Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/30/2017 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 | |
| Fy 18 Budget Overview: Department of Law | |
| Fy 18 Budget Overview: Department of Fish and Game | |
| Fy 18 Budget Overview: Department of Corrections | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
January 30, 2017
1:32 p.m.
1:32:35 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Seaton called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Department of Law; Sam
Cotten, Commissioner, Department of Fish and Game; Carol
Petraborg, Administrative Services Director, Department of
Fish and Game; Dean Williams, Commissioner, Department of
Corrections; April Wilkerson, Director, Division of
Administrative Services, Department of Corrections;
Representative Mike Chenault.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
SUMMARY
FY 18 Budget Overview: Department of Law
FY 18 Budget Overview: Department of Fish and Game
FY 18 Budget Overview: Department of Corrections
Co-Chair Seaton reviewed the agenda for the day. He asked
members to hold their questions until the end of each
presentation.
^FY 18 Budget Overview: Department of Law
1:34:03 PM
JAHNA LINDEMUTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced herself and provided some information about her
background and reviewed the list of testifiers available
from the Department of Law. She introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: "Department of Law: Department Overview:
House Finance Committee."
Attorney General Lindemuth turned to slide 2: "Mission":
The Alaska Department of Law prosecutes crime and
provides legal services to state government for the
protection and benefit of Alaska's citizens.
Attorney General Lindemuth conveyed that the department had
2 operating divisions: The Criminal Division and the Civil
Division. It also had an Administrative Support Division.
Attorney General Lindemuth reviewed slide 3: "Civil
Division." The Civil Division fell into 2 buckets:
Litigation (defending and pursuing claims for the state)
and transactional and agency advise. The scope of the
department's representation and work was broad. The only
slices of state government shown on the pie that the
department did not represent was the university system and
the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Department of Law was 2
percent of state government. The Civil Division made up
about 1 percent. She suggested that to outsource what the
Civil Division did would conservatively cost about twice as
much as what it did presently. The Civil Division was
funded half by general funds (GF) and half by inter-agency
(IA) transfers. She noted that the Civil Division's
capacity had been cut to the bone. It had lost 32 percent
of its GF funding budget since FY 14. It was also down 37
percent since FY 13.
Attorney General Lindemuth advanced to slide 4: "Criminal
Division." She reported that unlike most other states with
counties and elected district attorneys (DA), criminal
prosecutions in Alaska were the primary responsibility of
the state. The Criminal Division operated with 7 budget
components that together represented 4 judicial districts
with 12 district attorney offices and Alaska' Office of
Special Prosecution and Appeals (ASPA), and a central
office - all GF funded. The 12 DA's offices and ASPA
prosecuted in 41 court locations across the state. She
reported that caseloads were currently higher than in prior
years. Crime was on the rise and the capacity of Alaska's
prosecutors was as thin as could be sustained.
1:37:38 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth discussed slide 5: "Department
of Law's Share of Total Agency Operations: GF Only." The
department's GF had decreased by about 23 percent or $14
million since FY 14 and 28 percent or over $20 million
since FY 12. Given what was funded by GF, these cuts had
reduced the department's capacity in 3 main areas: Criminal
prosecution, child protection, and state sovereignty cases
(collecting taxes and defending against federal overreach).
Attorney General Lindemuth had mentioned that the Criminal
Division was primarily GF funded. A reduced budget meant
fewer prosecutors and less cases being prosecuted. The
department's declination rate increased 6 percent in the
prior year. Since 2013, the number of misdemeanors the
department could prosecute had decreased by 33 percent or
about 3,500 cases. Felonies had only decreased 3 percent
because the department had focused its resources there.
Attorney General Lindemuth continued that in the area of
child protection, while the budget had gone down
significantly, the demand for related services had
increased 55 percent over the previous 2 years. With higher
child protection caseloads for the department's attorneys,
each case took longer in length. It meant that kids were
spending more time in foster care costing the state more
money. She noted that the cost for foster care was $35 per
day per child.
Attorney General Lindemuth continued that another large
component of what the department did with it's GF money was
ensuring collection of money owed to the state such as oil
production taxes. The state's natural resources assistant
attorney generals brought in millions of dollars each year.
In FY 16 they brought in $72 million in taxes and royalties
owed to the state. The division also protected against
improper demands for refunds. The state recently won a case
before the Alaska Supreme Court defending the state's
definition of the Economic Limit Factor (ELF) which had
been part of the oil tax scheme previously. Winning the
case saved the state over $500 million.
Attorney General Lindemuth reported that with the loss of
attorneys in the department's Civil Division, the
department had lost many of its seasoned tax assistant
attorney generals. Replacing those individuals had been
very difficult.
Attorney General Lindemuth scrolled to slide 6: "Department
of Law's Share of Total Agency Operations: GF Only." She
highlighted that the slide was the same as the previous
slide but with a bar added at $50 million. The slide showed
FY 08 funding in FY 18 dollars after a $10 million
adjustment for inflation. In other words, the FY 08 budget
in today's dollars would be worth $50 million,
approximately the same as the FY 18 budget but reflecting
inflation. The chart did not reflect that, in the previous
10 years, the population of the state had grown 9 percent.
Attorney General Lindemuth continued to slide 7:
"Department of Law Line Items: All Funds." The slide
reflected the use of GF Funding and IA funding (all funds).
The Department of Law provided legal services to the state
in 2 ways. First, the department provided services through
in-house attorneys and staff, which was reflected in the
light blue areas on the bar graph under personal services.
The department also used outside council, denoted in the
purple areas under services. She reiterated that personal
services reflected in-house counsel costs, and services
showed outside counsel costs. She elaborated that for the
personal services the department was down 6.9 percent or
$4.8 million since FY 14. The dollars shown on the chart
directly translated to positions. The department was down
76 positions or 13 percent since FY 14. It was an increase
of $16.3 since FY 08, but $16 million of that amount paid
for contractual and statutory salary increases. She
concluded that it reflected that the department was back
down to the FY 08 budget.
Attorney General Lindemuth conveyed that for positions, the
department was down 43 positions or 8 percent since FY 08.
She concluded that although the department was back to
funding levels equivalent to the FY 08 funding levels, the
department had significantly fewer positions.
Attorney General Lindemuth addressed the services
represented in purple. She reported that the attorney
general was statutorily required to manage outside counsel.
The department had achieved significant savings in this
particular area. The department was down $15.5 million or
48 percent since FY 12, the high point for outside counsel
in recent years. In FY 18 outside counsel spend was
estimated to be just over 20 percent of the department's
budget. The number reflected a 1.3 percent reduction in FY
08 and a reduction of 12.6 percent from FY 12. It indicated
the value the department contributed by bringing the work
in-house. She reported that outside counsel hourly rates
ranged from $250 to $500 per hour in Anchorage or Alaska.
The department paid a higher rate for specialty counsel,
especially when the counsel was from outside of Alaska. The
Department of Law charged just under $161 per hour for its
attorneys and just over $100 per hour for its paralegals.
The amount was significantly less for the department to
provide the same services.
