction in personnel
reflected in the fiscal note. He remarked that the note
indicated significant savings with the reduction in
population management. He wondered if there would be a
reduction or if the positions would move to other areas
that would need additional people.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that as the population declined into
FY 18 and FY 19, the department anticipated that it would
be able to identify a potential closure of a facility and a
reallocation of the resources. She explained that the
fiscal note related to pretrial showed indeterminate out-
years because DOC anticipated being able to reallocate the
resources towards pretrial and remaining facilities that
were likely short staffed.
Representative Pruitt spoke to the prison population
numbers and observed that the big savings would occur in
2018. He believed the effective date of the bill was in the
current year. He asked for verification that the bill would
change jail time for individuals who had already been in
jail for a period of time.
Ms. Wilkerson responded in the affirmative. She explained
that the bill would change release dates, furlough
eligibility dates, and early release from parole and
probation.
Representative Pruitt asked for verification that the
changes resulted in the high cost savings shown in FY 18.
He noted the number was high at almost 1,400.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative.
2:04:31 PM
Representative Wilson referred to the estimated reduced
prison population for FY 17 (299) and FY 18 (1,363) on page
two of the fiscal note. She asked if the combined numbers
would be enough to close one of the state's prisons.
Ms. Wilkerson answered in the affirmative; however, DOC
would have to take a look at the remaining population and
its needs. She furthered that it could potentially be a
portion of a facility or an entire facility.
Representative Gara believed the biggest goal was to avoid
the need for building another prison. He pointed to the
estimated $4.52 million savings in FY 17 and asked if the
fiscal note had written recently or earlier in session.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the note had been updated on
April 15, 2016.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to the last line on the second
page of the fiscal note that read "annual savings are
calculated using a marginal cost rate of $41.49 per day per
person." He had seen a number of about $150 [per day]. He
asked for detail about the $41.49 figure and wondered
whether the state would be saving as much as it thought.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that DOC had selected a marginal
rate. She detailed that the daily cost of care rate for the
current calendar year was $141.17 per day per inmate. She
explained that the figure included "all in" costs. Known
costs such as utilities and staffing had been removed from
the cost of care document and adjustable costs had been
added in to arrive at a marginal cost. She stated that in
the future there could potentially be a higher reduction in
savings if a facility closed.
2:07:08 PM
Ms. Wilkerson addressed a previously published zero fiscal
note FN20 from DOC related to probation and parole [labeled
6 at the top of the packet; OMB Component Number 2826]. She
explained that the legislation granted credit and provided
for an incentive program for allowing good-time to
probationers. She detailed that for 30 days of compliance a
probationer could receive 30 days off of their probation
sentence. The department anticipated a reduction in the
probation caseloads; however, it also anticipated
additional individuals coming onto the caseloads from those
earning good-time out of the facilities. The department
estimated that it would be a wash; therefore, it had
submitted a zero fiscal note.
Co-Chair Thompson observed that the numbers would offset
each other.
Co-Chair Neuman asked if there was anything in the fiscal
note that would reflect changes in the sentencing and
parole for good-time for sexual offenders.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the fiscal note factored the
item in. She detailed that DOC had sex offender probation
officers with current caseloads and the adjustment had been
calculated into the fiscal note.
Ms. Wilkerson addressed a new fiscal impact note from House
Finance Committee for DOC [labeled 7 at the top of the
packet; OMB Component Number 2244]. The note requested
$300,000 in FY 17, $500,000 in FY 18, and $200,000 in FY
19. She explained that the funding would be utilized to
support the community residential center programming. The
note was reflective of the changes in Section 158 of the
legislation requiring departments to have contract
providers deliver rehabilitation programming that would
also set standards for treatment and risk assessments of
individuals housed in those facilities.
2:09:56 PM
Co-Chair Thompson clarified that the fiscal note before the
committee showed an annual cost of $1 million in FY 19
through FY 22. Ms. Wilkerson answered that she had received
a revised fiscal note from the House Finance Committee.
Co-Chair Thompson elucidated that the fiscal note was dated
April 21, 2016 and indicated the annual cost of $1 million
in FY 19 through FY 22. Ms. Wilkerson clarified that she
had been reading the increments per fiscal year for a net
total of $1 million beginning in FY 19 and going forward.
Representative Wilson believed the state was paying for
open beds in many of the facilities. She asked why some of
the open beds could not offset some of the costs included
in the fiscal note.
Ms. Wilkerson responded that DOC anticipated renegotiating
all of the contracts to utilize the funding for increased
programming.
Representative Wilson provided a scenario where there were
60 inmates in a 100-bed facility but the state was paying
for all 100 beds. She asked if there was a way the new
program costs could be covered by the extra cost being paid
to the facility for the empty beds.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that DOC anticipated filling the
beds with the releasing population. She noted that the
department did not anticipate increasing the bed count.
Representative Wilson reasoned that the department would
save money when costs of $150 [per inmate per day] were
reduced to a significantly lower number. She thought the
money would filter down from the prison to the community
residential centers. She did not see where there would be
an increase in money because savings from one area could be
shifted to pay for another area within the department.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the department had looked at
whether they should decrement down, but had made the
decision to try to maintain the funding because it was
working to get the beds filled. The department had recently
changed one of the practices in the Anchorage area and had
started placing the unsentenced population back in the
community residential center. The rest of the community
residential centers were primarily filled at 99 percent
capacity. She elaborated that DOC anticipated using the
regular beds and portions of per diem beds, which would
require the need for the additional funding to meet the
need for substance abuse programming.
Representative Wilson voiced concern that there was no
backup on the fiscal note showing whether the department
would need to hire more people. She remarked that unlike
the previous fiscal note there was no reflection of savings
that would result. She stressed that there was no backup to
explain the $300,000. She thought additional backup
information was needed to explain "how may are going to be
changed over," whether the centers would need to hire more
people, and other.
2:14:20 PM
Ms. Wilkerson answered that there had been a second page to
the fiscal note. She explained that the calculation had
come about based on the department's internal programming
cost. The department did not anticipate allowing a
contractor to charge more than what it would cost DOC to do
the work in-house under current contracts.
Representative Wilson requested page two of the fiscal
note.
Representative Kawasaki agreed that having the second page
of the fiscal note would be beneficial.
Co-Chair Thompson asked if Ms. Wilkerson had the second
page. Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Thompson asked staff to provide the second page to
the committee.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the description on page
1 of the fiscal note indicated that it had been revised and
that it was funding for community residential centers. He
asked if it was the same as correctional restitution
centers.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Saddler observed that $1 million to cover the
cost for the community residential center comprehensive
treatment for substance abuse, cognitive behavior
disorders, and other criminal risk factors including after
care was a substantial mission. He asked how confident DOC
was that the $1 million would cover the cost for all of the
services for 800 beds. He stated that if the amount was
accurate he would love to apply the model elsewhere in
behavioral health services.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that the department was currently
providing the cognitive programs within the institutions at
the rate used to calculate the items on the fiscal note.
The department believed that it could expand the programs
out to meet the community through existing institutional
contracts or through the community residential centers.
2:17:02 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler expressed interest in the rate. He
observed that the funds were all in services (excluding
personal services). He asked if the work would be
contracted out to privately run community residential
centers.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative. She detailed that
the work would either come directly through the programs
offered through the community residential centers or
through DOC contract providers that were currently
providing institutional support.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked how many correctional restitution
centers the state operated or contracted with.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the department had eight
contract facilities and six contracts; it had locations in
Bethel, Juneau, Fairbanks, Nome, three centers in
Anchorage. She clarified there were seven.
Representative Wilson clarified that the funding included
in the fiscal note was not undesignated general funds
(UGF); it was recidivism reduction money. She explained
that the department was using money that was currently in
the system for the costs, which had been her initial
question. She had initially thought the fiscal note funding
source was new money; it was not new money - it was money
used from a savings from a reduction in hard beds moved
over to community residential centers for treatment.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the daily rate. Ms.
Wilkerson asked for clarification.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked about the daily rate for services
identified in the fiscal note. Ms. Wilkerson answered that
the cost was approximately $3.35 per person per day.
2:19:18 PM
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
clarified that the fiscal note did use new funds. She did
not believe the committee had addressed the projected
receipts from the marijuana tax that were in the bill. She
detailed that the bill created a new sub-fund of the
General Fund, which would fund the fiscal note.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the fiscal note and
the use of money from the recidivism reduction fund, which
used marijuana tax funds. He observed that the tax money
was not expected to come in for several years. He remarked
on the request for FY 17 and FY 18 and noted that the tax
revenue was currently unknown. He stated that earlier in
the week Commissioner Williams had expressed concerns about
substance abuse control in the community residential
centers. He furthered that the commissioner had noted
concern about sending a person needing treatment into one
of the centers, but the environment was inappropriate. He
asked how the fiscal note impacted the concern.
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
replied that he had been speaking broadly about the issue.
He detailed that there were some halfway houses that were
doing quite well and others that had some specific
problems. He expounded that improving the community
residential centers would not be an overnight process. He
did not see a conflict in terms of starting to build up
what was happening inside the halfway houses while the
department continued to improve them. He explained that the
contractors wanted the centers to be clean and operating
well. He believed the area had been neglected a bit in
terms of paying attention to and improving the quality. As
the state continued to rely more on halfway houses he
believed it was consistent with the aim of the bill.
Representative Guttenberg wanted treatment to go where it
would be most effective. He spoke to the prevalence of
substance abuse inside of prisons, which amazed him. He
wanted to ensure that when a substance abuse treatment
program was put into a halfway house, people were put in an
appropriate place and environment.
Co-Chair Thompson acknowledged Representative Lora
Reinbold's presence in the audience.
2:23:40 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if the increment for the
correctional restitution centers was because the cost of a
contract inclusive of other treatments would be higher.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the funding would add in the
additional element of providing the programming, but would
not change the current bed rate. There was additional
language that would require that measures were taken to not
mix the high and low custody offenders. She explained that
the risk assessments of the offenders and the mixing of the
population would also be addressed.
Representative Kawasaki asked if it would be additional
funding for additional support staff to visit facilities to
offer the treatment. Alternatively, he asked if it was
something they already did or may be able to add on and the
money was for an increase in the contract cost.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that it was a combination of both.
She detailed that it would go to contract if the contractor
could provide the level of programming approved by the
department. Otherwise, the department would be providing
contract services to go into the community residential
centers to provide the services.
Vice-Chair Saddler did not see how it was possible to
provide the services for $3.25 per day per person. He
remarked that there were many people who would like to
receive substance abuse treatment and if it could be
provided for $3.25 he was interested in learning more about
it.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the cost of care was calculated
to get an average; the average was used based on the number
of beds. The risk assessments would be a deciding factor on
who actually would receive programming. She explained that
it could be that not all of the 819 individuals would
receive the programming. She elaborated that the cost was
fluctuating, but it was an average; it would be a higher
rate for an actual individual served.
Representative Edgmon remarked that the committee had
recently passed an omnibus healthcare bill (SB 74). He
asked if there were any provisions in SB 74 that related to
the area the DOC fiscal notes (for SB 91) addressed,
specifically in terms of behavioral health.
Ms. Wilkerson responded in the negative. She elaborated
that the provisions did not apply to incarcerated
individuals, which did include individuals housed in the
community residential centers and under probation (only
those outside of the facility for more than 24 hours).
Ms. Cunningham relayed that she had helped to prepare the
revised fiscal note. She noted that she had tried to fit it
into one page, which she believed had been a mistake.
2:28:16 PM
Ms. Wilkerson addressed a new fiscal impact note from DOC
related to the Parole Board [labeled 8 at the top of the
packet; OMB Component Number 695]. She explained that the
fiscal note was not an increase overall. She expounded that
for FY 17, the Parole Board believed it needed five
positions and $775,000, which included the one-time startup
cost. Going into FY 18 there was a slight drop down to a
contained budget of $700,900 and the five positions, which
continued on. The funding was made up of a couple of
different areas. She detailed that there was an
anticipation of increased board hearings associated with
re-incarcerated individuals. Currently individuals had up
to 120 days before appearing before the board again. The
changes in the legislation required the number to change to
within 15 days; therefore, there was an expectation to
increase the number of days the board met. She explained
that $110,000 of the $700,000 would meet the increased days
associated with board members. Additionally, there was an
anticipated need for four additional hearing officers,
which were currently classified as adult probation officer
III positions; the total for the positions and operating
needs was $553,000. The board would also need an additional
time accounting officer (criminal justice technician) and
operating costs, which totaled $112,000 per year. She
summarized that the combined total would be $775,000 in the
first year [FY 17].
2:30:05 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the previous version of
the fiscal note, which addressed the redesign and
implementation for the Victim Information Network. He
observed that the number was actually in the fiscal note
currently before the committee. He asked why the redesign
of the system would cost $775,000.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that the amount had been an error.
The fiscal note had been revised and had been submitted
earlier that day.
Representative Kawasaki stated that in the fiscal note
addressed the total honoraria for members of the Parole
Board. He remarked that the board had previously been part-
time at 140 work days per year. He observed that the number
of work days was increasing to 200 days, which was close to
a full-time job. He wondered if there had been any
consideration about changing the board structure to make it
easier for people to serve in a part-time capacity.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that she was unaware of the
conversations, but she could work with the commissioner and
the board executive director and chair, to determine if it
could help reduce the cost.
Commissioner Williams elaborated that he and the board
director had already had the conversation; the department
was looking at the idea to determine how to streamline the
board process and to eliminate the need for all board
members to travel to meetings. He stated that it may impact
some regulation issues. He was looking for savings because
the parole issue would be increasing substantially in the
bill and would demand developing options for savings. He
reiterated that the discussion was already underway.