Attorney General Lindemuth spoke of the travel line listed
on the slide. The constitution required the accused the
right to face their accusers. Much of the department's
travel expense was dedicated to victim and witness travel.
With responsibility for statewide prosecution the state had
to be very careful about cutting travel any further. The
department did not pay for employees to attend conferences.
They only attended required workgroups, committee meetings,
and hearings. Travel was down almost 21 percent or $311,000
from FY 14. It was down 6 percent or $77,000 from the high
in FY 08. It currently equaled 1.4 percent of the
department's budget and the department was using technology
to bridge the gaps, trying to handle hearings and things
without the need for travel.
1:44:34 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about travel in relation to
conferences and continuing education credits. Attorney
General Lindemuth responded that the National Association
of Attorney Generals and other similar organizations often
had scholarships for attorneys to attend trainings, which
the department tried to take advantage of.
Attorney General Lindemuth turned to slide 8:
"Appropriations within the Department of Law: GF Only." She
indicated that the slide focused on GF and broke apart
Civil, Criminal, and Administrative Services. Overall, the
department had cut 76 positions since FY 14. She pointed to
the lower right-hand box labeled "Criminal Division." Much
of the increase following the low in FY 08 reflected the
loss of federal funding that had to be replaced with GF
dollars. The amount shot up following the FY 08 and FY 09
period. She reported that the Criminal Division GF had been
decreased by 11 percent or $3.3 million since FY 14. The
division lost 31 positions or 13 percent in that period. In
FY 16, 12 positions were cut, 9 of which were layoffs. The
department had been forced to prioritize crimes. In the
prior year, before the introduction of SB 91 [Legislation
passed in 2016 - Short Title: Omnibus Crime and Law
Procedure; Corrections], the number of declined cases rose
6 percent due to budget cuts. She opined that the state had
cut too far. She was not asking for additional money but
asked for flat funding for the department's Criminal
Division.
Attorney General Lindemuth pointed to the upper left-hand
box labeled, "Civil Division." She noted that the FY 08-
FY 09 increase reflected a $6 million undesignated general
fund (UGF) onetime funding for oil, gas, and mining. She
relayed that as shown in the purple at the bottom of the
chart, between FY 08- FY 13 there was separate funding for
the BP Corrosion case. She reported that BP's deferred
pipeline maintenance led to spills that required a shutdown
of the North Slope production. The legislature spent $23
million on lawyers and expert witnesses in a hard-fought
legal battle that ended with a payment to the state
treasury of approximately $250 million.
Attorney General Lindemuth continued that the Civil
Division GF had decreased 32 percent or $14 million since
FY 14 and 37 percent or $20 million since FY 13. The
division had lost 40 positions since FY 14. Of the 40
positions, 21 were attorney positions.
Attorney General Lindemuth conveyed that another area that
had been reduced within the department was consumer
protection. Department of Law's Consumer Protection Unit
had gone from 4 attorneys and an investigator to only 2
attorneys. It had led to a 43 percent reduction in efforts
towards consumer protection, including the state's
participation in large multi-state enforcement activities
and review investigation consumer complaints. The
department's ability to pursue enforcement actions for
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) cost
recoveries for oil spills and contaminated sites had also
gone down because of fewer positions and budget reductions.
It resulted in negative impacts to property owners and
property values in the areas of spills and contamination.
Attorney General Lindemuth explained that in FY 16 the
Department of Law stopped providing services to parents
needing to modify child support orders if the modification
did not yield the state money. In FY 17, the department
would stop the collection of money for victims of crime. I
was also working with the court system to set up a similar
program so that victims would not be neglected.
Attorney General Lindemuth offered that for FY 18, the
department was proposing another program cut: the
department would be outsourcing collections and closing
that section of the Civil Division. Nine positions would be
eliminated and would result in a savings of just under
$800,000. Other cuts the department was proposing for FY 18
were within the Administrative Services Division. The
proposed reductions totaled $231,000. The bulk of the
reduction reflected the move of the Administrative Services
Division to the Diamond Courthouse from the assembly
building; a savings of $112,000 per year. She indicated
that with savings from the cut of the collections unit and
moving some more Administrative Services Division positions
to the Shared Services Division, the department anticipated
another savings of $96,000 and $23,000 respectively.
1:50:34 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth continued to slide 9:
"Appropriations within the Department of Law: All Funds."
She relayed that the slide showed both GF and IA funding.
She had already covered the point that the FY 18 proposed
budget was close to FY 08 levels after adjusting for
inflation. The Civil Division all funds fund was down 9.5
million or 16.3 percent since FY 14. The Criminal Division
all funds fund was down $3.5 million or 9.8 percent since
FY 14. The department's Administrative Services Division
was down $433,000 or 9.1 percent since FY 14.
Attorney General Lindemuth reviewed slide 10: "Department
of Law: Total Funding Comparison by Fund Group." She stated
that the slide showed the source of funding. In the big
picture, the department's Criminal Division was GF funded.
The Civil Division was 50 percent GF funded and 50 percent
IA funded. She pointed to the light blue bars representing
UGF. The department was looking at a proposed budget for FY
18 of $48.9 million, of which Criminal represented $27.1
million and the primary funding source for criminal
prosecutions. The Civil Division represented $19.2 million
which covered the caseloads of representing the state.
Attorney General Lindemuth next pointed to the dark purple
was the small amount of designated general funds (DGF) that
the department had in the amount of about $2.8 million. The
bulk of the $2.3 million was from a regulatory cost charge,
a fee collected by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) through utility bills. There was an amount of
$256,000 for consumer work in their Commercial and Fair
Business Section and $225,000 was for the Alaska Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) work in natural
resources.
Attorney General Lindemuth highlighted that the red
component showed the other main source of the department's
fund, the IA. It was the fund source the department used to
bill other state agencies for legal services provided to
the rest of the state. She elaborated that when the
department was putting its budget together she had gone
around to ask other departments what they saw for the
demand for legal services going forward. They expected the
demand to be the same for the following year as it was for
FY 17. They saw no decrease in the demand for legal
services. Although other departments were facing
reductions, they were not reducing their need for layers.
She thought it made sense, based on her experience in
private practice. She explained that often when programs
were downsized it cost more in lawyer fees to make it
happen.
Attorney General Lindemuth continued to explain the chart.
The green portion of the bars represented the small amount
of federal funds that the state received. The state
received direct funding from the federal government for the
state's Medicaid Fraud Unit. The department also received
some federal funds via IA for child support enforcement and
some child protection.
Attorney General Lindemuth provided an overview of slide 11
and slide 12 showing a matrix for the Civil Division. The
matrix broke out each section within the department's Civil
Division. It also showed the funding sources for each
section. Many of the sections aligned with the other
departments within the administration. For example, the
department had an environmental section - its main client
was DEC. She would not be walking through each section.
Attorney General Lindemuth reviewed slide 13 and 14, the
matrix slides for the Criminal Division. The matrix broke
out the Criminal Division by judicial district. She
indicated that slide 4 showed the 4 different judicial
districts within Alaska. All of the division's prosecutors
did the same thing. They prosecuted violations of state law
no matter where they were located.