Representative Kawasaki believed there was an error in the
fiscal note. He pointed to the section on discretionary
parole, which included language about all inmates over the
age of 60. He believed the bill used the age of 55. He
believed the approximate number of inmates should be
probably higher when accounting for the bill language.
2:33:17 PM
Representative Wilson commented that she was glad the
commissioner was looking at saving money; however, she
believed that when victims addressed the Parole Board, they
would probably rather talk to people in person. She stated
that it was not only about the inmates; it was the victim's
chance to voice whether they agreed or disagreed with a
potential parole. She asked how much the bill's provision
applying to individuals over the age of 55 impacted the
fiscal note.
Ms. Wilkerson answered that there were currently only about
112 individuals over the age of 55; however, there were
caveats that would prohibit them from actually being
released.
Representative Wilson understood that the fiscal note would
be fairly substantial. She wondered if the numbers would
decrease after adjusting and the system became normalized.
Alternatively, she wondered if the number would always be
high based on how much quicker the state was trying to get
people through the system, which was the reason for a
steady annual cost going forward.
Ms. Wilkerson affirmed that the ongoing cost was due to the
timeframe and turnaround.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if Ms. Wilkerson had stated that
there were 112 prisoners who were age 55 or older and who
had served at least 10 years. Ms. Wilkerson replied "both."
There were 112 prisoners (age 55 or older) who were
convicted sex offenders and had met the 10-year
requirement.
2:35:18 PM
Ms. Wilkerson spoke to a new fiscal impact note from DOC
[labeled 9 at the top of the packet; OMB Component Number
3121]. The note established the pretrial services within
DOC. The department anticipated a cost of $3.26 million (30
percent of the total funding) and 29 positions in the first
year. There were three parts of the pretrial services
including assessment, basic supervision (including
monitoring and regular drug testing), and enhanced
supervision. The overall anticipated cost once fully
implemented would be approximately 80 positions to operate
the service and a total of approximately $10.2 million for
the department to supervise the population.
Representative Wilson stated that she had the most concerns
about the pretrial fiscal note. She asked whether the
department currently did any kind of assessment.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the department currently did
assessments upon sentencing; individuals sentenced to
incarceration of 30 days or more received an assessment.
The assessment related to pretrial was a much shorter
version than any of the department's current assessments.
She detailed that it was a non-contact assessment with a
review of the offender's criminal history and a gathering
of just enough information to provide a recommendation to
the judge.
Representative Wilson asked if it could be a computer
generated program where a person answered questions
electronically and an individual later reviewed the
answers.
Ms. Wilkerson deferred the question to Commissioner
Williams.
Commissioner Williams responded that he had not seen any
program that just did it automatically because it was data
that someone would have to enter online. He stated that
most of the data would be online in terms of criminal
record issues and related information. He stated that as
time passed there was an expectation that the department
would get better at determining how to gather the data. He
believed it would require people to do the assessment; he
did not know of any way of automating that portion of the
process. He relayed that there were other states that
continued to do better - he was looking to the least amount
of people who could do the job. He still believed it would
require individuals to do the work.
2:38:50 PM
Representative Wilson asked if there was a way to only do
one assessment - there was already an assessment upon
sentencing - instead of multiple assessments that required
hiring new people. She understood that they were two
different areas [pretrial and upon sentencing].
Commissioner Williams replied that the assessments were
dramatically different in scope. The pretrial risk
assessment would be very straight forward and simple;
however the assessment done upon sentencing was much more
extensive and dealt with needs issues. The pretrial
assessment was done at the frontend without doing
interviews of people charged with crimes. There may be some
way of rolling the two together, but it was real work in
terms of doing the assessment. He believed the process
could possibly be centralized. The reason the department
was given time to do the work was to ensure it had the most
sensible and efficient plan possible. He added that it
would still require personnel.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that everyone
(including individuals who could afford bail) would go
through the pretrial assessment. She mentioned basic and
enhanced supervision and asked if there may be a way for
individuals who could afford to pay for the supervision, to
pay for the service. She asked if other states had required
those pretrial individuals who could afford to pay, to pay
for the service - like they would for electronic
monitoring.
Commissioner Williams replied that the entire strategy was
to deal with the whole bail problem; to try to get away
from the situation where individuals who could afford bail
were released from prison, but poor individuals remained in
prison. The goal had been to "turn that ship rather
dramatically." The idea was that regardless of a person's
ability to pay bail, the department would do an assessment
to determine whether the person would make the next court
appearance and what kind of risk the person represented to
DOC. He stated that if a person had money it should not
matter; the judge should have more objective standards. He
referred to data showing that the area had grown
dramatically - there were hundreds to thousands of people
in prison at present awaiting trial. He stressed that some
of those individuals should absolutely be in jail, but
there were others where that may not be the case. He
continued that if the individuals could be identified it
was much less expensive to keep them out of jail and to
prevent them from mixing with more serious criminals. It
was a dramatic change that moved away from bail being the
driving factor.
Representative Wilson agreed with Commissioner Williams's
statements and was glad there would be an avenue for
individuals who could not afford bail. However, some people
could afford to pay for the supervision. She wanted to
ensure the state was looking into individuals who could
afford the supervision. For example, if DOC determined a
person was at a medium risk and they would have paid to get
out on bail, she wanted to make sure that the individual
may have to pay for supervision (just like a person who
chose to pay for electronic monitoring). She stressed that
the fiscal note would grow from $3 million [FY 17] to $10
million [FY 18]. She wanted to ensure that there was way
for individuals to pay if they could afford it.
2:43:54 PM
Representative Kawasaki spoke to the risk assessment tool
that would be used to determine whether a [pretrial] person
should be let out of jail or not. He asked if the
department would still impose bail if an individual could
pay.
Commissioner Williams believed that the judge would still
have discretion about the issue of bail. He elaborated that
it would give the courts a much more objectified tool to
help the judiciary decide what should happen. He deferred
the question to Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court
System for further detail.
Representative Kawasaki remarked that the fiscal note
mentioned the establishment of regional offices in
Anchorage, Juneau, and Palmer. He asked why the specific
locations had been selected.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the regions had been selected
based on the judicial branches that the regions currently
covered. The department was continuing to look at the
locations to determine whether they were the most
appropriate.
Representative Kawasaki pointed to the 29 full-time
positions [under FY 17]. He believed it would be an 80-
position fiscal note in subsequent years. He wondered why
the fiscal note included an asterisk in the columns for
subsequent fiscal years.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that the number was indeterminate
in those years.
Representative Kawasaki reasoned that the text of the
fiscal note did indicate that the full program would be 80
full-time positions, which was reflected in the $10.1
million request.
Vice-Chair Saddler was also trying to reconcile the issue.
He referred to the backup pages of the fiscal note that
indicated there would be 80 full-time positions or 49
positions without enhanced supervision. He asked for
verification that more people would be hired, but the
precise number was not yet known.
Ms. Wilkerson replied in the affirmative. She pointed to
the last statement on page 4 of the fiscal note, which
indicated that going into FY 18, DOC anticipated that
additional positions needed would be offset any increase up
to 80 by adjusting the positions from the facility out to
the pretrial.
Co-Chair Thompson pointed to page 2 of the fiscal note and
expressed amazement at the 32,000 offender assessments
processed annually, which were required within a 24-hour
period.
2:47:19 PM
Ms. Wilkerson spoke to a new fiscal impact note from the
House Finance Committee for DOC [labeled 10 at the top of
the packet; OMB Component Number 2974]. She detailed that
the note increased the current substance abuse treatment
programming within the institutions by $700,000 in FY 17
and an additional $300,000 beginning in FY 18. The total
annual cost beginning in FY 18 would be $1 million through
FY 22. The goal was to provide treatment services to more
of the incarcerated population.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for verification that the funding
source was recidivism reduction money. Ms. Wilkerson
replied in the affirmative. She detailed that the funding
source was marijuana and alcohol tax.
Representative Guttenberg stated that the legislation
stipulated that 50 percent of the marijuana tax went to the
recidivism reduction fund. He remarked that the tax revenue
was not currently known. He noted that he had an amendment
that would increase the percentage. He stated that the list
of items to fund with recidivism reduction revenue included
substance abuse and alcohol treatment. He asked if the fund
source could only be used in the recidivism reduction
program or in treatment programs for individuals who were
not in the program.
Ms. Wilkerson replied that the language in the most recent
version of the bill allowed the funding to go to DOC
behavioral health; funds were designated to the department
specifically for substance abuse treatment programming.
2:50:03 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked for verification that the
funds could not be used for on treatment services for
people outside of the correctional system. Ms. Wilkerson
replied in the affirmative.
Representative Kawasaki observed that incarcerated mental
health and medical health had been an increasing number. He
asked how much the state currently spent on the behavioral
health budget related to the inmate population. Ms.
Wilkerson answered that the current DOC behavioral health
budget for FY 17 was $8.36 million.
Representative Kawasaki remarked that the fiscal note
included a substantial increase, which he believed was well
warranted.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked the fiscal note for institutional
substance abuse treatment programs included correctional
restitution centers. Ms. Wilkerson answered that the fiscal
note only pertained to correctional institutions and did
not include community residential centers.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for a brief outline of the number
of programs in the DOC institutions. Ms. Wilkerson
responded that in FY 15 there had been just over 600
inmates who completed the short-term Life Success Substance
Abuse Treatment (LSSAT) and just over 150 who had completed
the long-term Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT)
program within a correctional center.
2:52:45 PM
Co-Chair Thompson moved on to fiscal notes from the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). He asked
the department to address the committee.
DIANE CASTO, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH POLICY ADVISOR, DIVISION OF
BEHAVIOR HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
spoke to a previously published fiscal impact note FN25
from the DHSS, Division of Behavioral Health [labeled 11 at
the top of the packet; OMB Component Number 3099] and a
previously published fiscal impact note FN 28 from DHSS,
Medicaid Services [labeled 14 at the top of the packet; OMB
Component Number 2660]. She explained that the two fiscal
notes were tied to the same activities; one note used
Medicaid funding and the other used the recidivism
reduction fund. She explained that the fiscal notes funded
reentry community work, particularly with the Partners
Reentry Center in Anchorage; the four community reentry
coalitions in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, and Mat-Su; and
four developing community reentry coalitions in Dillingham,
Nome, Bethel, and Kenai. She remarked that the second page
of the fiscal notes were the same and listed the types of
reentry services. She noted that the previous day DHSS had
spoken to the committee about how the center was working to
get direct referrals from DOC institutions as individuals
were released; the reentry center helped individuals to
find jobs and housing, receive training, and get referrals
for treatment and services. She relayed that the coalitions
were still in a more grass roots development stage; four of
the centers were currently doing assessments of the
capacity in their communities and would then work to
develop the capacity and to start developing a reentry
center in each of the communities. The reentry centers
would provide services and good referral to the community
service system.
Ms. Casto outlined that FN25 [also labeled 11 at the top of
the page] used money from the recidivism reduction fund and
included $1 million in FY 17 to provide funding for the
Partners Reentry Center in Anchorage, four coalitions
currently funded with startup money from the Alaska Mental
Health Trust Authority, and startup funds for the four new
reentry centers. She noted that the department would be
happy to work with other communities if they began
developing reentry centers. The cost increased to $2
million in FY 18 and $1.625 million in FY 19 through FY 22.
She explained that in FY 19 through FY 22 the amount of
recidivism reduction funding was reduced; $375,000 in FY 14
recidivism reduction funding to leverage an additional
$1.25 million in federal Medicaid matching funds. She
explained that in the outlying years as Medicaid reform
took effect, DHSS would leverage the money to provide
additional funding at the community level. There were also
a couple of other things that would help broaden the
ability of communities to provide the services.
2:58:56 PM
Ms. Casto elaborated that the changes in behavioral health
reform and a possible 1115 waiver would potentially enable
the department to increase the kind of services it could
bill for Medicaid such as transitional housing, case
management, and peer support services. Another thing that
would help DHSS broaden its ability to maximize the funds
was the change anticipated to remove the current regulation
enabling a provider to only bill Medicaid if they had a
behavioral health grant. She expounded that the regulation
change would open Medicaid billing up to private providers
and other nonprofits without grants. The combined annual
funding from the two fiscal notes in FY 19 through FY 22
was $3.125 million.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that the reentry
centers were not the same as correctional restitution
centers. Ms. Casto answered in the affirmative. She
detailed that the reentry coalition centers were a
community based program to support individuals released
from the correctional system. She added that hopefully more
reentry centers would be developed.
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to page two of FN28 [also
labeled 14 at the top of the page] that specified there was
currently only one reentry center operating in Alaska. He
asked if it was the pathways center.
Ms. Casto replied that it was the Partners Reentry Center,
which was part of Partners for Progress in Anchorage.
Representative Wilson asked about the current amount in the
Recidivism Reduction Fund. Ms. Casto believed there was
currently zero money in the fund - the fund source was
marijuana tax, which had not yet begun.
Representative Wilson thought she had heard Ms. Casto say
that AMHTA would initially provide funding because there
was zero money in the fund at present.
Ms. Casto replied that there were currently four coalitions
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, and Juneau. The coalitions
had been in a grass roots process for a while; for the
current year, AMHTA in partnership with DOC had provided a
$100,000 grant to hire a coordinator. One of stipulations
of the money was the requirement to conduct a thorough
community assessment of the services, gaps, needs, number
of anticipated clients, and other. The department's hope
was to expand the funding in the following year and to
expand funds to the other four developing coalitions.
3:03:11 PM
Representative Wilson remarked that about $6.336 million in
the two fiscal notes was based on the recidivism reduction
fund that currently contained zero funding. She asked if
someone was going to provide the committee with the
anticipated tax revenue from marijuana. She stated that the
entire fiscal notes were based on a fund that contained no
money.
Ms. Cunningham answered that SB 91 created the recidivism
reduction fund; marijuana tax revenue estimates were based
on the Revenue Sources Book from the Department of Revenue.