1:54:51 PM
Attorney General Lindemuth moved to slide 14 which showed
the matrix for the Administrative Services Division. It
reflected the budget from Mr. Cullum's team as well as her
office and her team. She was available for questions.
Co-Chair Seaton asked Attorney General Lindemuth to provide
a copy of her written statement.
Representative Ortiz asked Attorney General Lindemuth to
identify the most significant areas in which her department
was falling short of being able to do its job as a result
of funding reductions. Attorney General Lindemuth responded
that if it was a perfect world and she could come up with
the best budget for the Department of Law she would be
asking for more money, especially for criminal prosecutions
and child protection areas. She would also like to see
additional funding for consumer protection and funding to
hire an additional person within the environmental section.
All of the sections within the department had reduced
capacity. She thought the department could provide the core
services with the funding it had, given budget constraints.
Representative Ortiz asked, in terms of criminal
prosecution and child protective services, if there was a
financial opportunity for cost savings that might be lost.
He also wanted her to elaborate on the social costs that
might be piling up because of reductions. Attorney General
Lindemuth indicated that the social cost was most felt in
child protection and criminal prosecutions. The department
was leaving money on the table by having fewer resources in
the natural resources tax collection section and in the
environmental section. The environmental section pursued
spill response monies. There were actual recoveries from
third parties where if the state spent more money upfront,
the department could get more money for the state overall.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if hiring more attorneys in both
sections would pay for itself in the end. Attorney General
Lindemuth believed that it was true that if the state
invested more money and had more resources focused on those
areas where the department was pursuing state's rights and
collecting dollars for the state, it would pay for itself.
Co-Chair Seaton thought the subcommittee would be looking
at the issue.
Representative Guttenberg mentioned that, in 2003, the
legislature passed a resolution with overwhelming support
concerning the nature of the state participating with the
federal government enforcing unconstitutional provisions of
the Patriot Act. He relayed that since Friday, the issue
became germane again. He was aware that the Department of
Law supported the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). Although HJR 22 [
Legislation passed in 2003 - Short Title: Patriot Act and
Defending Civil Liberties] was not binding, it was
overwhelmingly passed by members of the legislature, 2 of
whom were still serving (himself and Senator John Coghill).
He asked Attorney General Lindemuth how much of her
department's resources were used to support efforts to
comply with federal statutes that might be unconstitutional
or had been subject to a stay. He wanted to know what the
consequences might be if the state did not follow federal
law. He asked her to get back to him with an answer later.
2:01:15 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked how Attorney General Lindemuth would
like to be addressed. Attorney General Lindemuth responded
"Jahna".
Vice-Chair Gara wondered whether being short on oil and gas
tax attorneys would result in lower settlements for the
state in a tax dispute, for example, with an oil company
tax payer that had a robust team of attorneys. Attorney
General Lindemuth responded that she belied the
department's tax attorneys were providing good services for
the state. In an especially important case the department
tried to draw on outside counsel to help supplement cases.
She department was not able to prosecute or be involved
with as many cases at one time because of the few resources
it had. She added that by not having as many people in the
oil and gas area, the department was not building a wealth
of knowledge going into the future. She reported the
department having lost many of its seasoned people and
needed to rebuild that section.
Vice-Chair Gara mentioned that the state had been annually
reducing the percentage of cases it could prosecute. The
Criminal Division had been focusing on the more serious
cases, but unable to focus on lower level crime cases. He
asked if the department was prosecuting a lower percentage
of cases than it would otherwise prosecute. Attorney
General Lindemuth responded, "That is absolutely true." She
noted that the reduction was mostly in misdemeanor cases.
There was a 33 percent reduction in misdemeanor cases and
only a 3 percent reduction in felony cases.
Co-Chair Seaton asked her to repeat herself. Attorney
General Lindemuth reported a 33 percent reduction in
misdemeanor cases but only a 3 percent reduction for felony
cases. It reflected that the state was spending its
resources on the most serious crimes.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified that within the children's
section, the attorney general represented the state in the
Office of Children's Services (OCS) cases. The Public
Defenders represent the parents and guardian ad litems, and
some of the other agencies represent the children. He asked
if he was accurate. Attorney General Lindemuth responded in
the positive.
Vice-Chair Gara wondered if it would make a difference in
speeding cases along if the attorney general had additional
staff but the other agencies did not. He wondered if it was
a larger systemic problem. Attorney General Lindemuth
thought it was a systemic issue where the whole system
needed to be addressed. She did not know what entity was
holding up the system most. If the department had more
resources, the cases could be pushed along faster. She was
uncertain if it would be necessary for the Public
Defender's office or other areas in order to move things
along.
Co-Chair Seaton asked her to provide an estimate to the
finance subcommittee.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to slide 7. He noted that the cost
differential seemed very large between in-house and outside
counsel. He asked if the state was having to use outside
counsel for expertise or because of not having enough in-
house counsel. He asked if there was a position tradeoff
rather than the need for additional expertise. Attorney
General Lindemuth did not believe it was necessarily true.
The department had brought a significant amount of work in-
house that was previously done through outside counsel. She
indicated that the main area where the department
previously used more outside counsel was in the Regulatory
Affairs and Public Advocacy (RAPA) section doing Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) work in Washington DC.
The state used to use Washington DC counsel They were still
involved, but their work had been decreased significantly
moving to doing the work in-house. It was a better way of
achieving cost savings results, than through other means.
She explained that because of the expense of outside
counsel, the department was trying to use them where their
expertise added value.
2:07:18 PM
Representative Wilson returned to the subject of Children's
Services. She wondered if the department had looked at the
court hearings and whether they were effective. She brought
up the idea of using mediation or something outside of a
court room. She wondered if there was a streamlining
process to free up more time and an outcome goal. Attorney
General Lindemuth had not delved that deeply into any
particular child protection case to look at how it was
functioning. She had spoken with the Public Defender and
the public advocate on how to work better together and to
streamline the process. She was interested in the
department being the pillar of civility and professionalism
in the community. She thought there was always room for
improvement.
Representative Wilson did not believe anyone was doing
their job poorly. Rather, she thought it was more of a
policy call.
Co-Chair Seaton thanked the Attorney General Lindemuth for
the presentation. He would look forward to feedback from
the subcommittee. He noticed that the estimate on almost
all of the items were critical in nature. He indicated the
subcommittee was open to suggestions. He mentioned fees
changing and asked Attorney General Lindemuth to bring them
forward in subcommittee.
2:10:58 PM
AT EASE
2:14:11 PM
RECONVENED
^FY 18 Budget Overview: Department of Fish and Game
2:14:11 PM
SAM COTTEN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME,
relayed the names of individuals that were from his
department. He appreciated the opportunity to appear before
the committee. He differed to Ms. Petraborg to review the
prepared presentation.
CAROL PETRABORG, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, introduced the PowerPoint
presentation: Alaska Department of Fish and Game: House
Finance Committee: FY 2018 Budget Overview."