She noted that the initial range had been from $3 million
to $30 million. She believed the revenue book included a
figure of $12 million. She explained that the fiscal notes
utilized $3 million in FY 17; there was an anticipation of
$6 million in tax revenue to be collected in FY 17.
Representative Wilson asked what would happen if the state
did not bring in enough revenue from marijuana sales. She
remarked that there were background checks required in the
bill. She noted it looked like there would be $3 million in
General Funds. She requested follow up on the question. She
believed it was sorrowful that the entire system would
depend on how profitable marijuana would be.
Representative Kawasaki asked if the reentry coalitions
were 501(c)3 organizations. Ms. Casto answered that some
were. She elaborated that most frequently community
coalitions were grassroots organizations; they were
initially not organized in any way other than a group of
passionate people who wanted to create change. She believed
that one of the existing four coalitions was a 501(c)3, the
other three had a coalition member serving as a fiscal
agent to collect the grant money from AMHTA. She expounded
that if the coalitions chose to become a reentry center
they would have to become a nonprofit. In many cases, the
coalition may stay as a more grassroots organization and
may work to establish a separate reentry center for the
community.
Representative Kawasaki commented that the Tanana Chiefs
Conference had talked about starting a reentry style
coalition in Fairbanks. He asked if the organization would
have the ability to take advantage of grant funds through
DHSS under the bill.
Ms. Casto answered in the affirmative. The intent was to
help people develop the centers where needed and as needed.
She added that with limited funds DHSS would have to manage
what it would look like. She elaborated that the department
did not see itself providing 100 percent funding for the
reentry centers or the coalitions; the department would
provide funding to help the entities move forward. She
continued that if people became Medicaid eligible, the
services could be billed. Some of the services provided by
the Anchorage center such as case management would be able
to be billed down the road - they currently could not be
billed.
Representative Kawasaki surmised that DHSS would act as a
simple granting agency. He commented that the cost would be
up to $3.125 million by FY 20. He asked if the department
anticipated taking any of the funds or if they would all
pass through to agencies approved by the department.
Ms. Casto answered that the funds would all pass through to
the agencies and work would be done with department
existing staff.
3:08:46 PM
Ms. Casto addressed a previously published fiscal impact
note FN26 from the Division of Behavioral Health [labeled
12 at the top of the packet; OMB Component Number 305]. The
fiscal note pertained to changes in the bill related to the
current Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP). She referred
to Sections 152 and 153 of the legislation that included a
slight change and increased definition to who would go into
ASAP. Currently the program was available to anyone
specified by the courts for any alcohol related incidents.
She continued that it was offered to a wide range of
individuals with various levels of risk or need for
services. The plan for ASAP was to narrow the definitions
of who specifically would be referred to the program.
Additionally, there would be a more prescriptive process
for assessment, referral to services, and monitoring. The
funds would go towards ensuring there was a quality
assessment tool; the department was looking at the Level of
Services Inventory - Revised (LSIR) screening version. The
department would use the funds to purchase the screening
tool materials and conduct training with Anchorage staff
and the other 12 offices in communities and rural areas.
Funding would also go towards keeping staff up to speed on
how to use and implement training. The department currently
used the LSIR (not the screening version) and had a good
working relationship with DOC and its LSIR trainers; DHSS
was hoping to continue partnering with DOC to receive
training assistance for DHSS staff around the state. The
cost was $30,300 for FY 17 and $29,200 in FY 18 through FY
22 to account for staff turnover and keeping staff up to
speed on the screening tool.
TONY PIPER, PROGRAM MANAGER, ALCOHOL SAFETY ACTION PROGRAM,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), added that the department would purchase
manuals in the first year; the fiscal note decreased after
FY 17 because the manuals would be a one-time purchase.
Other costs would go towards minimal training and the
purchase of the tool itself, which was copywrited.
Vice-Chair Saddler spoke to Sections 151 through 153 of the
legislation. He asked how the requirements for who had to
submit to the ASAP test changed under the sections.
Ms. Casto deferred the question to Mr. Piper.
Mr. Piper replied that the change would eliminate some of
the people being charged with crimes other than those that
were statutorily required (i.e. minor consuming, DUI
offenders, and certain drug offenders that had to do with
licensing). The bill specified very specific charges as
opposed to merely anything that was alcohol or drug related
misdemeanors at one point. He spoke to changes that would
take place in the office. He explained that in the past the
office had only screened for substance use; the bill
specified that the office would conduct a full risk
assessment screening to determine the risk of re-offense
for participants and would monitor participants to ensure
they followed through with mandated court requirements.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked for verification that fewer tests
would be conducted, but the tests would be more thorough
and targeted to individuals specifically charged with drug
or alcohol related charges.
3:15:11 PM
Mr. Piper replied in the affirmative.
MATT DAVIDSON, PROGRAM COORDINATOR, DIVISION OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
addressed previously published zero fiscal note FN27 for
the Division of Juvenile Justice [labeled 13 at the top of
the packet; OMB Component Number 2134]. He relayed that the
commission [Alaska Criminal Justice Commission] did not
really consider impacts on juvenile offenders; therefore,
the division had been monitoring the bill to look at the
minimal impacts the provisions had. He stated that
juveniles were not the focus of the commission's work and
the legislature did not instruct them to look at juvenile
offenders. He addressed the few minor programmatic impacts
the bill had on juveniles. The changes in the felony
monetary levels for property crimes effected juvenile
offenders. He considered a scenario where a juvenile
committed a felony level property crime. He explained that
the bill did change how the division would handle the
juvenile - it handled juvenile offenders based on their
risk and need rather than merely by the level of the
offence. The second impact was related to the reduction of
a handful of misdemeanors into violations. Statute gave
authority over criminal offences - if a minor committed a
criminal offense, under the bill it would be decreased to a
violation. The cases would no longer be handled directly by
the courts, but would become citations where the individual
would pay a fine to the court and would no longer be in the
division's jurisdiction. He relayed that it had no impact
on the division, primarily because the offences (e.g.
gambling, dog fighting, and other) were rarely referred to
the division.
Mr. Davidson discussed that the third provision was related
a change from prostitution to a person being a victim of
sex trafficking. The division saw very few prostitution
referrals from law enforcement; when the division did see
the referrals it referred the youth as victims. He noted
that the individuals often came in on other charges and
happened to be working the sex trade. The division tried to
get the individuals services outside of the division and it
was very rare that youths were adjudicated for
prostitution. He concluded that the division believed it
could handle the impacts within its current budget.
3:18:07 PM
Co-Chair Thompson moved on to a fiscal note from the
Department of Law (DOL).
JOHN SKIDMORE, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW (via teleconference), spoke to a new zero fiscal note
from the DOL Criminal Division [labeled 15 at the top of
the packet; OMB Component Number 2202]. He relayed that the
division had previously submitted an indeterminate fiscal
note when the bill had been in the other body and it had
been changed to a zero note by the Senate Finance
Committee. He spoke to the difficulty of providing an exact
number; there were some areas the Criminal Division
anticipated additional work and other areas where it
anticipated a reduction in work. He furthered that while
the division anticipated an increase and reduction in
different areas, it was difficult to quantify the items and
come up with a precise number. The department would attempt
to absorb any of the costs associated with the bill.