Ms. Petraborg reviewed slide 2: The Constitution of the
State of Alaska":
The Constitution of the State of Alaska
Article 8 - Natural Resources; § 4. Sustained Yield
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other
replenish-able resources belonging to the State shall
be utilized, developed, and maintained on the
sustained yield principle, subject to preferences
among beneficial uses.
The Alaska Statutes
Title 16. FISH AND GAME; Sec. 16.05.020. Functions of
commissioner.
(2) manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the
fish, game and aquatic plant resources of the state in
the interest of the economy and general well-being of
the state.
Mission Statement
To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and
aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their
uses and development in the best interest of the
economy and the well-being of the people of the state,
consistent with the sustained yield principle.
Ms. Petraborg turned to slide 3: "ADF and G Core Services."
She relayed that the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) had
three core services: Management, stock assessment, and
customer service and public involvement. Management was
measured by commercial harvests, habitat permits issued,
the number of angler days, user harvests and successes, and
the participation in federal issues affecting the state.
Stack assessment and research was measured by meeting
escapement goals, meeting or exceeding threshold harvests
or catch levels, performing wildlife surveys and research,
and performing subsistence surveys and research. She
continued that customer service and public involvement was
gaged by having hunting and angler skills-oriented
programs, opportunities for Alaskans to learn about
wildlife and wildlife management, the sale of hunting and
fishing licenses, participation in boards and advisory
committee processes and providing information to the
public.
Ms. Petraborg moved to slide 4: "Department of Fish and
Game's Budget Compared to All Agencies' Budgets." She
indicated that the slide was prepared by the Legislative
Finance Division. She reported that since FY 08 the
department had seen a 2 percent growth in its general fund
(GF) budget. She noted that there was a direct correlation
to contractual increases for salaries. She also relayed
that DFG's percent of the state's total GF budget had been
reduced by .1 percent since FY 08 from 1.5 percent to 1.4
percent.
2:17:59 PM
Ms. Petraborg advanced to slide 5: She reported that the
slide showed all funds by budget line item. She reported
that 62 percent of the department's budget was dedicated to
personal services costs. The next largest budget area was
the contractual line. She estimated the funding to be
roughly half inter-agency funding which paid for core
services such as leases, Department of Administration (DOA)
charges, and Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities' charges for the state equipment fleet. She
continued that roughly $10 million of the amount was what
was paid within DFG. The other half had to do with non-
interagency contractual costs such as software licensing,
utilities, repairs and maintenance, and aircraft and vessel
charters.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for clarification regarding the
inter-agency portion. He wondered if she was talking about
inter-agency funding between sections within DFG or between
DFG and other departments. Ms. Petraborg responded, "Both."
The core services costs that went to DOA totaled about $10
million.
Co-Chair Seaton just wanted to clarify that it was to DOA,
another department, and not from the Sports Fishing
Division to the Commercial Fishing Division. Ms. Petraborg
claimed that about the same about was exchanged within the
department. For instance, the Division of Administrative
Services processed the hunting and fishing licenses,
performed data entry, and performed accounting functions.
The department received fund transfers from the Sport Fish
Division, the Wildlife division, and the Commercial Fish
Division to process licenses.
Co-Chair Seaton thought the subcommittee would clarify the
$10 million dollars. Ms. Petraborg confirmed that it was
contractual in one division and typically personal services
in the other.
Ms. Petraborg moved to slide 6: "Appropriations within the
Department of Fish and Game (GF Only)." The lines
represented the four results delivery units within the
department. The three large divisions included: The
Commercial Fisheries Division, the Sport Fish Division, and
the Wildlife Conservation Division. Everything else fell
into Statewide Support Services which encompassed the small
divisions, the department's administration, and the
Commissioner's Office. The graph reflected only GF. She
highlighted that the bottom lines were trending down. The
line at the top, representing Commercial Fisheries,
appeared to be going up. She explained that it was due to a
couple of transfers into that results delivery unit. The
Commercial Fisheries Limited Entry Commission component was
moved. Previously, it had been a stand-alone component by
the legislature in FY 16. There was also a component for
facilities rent which was currently allocated to the
results delivery unit so that the expenditures and the
revenues were reflected where they belonged. The total of
the two transfers amounted to close to an $5.5 million
increase. It was actually not an increase, but a shift.
2:23:11 PM
Ms. Petraborg detailed slide 7: "Appropriations within the
Department of Fish and Game (ALL Funds)." She indicated
that the slide showed the same uptick as the last slide for
the Commercial Fisheries Division. She pointed to the pink
line representing the Wildlife Conservation Division which
went up slightly due to the facilities rents that were
transferred to that results delivery unit.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if it came from statewide support
services. Ms. Petraborg responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Petraborg scrolled to slide 8: "Department of Fish and
Game Total Funding Comparison by Fund Group (All Funds)."
She reported the department's funding coming from
approximately one-third federal receipts, one-third general
funds, and one-third other funds. She added that the Fish
and Game Fund made up approximately 50 percent of "other
funds." The other 50 percent was comprised of inter-agency
receipts and statutory designated program receipts and any
personal services that were charged to capital
appropriations.
Ms. Petraborg reviewed slide 9: "Alaska Department of Fish
and Game Regional and Area Offices." The slide provided a
visual depiction of the locations of the department's
regional and area offices throughout the state. It also
showed which divisions or sections were located at each
location.
Commissioner Cotten added that many of the offices were
seasonal, open only certain times of the year. For example,
the Port Moller office was only open during the fishing
season.
Ms. Petraborg spoke to slide 10: "Division of Commercial
Fisheries." The remaining slides showed the budget
breakdowns by division. The first set of slides addressed
the Division of Commercial Fisheries. The top line
reflected the total for the division. The remainder of the
lines showed the budgets for various programs within the
division. She noted that the division was regionally
structured and budgeted by region rather than by program.
Although, the department had a subsidiary system that
assisted the department in breaking the numbers down by
program. Slide 10 reflected the different fisheries
including salmon, herring, groundfish, and shellfish.
MS. Petraborg reviewed slide 11: "Division of Commercial
Fisheries continued from previous slide" that showed the
stand-alone programs including genetics, the pathology lab,
aquaculture planning and permitting, core services support,
and data resource management and information services. The
chart also showed positions and number of Alaskans served,
which was very subjective. The Commercial Fisheries came up
with its numbers with actual permits and licenses issued.
The chart also showed a rating of effectiveness. She noted
that there was a web link to the Office of Management and
Budget's performance measures site. For instance, the ex-
vessel value of commercial harvests and mariculture
production in Alaska could be found via the web link.
2:27:42 PM
Ms. Petraborg reported that the same information could be
found in the remaining slides (slides 12-22) for the
Division of Sport Fish (2 pages), the Division of Wildlife
Conservation (2 pages), the Division of Subsistence (1
page), and the Division of Administrative Services (2
pages), the Division of Habitat (1 page), the Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) (1 page), the Boards
Support Section (1 page), and the Office of the
Commissioner (1 page).