Mr. Skidmore addressed sentence lengths. He explained that
in felony cases there were additional procedural
requirements including requirements for a grand jury and
sentencing components involving aggravators or
misdemeanors. He elaborated that there were pleadings that
had to be filed and a pre-sentence report, which was
generally prepared; therefore, the sentencings tended to be
more involved and could include additional litigation. He
discussed that when certain crimes were reduced from
felonies to misdemeanors (e.g. the increase in the felony
property thresholds as well as reducing all controlled
substances to misdemeanors) it reduced the amount of work
that needed to be done. However, in misdemeanor cases it
used to be that DOL did not have to present aggravators or
mitigators; SB 91 required the department to file notice of
aggravators and to potentially present some of the
aggravators to a jury. The department could not anticipate
how much of that would occur. He reiterated that DOL would
attempt to absorb the costs.
Mr. Skidmore spoke to bail reform. The bill contained
dramatic changes to the way bail was conducted. He detailed
that more individuals should be released automatically on
bail and it would hopefully reduce the number of hearings.
However, the bill also contained a new requirement that was
very different from current law related to a person's
ability or inability to post bail. Under current law the
courts were not allowed to consider the person's ability to
post bail; however, under the bill the courts would be
required to consider it for a second bail hearing if a
person was unable to post bail. The department could not
anticipate how many additional or fewer hearings the change
may result in. The bill also shifted to a risk assessment
method. He emphasized that DOL was very supportive of using
risk assessments, but because the assessments had yet to be
developed, DOL did not know what they would look like and
what litigation may result from a new method of determining
bail. He relayed that bail statutes had been changed
several years ago and as a result of the changes there had
been litigation. History showed that when changes were made
there was often initial litigation and then it tended to
die down.
Mr. Skidmore moved to page 3 of the fiscal note pertaining
to other changes SB 91 made in the law. He reiterated that
DOL did not anticipate a fiscal impact related to the
changes; however, any time there were changes there could
be unintended consequences or results. He restated that the
fiscal note was zero and DOL would attempt to absorb any
additional costs.
3:24:12 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to language in the fiscal
note related to an increased workload to prove aggravators
and mitigators and from the ability to have a second bail
hearing. He remarked that DOL had submitted a zero fiscal
note; however, he reasoned that there was work attached to
the bill that the department would try to absorb or that
DOL may need funding for in future years.
Mr. Skidmore explained why the zero fiscal note had been
submitted. He relayed that it was difficult because DOL
anticipated additional work, but it did not know how much
work. He emphasized that the department also knew there
would be some reductions. He could not predict what the
offset would be or whether there would be an overall
increase. He noted that the department had originally
submitted an indeterminate fiscal note because it was not
sure of the impact the bill would have.
Co-Chair Thompson moved to the fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety (DPS).
KELLY HOWELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via teleconference),
spoke to the previously published zero fiscal note FN30 for
DPS [labeled 16 at the top of the packet; OMB Component
Number 2325]. She relayed that the Division of Alaska State
Troopers did not initially foresee any direct fiscal
impacts from SB 91 and had submitted a zero fiscal note.
3:26:55 PM
Representative Kawasaki discussed that there was a halfway
house in Fairbanks that could not seem to keep residents
in. He noted that on a dozen occasions in the past year
state troopers had to locate the individuals who had gotten
out of the facility. He asked if it was a potential impact
if the restitution centers would be growing.
GARY FOLGER, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY (via
teleconference), replied that he was very familiar with the
situation. The department was very hopeful that electronic
monitoring would address some of the issues.
LAUREE MORTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
spoke to the previously published fiscal impact note FN31
from the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(CDVSA) [labeled 17 at the top of the packet; OMB Component
Number 521]. The fiscal note was primarily related to crime
prevention services. She referred to Section 195 of the
legislation (pages 118 and 119) added uncodified language
requiring CDVSA to expand or create violence prevention and
victims' service programming. The language was in direct
response to the victims' service roundtables she had spoken
about the prior day with the committee and the impact and
influence they had in the commission's [Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission] overall report adding recommendation 21
to address victim services and in some of its priorities.
She elaborated that the fiscal note had initially been $2.5
million, but there had been necessity to reduce it to $1
million. The council wanted to keep the same compliment of
services, but it would restrict the manner in which it was
able to have the services begin going out into communities.
She elaborated that there would be fewer communities with
Green Dot, Girls on the Run, Coaching Boys into Men, and
other. She explained that the council wanted to keep the
full compliment. She relayed that the council believed it
was very important to continue comprehensive ways in which
communities could influence their individual citizens,
groups, and the community as a whole. The council supported
community readiness efforts to build prevention plans and
would look at Green Dot going into more communities. She
spoke to the importance of evaluating what was working in
order to know that a service was evidence-based and to
"course correct" if something was not working early on. In
FY 20 cost in the services line of the fiscal note
increased in order for CDVSA to have its 10-year lookback
with the Alaska Victimization Survey, where the council
hoped to see diminishing domestic violence and sexual
assault in Alaska and to be progressing in proving that the
primary prevention efforts were working.
3:31:13 PM
Vice-Chair Saddler pointed to page 2 of the fiscal note and
asked about the goals of the program Lead On for Peace and
Equality.
Ms. Morton replied that Lead On for Peace and Equality was
a three-day statewide conference that was youth led and
adult supported. She explained that youth leaders from
across the state applied to attend. The leaders crafted
ways to be initiators in their communities for various
activities and programming to lead to peaceful communities.
At the end of the conference the youths had projects and
plans to implement in their communities. There was a small
program using mini-grants for youth leaders to apply for
$2,500 to help implement some of the projects. Throughout
the year there were various teleconferences or webinars to
stay connected and to come up with ways to build community
leadership.
Vice-Chair Saddler asked if the program focused on personal
or national relationships. Ms. Morton answered that the
focus was on personal and community relationships. She
detailed that it applied to domestic violence, sexual
assault, suicide prevention, substance abuse prevention,
and other. The program represented ways for youths to help
their community blend to be healthy and respectful to one
another.
3:33:16 PM
Representative Gara asked if the fiscal note included money
for better intervention. Ms. Morton answered in the
negative.
Representative Gara noted that there had been a cut to the
Girls on the Run and Coaching Boys into Men. He asked for
verification that the $1 million request for FY 17
reflected the understanding that a cut had been made and
was accurate.
Ms. Morton responded that in FY 15 the CDVSA had allocated
$2.75 million to prevention activities including the Alaska
Victimization Survey. The amount had been reduced for FY 16
through the operating budget process to a little under
$500,000. In FY 17 there were no funds in the operating
budget for any prevention activities. The council had 9
staff, but the number had been reduced by three in FY 17.