Ms. Petraborg reviewed slides 17-18 for the Division of
Administrative Services. She reported that the division was
broken down by section including the director's office,
finance, human resources, information technology,
licensing, procurement, small division administration, and
core services. The licensing section was not typical of an
Administrative Services Division.
Ms. Petraborg reported that the Division of Habitat did the
permitting for Title 16 and special areas. The Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission was a totally exempt agency that
was administratively attached to DFG. The Boards Support
Section supported the Alaska Board of Fisheries, the Alaska
Board of Game, and the advisory committees. She indicated
that the Office of the Commissioner was down to 7 fulltime
positions presently.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the Division of Habitat where
it showed zero percentage of costs recovered through fees.
He wondered if the state was charging for permitting or for
project review and monitoring. He asked for more detail.
Ms. Petraborg responded that the department did not have
set fees in regulation for the Division of Habitat. The
department charged fees reflecting what was actually paid
for providing a service for large mine projects. For the
general public, the department did not charge a fee. The
state wanted the public to inform the department of what
they were doing. A set fee might limit the amount of
information people provided. Commissioner Cotten
interjected that there was revenue from private sources
when the department worked for them. However, there was not
technically a fee.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about fees collected for permits
being issued. Commissioner Cotten responded, "Typically,
no." For example, some of the work that the mining
companies were required to perform in order to satisfy the
conditions of their operation would be done by the state.
The costs would be reimbursed to the state by the mining
companies.
Co-Chair Seaton commented that the subcommittee would want
to look at some of the activities to see if there was a way
to recover some of the expenditures for personnel, travel,
and other expenses. He thought the Fisheries Committee
should be looking at the areas where the state was not
collecting what could possibly be collected if things were
structured correctly.
2:32:55 PM
Vice-Chair Gara mentioned the previous year's debate about
various fisheries taxes. In terms of raising money to pay
for a service, he thought the Commercial Fisheries Division
cost the state $50 million in GF and the various commercial
fishing taxes raised roughly half that amount. He asked if
he was accurate. Commissioner Cotten responded that he
could not recall the exact numbers. He mentioned that the
other thing to consider was that DFG was one of the
agencies that spent money as a result of the commercial
fishing industry, as did the Department of Public Safety
(DPS), the Alaska Court System, and other agencies. He
continued that the taxes that were collected through the
fisheries business tax and the resource landing tax were
divided. Half of them came to the state treasury and the
other half stayed with the municipalities. A debate point
was that fishermen were paying but the money was not going
into the treasury and being reflected as part of what the
industry contributed to the state's expenses. He was unsure
of the exact revenue amounts raised by the tax measures. He
thought it was an important consideration. Some would
suggest that the industry was partially subsidized as a
result.
Vice-Chair Gara asked for the amounts the state raised with
the various commercial fishing taxes. He wondered if the
administration was working on a proposal to change the
taxes that would affect the larger processors and trawlers
in the current year. Commissioner Cotten responded that
presently the administration did not intend to introduce
tax legislation on the fishing industry.
Co-Chair Seaton had asked the subcommittee to look at
changing the shared amount from 50 percent to 25 percent,
effectively an increase of one-fourth. There would not be
an increase in the actual tax. However, the amount that the
state was indirectly expending through the shared tax could
change significantly for fisheries management. Commissioner
Cotten commented that the premise was that an overall
fiscal plan would be approved. As a result, if there was a
broad-based tax, it would reflect a contribution from the
people working in the industry. A motor fuel tax would
increase expenses and would be paid partially from people
in the industry. It would depend on the big picture.
Representative Kawasaki had some questions about the
numbers section. He asked about access and defense in the
Division of Wildlife Conservation he had just spoken with
the Department of Law. He asked what the access and defense
section. He wondered if they were attorneys. Commissioner
Cotten responded that they were not attorneys. They were
professionals in the field. For example, he mentioned
experts on the topic of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA). Other people had significant
experience dealing with the United States Government over
the years regarding the tension that sometimes occurred
between the two jurisdictions. The Department of Fish and
Game worked closely with the Department of Law by helping
with the work that was necessary for the Department of Law
to make decisions about whether to pursue legal action.
2:37:57 PM
Representative Kawasaki referred to the shellfish group and
the Aquaculture Planning and Permitting Section. He
wondered if either section dealt with paralytic shellfish
poison (PSP) or whether Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) was responsible. Commissioner Cotten
indicated that DEC dealt with PSP monitoring.
Representative Kawasaki referred to slide 9 and all of the
office locations. He wanted a list of locations and their
respective rents. He mentioned that other agencies had been
before the committee and reported their dealings with
water. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) dealt with
water quantity, DEC handled water quality, and DFG was
responsible for water habitat. He wondered when these areas
concerning water were separated into the various agencies.
He asked if the administration had discussed co-locating
some of the functions relating to water. Commissioner
Cotten responded that regarding the breakdown of costs and
hours of operation of the regional and area offices. He
wondered if he wanted the number of personnel at each
place.
Representative Kawasaki responded that he wanted general
information about when the offices were open. Commissioner
Cotten replied to Representative Kawasaki's second
question. He was unaware of any discussions in the
administration about co-locating certain water functions.
He noted that there was a combination of efforts between
the different areas of state government that dealt with
water quality and water levels. The Department of Fish and
Game and DNR worked together frequently in the permitting
process.
Representative Ortiz asked if it was accurate to say the
overall funding level of DFG was down by approximately 35
percent since 2013. Commissioner Cotten replied that, in
terms of undesignated general funds, Representative Ortiz
was correct.
Representative Ortiz asked if the department's functions
were inhibited by the budget cuts. Commissioner Cotten
answered that many of the projects the department had to
eliminate dealt with stock assessments, aerial and dive
surveys, and other projects. Each of those projects
contributed to the department's ability to manage. As the
department reduced the amount of information it had from
weirs or the stock assessment programs, the department was
left with the decision to be more conservative with its
management. He suspected that there had been many areas
where there had been opportunities that were no longer
available. Typically, smaller projects, such as the herring
fisheries in Southeast Alaska, were affected by the
department's lack of information. There were also
significant areas in Prince William Sound where the
department's ability to do its work had been diminished.
Representative Ortiz summarized his understanding of
Commissioner Cotten's statements. He asked if he was
accurate. Commissioner Cotten replied in the affirmative.
He relayed that the requirement to do revenue test fishing
also impacted fish that would have otherwise been available
for harvest.
Co-Chair Seaton asked the department to provide information
about management fees associated with fish harvesting to
the subcommittee. He noted Representative Grenn had joined
the meeting.
2:44:02 PM
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that, in terms of the
cost of doing business in Alaska, the area that DFG covered
was phenomenal. He noted there were 4 members from the
interior around the table. Much of the value of fish was on
the coast. However, fish was also very important in the
interior for food stock and habitat. All too often, he did
not hear the issue addressed or recognized. He had a DNR
subcommittee meeting earlier in the day dealing with the
Office of Project Management and Permitting (OPMP)
discussing permitting and processing of wetlands
mitigation. Part of the discussion included trading land
for conservation easements to satisfy a project in another
location. He noted that within the Division of Habitat
under the allocation of project review and monitoring all
of the funding was from other sources. His question had to
do with the commissioner's priority list for habitat,
protection, and restoration. He wondered if the
commissioner was able to convert the project review and
monitoring program into providing wildlife easements to
protect habitat and restoration. Commissioner Cotten wanted
to clarify that the representative was asking about the
Habitat Division's involvement with the Corps of Engineers
on the designation of wetlands.
Representative Guttenberg answered that OPMP coordinated
agencies to try to mitigate federal wetlands legislation
that allowed a project to use a piece of land in another
location for a conservation easement. It would allow for
the original project to advance without being concerned
with the wetlands it was on. He asked if the department was
able to get the best possible outcome for taking lands for
conservation easements that protected basic things such as
fish habitat and fish restoration. Commissioner Cotten was
struggling to answer his question. His familiarity with the
program Representative Guttenberg referred to had to do
with the Corps of Engineers. They typically designated land
as conservation, development, or preservation wetlands. If
Department of Fish and Game's Division of Habitat had an
opportunity, at all, its primary purpose was to protect
fisheries or game habitat. He responded that if the
department was given the opportunity, it would.
2:48:06 PM
Co-Chair Seaton suggested that Representative Guttenberg
have a separate meeting with the Division of Habitat.
Representative Tilton referred to an economic fisheries
study from 2009 between sport and commercial fishing. The
conclusion was that the average economic contribution and
impact per harvest salmon was considerably higher for Cook
Inlet Sport Fisheries than for Cook Inlet Commercial
Fisheries. She reported that the Division of Commercial
Fisheries received about 42 percent more in total dollars
and about 18 times more UGF than the Sport Fishing
Division. She continued that on pages 10 and 12 of the
department's report it showed that sport fishing affected
all Alaskans. She wondered about the disparity.
Commissioner Cotten thought it was an interesting process
in determining who was served. One way to measure who was
served by the Division of Sport Fish was to list the number
of licenses sold. However, there were many people that were
under age and did not need a license and several people
that were over age that only had to apply for a license
once. It was not an exact measurement. It was suggested
that everyone in the state was eligible and the fish were
available to everyone in the state - the reason why "all"
was chosen. It was not an easy decision. He elaborated that
with commercial fisheries licensing it was easier and more
exact to measure based on the number of crew licenses and
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) permits
issued. He admitted the term "all" was a stretch because
there were some people that did not have any interest in
sport fishing. He also pointed out that there were two
major differences in funding sources. He explained that
when a person bought a sport fishing license the funds went
into the fish and game fund and generated 3 times that
amount from the Dingle Johnson federal funds. There was no
such program for commercial fishermen. They paid their fish
taxes which went into the general fund. They were not
dedicated funds. The sport fish and wildlife funds were
from a dedicated fund. At first observation, it might
appear that a greater amount of general funds went into
commercial fishing, but they did not have the same
dedicated fund source that wildlife and sport fish enjoy.
He also noted the other thing Representative Tilton
mentioned had to do with economic contributions by sport
fishing and commercial fishing. There had been several
different studies produced by industry for the commercial
fishery. Many of the studies done for sport fishing had
been funded by the legislature. The information was
primarily used by the Board of Fisheries when allocation
decisions were being made.
Representative Thompson asked about a report on
acidification in the Bering Sea and the effects it was
having on the state's salmon returns. Several years back
the legislature had funded such a study. Also, he wanted
additional information about predators on the Yukon River
and how many smolt were being consumed by Pike and other
fish. He was hoping the commissioner could provide the
report to the subcommittee. Commissioner Cotten would
provide some information on ocean acidification. The Bering
Sea was a hot point on the planet. As far as the topic of
predation on smolt, he would see what information he could
find for Representative Thompson.
Co-Chair Seaton mentioned having identified several things
concerning indirect expenditures. The Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission had been brought up regarding fees. Also,
the permanent identification cards for anyone over 60 had
been mentioned. He thought it would be a good topic during
the subcommittee process. Additionally, he mentioned other
topics that could be brought to the subcommittee such as
the foregone harvest and the change in the tax structure.
He thanked the department for its presentation.
2:53:52 PM
AT EASE
2:58:18 PM
RECONVENED
^FY 18 Budget Overview: Department of Corrections
2:58:18 PM
DEAN WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
introduced himself and the PowerPoint presentation: "FY
2018 Alaska Department of Corrections Overview." He turned
the presentation over to Ms. Wilkerson.
APRIL WILKERSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, began with the
department's mission statement on slide 2:
The Alaska Department of Corrections enhances the
safety of our communities. We provide secure
confinement, reformative programs, and a process of
supervised community reintegration.
Ms. Wilkerson informed the committee that there were also
links listed on the slide providing information regarding
constitutional authority, the department's budget, and the
department's division measures.
Ms. Wilkerson discussed slide 3: "Department of
Correction's Share of Total Agency Operations: GF Only)."
She explained that the slide showed a 10-year look-back
comparing the general funds of the agency's budget between
2008 and 2018. The chart showed an overall growth rate
annually of 2.7 percent. The department's budget peaked in
2013 which was the first year of the Goose Creek funding as
it came online. Full funding came online in 2014.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 4: "Department of
Corrections Line Items: All Funds." She relayed that the
slide was a representation by line item. She pointed to the
continued growth between 2008 and 2018 which was mostly
within the department's personal services line item.
Ms. Wilkerson turned to slide 5: "Appropriations within the
Department of Corrections: GF Only." She reported that the
slide showed the general fund overall between 2008 and 2018
by the department's results delivery unit (RDU). She
highlighted that the population management RDU was the
largest for the department. It encompassed all of the
department's institutions, probation offices, and in 2018
the pre-trial units.
Representative Kawasaki asked about the reference to the
closure of the Palmer Correctional Center and SB 91
[Legislation passed in 2016 - Short Title: OMNIBUS CRIM LAW
& PROCEDURE; CORRECTIONS] on slide 5. He asked her what the
tie-in between SB 91 and the closure of the Palmer
Correctional Center. Commissioner Williams replied that
there was an expectation under SB 91 that there would be a
contraction of hard beds in facilities statewide, which was
reflected in the department's budget. He indicated that it
was an opportunity for the department to get ahead of the
curve. The closure was tied to 2 things: The expectations
of SB 91 and the fact that the department had capacity.
Capacity had existed for a significant amount of time at
the Palmer Correctional Center. Other commissioners had
also been looking at closing the facility. The department
really had to have capacity to absorb inmates into other
parts of the facility without over-crowding facilities
elsewhere. It also allowed the department to realign and
reposition some of the staff to go to some of the areas
where he felt the department was vulnerable such as the
Anchorage Correctional Complex. The Anchorage Correctional
Complex had more forced overtime situations of staff. The
closure provided a way of reinforcing those areas that
needed additional support with the realignment of staff.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 6: " Appropriations within
the Department of Corrections: All Funds." She explained
that the slide was a representation of all fund sources
within the department by results delivery units. She
pointed out that population management, with all of the
institutions and the base services, remained the highest
RDU.
3:03:11 PM
Ms. Wilkerson revealed slide 7: "Department of Corrections
Total Funding Comparison by Fund Group: All Funds." The
slide represented a comparison of the department's 2008
budget to the 2018 governor's request by fund source. The
state's federal receipts comprised the least of the fund
sources; the designated general funds (DGF) source
followed; the other state fund source came next; and the
unrestricted general fund (UGF) source provided the
majority of the department's funding.
Co-Chair Seaton asked whether he was reading correctly that
the state was anticipating more federal receipts than in
the past. Ms. Wilkerson responded that the state
anticipated a slight increase to the department's federal
authority. It was not grant driven, it was by man days. The
state had an annual cost of care and had seen an increase
on the daily cost rate for the federal offenders the
department housed in its Alaska facilities.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if it was related to the Affordable
Care Act health reimbursement. Ms. Wilkerson confirmed he
was correct. It was not.
Representative Thompson asked about the line item, "other
State Funds," at $34.5 million. He asked what made up the
other state funds. Ms. Wilkerson explained that DOC
continued to receive PFD criminal funds. There was about
$11 million in the state's budget presently. Additionally,
there was a fund change to the Alaska Capital Income Fund
accounting for another $900 million. There was also
interagency receipt authority between various departments,
some Alaska Mental Health Trust money, and some capital
improvement funds.
Ms. Wilkerson continued to slide 8: "Division of
Institutions." She indicated that Line 2, represented all
of the operating institutions as well as the out of state
facility contract that was in place. The largest impact on
Line 2 was a decrement of $11.619 million put forward in
the 2018 budget proposal. It also encompassed the Palmer
Correctional Center closure and the reallocation of
positions. She reported that there were 89 positions from
the Palmer closure that were reallocated: 30 to the pre-
trial unit and 59 to the various other institutions based
on the staffing needs of those facilities. The department
also brought the Point Mackenzie Farm back and operational
in order to house offenders. She also highlighted Line 7
regarding the community residential centers. The department
reduced the budget by $8.1 million in an effort to realign
and renegotiate contracts.
3:07:10 PM
Representative Thompson asked about Line 4 for inmate
transportation in the amount of $2.8 million. He reported
that in the Alaska State Trooper budget there was money
allocated for inmate transportation. He wondered if the
amount on Line 7 was in addition to the State Trooper
allocation. Commissioner Williams responded that there were
2 departments that were tasked with the movement of
prisoners. The Department of Public Safety was tasked with
the movement of all prisoners in the state. The Department
of Corrections was given authority through DPS to provide
inmate transportation because of efficiencies and
organizational issues.
Representative Thompson asked whether the allocation was
for transporting a person from one village to Bethel for a
trial, for example. Commissioner Williams responded that in
most cases, the answer was yes. It was primarily movement
between facilities. Troopers would typically be responsible
for moving a person from a village or an arrest to a
facility.
Representative Guttenberg commented that regarding the
number of Alaskans served, not all Alaskans had used the
facilities or programs. Commissioner Williams agreed with
Representative Guttenberg. The state was housing people
because it did not want them to be anywhere else.
Co-Chair Seaton interjected, "or transportation." He
suggested lining up the numbers for transportation.
Commissioner Williams responded that he understood and
would provide the information.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 9: "Division of Health and
Rehabilitation." She noted on Line 5 that the department
had an increase in the budget request. It was the second-
year fiscal note associated with SB 91, which would
increase the state's institutional substance abuse services
by $500,000.
Commissioner Williams saw the same interpretation issue of
Alaskans served. He wanted to make sure he was providing
the correct interpretation of what members were looking for
and what the subcommittee was looking for.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 10: "Division of Probation
and Parole." She reported that the department had 13
probation offices statewide. Electronic monitoring was
allocated in 6 communities and the state was looking to
expand the service. There were no major budget changes
within the division in the FY 18 budget.
Co-Chair Seaton asked about the number of positions. He
thought she had indicated 16 previously. Ms. Wilkerson
replied that there were 13 regional offices within the
state that provided services. The electronic monitoring
program was operating in 6 communities. She confirmed that
the staff numbers were correct.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 11, which addressed the new
pretrial service division that was established through SB
91. The main budget change in FY 18 was in year 2 where
pretrial services were brought to full budget. There was an
expectation of bringing the services into full operation
including pilot offices by the coming fall. The pretrial
program was expected to be fully operational in January
2018.
Representative Wilson asked for the actual number of people
who were hired presently. She wondered how many of the 59
were hired and ready to go. Commissioner Williams responded
that the division currently had 1 employee, the director of
the pretrial unit. The department was in the recruitment
process to bring on a broad range of supervisory staff. The
biggest question was how to structure the unit. It was
important to get that right first.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the state was budgeting for 59
positions for FY 18. Commissioner Williams responded that
the plan was to have 59 positions by midcycle. He had not
talked to his director about when the department would
bring on all of the positions statewide to deal with the
pretrial front-end unit population.
Co-Chair Seaton thought it would be helpful if the
subcommittee had a schedule.
Representative Wilson thought it had already been mentioned
that 30 people from Palmer had been moved into pretrial.
Commissioner Williams reported that 30 Position Control
Numbers (PCN)s had been taken due to the Palmer closure.
There were not 30 positions. They were PCNs that were tied
to the pretrial unit. The department was using those 30
PCNs for the first stand up of those positions. He thought
it was a reinvestment. Representative Wilson thought they
were real people.
3:14:41 PM
Representative Pruitt thought, in looking at the numbers,
there should be a decrement in personnel services and an
increase in the pretrial category. Ms. Wilkerson responded
in the affirmative. She clarified that the department took
just over a 3.5 percent reduction as part of the overall SB
91 reduction for the current year. The department then
moved the PCNs into the pretrial unit without funding them.
Representative Pruitt asked about the pretrial services and
filling the positions. He wondered what time of year the
positions would be filled and whether the state was funding
59 positions for the full year. He asked if the state
should expect an increase in the following year. He asked
for details concerning the allocation. Ms. Wilkerson
responded that the fiscal note for SB 91 for the Pretrial
Division did not include funding for one-time start-up
costs and training. The department intended to utilize the
money from within the unit to pursue recruitment efforts
and training. She confirmed that the number was the full
amount for the pretrial unit currently.
Representative Pruitt asked about the hire date. Ms.
Wilkerson hoped the hiring would be done within the first
quarter. She could provide the committee with the phased
plan. She knew the reality of trying to fill all of the
positions by July 1st was a stretch. The department was
making every effort to move forward. It was important for
the Pretrial Division to have everyone in place and trained
before it went live statewide to ensure its success. Co-
Chair Seaton had asked for the phase-in plan to be brought
to the subcommittee. He thought the questions being asked
went beyond clarification. Representative Pruitt
interjected that it was $10 million in clarifications.
Representative Ortiz referred to SB 91 and asked if there
were any unfunded mandates imposed on the department.
Co-Chair Seaton indicated that members were getting too
detailed for a broad overview.