She noted that the council had been expecting a cut of two
positions including an office assistant and program
coordinator; however, it had not been expecting to lose the
third position, which would be difficult. The $1 million
had been derived from the realization in the Senate that -
the desire to show more of a savings than a recognition
that those savings could be reinvested into the
programming; therefore, the council had adjusted down its
fiscal note accordingly. She detailed that from FY 15 at
$2.7 million the council was down in FY 17 to $1 million
for the same activities. She added that the funding did
allow the council to continue.
3:35:46 PM
Representative Munoz asked how much of the $2 million in FY
18 and would go directly to the community programs
mentioned by Ms. Morton. Ms. Morton answered that $1.6
million for grants that would go directly to communities.
Representative Munoz asked how the remaining $400,000 would
be used. Ms. Morton replied that $50,000 would go to travel
(approximately $5,000 for staff and $45,000 for community
members; it was a cost savings to consolidate the travel
arranged in the council's office), $50,000 for commodities
(it was more efficient for CDVSA to produce materials to
send out instead of each individual program purchasing
their own materials), and $300,000 in contracted services
(for joint activities between communities and work with
independent evaluators working directly with the
communities on the different parts of their projects and
activities).
Representative Edgmon discussed that the DPS budget
subcommittee had made the difficult decision to reduce the
council's staff from nine to six. He asked for verification
that the fiscal note assumed the work would be done by the
reduced staff. Ms. Morton replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Thompson noted that Representative Liz Vasquez was
present in the room. He moved on to fiscal notes from the
Alaska Court System.
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, spoke to
the previously published zero fiscal note FN32 from the
Alaska Court System [labeled 18 at the top of the packet;
OMB Component Number 768]. She relayed that the earlier
testimony from DOL and the Public Defender Agency reflected
the court system's thinking as well. She detailed that the
bill would likely result in additional work and hearings in
some areas and hopefully less work and fewer hearings in
other areas. She remarked on earlier testimony that changes
to the bail statute were comprehensive. She elaborated that
the courts anticipated more defendants asking for a bail
review hearing because the inability to pay was grounds to
receive another hearing. Changes to the bail statute would
include significant work upfront to coordinate and
interface with the DOC Pretrial Services Office; there
would be 32,000 reports on arrested individuals and somehow
getting the reports to the court within 24 hours. She
anticipated that the court system would be working hard
within the next 18 months; it was not something with a
fiscal impact per se - the department would not hire
someone to do the work, but administrative staff would be
working hours with DOC to make the coordination work well.
The department would need to use its information services
staff to establish email accounts to send the reports to or
a web interface. She explained that the bill did impact the
department's workload, but not in a way that would require
additional resources.
Ms. Mead addressed changes to the probation provisions. She
discussed that people could get a probation termination
hearing, which the department expected to increase. Changes
in the types of violations that could lead to a petition to
revoke probation (PTRP) could increase the number of PTRPs,
which would lead to an increased workload for the
department. The change in the misdemeanor law so that
aggravators and mitigators may be proven, would likely lead
to more hearings or trials that may lead a person to
conclude that the misdemeanor should be aggravated or
mitigated. On the other hand, some felonies were becoming
misdemeanors and it was generally less work to process a
misdemeanor. Additionally, some misdemeanors would become
violations, which was also generally less work. She added
that violations did involve a court appearance, but it was
still typically less work than a misdemeanor. She discussed
that whenever there was a comprehensive change in laws like
the one at hand, there was the probability that many of the
provisions would be litigated and lead to several appellate
cases; until the vagaries were ironed out, it would
increase workload. There were a couple of provisions in the
bill such as the change to the credit for time served
parameters and what the judge could consider in order to
grant it, which she believed would lead to many more Nygren
or 027 hearings [Nygren v. State and AS 12.55.027
respectively], which would also lead to an increase in
workload until ironed out and more established in the law.
Ms. Mead relayed that changes to the limited license
provisions may or may not result in additional hearings
depending on the outcome. Overall, the court system
believed the changes would be a wash and would be something
the department could absorb without asking for additional
resources.
Representative Wilson spoke to the treatment portion of the
bill and asked why the department believed there would be
more hearings.
Ms. Mead replied that Representative Wilson was speaking to
changes to AS 12.55.027 (credit for time served spent in a
treatment program). Currently the statute set out strict
guidelines for what a program had to entail in order for
the judge to grant the credit. She furthered that if the
program had three certain characteristics the judge granted
the credit for time spent in the treatment program. The
change made by the previous committee removed the definite
strict constraints and ability to look at a program to know
if it complied. She detailed that the change had been made
specifying that a judge was to consider 10 factors in
deciding whether to grant credit for time served. Factors
included things like whether a program was residential or
not and the extent to which electronic monitoring was used;
the specifications were more vague and less well defined.
She relayed that when things were vague there was room for
argument about what was going on with a treatment program.
Currently the judge, defense attorney, and prosecutor all
knew in different communities which treatment programs fit
the parameters of the statute; therefore, the hearings to
receive credit did not take significant time. With new and
vague parameters people would argue about whether a program
did or did not fit the statute, which was the reason she
anticipated seeing more hearings.
Representative Wilson asked if Ms. Mead thought that as
time passed that there would be less argument as it would
become defined as more people used programs that may not
currently fall under the specific provisions.
Ms. Mead responded when the court determined whether a
program qualified under the statute, the court made no
determination about the effectiveness of the treatment. She
detailed that the credit was day-for-day; if the program
had certain characteristics the person received day-to-day
treatment. The court did not consider whether a person
achieved sobriety or was any way rehabilitated.
Representative Wilson thought that was not good. She spoke
to numerous discussions throughout session related to
issues with behavioral health. She asked if it was possible
that adding the broader language could enable the use of
more programs that were not full. She remarked that
treatment programs in the state were full; therefore,
people did not have access to treatment. She believed it
was the hope that there were other good programs that
people may not currently be taking advantage of because
they could not receive credit for those specific programs.
She asked if the good outcomes outweighed the possibility
of additional hearings.
3:46:38 PM
Ms. Mead answered that it was a question for the
legislature. She had discussed her concerns about increased
hearings with the maker of the amendment and his hope was
that more programs would qualify. She did not know if it
was the case or not, but it was a policy call for the
legislature.
Representative Wilson contemplated which departments would
report back to the legislature in the future on things that
were going well or going poorly as a result of the
legislation. She did not realize that a person's success in
a treatment program was not factored into the court's
decision to grant credit.
Co-Chair Neuman relayed that he had worked on a recidivism
reduction plan with Ms. Mead. During that time AMHTA had
contributed money to create a database/library built within
the University of Alaska system that would track what type
of treatment programs were used, how they were used, and
which were effective. He stated that what may be effective
in one region of the state may not work in another area. He
agreed that they needed the ability to know where and how
the state was spending its money, which was the reason for
the creation of the library (in order to prevent wasting
funds for treatment).
Representative Gara remarked that there was a hesitance by
the committee to change fiscal notes on a bill that it
wanted to pass. He discussed that the court system offered
therapeutic and alternative courts in cases like the one
under discussion.