3:18:30 PM
Ms. Wilkerson scrolled to slide 12: "Board of Parole." She
pointed out that there was one change within the Board of
Parole's budget - the removal of the one-time start-up cost
associated with SB 91. She explained that SB 91 changed the
length of time between hearings when someone violated their
parole. Violators had a much shorter time before they came
before a hearing.
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 13: "Division of
Administrative Services." She highlighted that there were a
couple of changes within the division as could be seen on
Line 2. Four positions were being transferred to shared
services in an effort to further reduce costs. She noted a
decrement of $35,700 tied to the shared service. On Line 3
there were 2 primary changes. The data processing manager
was being transferred to the centralized Information
Technology unit. Also, there were 4 PCNs along with funding
from the Palmer Correctional Center closure to the
Information Technology unit. She spoke about a staffing
study that had been completed in the prior year which
showed that the department's information technology unit
was about 26 percent unfunded and underutilized. The
department was trying to identify more efficiencies through
technology.
Representative Guttenberg referred to a letter from the
Department of Law that stated that DOC held inmates for the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for
deportation. He referred to an item on one of the slides
titled: "State Facility Rent." He wondered if the
department was holding inmates for deportation for the
federal government and not being compensated. Ms. Wilkerson
responded in the negative. She elaborated the department
would send a bill for anyone being held within the
department's facility on a federal detainer. The federal
government, in turn, would pay the state a daily rate. The
state participated in the State Criminal Alien Assistance
program and received about $150,0000 to enhance the federal
authority within the institution director's office in
Anchorage.
Representative Guttenberg asked if the records included the
country of origin and religion. Ms. Wilkerson would have to
get back to him with an answer. She thought the department
recorded the country of origin, but she was not sure about
religion.
3:22:48 PM
Ms. Wilkerson advanced to slide 14: "Office of the
Commissioner." She explained that within the Office of the
Commissioner, the largest change from 2017 was the
establishment of the Professional Conduct unit. She pointed
to Line 4. The department established the unit from
existing resources from reduced contracts. The department
transferred the funds to the Correctional Academy as well
as using other PCNs within the department. She reported the
department deleted positions and established 3 new ones to
ensure the success of the unit.
Commissioner Williams commented that there was a foundation
of work that had to be done. The work was not optional
because the state had a serious drug trafficking problem in
Alaska's prison system. It was unsafe for staff and for
inmates. He spoke of an incident from 5 or 6 months prior
where an inmate overdosed and died. The unit was designed
to help coordinate intelligence in terms of going after
drug trafficking and providing some drug interdiction
strategies for what was happening inside the prison system.
At some later date, he would be able to present on some of
the related issues. The unit would also be driving change
out of his office because of some of the bad incidents that
had occurred where inmates died, or staff were seriously
assaulted. He wanted to ensure that the department had a
professional response in terms of investigating those
incidents which he hoped would drive change.
Commissioner Williams continued that in every state he had
visited there was an independent arm within the
Commissioner's Office where an inspector general dealt
specifically with running prisons in the high-risk
environment that his staff had to tackle daily. He
reemphasized that having the unit was a requirement. He
added that when there was a criminal allegation against a
staff member, the state wanted a professional arm to look
at the incidents absent from any political influence or
politics about when things happened. He felt the department
had to create a deterrent. He reported that 99 percent of
his staff was great. He was concerned with the other 1
percent. He suggested that DOC needed an arm that
investigated cases and that could also protect staff from
false allegations against inmates. He reemphasized the need
for a professional body to look at it. In his mind it was a
mandatory change as it was critical to have a safe
environment for staff and inmates.
Co-Chair Seaton appreciated the information. He added that
accountability was very important in all of the systems,
but especially in DOC.
Vice-Chair Gara understood the commissioner's passion.
However, there were so many programs to pay for. He
suggested if the state paid for one thing, they would be
paying less in another area. He had a question about the
professional conduct unit. He asked what had been done
previously. He thought something had been done in the past.
He asked if there was a way to investigate prior to the 3
people being added. Commissioner Williams responded in the
negative. He suggested that what was there was very
limited. In his discussions with the Alaska State Troopers
about the effort, there had been conversations about
capacity a long time before. He noted that part of the
problem had been that when bad things had been alleged,
only happenstance investigations had occurred. The most
important thing was that it affected other systems. He
mentioned that Wyoming had half the prisoner population.
They had about 10 to 12 staff, because it made the system
change to be responsive. He understood the competing
interests; however, the priority was to have a safe system
for inmates and staff. He believed it forced bureaucracy to
address problems and not let them get away. He like
Wyoming's model. He thought it was the right thing to do.
Co-Chair Seaton relayed individual members could meet with
the commissioner and bring the issue up in subcommittee.
He acknowledged Representative Chenault in the audience.
3:28:43 PM
Representative Wilson thought the state was saving money on
community regional jails, which were essentially halfway
houses. The state was not putting a large amount of people
on electronic monitoring - where the state could save money
and make sure people were safe. She spoke of costs of $65
per day. She wondered why the state was cutting those
things that cost less but were more effective, as the state
was adding more people to the Commissioner's Office.
Commissioner Williams thought the representative had raised
3 to 4 substantive issues. The problem with the halfway
houses and what he inherited was a block way of buying
halfway house beds. If there were 100 beds or 200 beds in
them the state was paying the same. It was possible to say
that the state paid $46, $50, or $60 per bed. However, the
reality was that he inherited a department that was paying
for empty beds. He preferred some sort of graded scale. He
indicated the state had been paying for halfway house beds
that were sitting empty. He changed the state's
circumstances by cutting 100 beds and saved about $3
million annually in the course of about a month on the
issue.
Commissioner Williams continued that he had done nothing to
change the status of electronic monitoring. It was much
cheaper than having people in prison. However, currently,
either that state charged the inmate for the privilege of
being electronically monitored on the front end, or the
state charged the participants on the back end. If a
prisoner had money to pay for the $100 per week they would
pay the amount, otherwise, they would sit in jail. He
talked with many inmates that did not have $100 per week to
afford electronic monitoring. He had not made any changes
to the electronic monitoring program because he was looking
at multiple ways of how electronic monitoring could be
used. He wanted to make sure the state was using electronic
monitoring in smart and intelligent ways. He was happy to
discuss any of the issues that had been brought up. He
appreciated all of the questions.
Co-Chair Seaton remarked that the subcommittee should be
looking at the avoidance of both mental and physical
problems and how to lower the state's health care costs
within the institution. He was aware of some activity he
was expanding. He wanted to see an expansion and the
potential cost savings. He reviewed the agenda for the
following day.
#ADJOURNMENT
3:32:34 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ADF&G FY 2018 Budget Overview for the House Finance Committee.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
ADFG Budget Overview HFIN |
| FY18_LAW_HFC_FullCom_Presentation_1-30-17.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
LAW Budget Overview HFIN |
| FY2018 DOC Overview HF 01302017.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
DOC Budget Overview HFIN |
| DOC Response to H FIN Jan 30.pdf |
HFIN 1/30/2017 1:30:00 PM |
DOC Budget Overview Response HFIN |