Ms. Mead affirmed that the court system did offer
therapeutic court.
Representative Gara stated that the legislature had always
been told that the court was below capacity to address as
many individuals as it would like. He asked if the bill
would result in providing more or less offenders with
access to the therapeutic courts.
Ms. Mead replied that therapeutic courts was probably the
only court that had been evaluated for effectiveness
through a Judicial Council study. The study had determined
the program to be effective (not 100 percent, but the
effectiveness was very positive for graduates of the
program). The bill did not touch therapeutic courts with
the exception of the limited license provision specifying
that a person could apply for a limited license if they had
been through a therapeutic court. The court hoped that it
may be an incentive or motivate more people to enroll in
the program. The state could use more people who want to go
through the program; there were openings in most of the
courts. She elaborated that there were not openings in
Fairbanks, but it was a very good balance - there were not
openings, but there was not a wait list. She relayed that
the remainder of the state could use more people who were
motivated to go through the courts. She addressed that the
18-month programs were difficult. For example, when people
faced 4 months in jail or 18 months in therapeutic court,
many chose not to go through the court. She detailed that
the program was grueling and started off with meetings five
days per week, which tapered as time went on. She
communicated that the court system was anxious to get more
people into therapeutic courts. The only part of the bill
that may increase the number was the limited license
provision. Additionally, the Pretrial Service Office was
generally charged with recommending to the court whether
the person would be a good candidate for diversion
programs, which could include therapeutic court. She
surmised that perhaps raising the awareness that a person
may be a good candidate could be helpful.
3:51:32 PM
Representative Gara remarked that like the Public Defender
Agency and others, the courts had only had a certain number
of statutory judges. He reasoned that with the zero fiscal
note, the department would absorb the work within the
current number of judges.
Ms. Mead replied in the affirmative. She explained that
with many bills that entailed an increased workload, the
department could not say it needed another judge. She
furthered that a judge sat in one location and the
increased workload would be spread across all of the
judges. The department tried to submit very credible fiscal
notes and usually specified that it could absorb the work,
which was the case at present. She did believe it would be
more work for individual judges, which would impact the
justice system, but additional resources were not needed to
implement the bill.
Representative Gara spoke to the reforms on Medicaid that
leveraged extra behavioral health grants including drug and
alcohol treatment. He asked if more prisoners would qualify
for the grants that would allow the court system to expand
the use of therapeutic courts if necessary.
Ms. Mead answered that therapeutic courts happened
independently of prison and instead of prison in almost
every situation. She detailed that a person pled guilty and
went into the program with the consent of the district
attorney, judge, and many others; it did not touch the
prison system in most cases to her knowledge.
Representative Gara could not remember if being a prisoner
disqualified a person from some Medicaid services. He asked
if there would be more behavioral health funds through
Medicaid for the population who may want to utilize the
therapeutic court program.
Ms. Mead answered that she did not know; however, money was
not an obstacle for people in therapeutic courts.
Representative Munoz remarked that the fiscal note
specified that workload would balance out - there would be
more hearings in some cases and perhaps less in others.
However, the courts would face half-day closures in the
coming year and mandatory furloughs. She asked if the
department had analyzed how the changes and the increased
workload would impact its budget.
Ms. Mead replied that it was very speculative what would
happen under the bill. The court could anticipate that more
hearings in some areas were likely, but it had not analyzed
where the increase would take place and how it would be
handled. She relayed that the department was down 50
employees and the clerks' offices were very busy. However,
one bill did not justify the court to hire six clerks
across the state because the impact was currently not
known.
3:55:35 PM
SUSANNE DI PIETRO, ALASKA JUDICIAL COUNCIL (via
teleconference), spoke to the previously published fiscal
impact note FN33 from the Alaska Judicial Council [labeled
19 at the top of the packet; OMB Component Number 771]. The
costs specified in the note were in connection to the
council's responsibility to staff the work of the Alaska
Criminal Justice Commission. The work was currently
underway, and the note represented a continuation of
funding provided to staff the commission to date. The note
included a small increase to reflect additional duties that
would fall to the commission. She explained that the bill
would extend the commission to June 2021. The bill asked
the commission to make annual recommendations to the
legislature and governor on how savings from criminal
justice reform should be reinvested to reduce recidivism.
Additionally, the commission would collect and analyze data
collected by criminal justice agencies (including the court
system, DOC, and DPS) on recidivism and other factors that
would enable the commission to tell the legislature what
effect the changes in the law were having on the criminal
justice system. In its report, the commission would include
a summary of savings and recommendations on how savings
from criminal justice reform should be reinvested to reduce
recidivism; it would also report on performance metrics and
outcomes of the recommendations the commission made in its
December 2015 report, which were essentially the provisions
of SB 91. The information would include the percentage of
inmates who return to prison three years after release
(broken down by offence type and risk level) and
recommendations for any additional reforms. If it was
determined that the provisions of SB 91 were not sufficient
or needed adjusting, the commission would come back to the
legislature with recommendations.
Ms. Di Pietro discussed that the commission was also tasked
with cooperating with DHSS in its efforts to increase
access to evidence based rehabilitation and reentry
services. Lastly, the commission was required to provide
four additional reports to the legislature: driving while
intoxicated, restitution, social impact bonds, and sexual
offences. The fiscal note continued the commission's
staffing; it would increase the one attorney position from
part-time to full-time to reflect the additional work.
Additionally, the note increased a research staff position
from 20 hours per week up to 29 hours per week due to the
significant increase in data collection and analysis. The
note also included 7.5 hours per week of additional
administrative support; the original note had not included
administrative support for the commission and the Judicial
Council had absorbed the work without funding, which the
council had determined was a mistake - it needed a bit
extra to help the commission get organized and do its work.
4:00:30 PM
Co-Chair Thompson moved to the fiscal note from the
Department of Administration.
MICHELE MICHAUD, CHIEF HEALTH OFFICER, DIVISION OF
RETIREMENT AND BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
addressed a new fiscal impact note from the Division of
Retirement and Benefits [labeled 20 at the top of the
packet; OMB Component Number 2866]. The note pertained to
Sections 161 to 172 of the legislation, which closed a gap
in coverage and provided system paid major medical to the
survivors of peace officers and firefighters killed in the
line of duty. The cost began in FY 17 at approximately
$174,000 and increased to $226,000 in FY 22.
CSSSSB 91(FIN) AM was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Thompson discussed the schedule for the following
day. He recessed the meeting to a call of the chair [note:
the meeting never reconvened].
ADJOURNMENT
4:02:45 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 91 Fiscal Note Summary OMB vV.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 Fiscal Note Packet vV HFIN 4-22-16.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 letter of support corrections officials 4.21.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| ltr HB205 SB91 4 20 16.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2016 1:30:00 PM |
HB 205 SB 91 |
| SB 91 Letters opposition&support.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| DOC SB 91 House Finance Response 04232016.pdf |
HFIN 4/22/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |